| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment | |
| Posted by: | Nigel Moore | |
| Date/Time: | 16/03/10 11:01:00 |
| I’m not a conspiracy theorist actually – most of the world’s ills do not require the undercover plotting and machinations of conspiring groups and individuals; they result from the actions of self interested parties; the response [if any] of lazy, ill-informed bureaucrats, and public desuetude and indifference. If my mention of the deal between BW and the PLA gave rise to the comment, that is not theory it is cold hard fact and I have seen the relevant agreements between them. Insofar as I have suggested that there is more to the deal than the one pound consideration recorded, I doubt if anyone would seriously suggest otherwise – the PLA were never going to walk away from such a potentially lucrative situation without commensurate recompense of some sort [pecuniary or otherwise]. It is not obsession to take the Secretary of State to court over his Inspector’s decisions, it is backing conviction with action and is something that happens often enough, sometimes successfully and sometimes not [as is always the case with any litigation]. If everyone took the attitude that authorities always make the right decisions and should not be challenged, then such justice and democracy as still exists would sink into total oblivion. You may claim that I cannot succeed, but that is not the point. You have either not paid attention to the previous posts or choose to ignore them. It is simply not the case that moorings have always been here; even loading and unloading at this location was banned for the first 100 years of the canal’s operation. In more recent years, as has been illustrated above, BW themselves banned boats from mooring here on the grounds of public safety. I am claiming [inter alia] that the Inspectorate should have held BW to the necessity of consistency, and should not have illogically dismissed their policy reversal as having nothing to do with the increased income the scheme will provide for them. The essence of my case boils down to the fact that I am applauding and upholding the public spirit of concern underlying the decision on the matter that BW took 7 years ago. |