The Soviet troops had killed before (in Lithuania), and were about to kill again (in Latvia).In democracies, we find it difficult to imagine risking our lives for our beliefs. Going on a de-monstration is a luxury or a dull duty, not a necessity. If demonstrators in London or Manchester thought they might be killed, going out on the streets would seem as foolish as chasing a lost dog over thin ice.When the going gets tougher, the decisions, in some respects, get easier. In Stalinist times, it was literally suicidal to defy the authorities.

But in less obviously murderous regimes, the risks are worth weighing up Indeed, it sometimes seems that there are no real choices. As the old saying put it: if not now, when?In Serbia today, the balance seems to have been tipped Slobodan Milosevic is not finished. But he is living on borrowed time – partly because of those who have been ready to risk the potential violence. There must now be room for hope that a true history of Serbia, and of its ignominious leader, will one day be written for the next generation of young Serbs.. Privatised water companies could be hit by the kind of savage one-off price cut which has driven British Gas to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the industry regulator warned yesterday.

Ian Byatt told MPs at the Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee that the idea of one-off price cuts, which were rejected in his last price review in 1994, were firmly back on the agenda.
Commenting on the much criticised excess profits earned by the companies, he said: “If these high returns continue … then I would think much more in terms of a once and for all reduction in prices as has happened in the energy industries.”The price cuts planned for British Gas’s pipeline network, TransCo, by Clare Spottiswoode, the gas industry regulator, led to an unprecedented public row and the high risk decision by the company to take the issue to the MMC. Ms Spottiswoode wants to slash TransCo’s revenues by 20 per cent from April, worth almost pounds 30 off average bills.The principle of a dramatic one-off cut, known in regulatory circles as a “P-nought”, was also used by Professor Stephen Littlechild, the electricity regulator, in his recent price cap for National Grid which cuts charges by 20 per cent from April.The move reflects an increasingly tough stance by Mr Byatt in recent months as several of the 10 privatised water and sewerage businesses have failed to meet Ofwat investment targets. The current price formula allows water bills to increase by an average of 1.5 per cent above inflation to pay for the huge backlog of under-investment from before the industry sell-off.Mr Byatt told MPs his ideal rate of return on investment for water companies was some 5 to 6 per cent, compared with a current average rate of return earned by the 10 companies of more than 12 per cent, with Welsh Water and Northumbrian Water earning the highest returns.Simon Flowers, head of utilities at NatWest Markets, said a one-off cut would hit companies’ profits in the first year, though the crucial factor was whether prices rose or fell in following years. “This would seem to be a vindication of the strategy at Ofgas.

In the light of the British Gas example Ian Byatt has been portrayed as being the most lenient regulator on prices, but he’s been rattling the companies’ cages for some months now,” he commented.Last night, water companies reacted with scepticism to the idea of one- off price cuts. Barry Delabour, head of regulation for Southern Water, said a cut on the scale of that planned for British Gas would be “ridiculous”. He continued: “We will be arguing that there’s still heavy investment needed and we have got the heaviest investment programme of all.”However, Frank Dobson, Labour’s environment spokesman, was unimpressed by the move. “It’s a bit late in the day and I don’t think this will do anything permanent.”The current price control period was originally intended to last from the 10 years from 1995, with increases in bills in real terms also planned for 2000-2005. However, last October Mr Byatt said he would review the formula by 1999 and has indicated recently that from 2000 the companies can expect cuts in real terms along the lines of those in other regulated industries.Mr Byatt has already warned that he may ask some companies not to implement the full price increases from April.

Water bills have to be sent out in advance of the next billing year, and need to be printed from the end of next month.Comment, page 21. A top pension fund client of Morgan Grenfell Asset Management indicated yesterday that the sudden suspension of Nicola Horlick, one of the City’s best-known fund managers, could be the decisive factor in prompting it to take its business elsewhere. This would come as a severe blow to Morgan Grenfell, which has been battling to rebuild morale, and retain clients, after the Peter Young affair, which had already cost the jobs of some of the most highly respected names at the group, including Keith Percy, chief executive of Morgan Grenfell Asset Management.
Geoff Henry, chief executive of the Merchant Navy Officers’ Pension Fund, which has around pounds 50m invested with MGAM, said the trustees of his fund were concerned about the management structure of the group when the antics of Peter Young were uncovered.”What we’re seeing now [with the suspension of Mrs Horlick] is a vital element being removed from the situation That is a destabilisation,” said Mr Henry. The trustees’ previous concern had not been about the investment track record, but more about the internal management of the operation.However, Morgan Grenfell was understood to be confident that it would not lose business as a result of the affair.Mrs Horlick was suspended after Deutsche Morgan Grenfell suspected that she had attempted to lure as many as 20 colleagues from the fund management group to join a rival investment management firm.But the move appears to have backfired after she approached potential candidates before signing a conclusive deal with ABN Amro, the Dutch banking group with which she was widely believed to be in negotiation.”We never comment on who we are talking to before anything is concluded,” a spokesman for ABM Amro in Amsterdam said yesterday.But he added: “We are surprised to be mentioned in the context of poaching, which would, by its nature, imply you are planning to take a whole team, which we are not.”When it comes down to talking to individual people, you are not talking about poaching.”Morgan Grenfell insiders suggested yesterday that Mrs Horlick, like others in the City, had been known to make noises about tendering her resignation around this time of year. This is because bonuses are paid late next month and a resignation threat encourages employers to beef up bonus payments and remuneration deals.It emerged yesterday that Mrs Horlick’s investment banker husband, Tim, who works at Salomon Brothers, is fighting a legal action by his previous employer, Dresdner Kleinwort Benson.”An injunction was taken out at the end of July and we are still continuing the legal proceedings until an acceptable final settlement has been reached,” a spokesman for Kleinwort said.Both Salomon Brothers, which is not cited in the injunction, and Mr Horlick declined to comment.The precise details of Mrs Horlick’s pay deal remain a mystery although sources said that in a good year her total package could easily top pounds 1m.She is managing director of Morgan Grenfell Investment Management, one of the bank’s fund management arms.