I'm not trying to be obscure about this.
There are two distinct issues:
(1) The ECF's decision to withdraw from the project
Support for the ECF's continued involvement with the project, given the lack of sets produced, was growing. Unless something changed dramatically on the production front, I don't believe that there would have been the political will in Council or on the Board to continue as before.
That said, Holloid have consistently remained committed to the project and have stated that they would produce the sets in the large quantities first envisaged. The impact of the ECF's reduced capacity in its office staff, which was driven by the need to make cost reductions in anticipation of the DCMS grant disappearing, meant that we would not have had the resources to handle the workload of such a full-blown production run of sets (whether over a few months or a year).
Given that Holloid's stance was that the sets will be produced, it seemed right to stress the second factor rather than the first in explaining the ECF's withdrawal from the project. (We did, however, explain to Holloid the "political" aspects as well.)
(2) The history of what happened in the project prior to the ECF's withdrawal
In terms of what actually happened, my point is simply that the ECF did arrange distribution of the sets which were produced. My objection to recent comments is that they claim that the fate of the project was determined by the ECF's failure to manage the distribution, and this is untrue.
As I've said before, I don't deny that there might have been problems if sets had been produced in the thousands each week, but this never arose. What was produced was dealt with.
One issue concerns the truth about what happened in the past, the other is about the reasons for a decision affecting policy going forward. I don't see my statements as contradictory.