Limiting the water supply??

[purposefulinsanity]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/06062006/325/cut-non-payers-water-trickle-lords-say.html

I just saw this as I was logging off and would like to hear your views on it- I'll post mine later when my brain is working properly

[purposefulinsanity]

Firstly how do they possible decide what level of water supply would be 'enough for basic health and safety needs'?  As long as you can spend 30 minutes filling up a sink so you can have a wash down with a cloth you'll be ok?? It doesn't matter if you can't run your washing machine because if you can't afford to pay your water bill you don't deserve clean clothes anyway.

What about those people who live in areas where their water usually only comes out as a trickle anyway, are they going to get money knocked off their bill?

I know this isn't a major, 'oh my god how could they consider doing that?' issue- but having been in the situation where you have to decide whether to pay the electric or the water bill in the past, where the only help that was offered to us by the water company was 'we could arrange to take it straight out of your benefit if you want?'  I find the fact they're even considering this quite worrying.
I realise that there probably are a lot of people who don't pay when they can afford to, but I am sure they will make mistakes and assume that is the case for some people who genuinely can't pay.

[duncvis]

Given the vast profits the privatised utility companies make, I have no sympathy with their position at all. The fuckers should perhaps be putting some of their ill gotten gains to use plugging leaks, considering that the executives of these megacorporations like Kelda plc are being paid ridiculous and obscene amounts of money I figure they can afford to be a little less cuntish with the folk who can't afford to pay for such a basic service.

[RobertN]

Well for starters the whole lot should be re-nationalised. Making money out of a basic human need such as water is wrong especially as Dunc says, when the guys running the companies get such huge salaries. I do agree with environmental concerns that people need to use water less carelessly (as we have a shortage), but it is the well-off to blame for that since they use huge amounts to water their gardens.

When I first read the article it said: "Well off people refusing to pay because companies afraid to sue them". I thought it was a good idea to trickle-drip rich households until they paid because if they can pay, then there is no excuse for not paying.

But then I read a different article, saying the Bill was aimed at poor households. Then I changed my mind about the whole thing. Whilst I think wealthy people taking advantage of this current law (which was passed in 1999 to protect poor households) should be punished severely, it is impossible to tell who cannot pay and who will not pay. Therefore the whole idea is impractical and should be dropped.



 

[purposefulinsanity]

I do agree with environmental concerns that people need to use water less carelessly (as we have a shortage), but it is the well-off to blame for that since they use huge amounts to water their gardens.
 

 I thought it was kinda clever of them the way they tried to make the two unrelated issues look like they were.  Mentioning environmental impact is a sure fire way of making people overlook the fact that disadvantaged people might be going to get screwed over by big business again.

I agree that something needs to be done about the amount of water people waste, but by clumping the two together like that people are generally going to overlook what seems to be the 'smaller' issue.

[McGiver]

Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor, tonight.

[purposefulinsanity]

Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor, tonight.

Indeed.

[McGiver]

i am sure its just paranoia.

but i have sen a sytematic raping of the middle class.  why should the poor be the only ones to take it in the ass?  the paranoia is felt about my own kind.  still people do nothing about it.
its systematic and its a raping, because of by force and in the ass.

[purposefulinsanity]

Everyone is getting shafted to some degree I reckon- but few do anything about it unless it affects them directly, but all that means is that when something does affect them directly they'll struggle to find anyone to help them do anything about it.

[McGiver]

but everybody is eaffected.

its just that the ruling class has learned to spread it very thin.
if you would take all the ass fuckings that a person gets and turn them into one real ass fucking.  it would be like Bubba, from the penetentary was giving you his enormous black cock.
but people don't realize whats happening.  maybe i am just paranoid

[purposefulinsanity]

but everybody is eaffected.

its just that the ruling class has learned to spread it very thin.
if you would take all the ass fuckings that a person gets and turn them into one real ass fucking.  it would be like Bubba, from the penetentary was giving you his enormous black cock.
but people don't realize whats happening.  maybe i am just paranoid

Thats what I said- but everyone is affected in different ways and about different issues- and unless someone knows they are directly affected by an issue they aren't going to do jack shit about it.

I don't think you're overly paranoid- the media has a lot to blame for people being so blind to what is happening all around them- they swallow up the 'pretty lies' and ask for seconds. They believe that just because something was on the news it must be completely true.  People are paid with public money to 'spin' stories so that the public get out of the story what those in power want them to.  Take that water article for instance- do you really think its a coincidence that the House of Lords committee lumped both issues in together??  No- they add in the environmental concerns because they know that 'the environment' is a buzz word- one that makes people take notice, far more than people struggling to pay their bills.  Yeah at the moment its only in the idea stages- but they've already made sure that the public will link the issue with water shortages when they bring it up again in the future.

They go further than that too:  "Research by regional utility South East Water had found that around two-thirds of customers owing it money could afford their bills. By not paying they were adding 10 pounds to every other customer's bill"

They bring in the idea that the majority could pay their bills if they wanted to- nevermind the fact that the 'research' was carried out by the people they owed money to-who will of course have their own ideas about what they consider essential and luxury costs ('Their kids don't really need new shoes').  Then they add in the 'these people who could afford to pay are making you pay instead' line, so of course people lose any sympathy or understanding they may have add for those struggling to juggle all the bills they have to pay.


Right, I've said enough now- I probably seem more than a little paranoid myself now 

[CuriousPrimate]

Firstly how do they possible decide what level of water supply would be 'enough for basic health and safety needs'?

The South African government decided that the basic requirement was 6000 litres per household per month. Over that you have to pay. Of course, there are tens of thousands of people here with no access to running water, just cholera infested rivers, but that's a different struggle.

[Scrapheap]

bump!