Steve Haywood wrote: > On 18/05/07, Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Steve Haywood wrote: > > Don't be so defensive about SOW.
I don't think that correcting a statement is being defensive; just setting the record straight. > It - and by implication you personally > - have done much valuable work. In its own way SOW signalled a sea change in > in the relationship between BW and its clients, and the ramifications will > be felt for years. > Thank you for that. We are pleased to have made whatever contribution we could but it couldn't have been done without the support of the community. As for the sea change in the relationship with BW, I think we (and that includes all user groups that collaborated in the campaign) also instilled a better understanding of the waterways throughout government (over 300 MP showed support in one way or another) and amongst the public. I just hope that we can maintain that sort or understanding in the future but to do that effectively, I believe that our user groups need to reach out to communities at a local level rather than try to run everything from the top. > But two points. Yes, I do believe there is a relationship between those > policies BW seek to pursue, and those it thinks it can get away with. I'd > have thought that was self-evident. Faced with a weakened IWA, and a > compliant waterways clientele already battle-weary from the anti-DEFRA cuts > campaign, I know BW have pursued policies that have been internally > controversial which in other circumstances it might have chosen to defer. > And which policies are those? > Secondly, it is true that you do not know who I have been talking to, but > trust that I have been talking to a great number of people. My view of > Robin Evans' tenure is not just based on the current sub-Committee enquiry; > indeed very little of it is. But by writing: > that BW's > presentations on the whole of the cuts issue has been devised to hide the > fact that they've been getting more from their property portfolio than they > have declared; I can't say whether they have 'wilfully withheld information' > from the government; that they have done this 'with the intent of deceiving > the general public.' > and whose leadership is now effectively being accused of > maladministative dishonesty. You appear only to be listening to Gardiner's views - views I might which appear not to be shared by the EFRA sub-committee. > But you would be naive to think that the sub > Committee report will tell you anything about the way the government thinks, > let alone of how it will act. BW have made some very powerful enemies. > I don't think that I said it would. What I said was that you appear to have decided Robin Evans is guilty before the sub-committee have written their report. As for what government thinks, let us hope that it will be influenced by the support that we have from over 300 MPs. I suspect that the very powerful enemies that BW have made have also had their own copy-books blotted by the ridiculous decisions they have been party to in allowing these cuts to take place in the first instance. By the way, don't assume that we are without our own sources of inside information. You would be surprised at the number of people with 'inside' knowledge like yourself that have been sharing their knowledge with us during the campaign. -- Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
