British Waterways Asset Stripping

[ParaffinLamp]

The labour party are planning to flock off what remains of the family silver, and the tories (the so called oppostion) think "It`s A good idea",There`s a surpise eh!

 

24 Mins In http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/the_politics_show_north_west/

[Roger Gunkel]

Hello Mr paraffin lamp,

 

An odd first post for a new member Are you a boater, a troll, or from your Avatar, a rather more extreme political party member???

 

Roger

[Lady Muck]

Or possibly a football fan? Lets give new members a chance, please. I don't know about anyone else but if we are to judge each other by our avatars, where does that leave me?

[alan_fincher]

I don't know about anyone else but if we are to judge each other by our avatars, where does that leave me?

Somewhat exposed ?

[Chris-B]

comment edited !

 

 

beaten by Alan

Edited November 18, 2009 by Baldock

[romarni123]

Or possibly a football fan? Lets give new members a chance, please. I don't know about anyone else but if we are to judge each other by our avatars, where does that leave me?

chilly

[PaddingtonBear]

Well said Roger, even if her Ladyship is right, the two categories are not mutually exclusive, rather co-terminus in most cases. As an old sweat from two of the three armed forces of this country I am heartily sick of chavs, football supporters and right wing loonies (of any party) misappropriating the 'mark' of a Turkish-Kurdish-Greek.

[johnjo]

I understand Rogers apprehension but to me it doesn't particularly matter who he is, but the subject of his post should matter to all!

 

This particular subject is already the object of another thread, the more interest the better, but hopefully it won't get diluted with too many similar threads.

Edited November 18, 2009 by johnjo

[journeyperson]

Somewhat exposed ?

 

But in need of support.

 

(regarding the plea)

[Roger Gunkel]

Or possibly a football fan? Lets give new members a chance, please. I don't know about anyone else but if we are to judge each other by our avatars, where does that leave me?

 

I totally agree with your sentiments, but stand by my comments as the OP has joined today with a first post which is openly politically based, with no introduction, and an avatar that could quite easily be tied to a political view. It could also be the avatar of a boating football fanatic, which is why I asked the question to clear any doubts. They can have any political ideology as far as I am concerned, but it helps to clear up any possible misunderstandings. If you don't ask, you don't get an answer.

 

Roger

[journeyperson]

He joined a month ago. Probably been plucking up courage, fearful he might be attacked....

[koukouvagia]

Well said Roger, even if her Ladyship is right, the two categories are not mutually exclusive, rather co-terminus in most cases. As an old sweat from two of the three armed forces of this country I am heartily sick of chavs, football supporters and right wing loonies (of any party) misappropriating the 'mark' of a Turkish-Kurdish-Greek.

 

I've always been unhappy about using the red cross flag as a symbol of Englishness in view of its origin: the Crusaders adopted it as their emblem and in 12th century the merchants of the City of London secured protection for their ships by paying the powerful Genoese to fly their red cross flag.

So to my mind the Cross of St. George shows approval for wars against muslims and support for City bankers. Hmm.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I totally agree with your sentiments, but stand by my comments as the OP has joined today with a first post which is openly politically based, with no introduction, and an avatar that could quite easily be tied to a political view. It could also be the avatar of a boating football fanatic, which is why I asked the question to clear any doubts. They can have any political ideology as far as I am concerned, but it helps to clear up any possible misunderstandings. If you don't ask, you don't get an answer.

 

Roger

 

So are you saying your not bothered about the O/P's possible political persuasion but you are asking on behalf of others who might be?

 

That aside, the O/P has missed BW's press release retraction and subsequent stories with titles such as "BW ends property disposal speculation".

 

I am more concerned as to why BW's chairman suggested that BW was under threat on TV, why he allowed the BBC to suggest that BW spends £120m pa maintaining the waterways (which he knows not to be true) and why BW issued a press release contradicting what had been said. Also why in the press release he suggested that he was "comforted" by the OEP report. BW can find no comfort in what the OEP report said.

 

My guess is that Tony Hales contacted the politics show with the "story" and quickly had his knucles rapped by government.

 

There is, of course a school of thought that suggests it would be to our benefit if government were to sell off BW's portfolio and simply increase grant.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Allan(nb Albert)

[magpie patrick]

There is, of course a school of thought that suggests it would be to our benefit if government were to sell off BW's portfolio and simply increase grant.

:lol:

 

That's a good one!

 

:lol:

[PeterScott]

... BW's press release retraction and subsequent stories with titles such as "BW ends property disposal speculation"... My guess is that Tony Hales contacted the politics show with the "story" and quickly had his knucles rapped by government.

The press release has no more information other than that the Government announced earlier in the year that BW was keeping the property portfolio: there's nothing in there from HMT to remove it from the agenda - so it's just BW trying to make the U-turn more difficult. No doubt knuckle-wrapping is in order from a govt-department viewpoint, in hating TonyHales' boat-rocking: but presumably that's the BW plan. As mentioned, the increasing of the grant wouldn't be simple, and maybe not even likely, but there will be HMT-mandarins working on it: increasing future revenue-grant may feel a decent trade-off for the short-term asset-income.

 

The PolitcsShow didn't get to the heart of the matter at all: you could see it and still believe that the locks would be sold off: nobody mentioned the concept 'non-operational' at all, so overall it was welcome supportive waterway-publicity but didn't add much else useful.

 

There is, of course a school of thought that suggests it would be to our benefit if government were to sell off BW's portfolio and simply increase grant.

As to the sale being to users' benefit, it's a complicated argument: (1) we won't get all the compensation annual grant but (2) we wouldn't need to pay megapounds to the BWboard to be 'good' at property speculation (3) the ups and downs of the economic cycle would no longer be amplified by property ups-and-down.

 

You pays your money and (somebody else) makes the choice

Edited November 18, 2009 by PeterScott

[Roger Gunkel]

So are you saying your not bothered about the O/P's possible political persuasion but you are asking on behalf of others who might be?

Others are perfectly able to ask their own questions without any help from me Allan, but if a new member leaps straight in first post with a fairly agressive political subheading, I am interested in whether there is a political or boating agenda as I don't get involved in political discussion on line as it tends to get nasty!

 

Roger

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Others are perfectly able to ask their own questions without any help from me Allan, but if a new member leaps straight in first post with a fairly agressive political subheading, I am interested in whether there is a political or boating agenda as I don't get involved in political discussion on line as it tends to get nasty!

 

Roger

 

Point taken and hopefully you will not take offence! However, I would suggest that the forum allows newbies some leeway.

[Roger Gunkel]

Point taken and hopefully you will not take offence! However, I would suggest that the forum allows newbies some leeway.

 

No offence taken at all, you were making your point Perhaps as well a giving newbies some leeway, newbies could also enter a little less 'robustly' than the OP

 

Roger

[DHutch]

Not a badly put together peice of footage that really.

 

As highlighted all over, the issues really is that A you can only sell the family silver once and B without its assets BW will have no way at all of generating any revenue and will them become wholy dependant on external funding.

 

Yes we're in dept, yes the needs resolving, but in general, no that isnt going to come about through selling off assets. Hyde park, BW, or the crown jewels.

 

 

 

Daniel

[Chris Pink]

No offence taken at all, you were making your point Perhaps as well a giving newbies some leeway, newbies could also enter a little less 'robustly' than the OP

 

Roger

 

How pompous can you get?

 

What the hell does it have to do with you how geezer wants to start a topic?

 

And if you don't want a political discussion then the answer is easy....

 

Don't.

 

Since when did you become the self-appointed forum guardian?

[tomsk]

No offence taken at all, you were making your point Perhaps as well a giving newbies some leeway, newbies could also enter a little less 'robustly' than the OP

 

Roger

 

 

I think a little robustness is what this place needs, otherwise we havnt got a Discussion Forum, we have an Agreement Forum, which is a sad and lifeless place to be.... Let's all stand around in cyber-space and indulge in some mutual back-slapping whilst we all tell each other what bloody good chaps we all are and stroke our beards in a meditative fashion (woman are excused the latter, unless they have a viable chin growth, in which case stroke away).

[mikevye]

How pompous can you get?

 

What the hell does it have to do with you how geezer wants to start a topic?

 

And if you don't want a political discussion then the answer is easy....

 

Don't.

 

Since when did you become the self-appointed forum guardian?

 

don't mince your words Chris, you come right out and say what you mean.

[Roger Gunkel]

How pompous can you get?

 

What the hell does it have to do with you how geezer wants to start a topic?

 

And if you don't want a political discussion then the answer is easy....

 

Don't.

 

Since when did you become the self-appointed forum guardian?

 

I made my point, which is that I DON'T get into political argument. I am perfectly entitled to ask whether there was a political agenda, some agree with what I said, some don't, thats entirely up to them and I speak for nobody but myself. There were points raised by LM and Allen, without confrontation, regarding my question which I answered, again without confrontation, and my answer was accepted.

 

I am not interested in allowing you or others to jump in solely to attempt to goad me into pointless argument and yet again drag the forum further down.

 

Roger

[tomsk]

I made my point, which is that I DON'T get into political argument. I am perfectly entitled to ask whether there was a political agenda, some agree with what I said, some don't, thats entirely up to them and I speak for nobody but myself. There were points raised by LM and Allen, without confrontation, regarding my question which I answered, again without confrontation, and my answer was accepted.

 

I am not interested in allowing you or others to jump in solely to attempt to goad me into pointless argument and yet again drag the forum further down.

 

Roger

 

 

I don't think Chris was goading, rather making the point that if you state that you eshew political discussion in cyber-space it may be best practice not to make an inquiry into peoples politics your opening gambit.

[Roger Gunkel]

I don't think Chris was goading, rather making the point that if you state that you eshew political discussion in cyber-space it may be best practice not to make an inquiry into peoples politics your opening gambit.

 

I don't disagree at all with what you say here Tomsk and I am normally fairly laid back, although I will respond if I feel its neccessary. I did though look back at the OP again, and looking at the language of the post, the tone of the subheading, the avatar and the lack of any background information, I don't think that my question to him was confrontational, rather questioning the stance of a very unusual first post for my own reasons that I have expounded. But Hey Ho, what some people see as a reasonable doubt, others see as an assault. Who am I to argue

 

Roger

 

 

 

edited for spelling

Edited November 19, 2009 by Roger Gunkel