• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

A conflict of interest?

Joe Winstanley

Senior Member & Supporter

Can't read The Times article unless you pay. Please copy and paste it.
 
Flippin hell, would have been better the devil you know hey?
 
Not unusual, secretary of one of our local angling clubs works for southern water, I found out because he mailed me from work.

As long as he is doing a job for them is it a problem?.
 
The EA (and possibly the Angling Trust (AT) , however they the AT will neither confirm or deny this despite being asked on numerous occasions) also invest their work place pensions into 7 out of the 9 water companies, another perfect example of a conflict of interest, there is little integrity in politics.

Profit rich water companies mean two things, an increase in share dividends for share holders and increased values of pension pots, say no more...
 
The EA (and possibly the Angling Trust (AT) , however they the AT will neither confirm or deny this despite being asked on numerous occasions) also invest their work place pensions into 7 out of the 9 water companies, another perfect example of a conflict of interest, there is little integrity in politics.

Profit rich water companies mean two things, an increase in share dividends for share holders and increased values of pension pots, say no more..
Asked by whom? The Barbel Society? How many people in the AT might have a pension anyways? You are really setting the cat among the pigeons here Lawrence.
 
The EA (and possibly the Angling Trust (AT) , however they the AT will neither confirm or deny this despite being asked on numerous occasions) also invest their work place pensions into 7 out of the 9 water companies, another perfect example of a conflict of interest, there is little integrity in politics.

Profit rich water companies mean two things, an increase in share dividends for share holders and increased values of pension pots, say no more...

Asked by whom? The Barbel Society? How many people in the AT might have a pension anyways? You are really setting the cat among the pigeons here Lawrence.

Well the AT and BS don’t exactly get on now do they 🙂


I would also have thought that anyone who has a company pension, will find it’s partly invested in privatised utility companies, inc the water companies. So that just about covers every BFW member perhaps. Not something that will change quickly unfortunately.

The AT has my continued support, I quit being a BS member a long time ago 👍🏻
 
Last edited:
Well the AT and BS don’t exactly get on now do they 🙂


I would also have thought that anyone who has a company pension, will find it’s partly invested in privatised utility companies, inc the water companies. So that just about covers every BFW member perhaps. Not something that will change quickly unfortunately.

The AT has my continued support, I quit being a BS member a long time ago 👍🏻
Well said.
 
I started this post to highlight what I view to be a conflict of interest between the environment secretary and the role of his wife. At a time when Defra is under pressure to regulate the activities of the water companies, I thought it a strange appointment. There is a uncomfortable parallel with the fact the newly appointed Health secretary is married to the MD of British Sugar. An organisation which spends millions lobbying politicians against potential public health measures regarding sugar.

Anyway, I don't think the AT deserve to be dragged into the same light.
 
I started this post to highlight what I view to be a conflict of interest between the environment secretary and the role of his wife. At a time when Defra is under pressure to regulate the activities of the water companies, I thought it a strange appointment. There is a uncomfortable parallel with the fact the newly appointed Health secretary is married to the MD of British Sugar. An organisation which spends millions lobbying politicians against potential public health measures regarding sugar.

Anyway, I don't think the AT deserve to be dragged into the same light.
Of course they don't, and no one in their right mind would, would they?
 
If anyone can't read The Times article, other (so-called) broadsheets also published the story. A few years ago it would have elicited far greater consternation - now, most just shrug their shoulders. I recall the 'good day to bury bad news' phrase was coined by Jo Moore so any bad stories would seem insignificant in comparison to Sept 11th. Now, it's every bl**dy day!
These publicity seeking politicians, who only seek to feather their own nests, have no sense of shame.
 
Back
Top