Bills for Southern Water customers to rise by more than five per cent

Daily Echo: Water bills to soar Water bills to soar

HOUSEHOLDS in the south will be hit by the biggest increase in water and sewerage bills this year, figures released today show.

Average bills for 2013/14 for Southern Water customers will see the cost of water and sewerage rising £23 to £449 – a rise of 5.3 per cent.

That comes in above the national average of an increase of 3.5 per cent, or about £13.

The bill changes for this year will come into effect on 1 April 2013 and apply until 31 March 2014. According to Southern Water the increases will pay for a £400m investment programme and also will also pay for environmental projects that will meet its obligation under European legislation.

Southern Water’s Chief Customer Officer Darren Bentham said: “By ensuring investment in our communities we are able to support thousands of jobs, while delivering improved services and a wide range of environmental improvements such as cleaner rivers and seas.

“Our five-year spending programme includes more than 330 environmental projects – that’s more than any other water company and makes up a large part of our investment.

"These projects are in response to new European legislation and will have many environmental benefits.

“However, it’s a fine balance - while our charges must rise to meet the enormous cost of our investment, we have a duty to our customers to keep our increases to a minimum.”

According to Ofwat, the industry regulator, the impact of the new charges will vary for individual household customers depending on the company that supplies them and whether or not they have a water meter.

They say the increases will help to pay for an investment programme worth around £25 billion nationally between 2010 and 2015.

Regina Finn, Ofwat Chief Executive Officer said: “Customers can’t choose their supplier. It’s our job to make sure they are protected. Back in 2009, companies wanted bills rises of 10 per cent above inflation.

“That didn’t chime with what customers told us they wanted, so we said they could only increase bills in-line with inflation.

“We understand that there is huge pressure on household incomes, and any rise is unwelcome. Inflation is driving these increases.

“These rises will help pay for investment of around £1,000 for every household in England and Wales.

“This will deliver real benefits - from continuing to improve the reliability of supplies to dealing with the misery of sewer flooding for thousands of customers.

“We will make sure customers get value for money, and if companies fall short in delivering their investment promises, we will take action.

“In the past seven years, we have made companies pay out around £550 million where they have underperformed.”

The breakdown of the 2013/14 bill: Southern Water customers will see the cost of water bills rise £6 to £158 while the sewerage bill will rise £16 to £291. That equates to an combined overall rise of £23 to £449, an increase of 5.3 per cent on last year’s bill.

It is the highest monetry increase in bills in the country and the second highest increase compared to last year’s figures, only behind Thames water who recorded a 5.5 per cent increase.

According to Southern Water the increase will help pay for a £400m investment programme.

That includes:

  • The replacement of 23km of water mains to reduce the risk of bursts, leaks and supply interruptions
  • The replacement of 30km of sewers to reduce the risk of sewer flooding and pollution
  • Schemes to reduce the risk of sewer flooding to individual properties Further reducing leakage.
  • The company is on track to beat its 2012/13 target, following one of its best performing years in 2011/12.

Comments (62)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:16am Tue 5 Feb 13

derek james says...

bulls**t i can remember when water rates were included in council tax or "rates" as it was called then.another rip off by privatised utilities
bulls**t i can remember when water rates were included in council tax or "rates" as it was called then.another rip off by privatised utilities derek james

8:23am Tue 5 Feb 13

Just another reader says...

Profits being made from privatised utilities companies is basically a stealth tax. If they stayed nationalised the government wouldn't be under constant pressure from share holders to make excessive profits. Our bills would be lower, and investment and repairs would be ongoing instead of the occasional big project requiring massive investment.

Then again, it would be in the hands of corrupt officials who wouldn't be held accountable for their balls ups when they inevitably happen!

Southern Water, stop ripping us off, clean water is a right of every human and you're worrying about dividends for your already rich shareholders.
Profits being made from privatised utilities companies is basically a stealth tax. If they stayed nationalised the government wouldn't be under constant pressure from share holders to make excessive profits. Our bills would be lower, and investment and repairs would be ongoing instead of the occasional big project requiring massive investment. Then again, it would be in the hands of corrupt officials who wouldn't be held accountable for their balls ups when they inevitably happen! Southern Water, stop ripping us off, clean water is a right of every human and you're worrying about dividends for your already rich shareholders. Just another reader

8:37am Tue 5 Feb 13

bigal007 says...

we should all stand together and say no more man the oil drums and hay forks
we should all stand together and say no more man the oil drums and hay forks bigal007

9:29am Tue 5 Feb 13

arthur dalyrimple says...

And pay sky high rates to be poisoned by flouride into the bargain .
And pay sky high rates to be poisoned by flouride into the bargain . arthur dalyrimple

10:04am Tue 5 Feb 13

For pity sake says...

Another wonderful legacy of the blessed Margaret (spit) Thatcher. Add it to train services, bus services, energy suppliers etc. etc.
Another wonderful legacy of the blessed Margaret (spit) Thatcher. Add it to train services, bus services, energy suppliers etc. etc. For pity sake

10:28am Tue 5 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Didn't take long for an idiot to post on here about Maggie did it?
I would have paid £44 a month but now have a meter was paying £30 but through water saving measures I'm paying £14.20 a month would this have happened if it was still nationalised?
there are many systems you can install to save rain water mix it with your washing water/shower/bath water & use it to flush the loo or water the garden stop whinging as it's now a lot cheaper
Didn't take long for an idiot to post on here about Maggie did it? I would have paid £44 a month but now have a meter was paying £30 but through water saving measures I'm paying £14.20 a month would this have happened if it was still nationalised? there are many systems you can install to save rain water mix it with your washing water/shower/bath water & use it to flush the loo or water the garden stop whinging as it's now a lot cheaper loosehead

11:10am Tue 5 Feb 13

Linesman says...

It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards! Linesman

11:41am Tue 5 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Didn't take long for an idiot to post on here about Maggie did it?
I would have paid £44 a month but now have a meter was paying £30 but through water saving measures I'm paying £14.20 a month would this have happened if it was still nationalised?
there are many systems you can install to save rain water mix it with your washing water/shower/bath water & use it to flush the loo or water the garden stop whinging as it's now a lot cheaper
Well its where it all started from, back before Thatcher days of PM, there was nothing stopping a private company setting up a private water company to supply the public using the state owned water pipes and compeat with the state industarys, but they did'nt, why because they could not compeat with the state industarys, so the private sector needed the state industarys gone
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Didn't take long for an idiot to post on here about Maggie did it? I would have paid £44 a month but now have a meter was paying £30 but through water saving measures I'm paying £14.20 a month would this have happened if it was still nationalised? there are many systems you can install to save rain water mix it with your washing water/shower/bath water & use it to flush the loo or water the garden stop whinging as it's now a lot cheaper[/p][/quote]Well its where it all started from, back before Thatcher days of PM, there was nothing stopping a private company setting up a private water company to supply the public using the state owned water pipes and compeat with the state industarys, but they did'nt, why because they could not compeat with the state industarys, so the private sector needed the state industarys gone southy

12:05pm Tue 5 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
If you could actually read my posts before opposing what I say you might know what your talking about when you comment.
I was paying £25 a month under Nationalised water what the hell that would have been now no one knows.
But if like the rail way & Post Office ( it wasn't called BT) or the Nationalised car industry no new investment was put into it then we'd have areas going without water every where as the pipes would be broken.
Under privatisation there has been investment there is an ongoing update to all piping as well as new tracks being laid after years of neglect under Nationalisation.
I don't give a **** what you or that total loon Southy say but take a look at countries where most industry was Nationalised,
lack of production no renewal of infrastructure why would China welcome with open arms private investment?
it was proven here Nationalise Leylands,Nationalise the Docks & what was the result?
We had Red Ken taking the workers out on strike if one got a warning for sleeping,we had Dockies clocking in & then going back to the pub then going home?
sack either of these & a strike & you won't shut us as we own it was the mentality do you remember the Nationalised power industry?the Nationalised Coal industry? do you remember the three day weeks or the Winter of Discontent?
how you two twist history & alter the facts to try to prove your right gets me.
I actually agreed with what Maggie was advocating but I voted against her as I knew Bosses would cut jobs where you had say three people doing a job that one person could do but unlike you Dinosaurs when I saw her keep her word when I saw her destroy Scargill who I hated I realised in this country the only party to face up to the problems & do something about it even if it costs them votes it had to be the Tory Party.
Every time Labour get to power we end up the creek with out a paddle we vote Tory they make some harsh decisions but life becomes better so what do we do ? we vote Labour & then it all goes wrong again but you two can't or won't see that
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]If you could actually read my posts before opposing what I say you might know what your talking about when you comment. I was paying £25 a month under Nationalised water what the hell that would have been now no one knows. But if like the rail way & Post Office ( it wasn't called BT) or the Nationalised car industry no new investment was put into it then we'd have areas going without water every where as the pipes would be broken. Under privatisation there has been investment there is an ongoing update to all piping as well as new tracks being laid after years of neglect under Nationalisation. I don't give a **** what you or that total loon Southy say but take a look at countries where most industry was Nationalised, lack of production no renewal of infrastructure why would China welcome with open arms private investment? it was proven here Nationalise Leylands,Nationalise the Docks & what was the result? We had Red Ken taking the workers out on strike if one got a warning for sleeping,we had Dockies clocking in & then going back to the pub then going home? sack either of these & a strike & you won't shut us as we own it was the mentality do you remember the Nationalised power industry?the Nationalised Coal industry? do you remember the three day weeks or the Winter of Discontent? how you two twist history & alter the facts to try to prove your right gets me. I actually agreed with what Maggie was advocating but I voted against her as I knew Bosses would cut jobs where you had say three people doing a job that one person could do but unlike you Dinosaurs when I saw her keep her word when I saw her destroy Scargill who I hated I realised in this country the only party to face up to the problems & do something about it even if it costs them votes it had to be the Tory Party. Every time Labour get to power we end up the creek with out a paddle we vote Tory they make some harsh decisions but life becomes better so what do we do ? we vote Labour & then it all goes wrong again but you two can't or won't see that loosehead

12:09pm Tue 5 Feb 13

loosehead says...

If your on a water meter & are paying less than £44 a month for your water put your hands up!
If you want to go back to a time where it's included in your council tax so meaning every time a council put up tax so up goes the amount you pay for water put your hands up!
do Southy & the left wing idiots think we'd be better off the old way?
as I'm now paying less than I did 15years ago how can they say that?
If your on a water meter & are paying less than £44 a month for your water put your hands up! If you want to go back to a time where it's included in your council tax so meaning every time a council put up tax so up goes the amount you pay for water put your hands up! do Southy & the left wing idiots think we'd be better off the old way? as I'm now paying less than I did 15years ago how can they say that? loosehead

12:13pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong. Torchie1

12:20pm Tue 5 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month? loosehead

12:34pm Tue 5 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
If you could actually read my posts before opposing what I say you might know what your talking about when you comment.
I was paying £25 a month under Nationalised water what the hell that would have been now no one knows.
But if like the rail way & Post Office ( it wasn't called BT) or the Nationalised car industry no new investment was put into it then we'd have areas going without water every where as the pipes would be broken.
Under privatisation there has been investment there is an ongoing update to all piping as well as new tracks being laid after years of neglect under Nationalisation.
I don't give a **** what you or that total loon Southy say but take a look at countries where most industry was Nationalised,
lack of production no renewal of infrastructure why would China welcome with open arms private investment?
it was proven here Nationalise Leylands,Nationalise the Docks & what was the result?
We had Red Ken taking the workers out on strike if one got a warning for sleeping,we had Dockies clocking in & then going back to the pub then going home?
sack either of these & a strike & you won't shut us as we own it was the mentality do you remember the Nationalised power industry?the Nationalised Coal industry? do you remember the three day weeks or the Winter of Discontent?
how you two twist history & alter the facts to try to prove your right gets me.
I actually agreed with what Maggie was advocating but I voted against her as I knew Bosses would cut jobs where you had say three people doing a job that one person could do but unlike you Dinosaurs when I saw her keep her word when I saw her destroy Scargill who I hated I realised in this country the only party to face up to the problems & do something about it even if it costs them votes it had to be the Tory Party.
Every time Labour get to power we end up the creek with out a paddle we vote Tory they make some harsh decisions but life becomes better so what do we do ? we vote Labour & then it all goes wrong again but you two can't or won't see that
You was not paying no £25 a month under Nationalised water, your water was included in to your Rates, and even your Rates was not £25 per mth, Rates in 1979 was not even £6 pm for most.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]If you could actually read my posts before opposing what I say you might know what your talking about when you comment. I was paying £25 a month under Nationalised water what the hell that would have been now no one knows. But if like the rail way & Post Office ( it wasn't called BT) or the Nationalised car industry no new investment was put into it then we'd have areas going without water every where as the pipes would be broken. Under privatisation there has been investment there is an ongoing update to all piping as well as new tracks being laid after years of neglect under Nationalisation. I don't give a **** what you or that total loon Southy say but take a look at countries where most industry was Nationalised, lack of production no renewal of infrastructure why would China welcome with open arms private investment? it was proven here Nationalise Leylands,Nationalise the Docks & what was the result? We had Red Ken taking the workers out on strike if one got a warning for sleeping,we had Dockies clocking in & then going back to the pub then going home? sack either of these & a strike & you won't shut us as we own it was the mentality do you remember the Nationalised power industry?the Nationalised Coal industry? do you remember the three day weeks or the Winter of Discontent? how you two twist history & alter the facts to try to prove your right gets me. I actually agreed with what Maggie was advocating but I voted against her as I knew Bosses would cut jobs where you had say three people doing a job that one person could do but unlike you Dinosaurs when I saw her keep her word when I saw her destroy Scargill who I hated I realised in this country the only party to face up to the problems & do something about it even if it costs them votes it had to be the Tory Party. Every time Labour get to power we end up the creek with out a paddle we vote Tory they make some harsh decisions but life becomes better so what do we do ? we vote Labour & then it all goes wrong again but you two can't or won't see that[/p][/quote]You was not paying no £25 a month under Nationalised water, your water was included in to your Rates, and even your Rates was not £25 per mth, Rates in 1979 was not even £6 pm for most. southy

12:37pm Tue 5 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
If your on a water meter & are paying less than £44 a month for your water put your hands up!
If you want to go back to a time where it's included in your council tax so meaning every time a council put up tax so up goes the amount you pay for water put your hands up!
do Southy & the left wing idiots think we'd be better off the old way?
as I'm now paying less than I did 15years ago how can they say that?
We would be 10 times better off, the majority would of been, under the Rates system it was cap, and if that same system was still going your Rates which included water would still be less than £10 per mth
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: If your on a water meter & are paying less than £44 a month for your water put your hands up! If you want to go back to a time where it's included in your council tax so meaning every time a council put up tax so up goes the amount you pay for water put your hands up! do Southy & the left wing idiots think we'd be better off the old way? as I'm now paying less than I did 15years ago how can they say that?[/p][/quote]We would be 10 times better off, the majority would of been, under the Rates system it was cap, and if that same system was still going your Rates which included water would still be less than £10 per mth southy

1:01pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly. Torchie1

1:10pm Tue 5 Feb 13

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.
No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.[/p][/quote]No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing. southy

2:13pm Tue 5 Feb 13

myownopinion says...

loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
I am paying a lot less than £44 per month, average bill is in the region of £15. Having a water meter works for me.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]I am paying a lot less than £44 per month, average bill is in the region of £15. Having a water meter works for me. myownopinion

2:25pm Tue 5 Feb 13

CB FRY LIVES says...

the rot set in with thatcher.we are still paying well over the odds for her catastrophic series of privatisations..
Blair and his new labour cronies are equally to blame for failing to re-nationalise.
Now with many of the former public utility companies in foreign ownership we are paying way over the odds for water which is a basic essential.The fat cats are laughing all the way to the banks and the british general public are getting squeezed dry.
the rot set in with thatcher.we are still paying well over the odds for her catastrophic series of privatisations.. Blair and his new labour cronies are equally to blame for failing to re-nationalise. Now with many of the former public utility companies in foreign ownership we are paying way over the odds for water which is a basic essential.The fat cats are laughing all the way to the banks and the british general public are getting squeezed dry. CB FRY LIVES

2:25pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.
No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.
A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.[/p][/quote]No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.[/p][/quote]A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world? Torchie1

2:34pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
There's no such thing as a 'statutory amount' if you are with Southern Water but a quick look at their website will show you this message :-

"Water meters

We're installing water meters for our customers across our region between now and 2015. Having a meter puts you in control of your bill because you only pay for the water you use."

You'll soon be able to find out if a meter is cheaper or not.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]There's no such thing as a 'statutory amount' if you are with Southern Water but a quick look at their website will show you this message :- "Water meters We're installing water meters for our customers across our region between now and 2015. Having a meter puts you in control of your bill because you only pay for the water you use." You'll soon be able to find out if a meter is cheaper or not. Torchie1

3:17pm Tue 5 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
There's no such thing as a 'statutory amount' if you are with Southern Water but a quick look at their website will show you this message :-

"Water meters

We're installing water meters for our customers across our region between now and 2015. Having a meter puts you in control of your bill because you only pay for the water you use."

You'll soon be able to find out if a meter is cheaper or not.
My friend in Tremona rd wants a meter he's set up his bath & shower water to go to a water butt where it's mixed with rainwater & used on his garden.
I went to the Ideal Home expo, there were several green energy companies there.
there was a system where all bathroom water plus washing machine,dish washer water was taken to tanks/butts & mixed with rainwater then pumped up to the cistern or could be used on the garden.
I had a meter installed they wanted to charge my wife & I £35 a month I argued it down to £30 telling them they would owe me money which I was proven right & now I pay £14.20 a month.
if I was not on a meter it would have been £44 a month.
SOUTHY has the cheek to dare tell me what I paid 15 years ago?
I moved from a non metered home to a metered home & the cost for the non metered property for me a single man was £25 a month.
I went to the gym,I went Rugby training twice a week I played Rugby Saturdays & Sunday so never had a shower or bath at home & before that I was away with the TA nearly every week end yet I still had to pay that amount?
Now is Mouthy telling me that a Nationalised water industry would have put up the money with out raising our bills to install meters? or to replace pipes would they not increase our bills?
how was it fair a single guy using next to no water paying the same as a whole family ? is he trying to say that we would have had meters installed or is he just lying & making it up again?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]There's no such thing as a 'statutory amount' if you are with Southern Water but a quick look at their website will show you this message :- "Water meters We're installing water meters for our customers across our region between now and 2015. Having a meter puts you in control of your bill because you only pay for the water you use." You'll soon be able to find out if a meter is cheaper or not.[/p][/quote]My friend in Tremona rd wants a meter he's set up his bath & shower water to go to a water butt where it's mixed with rainwater & used on his garden. I went to the Ideal Home expo, there were several green energy companies there. there was a system where all bathroom water plus washing machine,dish washer water was taken to tanks/butts & mixed with rainwater then pumped up to the cistern or could be used on the garden. I had a meter installed they wanted to charge my wife & I £35 a month I argued it down to £30 telling them they would owe me money which I was proven right & now I pay £14.20 a month. if I was not on a meter it would have been £44 a month. SOUTHY has the cheek to dare tell me what I paid 15 years ago? I moved from a non metered home to a metered home & the cost for the non metered property for me a single man was £25 a month. I went to the gym,I went Rugby training twice a week I played Rugby Saturdays & Sunday so never had a shower or bath at home & before that I was away with the TA nearly every week end yet I still had to pay that amount? Now is Mouthy telling me that a Nationalised water industry would have put up the money with out raising our bills to install meters? or to replace pipes would they not increase our bills? how was it fair a single guy using next to no water paying the same as a whole family ? is he trying to say that we would have had meters installed or is he just lying & making it up again? loosehead

3:29pm Tue 5 Feb 13

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.
No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.
A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?
Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale.
It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms.
Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it.
The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys.
I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.[/p][/quote]No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.[/p][/quote]A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?[/p][/quote]Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale. It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms. Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it. The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys. I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong. southy

3:35pm Tue 5 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
There's no such thing as a 'statutory amount' if you are with Southern Water but a quick look at their website will show you this message :-

"Water meters

We're installing water meters for our customers across our region between now and 2015. Having a meter puts you in control of your bill because you only pay for the water you use."

You'll soon be able to find out if a meter is cheaper or not.
My friend in Tremona rd wants a meter he's set up his bath & shower water to go to a water butt where it's mixed with rainwater & used on his garden.
I went to the Ideal Home expo, there were several green energy companies there.
there was a system where all bathroom water plus washing machine,dish washer water was taken to tanks/butts & mixed with rainwater then pumped up to the cistern or could be used on the garden.
I had a meter installed they wanted to charge my wife & I £35 a month I argued it down to £30 telling them they would owe me money which I was proven right & now I pay £14.20 a month.
if I was not on a meter it would have been £44 a month.
SOUTHY has the cheek to dare tell me what I paid 15 years ago?
I moved from a non metered home to a metered home & the cost for the non metered property for me a single man was £25 a month.
I went to the gym,I went Rugby training twice a week I played Rugby Saturdays & Sunday so never had a shower or bath at home & before that I was away with the TA nearly every week end yet I still had to pay that amount?
Now is Mouthy telling me that a Nationalised water industry would have put up the money with out raising our bills to install meters? or to replace pipes would they not increase our bills?
how was it fair a single guy using next to no water paying the same as a whole family ? is he trying to say that we would have had meters installed or is he just lying & making it up again?
Loose I know you never paid that much you say you did, and you said Nationalise water, not 15 years ago, 15 years ago water was in private hands, Water stop being a national when Thatcher Rob of public and sold it to the few
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]There's no such thing as a 'statutory amount' if you are with Southern Water but a quick look at their website will show you this message :- "Water meters We're installing water meters for our customers across our region between now and 2015. Having a meter puts you in control of your bill because you only pay for the water you use." You'll soon be able to find out if a meter is cheaper or not.[/p][/quote]My friend in Tremona rd wants a meter he's set up his bath & shower water to go to a water butt where it's mixed with rainwater & used on his garden. I went to the Ideal Home expo, there were several green energy companies there. there was a system where all bathroom water plus washing machine,dish washer water was taken to tanks/butts & mixed with rainwater then pumped up to the cistern or could be used on the garden. I had a meter installed they wanted to charge my wife & I £35 a month I argued it down to £30 telling them they would owe me money which I was proven right & now I pay £14.20 a month. if I was not on a meter it would have been £44 a month. SOUTHY has the cheek to dare tell me what I paid 15 years ago? I moved from a non metered home to a metered home & the cost for the non metered property for me a single man was £25 a month. I went to the gym,I went Rugby training twice a week I played Rugby Saturdays & Sunday so never had a shower or bath at home & before that I was away with the TA nearly every week end yet I still had to pay that amount? Now is Mouthy telling me that a Nationalised water industry would have put up the money with out raising our bills to install meters? or to replace pipes would they not increase our bills? how was it fair a single guy using next to no water paying the same as a whole family ? is he trying to say that we would have had meters installed or is he just lying & making it up again?[/p][/quote]Loose I know you never paid that much you say you did, and you said Nationalise water, not 15 years ago, 15 years ago water was in private hands, Water stop being a national when Thatcher Rob of public and sold it to the few southy

3:51pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.
No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.
A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?
Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale.
It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms.
Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it.
The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys.
I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong.
Why not humour me and tell me what the website was again but let's keep to official websites and stay away from fantasy sites.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.[/p][/quote]No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.[/p][/quote]A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?[/p][/quote]Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale. It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms. Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it. The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys. I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong.[/p][/quote]Why not humour me and tell me what the website was again but let's keep to official websites and stay away from fantasy sites. Torchie1

3:55pm Tue 5 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.
No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.
A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?
Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale.
It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms.
Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it.
The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys.
I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong.
.. nope, the current rate for Southern Water is £1.134 per cubic metre. This rate does not change however much more or less you use.

.. nope, there is no ‘Bedroom Tax’ being proposed or even talked about (except by you). You have probably misinterpreted (a frequent occurrence for you) the relevant sections of the welfare reform measures that will cut the amount of benefit people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home.

.. but, there you go, make a fool of yourself on a daily basis, why don’t you? You know, just a few seconds to check before you shoot from the hip would save us all many hours a month just correcting your howlers.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.[/p][/quote]No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.[/p][/quote]A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?[/p][/quote]Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale. It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms. Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it. The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys. I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong.[/p][/quote].. nope, the current rate for Southern Water is £1.134 per cubic metre. This rate does not change however much more or less you use. .. nope, there is no ‘Bedroom Tax’ being proposed or even talked about (except by you). You have probably misinterpreted (a frequent occurrence for you) the relevant sections of the welfare reform measures that will cut the amount of benefit people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home. .. but, there you go, make a fool of yourself on a daily basis, why don’t you? You know, just a few seconds to check before you shoot from the hip would save us all many hours a month just correcting your howlers. freefinker

4:02pm Tue 5 Feb 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.
No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.
A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?
Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale.
It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms.
Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it.
The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys.
I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong.
.. nope, the current rate for Southern Water is £1.134 per cubic metre. This rate does not change however much more or less you use.

.. nope, there is no ‘Bedroom Tax’ being proposed or even talked about (except by you). You have probably misinterpreted (a frequent occurrence for you) the relevant sections of the welfare reform measures that will cut the amount of benefit people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home.

.. but, there you go, make a fool of yourself on a daily basis, why don’t you? You know, just a few seconds to check before you shoot from the hip would save us all many hours a month just correcting your howlers.
Thats at the moment, but go check around the country where they are now charging by the water meter.

and Free it will change, if you don't reach the standing charge in useage you will end up paying more per CM because you below the min payment level.
Check up and stop just quoting right wing information.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.[/p][/quote]No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.[/p][/quote]A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?[/p][/quote]Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale. It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms. Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it. The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys. I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong.[/p][/quote].. nope, the current rate for Southern Water is £1.134 per cubic metre. This rate does not change however much more or less you use. .. nope, there is no ‘Bedroom Tax’ being proposed or even talked about (except by you). You have probably misinterpreted (a frequent occurrence for you) the relevant sections of the welfare reform measures that will cut the amount of benefit people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home. .. but, there you go, make a fool of yourself on a daily basis, why don’t you? You know, just a few seconds to check before you shoot from the hip would save us all many hours a month just correcting your howlers.[/p][/quote]Thats at the moment, but go check around the country where they are now charging by the water meter. and Free it will change, if you don't reach the standing charge in useage you will end up paying more per CM because you below the min payment level. Check up and stop just quoting right wing information. southy

4:14pm Tue 5 Feb 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.
No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.
A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?
Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale.
It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms.
Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it.
The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys.
I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong.
.. nope, the current rate for Southern Water is £1.134 per cubic metre. This rate does not change however much more or less you use.

.. nope, there is no ‘Bedroom Tax’ being proposed or even talked about (except by you). You have probably misinterpreted (a frequent occurrence for you) the relevant sections of the welfare reform measures that will cut the amount of benefit people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home.

.. but, there you go, make a fool of yourself on a daily basis, why don’t you? You know, just a few seconds to check before you shoot from the hip would save us all many hours a month just correcting your howlers.
Thats at the moment, but go check around the country where they are now charging by the water meter.

and Free it will change, if you don't reach the standing charge in useage you will end up paying more per CM because you below the min payment level.
Check up and stop just quoting right wing information.
.. the rate I quoted IS for metered water.

.. 'if you don't reach the standing charge in useage' - what on earth are you talking about? You obviously have no idea how water bills are calculated if you are on water meters.

.. have checked up on the 'Bedroom Tax' - I'm right, you're wrong.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.[/p][/quote]No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.[/p][/quote]A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?[/p][/quote]Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale. It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms. Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it. The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys. I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong.[/p][/quote].. nope, the current rate for Southern Water is £1.134 per cubic metre. This rate does not change however much more or less you use. .. nope, there is no ‘Bedroom Tax’ being proposed or even talked about (except by you). You have probably misinterpreted (a frequent occurrence for you) the relevant sections of the welfare reform measures that will cut the amount of benefit people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home. .. but, there you go, make a fool of yourself on a daily basis, why don’t you? You know, just a few seconds to check before you shoot from the hip would save us all many hours a month just correcting your howlers.[/p][/quote]Thats at the moment, but go check around the country where they are now charging by the water meter. and Free it will change, if you don't reach the standing charge in useage you will end up paying more per CM because you below the min payment level. Check up and stop just quoting right wing information.[/p][/quote].. the rate I quoted IS for metered water. .. 'if you don't reach the standing charge in useage' - what on earth are you talking about? You obviously have no idea how water bills are calculated if you are on water meters. .. have checked up on the 'Bedroom Tax' - I'm right, you're wrong. freefinker

4:41pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.
No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.
A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?
Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale.
It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms.
Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it.
The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys.
I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong.
.. nope, the current rate for Southern Water is £1.134 per cubic metre. This rate does not change however much more or less you use.

.. nope, there is no ‘Bedroom Tax’ being proposed or even talked about (except by you). You have probably misinterpreted (a frequent occurrence for you) the relevant sections of the welfare reform measures that will cut the amount of benefit people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home.

.. but, there you go, make a fool of yourself on a daily basis, why don’t you? You know, just a few seconds to check before you shoot from the hip would save us all many hours a month just correcting your howlers.
Thats at the moment, but go check around the country where they are now charging by the water meter.

and Free it will change, if you don't reach the standing charge in useage you will end up paying more per CM because you below the min payment level.
Check up and stop just quoting right wing information.
The. Standing Charge is similar to the telephone Line Rental which you have to pay whether you use the service or not. Try to think things through and see beyond the imaginary right wing conspiracy theories that you have become so frightened of.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]Doesn't the argument in favour of meters hinge on the number of occupants versus the number of bedrooms in a property? My own view is that you should pay for what you use and a meter is the obvious way of charging fairly.[/p][/quote]No it dont it all hinges on the more you use the less you pay per csmw, the less you use the more you pay per csmw, and those with big gardens to water and with swimming pools, have a number of cars to wash pay less than what they should be doing.[/p][/quote]A prolific user of water wouldn't benefit from a meter but in a fair world you would have a meter and pay for every litre you use. As you use a cubic metre of water the in-line water meter registers 1 cubic metre and this is reflected on your bill. Using 10 cubic metres is going to cost, wait for it, 10 times as much as using 1 metre. The 'Standing Charge' is payable irrespective of how much water you consume. Difficult to grasp but this is the case or are we in for a re-run of how the 'Council Tax' and 'Bedroom Tax' work in your world as opposed to the real world?[/p][/quote]Yes they do the rate is drop a little as you go up the scale. It the same thing with Council Tax those in Band H don't even pay 3 times as much as those in Band A and yet being in Band H you can have a 1000 bedrooms. Every thing is geared up to the more you got the less you pay for it. The Bedroom Tax is coming its been talk about in the house of Commons now for over 4 mths. and it will be a case of how they will apply it to the public, and you can bet here that it will be aimed at the poorest of familys. I told you and even gave you a web site to read but you will not read it in full why because it will prove you wrong.[/p][/quote].. nope, the current rate for Southern Water is £1.134 per cubic metre. This rate does not change however much more or less you use. .. nope, there is no ‘Bedroom Tax’ being proposed or even talked about (except by you). You have probably misinterpreted (a frequent occurrence for you) the relevant sections of the welfare reform measures that will cut the amount of benefit people can get if they are deemed to have a spare bedroom in their council or housing association home. .. but, there you go, make a fool of yourself on a daily basis, why don’t you? You know, just a few seconds to check before you shoot from the hip would save us all many hours a month just correcting your howlers.[/p][/quote]Thats at the moment, but go check around the country where they are now charging by the water meter. and Free it will change, if you don't reach the standing charge in useage you will end up paying more per CM because you below the min payment level. Check up and stop just quoting right wing information.[/p][/quote]The. Standing Charge is similar to the telephone Line Rental which you have to pay whether you use the service or not. Try to think things through and see beyond the imaginary right wing conspiracy theories that you have become so frightened of. Torchie1

4:47pm Tue 5 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Linesman wrote:
It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie.

The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders.

Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine.

When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders.

What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised?

"Competition will keep the costs down."

Bullshine is not confined to farmyards!
All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.
have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?
There's no such thing as a 'statutory amount' if you are with Southern Water but a quick look at their website will show you this message :-

"Water meters

We're installing water meters for our customers across our region between now and 2015. Having a meter puts you in control of your bill because you only pay for the water you use."

You'll soon be able to find out if a meter is cheaper or not.
My friend in Tremona rd wants a meter he's set up his bath & shower water to go to a water butt where it's mixed with rainwater & used on his garden.
I went to the Ideal Home expo, there were several green energy companies there.
there was a system where all bathroom water plus washing machine,dish washer water was taken to tanks/butts & mixed with rainwater then pumped up to the cistern or could be used on the garden.
I had a meter installed they wanted to charge my wife & I £35 a month I argued it down to £30 telling them they would owe me money which I was proven right & now I pay £14.20 a month.
if I was not on a meter it would have been £44 a month.
SOUTHY has the cheek to dare tell me what I paid 15 years ago?
I moved from a non metered home to a metered home & the cost for the non metered property for me a single man was £25 a month.
I went to the gym,I went Rugby training twice a week I played Rugby Saturdays & Sunday so never had a shower or bath at home & before that I was away with the TA nearly every week end yet I still had to pay that amount?
Now is Mouthy telling me that a Nationalised water industry would have put up the money with out raising our bills to install meters? or to replace pipes would they not increase our bills?
how was it fair a single guy using next to no water paying the same as a whole family ? is he trying to say that we would have had meters installed or is he just lying & making it up again?
Loose I know you never paid that much you say you did, and you said Nationalise water, not 15 years ago, 15 years ago water was in private hands, Water stop being a national when Thatcher Rob of public and sold it to the few
I know they were Privatised before then but under Private hands I'm now paying less now than 15years ago?
did you pay rates or was that before you bought your Council Home?
I know I was paying more than £14.20 in my rates towards the water bill so if you never owned your property how would you know or more to the point how do you know what I paid?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: It took just a bit longer for someone, wearing their blue-tinted glasses, to post on here in defence of Maggie. The only thing that has been gained by water being privatised, is shareholders. Where the customer was the important person, now it is the shareholder who has to be paid his dividend, come rain come shine. When the new sewerage treatment works on the outskirts of Brighton had to be funded, it was not done by the shareholders. The water company took out massive loans, up the price that they are charging customers, and paying a hansome divident to the shareholders. What were we told when nationalised industries were being privatised? "Competition will keep the costs down." Bullshine is not confined to farmyards![/p][/quote]All this points to one thing, buy water shares and you can't go wrong.[/p][/quote]have you got a water meter? are you paying less than the statutory amount of £44 a month?[/p][/quote]There's no such thing as a 'statutory amount' if you are with Southern Water but a quick look at their website will show you this message :- "Water meters We're installing water meters for our customers across our region between now and 2015. Having a meter puts you in control of your bill because you only pay for the water you use." You'll soon be able to find out if a meter is cheaper or not.[/p][/quote]My friend in Tremona rd wants a meter he's set up his bath & shower water to go to a water butt where it's mixed with rainwater & used on his garden. I went to the Ideal Home expo, there were several green energy companies there. there was a system where all bathroom water plus washing machine,dish washer water was taken to tanks/butts & mixed with rainwater then pumped up to the cistern or could be used on the garden. I had a meter installed they wanted to charge my wife & I £35 a month I argued it down to £30 telling them they would owe me money which I was proven right & now I pay £14.20 a month. if I was not on a meter it would have been £44 a month. SOUTHY has the cheek to dare tell me what I paid 15 years ago? I moved from a non metered home to a metered home & the cost for the non metered property for me a single man was £25 a month. I went to the gym,I went Rugby training twice a week I played Rugby Saturdays & Sunday so never had a shower or bath at home & before that I was away with the TA nearly every week end yet I still had to pay that amount? Now is Mouthy telling me that a Nationalised water industry would have put up the money with out raising our bills to install meters? or to replace pipes would they not increase our bills? how was it fair a single guy using next to no water paying the same as a whole family ? is he trying to say that we would have had meters installed or is he just lying & making it up again?[/p][/quote]Loose I know you never paid that much you say you did, and you said Nationalise water, not 15 years ago, 15 years ago water was in private hands, Water stop being a national when Thatcher Rob of public and sold it to the few[/p][/quote]I know they were Privatised before then but under Private hands I'm now paying less now than 15years ago? did you pay rates or was that before you bought your Council Home? I know I was paying more than £14.20 in my rates towards the water bill so if you never owned your property how would you know or more to the point how do you know what I paid? loosehead

4:57pm Tue 5 Feb 13

southy says...

All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax.
Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms.
But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.
All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax. Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms. But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it. southy

4:58pm Tue 5 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Did you know if your a Southern Electric customer(not just switched) you can opt out of standing charges on the meters?
I would have paid more for the standing charge then I use so I opted out!
Did you know if your a Southern Electric customer(not just switched) you can opt out of standing charges on the meters? I would have paid more for the standing charge then I use so I opted out! loosehead

5:02pm Tue 5 Feb 13

southy says...

for those with a sence of humour

http://www.dorseteye
.com/south/videos/a-
song-for-our-times-b
ugger-the-bankers-by
-the-austerity-all-s
tars
for those with a sence of humour http://www.dorseteye .com/south/videos/a- song-for-our-times-b ugger-the-bankers-by -the-austerity-all-s tars southy

5:03pm Tue 5 Feb 13

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax.
Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms.
But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.
Absolute bull. I know of a guy that's moving from a two bedroom property to a one bedroom property as he's on welfare.
So SOUTHY your against giving people in council or Housing association a little nudge to move to smaller homes & freeing up those properties for families then?
As it is they can rent out a room take a small cut in welfare for having two rooms & keeping the rent which could be more than the cut in welfare.
You are becoming a bit stupid & I can't believe anything you say any more
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax. Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms. But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.[/p][/quote]Absolute bull. I know of a guy that's moving from a two bedroom property to a one bedroom property as he's on welfare. So SOUTHY your against giving people in council or Housing association a little nudge to move to smaller homes & freeing up those properties for families then? As it is they can rent out a room take a small cut in welfare for having two rooms & keeping the rent which could be more than the cut in welfare. You are becoming a bit stupid & I can't believe anything you say any more loosehead

5:16pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax.
Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms.
But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.
Perhaps you should contact The Guardian newspaper as they too have mistakenly written that the 'bedroom tax' will only apply to those living in social housing with empty bedrooms. Lets wait until it comes in to force in April and then you can admit that you're wrong, so it's only seven weeks to wait.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax. Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms. But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you should contact The Guardian newspaper as they too have mistakenly written that the 'bedroom tax' will only apply to those living in social housing with empty bedrooms. Lets wait until it comes in to force in April and then you can admit that you're wrong, so it's only seven weeks to wait. Torchie1

5:26pm Tue 5 Feb 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax.
Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms.
But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.
Absolute bull. I know of a guy that's moving from a two bedroom property to a one bedroom property as he's on welfare.
So SOUTHY your against giving people in council or Housing association a little nudge to move to smaller homes & freeing up those properties for families then?
As it is they can rent out a room take a small cut in welfare for having two rooms & keeping the rent which could be more than the cut in welfare.
You are becoming a bit stupid & I can't believe anything you say any more
This is aim at those in band D E and F, these are the Homes that are most likely to have empty rooms and will hit the both Public and Private sector at the same time Loose, and loose less of the false propaganda I am not against giving people council or association homes
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax. Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms. But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.[/p][/quote]Absolute bull. I know of a guy that's moving from a two bedroom property to a one bedroom property as he's on welfare. So SOUTHY your against giving people in council or Housing association a little nudge to move to smaller homes & freeing up those properties for families then? As it is they can rent out a room take a small cut in welfare for having two rooms & keeping the rent which could be more than the cut in welfare. You are becoming a bit stupid & I can't believe anything you say any more[/p][/quote]This is aim at those in band D E and F, these are the Homes that are most likely to have empty rooms and will hit the both Public and Private sector at the same time Loose, and loose less of the false propaganda I am not against giving people council or association homes southy

5:31pm Tue 5 Feb 13

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax.
Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms.
But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.
Perhaps you should contact The Guardian newspaper as they too have mistakenly written that the 'bedroom tax' will only apply to those living in social housing with empty bedrooms. Lets wait until it comes in to force in April and then you can admit that you're wrong, so it's only seven weeks to wait.
Where did I say it applied to social housing I did not, So stop trying to twist or put in words that I did not say. It will applied to both private and public. Its not even been rubber stamp by the Queen yet and can not come into force till it do.
The Guardian have not mistaken it by calling it a bedroom tax, apart from it was not a paper that called it a tax in the first place, Beleive it or not it was a Tory MP that called it a bedroom tax, Because thats what it really is
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax. Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms. But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you should contact The Guardian newspaper as they too have mistakenly written that the 'bedroom tax' will only apply to those living in social housing with empty bedrooms. Lets wait until it comes in to force in April and then you can admit that you're wrong, so it's only seven weeks to wait.[/p][/quote]Where did I say it applied to social housing I did not, So stop trying to twist or put in words that I did not say. It will applied to both private and public. Its not even been rubber stamp by the Queen yet and can not come into force till it do. The Guardian have not mistaken it by calling it a bedroom tax, apart from it was not a paper that called it a tax in the first place, Beleive it or not it was a Tory MP that called it a bedroom tax, Because thats what it really is southy

5:37pm Tue 5 Feb 13

freefinker says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax.
Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms.
But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.
Perhaps you should contact The Guardian newspaper as they too have mistakenly written that the 'bedroom tax' will only apply to those living in social housing with empty bedrooms. Lets wait until it comes in to force in April and then you can admit that you're wrong, so it's only seven weeks to wait.
.. indeed.

And as for southy’s nonsense that 'Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax', he again shows his absolute ignorance.

Council Tax applies to ALL dwellings (although some have a 100% exemption).

Housing Benefit is a means tested welfare benefit applicable only to those in rented accommodation.

There is absolutely no connection between the two - they are NOT 'tied' in any way.

Which makes all of the other things he says irrelevant waffle.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax. Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms. But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you should contact The Guardian newspaper as they too have mistakenly written that the 'bedroom tax' will only apply to those living in social housing with empty bedrooms. Lets wait until it comes in to force in April and then you can admit that you're wrong, so it's only seven weeks to wait.[/p][/quote].. indeed. And as for southy’s nonsense that 'Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax', he again shows his absolute ignorance. Council Tax applies to ALL dwellings (although some have a 100% exemption). Housing Benefit is a means tested welfare benefit applicable only to those in rented accommodation. There is absolutely no connection between the two - they are NOT 'tied' in any way. Which makes all of the other things he says irrelevant waffle. freefinker

5:43pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax.
Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms.
But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.
Perhaps you should contact The Guardian newspaper as they too have mistakenly written that the 'bedroom tax' will only apply to those living in social housing with empty bedrooms. Lets wait until it comes in to force in April and then you can admit that you're wrong, so it's only seven weeks to wait.
Where did I say it applied to social housing I did not, So stop trying to twist or put in words that I did not say. It will applied to both private and public. Its not even been rubber stamp by the Queen yet and can not come into force till it do.
The Guardian have not mistaken it by calling it a bedroom tax, apart from it was not a paper that called it a tax in the first place, Beleive it or not it was a Tory MP that called it a bedroom tax, Because thats what it really is
Try reading the article in The Guardian dated January 25th but I expect you'll tell me that it's been hacked by Margaret Thatcher. Just to give you a flavour of what you will find, try reading this :-

"It's targeted at what officialspeak terms "under-occupation": if you live in SOCIAL HOUSING and are deemed to be one bedroom over, your housing benefit will be docked by 14%; if it's two or more, 25%."

If someone wants to carry on living in an under-occupied council house instead of moving out so that a larger family can use it, they will have to pay for the privilege. You like to rant on about fairness and this is what it is.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: All so Free it don't matter how it is labeled its still a bedroom tax, how it will be applied will depend on end results when it gets rubber stamp by the Queen, The Government can not appiled it to any type of employment payment or disaiblity benefit that would be breaking the law of the UK and the EU, so that justs leaves Housing benefit which is tied to Council tax. Look at very closely who is going to be most effected by the bedroom tax, if applied to Housing Benefit, Unlikely people in A B C because they are more likely to be over crowed and have no empty rooms, D, E and F are most likely to be hit by it, where it might have 1 or 2 empty rooms and those in G and H will be laughing all the way, most unlikey to be claiming housing Benefit but could have 4 to a endles number of empty rooms. But if it tied to directly Council Tax then those in Band G and H would be hit the hardest, I know you can't see that happening that is a real long shot because they would be hitting the right people that should be hit, but thats not going to happen, this lot pays to much to the Tory party and many will be members to it.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you should contact The Guardian newspaper as they too have mistakenly written that the 'bedroom tax' will only apply to those living in social housing with empty bedrooms. Lets wait until it comes in to force in April and then you can admit that you're wrong, so it's only seven weeks to wait.[/p][/quote]Where did I say it applied to social housing I did not, So stop trying to twist or put in words that I did not say. It will applied to both private and public. Its not even been rubber stamp by the Queen yet and can not come into force till it do. The Guardian have not mistaken it by calling it a bedroom tax, apart from it was not a paper that called it a tax in the first place, Beleive it or not it was a Tory MP that called it a bedroom tax, Because thats what it really is[/p][/quote]Try reading the article in The Guardian dated January 25th but I expect you'll tell me that it's been hacked by Margaret Thatcher. Just to give you a flavour of what you will find, try reading this :- "It's targeted at what officialspeak terms "under-occupation": if you live in SOCIAL HOUSING and are deemed to be one bedroom over, your housing benefit will be docked by 14%; if it's two or more, 25%." If someone wants to carry on living in an under-occupied council house instead of moving out so that a larger family can use it, they will have to pay for the privilege. You like to rant on about fairness and this is what it is. Torchie1

6:27pm Tue 5 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

To be fair I think Southy is confusing the water meter with Gas and Electric where you are charged different amounts for the first part of the usage etc.

As for where this bedroom tax come from I can only assume he dreamt it up in the bedroom. He must have missed the changed which ARE coming into effect this April, Queen or no Queen signature.
To be fair I think Southy is confusing the water meter with Gas and Electric where you are charged different amounts for the first part of the usage etc. As for where this bedroom tax come from I can only assume he dreamt it up in the bedroom. He must have missed the changed which ARE coming into effect this April, Queen or no Queen signature. IronLady2010

7:20pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
To be fair I think Southy is confusing the water meter with Gas and Electric where you are charged different amounts for the first part of the usage etc.

As for where this bedroom tax come from I can only assume he dreamt it up in the bedroom. He must have missed the changed which ARE coming into effect this April, Queen or no Queen signature.
It's quite staggering how one person can find everything confusing and then blunder on regardless to make a comment about it.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: To be fair I think Southy is confusing the water meter with Gas and Electric where you are charged different amounts for the first part of the usage etc. As for where this bedroom tax come from I can only assume he dreamt it up in the bedroom. He must have missed the changed which ARE coming into effect this April, Queen or no Queen signature.[/p][/quote]It's quite staggering how one person can find everything confusing and then blunder on regardless to make a comment about it. Torchie1

8:23pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Water should be free, end of discussion.
Water should be free, end of discussion. Ginger_cyclist

8:25pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery. Ginger_cyclist

8:44pm Tue 5 Feb 13

andysaints007 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Idiot
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Idiot andysaints007

9:02pm Tue 5 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Turn off your water & tell the company you won't need water any more.
walk to either Test or Itchen rivers or go to Southampton Water take what you need to bathe/wash with take what you need to flush the loo with then take what you need to wash plates & clothes with then try drinking the water & see how long you live for?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Turn off your water & tell the company you won't need water any more. walk to either Test or Itchen rivers or go to Southampton Water take what you need to bathe/wash with take what you need to flush the loo with then take what you need to wash plates & clothes with then try drinking the water & see how long you live for? loosehead

9:35pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.[/p][/quote]Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day. Torchie1

9:38pm Tue 5 Feb 13

SaintM says...

i use to pay £22 a month now £44 a month , its increased through standard charge not usage. Meters put prices down so they have to raise other costs to regain their extortionate profit.
i use to pay £22 a month now £44 a month , its increased through standard charge not usage. Meters put prices down so they have to raise other costs to regain their extortionate profit. SaintM

10:01pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

loosehead wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Turn off your water & tell the company you won't need water any more.
walk to either Test or Itchen rivers or go to Southampton Water take what you need to bathe/wash with take what you need to flush the loo with then take what you need to wash plates & clothes with then try drinking the water & see how long you live for?
Considering it is a LEGAL RIGHT to have access to UNCONTAMINATED water, it should be free, especially since it is 1 of the basic human requirements but no, like others have pointed out, we're being charged to have a basic legal requirement met but, because it IS a basic legal requirement, water companies are legally obliged to supply you water, even if you can't or don't pay them, this is because of the human rights act and a specific part added to the human rights act in 2010 that says that even if it's not paid for, people MUST have CLEAN, UNCONTAMINATED drinking water, the same law also means that restaurants/pubs/clu
bs are legally obliged to provide tap water for free to ANYONE who asks for it, be they a homeless person or a paying costumer, so legally, even if you say you don't need water anymore but are still living at your current address, the water companies CANNOT cut off your water supply, even if you stop paying them.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Turn off your water & tell the company you won't need water any more. walk to either Test or Itchen rivers or go to Southampton Water take what you need to bathe/wash with take what you need to flush the loo with then take what you need to wash plates & clothes with then try drinking the water & see how long you live for?[/p][/quote]Considering it is a LEGAL RIGHT to have access to UNCONTAMINATED water, it should be free, especially since it is 1 of the basic human requirements but no, like others have pointed out, we're being charged to have a basic legal requirement met but, because it IS a basic legal requirement, water companies are legally obliged to supply you water, even if you can't or don't pay them, this is because of the human rights act and a specific part added to the human rights act in 2010 that says that even if it's not paid for, people MUST have CLEAN, UNCONTAMINATED drinking water, the same law also means that restaurants/pubs/clu bs are legally obliged to provide tap water for free to ANYONE who asks for it, be they a homeless person or a paying costumer, so legally, even if you say you don't need water anymore but are still living at your current address, the water companies CANNOT cut off your water supply, even if you stop paying them. Ginger_cyclist

10:09pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.[/p][/quote]Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price. Ginger_cyclist

10:10pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Turn off your water & tell the company you won't need water any more.
walk to either Test or Itchen rivers or go to Southampton Water take what you need to bathe/wash with take what you need to flush the loo with then take what you need to wash plates & clothes with then try drinking the water & see how long you live for?
Considering it is a LEGAL RIGHT to have access to UNCONTAMINATED water, it should be free, especially since it is 1 of the basic human requirements but no, like others have pointed out, we're being charged to have a basic legal requirement met but, because it IS a basic legal requirement, water companies are legally obliged to supply you water, even if you can't or don't pay them, this is because of the human rights act and a specific part added to the human rights act in 2010 that says that even if it's not paid for, people MUST have CLEAN, UNCONTAMINATED drinking water, the same law also means that restaurants/pubs/clu

bs are legally obliged to provide tap water for free to ANYONE who asks for it, be they a homeless person or a paying costumer, so legally, even if you say you don't need water anymore but are still living at your current address, the water companies CANNOT cut off your water supply, even if you stop paying them.
What an angry little man you seem to be!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Turn off your water & tell the company you won't need water any more. walk to either Test or Itchen rivers or go to Southampton Water take what you need to bathe/wash with take what you need to flush the loo with then take what you need to wash plates & clothes with then try drinking the water & see how long you live for?[/p][/quote]Considering it is a LEGAL RIGHT to have access to UNCONTAMINATED water, it should be free, especially since it is 1 of the basic human requirements but no, like others have pointed out, we're being charged to have a basic legal requirement met but, because it IS a basic legal requirement, water companies are legally obliged to supply you water, even if you can't or don't pay them, this is because of the human rights act and a specific part added to the human rights act in 2010 that says that even if it's not paid for, people MUST have CLEAN, UNCONTAMINATED drinking water, the same law also means that restaurants/pubs/clu bs are legally obliged to provide tap water for free to ANYONE who asks for it, be they a homeless person or a paying costumer, so legally, even if you say you don't need water anymore but are still living at your current address, the water companies CANNOT cut off your water supply, even if you stop paying them.[/p][/quote]What an angry little man you seem to be! Torchie1

10:20pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Turn off your water & tell the company you won't need water any more.
walk to either Test or Itchen rivers or go to Southampton Water take what you need to bathe/wash with take what you need to flush the loo with then take what you need to wash plates & clothes with then try drinking the water & see how long you live for?
Considering it is a LEGAL RIGHT to have access to UNCONTAMINATED water, it should be free, especially since it is 1 of the basic human requirements but no, like others have pointed out, we're being charged to have a basic legal requirement met but, because it IS a basic legal requirement, water companies are legally obliged to supply you water, even if you can't or don't pay them, this is because of the human rights act and a specific part added to the human rights act in 2010 that says that even if it's not paid for, people MUST have CLEAN, UNCONTAMINATED drinking water, the same law also means that restaurants/pubs/clu


bs are legally obliged to provide tap water for free to ANYONE who asks for it, be they a homeless person or a paying costumer, so legally, even if you say you don't need water anymore but are still living at your current address, the water companies CANNOT cut off your water supply, even if you stop paying them.
What an angry little man you seem to be!
Who wouldn't be angry about having to pay for something that isn't economic goods or a commodity?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Turn off your water & tell the company you won't need water any more. walk to either Test or Itchen rivers or go to Southampton Water take what you need to bathe/wash with take what you need to flush the loo with then take what you need to wash plates & clothes with then try drinking the water & see how long you live for?[/p][/quote]Considering it is a LEGAL RIGHT to have access to UNCONTAMINATED water, it should be free, especially since it is 1 of the basic human requirements but no, like others have pointed out, we're being charged to have a basic legal requirement met but, because it IS a basic legal requirement, water companies are legally obliged to supply you water, even if you can't or don't pay them, this is because of the human rights act and a specific part added to the human rights act in 2010 that says that even if it's not paid for, people MUST have CLEAN, UNCONTAMINATED drinking water, the same law also means that restaurants/pubs/clu bs are legally obliged to provide tap water for free to ANYONE who asks for it, be they a homeless person or a paying costumer, so legally, even if you say you don't need water anymore but are still living at your current address, the water companies CANNOT cut off your water supply, even if you stop paying them.[/p][/quote]What an angry little man you seem to be![/p][/quote]Who wouldn't be angry about having to pay for something that isn't economic goods or a commodity? Ginger_cyclist

10:35pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.
When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.[/p][/quote]Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.[/p][/quote]When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities. Torchie1

7:49am Wed 6 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.
When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.
Thank You I was trying to get that point over but I think you have done it much better than I did.
I wonder if we never treated the water & we had to go to the river how long would it be before we take a step back in time & drink ale as a safe alternative to water?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.[/p][/quote]Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.[/p][/quote]When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.[/p][/quote]Thank You I was trying to get that point over but I think you have done it much better than I did. I wonder if we never treated the water & we had to go to the river how long would it be before we take a step back in time & drink ale as a safe alternative to water? loosehead

9:01am Wed 6 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.
When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.
Thank You I was trying to get that point over but I think you have done it much better than I did.
I wonder if we never treated the water & we had to go to the river how long would it be before we take a step back in time & drink ale as a safe alternative to water?
Technically Southampton does drink river water mixed with water from other sources such as reservoirs and bore holes.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.[/p][/quote]Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.[/p][/quote]When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.[/p][/quote]Thank You I was trying to get that point over but I think you have done it much better than I did. I wonder if we never treated the water & we had to go to the river how long would it be before we take a step back in time & drink ale as a safe alternative to water?[/p][/quote]Technically Southampton does drink river water mixed with water from other sources such as reservoirs and bore holes. Ginger_cyclist

9:42am Wed 6 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.
When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.
Thank You I was trying to get that point over but I think you have done it much better than I did.
I wonder if we never treated the water & we had to go to the river how long would it be before we take a step back in time & drink ale as a safe alternative to water?
Technically Southampton does drink river water mixed with water from other sources such as reservoirs and bore holes.
But the water is treated so it's fit for human consumption so who's going to pay for that treatment if as you say it should be free?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.[/p][/quote]Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.[/p][/quote]When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.[/p][/quote]Thank You I was trying to get that point over but I think you have done it much better than I did. I wonder if we never treated the water & we had to go to the river how long would it be before we take a step back in time & drink ale as a safe alternative to water?[/p][/quote]Technically Southampton does drink river water mixed with water from other sources such as reservoirs and bore holes.[/p][/quote]But the water is treated so it's fit for human consumption so who's going to pay for that treatment if as you say it should be free? loosehead

9:59am Wed 6 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.
When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.
Even people on benefits contribute a little, they contribute each and every time they buy something in the shops through a little something called VAT, so I'm still technically a tax payer, even if I don't pay anything directly to the Council or government, why don't you quit your job and then try applying for another job, I can tell you it would be near on impossible, as for motorists, it's off topic but they don't have a legal right to drive on the road, it's a privilege, if it was a right then everyone would be able to drive, even if they were blind and wouldn't need a licence or anything.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.[/p][/quote]Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.[/p][/quote]When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.[/p][/quote]Even people on benefits contribute a little, they contribute each and every time they buy something in the shops through a little something called VAT, so I'm still technically a tax payer, even if I don't pay anything directly to the Council or government, why don't you quit your job and then try applying for another job, I can tell you it would be near on impossible, as for motorists, it's off topic but they don't have a legal right to drive on the road, it's a privilege, if it was a right then everyone would be able to drive, even if they were blind and wouldn't need a licence or anything. Ginger_cyclist

10:50am Wed 6 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

loosehead wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.
When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.
Thank You I was trying to get that point over but I think you have done it much better than I did.
I wonder if we never treated the water & we had to go to the river how long would it be before we take a step back in time & drink ale as a safe alternative to water?
Technically Southampton does drink river water mixed with water from other sources such as reservoirs and bore holes.
But the water is treated so it's fit for human consumption so who's going to pay for that treatment if as you say it should be free?
The share holders.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.[/p][/quote]Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.[/p][/quote]When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.[/p][/quote]Thank You I was trying to get that point over but I think you have done it much better than I did. I wonder if we never treated the water & we had to go to the river how long would it be before we take a step back in time & drink ale as a safe alternative to water?[/p][/quote]Technically Southampton does drink river water mixed with water from other sources such as reservoirs and bore holes.[/p][/quote]But the water is treated so it's fit for human consumption so who's going to pay for that treatment if as you say it should be free?[/p][/quote]The share holders. Ginger_cyclist

11:11am Wed 6 Feb 13

freefinker says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.
When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.
Thank You I was trying to get that point over but I think you have done it much better than I did.
I wonder if we never treated the water & we had to go to the river how long would it be before we take a step back in time & drink ale as a safe alternative to water?
Technically Southampton does drink river water mixed with water from other sources such as reservoirs and bore holes.
But the water is treated so it's fit for human consumption so who's going to pay for that treatment if as you say it should be free?
The share holders.
.. so, you think there would still be shareholders in a company that has zero income and millions in expenditure?

Indeed, such a company is insolvent, bankrupt, out of business.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.[/p][/quote]Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.[/p][/quote]When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.[/p][/quote]Thank You I was trying to get that point over but I think you have done it much better than I did. I wonder if we never treated the water & we had to go to the river how long would it be before we take a step back in time & drink ale as a safe alternative to water?[/p][/quote]Technically Southampton does drink river water mixed with water from other sources such as reservoirs and bore holes.[/p][/quote]But the water is treated so it's fit for human consumption so who's going to pay for that treatment if as you say it should be free?[/p][/quote]The share holders.[/p][/quote].. so, you think there would still be shareholders in a company that has zero income and millions in expenditure? Indeed, such a company is insolvent, bankrupt, out of business. freefinker

11:33am Wed 6 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.
When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.
Even people on benefits contribute a little, they contribute each and every time they buy something in the shops through a little something called VAT, so I'm still technically a tax payer, even if I don't pay anything directly to the Council or government, why don't you quit your job and then try applying for another job, I can tell you it would be near on impossible, as for motorists, it's off topic but they don't have a legal right to drive on the road, it's a privilege, if it was a right then everyone would be able to drive, even if they were blind and wouldn't need a licence or anything.
So sorry for you! why it must be so hard for you to spend tax payers money!
Lidlls are building a new distribution Warehouse.
Costco are opening in Regents Park Rd why not apply for a job there?
Farmers are crying out for workers why not get a farm job?
not your type of work?
To hard to do?
people on welfare contribute nothing as the money they spend isn't earned by them but by some poor guy or gal who work maybe in a job they hate but they work
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.[/p][/quote]Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.[/p][/quote]When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.[/p][/quote]Even people on benefits contribute a little, they contribute each and every time they buy something in the shops through a little something called VAT, so I'm still technically a tax payer, even if I don't pay anything directly to the Council or government, why don't you quit your job and then try applying for another job, I can tell you it would be near on impossible, as for motorists, it's off topic but they don't have a legal right to drive on the road, it's a privilege, if it was a right then everyone would be able to drive, even if they were blind and wouldn't need a licence or anything.[/p][/quote]So sorry for you! why it must be so hard for you to spend tax payers money! Lidlls are building a new distribution Warehouse. Costco are opening in Regents Park Rd why not apply for a job there? Farmers are crying out for workers why not get a farm job? not your type of work? To hard to do? people on welfare contribute nothing as the money they spend isn't earned by them but by some poor guy or gal who work maybe in a job they hate but they work loosehead

1:25pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

loosehead wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Water should be free, end of discussion.
Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.
Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.
When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.
Even people on benefits contribute a little, they contribute each and every time they buy something in the shops through a little something called VAT, so I'm still technically a tax payer, even if I don't pay anything directly to the Council or government, why don't you quit your job and then try applying for another job, I can tell you it would be near on impossible, as for motorists, it's off topic but they don't have a legal right to drive on the road, it's a privilege, if it was a right then everyone would be able to drive, even if they were blind and wouldn't need a licence or anything.
So sorry for you! why it must be so hard for you to spend tax payers money!
Lidlls are building a new distribution Warehouse.
Costco are opening in Regents Park Rd why not apply for a job there?
Farmers are crying out for workers why not get a farm job?
not your type of work?
To hard to do?
people on welfare contribute nothing as the money they spend isn't earned by them but by some poor guy or gal who work maybe in a job they hate but they work
You know, not all "tax payers" even pay their own taxes, hell, even when I did have a job, I didn't have to pay tax.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Water should be free, end of discussion.[/p][/quote]Oh and it should be free from pollutants such as hydrofluoric acid obtained from the chemical scrubbers in the chimneys of Fawley oil and chemical refinery.[/p][/quote]Your ramblings sound more like Southys every day.[/p][/quote]Why shouldn't we be allowed to get 1 more of our BASIC HUMAN NEEDS for FREE? I mean, we already get free healthcare and free education, why not free water supplies? Oh, that's right, so capitalist pigs like southern water can be rich, water is essential to life, it should be treated as such by us not having to pay for it just to survive, also, companies who bottle "spring water", don't actually bottle spring water, it's common ground water with a flashy bottle and label with an extortionate price.[/p][/quote]When you grow up you'll realise that healthcare and education aren't 'free' as the cost is underwritten by taxpayers who also provide your weekly benefits. At some point in your life you will be paying for this if you ever get a job and then you'll be able to take pleasure from contributing to society instead of just taking from it. Until then you'll just have to get upset at all of the motorists who try to kill you while you're trundling around on your push bike while being powered by fuel made on an oil refinery that was built with the specific intent of poisoning you. Perhaps you could begin a campaign to convince the water companies that they should absorb the countless millions that they lay out on infrastructure so that they can give you your free water. You could even offer to work for them for free to help towards this as they won't be able to pay their employees with no more income from their product. Unfortunately life isn't a continuous free ride and with your long list of 'rights' comes a similar list of responsibilities.[/p][/quote]Even people on benefits contribute a little, they contribute each and every time they buy something in the shops through a little something called VAT, so I'm still technically a tax payer, even if I don't pay anything directly to the Council or government, why don't you quit your job and then try applying for another job, I can tell you it would be near on impossible, as for motorists, it's off topic but they don't have a legal right to drive on the road, it's a privilege, if it was a right then everyone would be able to drive, even if they were blind and wouldn't need a licence or anything.[/p][/quote]So sorry for you! why it must be so hard for you to spend tax payers money! Lidlls are building a new distribution Warehouse. Costco are opening in Regents Park Rd why not apply for a job there? Farmers are crying out for workers why not get a farm job? not your type of work? To hard to do? people on welfare contribute nothing as the money they spend isn't earned by them but by some poor guy or gal who work maybe in a job they hate but they work[/p][/quote]You know, not all "tax payers" even pay their own taxes, hell, even when I did have a job, I didn't have to pay tax. Ginger_cyclist

7:36pm Wed 6 Feb 13

loosehead says...

Does anyone use Talk Talk? could anyone tell me what type of service provider they are?
good? Bad?
my contract with Virgin is about to come to an end & I've had a nightmare with them so I'm looking at other service providers Any Thought's anyone?
Does anyone use Talk Talk? could anyone tell me what type of service provider they are? good? Bad? my contract with Virgin is about to come to an end & I've had a nightmare with them so I'm looking at other service providers Any Thought's anyone? loosehead

10:14am Thu 7 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

Don't go near Loosehead, they are a nightmare!

They had more complaints than any other Company. Towards the end of your contract with Talktalk their biggest scam is they'll phone you for a courtesy call and without you knowing will renew your contract.

Try BT they have an offer on I think for 6 months free?
Don't go near Loosehead, they are a nightmare! They had more complaints than any other Company. Towards the end of your contract with Talktalk their biggest scam is they'll phone you for a courtesy call and without you knowing will renew your contract. Try BT they have an offer on I think for 6 months free? IronLady2010

10:15am Thu 7 Feb 13

IronLady2010 says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Don't go near Loosehead, they are a nightmare!

They had more complaints than any other Company. Towards the end of your contract with Talktalk their biggest scam is they'll phone you for a courtesy call and without you knowing will renew your contract.

Try BT they have an offer on I think for 6 months free?
Try USwitch Loosehead http://www.uswitch.c
om/broadband/compare
/broadband_and_home_
phone/
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Don't go near Loosehead, they are a nightmare! They had more complaints than any other Company. Towards the end of your contract with Talktalk their biggest scam is they'll phone you for a courtesy call and without you knowing will renew your contract. Try BT they have an offer on I think for 6 months free?[/p][/quote]Try USwitch Loosehead http://www.uswitch.c om/broadband/compare /broadband_and_home_ phone/ IronLady2010

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree