Ministers To 'Approve Compulsory Water Meters'

mcc100

kaya64 wrote: »

Because flouride is poison and water companies are forcing us to drink medicated water, until they take the flouride out I am not paying my bill and haven't paid since last November.

I assume you stopped paying your mobile phone bill last November as there is growing evidence that mobile phones cause brain cancer .........

giraffe69

mandy_c wrote: »

If toothpaste warns about flouride, why add it to water? notice i can spell it? lol

do you agree they should be adding what could be dangerous substances to our water without our say so and then charging us for it?

I'm afraid I don't think you can spell fluoride. Go check.

There are plenty of chemicals that can be added to water, food etc that in the wrong dosage can be dangerous. For example some years ago a huge amount of extra chemicals were added to the water in Camelford causing some very serious health problems over many years for many inhabitants but the point was that in the correct amounts they were safe but in the amounts used, due to negligence, they were dangerous.

I'm sure you are familiar with the idea that two headache pills will probably cure your headache but 42 might kill you. Fluoride added to water and toothpaste has significantly improved dental heatlh in the last few decades. Despite OP claiming it is a poison(which, of course it is in lethal amounts) and alleging a government conspiracy we are all still here and when we smile you can see white unfilled teeth!

MoneyMagic01273

Oddly - I kind of agree Kaya64.... only I don't use this to justify theft.

I don't like the idea of potentially harmful pesticides on my fruit and veg either but I don't use that as an excuse to walk into Sainbury's, pick up an orange and walk out without paying for it. Instead I make a personal choice to buy organic.

I don't walk into Boots and pick up some paracetamol and walk out without paying because large doses of it can kill me. I just make a personal choice not to consume a fatal dose of it. I don't shop lift certain kinds of orange squash either just because they contain additives and high levels of sugar or e-numbers. I make a personal choice not to consume those products.

I also don't like the idea of chemicals in my drinking water. But rather than continue to consume but not pay for it, instead I make a personal choice to filter my water like millions of other people happily do - grateful that in my country my water is at least delivered to my door, a hundred times safer than in many many places in the world and that my waste is taken away safely - also unlike many countries in the world. I don't use it as a flimsy excuse to steal it.

At the end of the day I still chose to use the water companies product and so I should pay for it like everyone else. Its just that I make a personal choice to filter it before I use it.

So you see - I get exactly what I want - but at the end of it, I'm not a thief :T

Cardew

There is no point in trying to reason or use logic with the anti-[STRIKE]flouride[/STRIKE]fluoride zealots.

That is two threads ruined with their ranting, no doubt there will be more!

jimjames

kaya64 wrote: »

oh dear , your another sheeple who listens and believes everything your force fed, please please think for yourself and not what those trying to kill us off tell you .

So is it only poison when the water company adds it and not a poison when it occurs naturally? That seems to be the most daft argument I've heard.

You can't be cut off for non payment unfortunately but you will get a CCJ which will affect your credit rating. You could ask the company to turn off your supply if you no longer require it.

jimjames

Back to the original question....

It isn't really a new story. The South West have been metered for many years, Southern Water are moving to meter their whole area by 2015 and South East Water by 2020.

It seems to be assumed that water should be free as it falls from the sky. If this is the case and you don't want to pay for it to come from your water company then why not get your supply disconnected and setup some water butts to collect the water you need. Oh and you'll need to think about purifying it to make it safe to drink.

On the subject of leaks it was mentioned early on in the thread about the economic level of leakage. This is very conveniently forgotten when leaks are mentioned in the media. Yes there is a high amount lost but a fair proportion of this is lost from consumer pipes and the cost to repair beyond a certain amount is more than is gained. Not to mention the disruption that would be caused by all the roadworks as a result.

Would you want your water bill to double just so we can make sure than no water leaks ever?

davehills

Whilst I fully agree with the 'pay for what you use' concept, is it any coincidence that when water meters are installed in an area the revenue that the water company receives goes UP?

I thought the idea was to reduce water consumption? Yet the water companies make even more money?! How is this fair?

A lack of investment in previous years mean the system is near capacity. By installing meters not only do water companies make more money they can stave off having to install bigger pipework.

It annoys me as greed is the motivation for all this but it's 'sold' to the public purely as an eco measure.

davehills

jimjames wrote: »

So is it only poison when the water company adds it and not a poison when it occurs naturally? That seems to be the most daft argument I've heard.
.

I'm pretty sure that if you research it, naturally occuring fluoride is actually a different chemical to the fluoride that is put into water.

Cardew

davehills wrote: »

Whilst I fully agree with the 'pay for what you use' concept, is it any coincidence that when water meters are installed in an area the revenue that the water company receives goes UP?

I thought the idea was to reduce water consumption? Yet the water companies make even more money?! How is this fair?

A lack of investment in previous years mean the system is near capacity. By installing meters not only do water companies make more money they can stave off having to install bigger pipework.

It annoys me as greed is the motivation for all this but it's 'sold' to the public purely as an eco measure.

I am no fan of water companies, and IMO the water industry should never have been privatised. However on a question of making more money you have got it wrong. You are making the incorrect assumption that water companies can set the level of charges.

As has been stated many times on this forum, the Regulator Ofwat stipulates how much revenue each company can raise and their profit level.

So it doesn't affect the profits of the water company if their customers are metered or not. If X thousand additional customers are metered and pay less, then the charges for all customers are allowed to be raised so the agreed amount of revenue can be raised.

P.S.

is it any coincidence that when water meters are installed in an area the
revenue that the water company receives goes UP?

Where did you get that information - cos it is incorrect!

jimjames

Cardew wrote: »

Where did you get that information - cos it is incorrect!

ANd certainly in the current situation it is even more incorrect. With the hosepipe bans in place water companies are getting even less revenue especially in areas heavily metered as customers are not able to use as much water and so their consumption and billable use goes down.