On 16/03/07, Mack, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mike Stevens reminded us that BW's duties include: > > > "(b) to have regard to the desirability of protecting and > > conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, > > architectural, engineering or historic interest;" > > > > > "Having regard to the desirability" is perhaps not as strong as we would > wish, but any absolute obligation to protect and conserve would mean > that BW was obliged to spend resource on this to the detriment of its > other, less strongly worded, duties.
'Not as strong as we would wish.' How's that for understatement? It's not strong at all. In fact, its practically meaningless. I could have 'due regard for the desireability of protecting and conserving' the contents of my lavatory pan before flushing them away. It's the sort of meaningless gobblegook that allows public corporations to get get away with doing nothing while pretending to a spurious concern. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
