Red696 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 3 hours ago, Bigbob said: Cant believe they get away with polluting the rivers and the sea . why not? Farming and other industries do 8 hours ago, ditchman said: poisoning our land.....raping our ground water in the name of profit........................these people should be imprisoned...end of many many others have been poisoning our land at the same time.. Ignoring the profit side of things as I totally agree with you on that score.. genuinely interested on what alternatives to ground water you believe we have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 35 minutes ago, Red696 said: . Who of us does things we dont want too, when we know nobody will ever be able to make us? those few lines are cause of almost every scandal we see that’s why the gov make sure you have no more power than complain on here or cast a pathetic vote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red696 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 1 minute ago, clangerman said: those few lines are cause of almost every scandal we see that’s why the gov make sure you have no more power than complain on here or cast a pathetic vote! We have power, it is either the desire to use it or the fear of the consequences that stops us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 4 minutes ago, Red696 said: why not? Farming and other industries do many many others have been poisoning our land at the same time.. Ignoring the profit side of things as I totally agree with you on that score.. genuinely interested on what alternatives to ground water you believe we have? part of the problem lays with the sacking/redundancies of all the water balliffs...who used to manage the locks and the flood plains and keep the rivers clear...the water was held back twice a year to control the water surges and to recharge the aquifers...which fed the rivers and streams and springs.................. all that has gone now...and with the refusal to build more reservoirs cause they cost alot of money.....the water companies just drill in to the aqifers and suck it out... the water companies know this is damaging the environment...but its cheaper that way.....it is also the reason it is nealy impossible for farmers to get a liecence for a bore hole.........its all down to MONEY..............i could go on and on but i wont cause it upsetsme greatly they get away with it cause young people dont know the history behind the ******* catastrope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 6 minutes ago, ditchman said: part of the problem lays with the sacking/redundancies of all the water balliffs...who used to manage the locks and the flood plains and keep the rivers clear...the water was held back twice a year to control the water surges and to recharge the aquifers...which fed the rivers and streams and springs.................. all that has gone now...and with the refusal to build more reservoirs cause they cost alot of money.....the water companies just drill in to the aqifers and suck it out... the water companies know this is damaging the environment...but its cheaper that way.....it is also the reason it is nealy impossible for farmers to get a liecence for a bore hole.........its all down to MONEY..............i could go on and on but i wont cause it upsetsme greatly they get away with it cause young people dont know the history behind the ******* catastrope Is that stuff mostly with the EA? Unfortunately all that stuff has been chopped in the name of costs savings. I am close to Cheddar reservoir. When the water bans started last year I wrote to the water authority telling them they had no right to bring in a ban (they did not) as they had a reservoir extension in the plan for the last 20 years and have not built it. I was invited to join a residents panel to work on the plan. 🤣 The problem with the one hear none of the locals want it even though they all cherish the reservoirs as part of the 'natural' landscape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clangerman Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 18 minutes ago, Red696 said: We have power, it is either the desire to use it or the fear of the consequences that stops us. true but most seemed resigned to their fate now doubt if they are even capable of rebelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red696 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 2 minutes ago, ditchman said: part of the problem lays with the sacking/redundancies of all the water balliffs...who used to manage the locks and the flood plains and keep the rivers clear...the water was held back twice a year to control the water surges and to recharge the aquifers...which fed the rivers and streams and springs.................. all that has gone now...and with the refusal to build more reservoirs cause they cost alot of money.....the water companies just drill in to the aqifers and suck it out... the water companies know this is damaging the environment...but its cheaper that way.....it is also the reason it is nealy impossible for farmers to get a liecence for a bore hole.........its all down to MONEY..............i could go on and on but i wont cause it upsetsme greatly they get away with it cause young people dont know the history behind the ******* catastrope The water bailiff issue is a unique problem to your locality so wouldn’t dream of commenting due to my lack of knowledge on the issue.. Reservoirs, the lack of, is certainly an issue but it is not limited to the cost of them. For the sake of this discussion lets say money is not a limiting factor, so we are left with: Where do we put this impounding reservoir? How do we elminate / reduce the environmental impact of it when we do find somewhere to put it? Central funding ( we all pay, why should we? ), or regional funding ( only those that benefit pay )? Remember it is not just the building cost, it’s the cost of the land needed to create the reservoir, along with the compensation for the displaced people / communities / businesses. Is there adequate water treatment infrastructure? Borehole water requires much less treatment as a rule. Would you be happy to lose your home, or a family members home, to allow this to be built? Should it be built outside of the region if that is the best location? Would that be fair? These questions are just a small sample of the things to be considered, and the main reason why no ody has built one in such a long time… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red696 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 32 minutes ago, oowee said: The problem with the one hear none of the locals want it even though they all cherish the reservoirs as part of the 'natural' landscape. Surely that should read ‘all the locals want it, just not near their own backyard’ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 1 hour ago, Red696 said: The water bailiff issue is a unique problem to your locality so wouldn’t dream of commenting due to my lack of knowledge on the issue.. Reservoirs, the lack of, is certainly an issue but it is not limited to the cost of them. For the sake of this discussion lets say money is not a limiting factor, so we are left with: Where do we put this impounding reservoir? How do we elminate / reduce the environmental impact of it when we do find somewhere to put it? Central funding ( we all pay, why should we? ), or regional funding ( only those that benefit pay )? Remember it is not just the building cost, it’s the cost of the land needed to create the reservoir, along with the compensation for the displaced people / communities / businesses. Is there adequate water treatment infrastructure? Borehole water requires much less treatment as a rule. Would you be happy to lose your home, or a family members home, to allow this to be built? Should it be built outside of the region if that is the best location? Would that be fair? These questions are just a small sample of the things to be considered, and the main reason why no ody has built one in such a long time… they dont seem to have problems siteing HS2 and bloody motorways ..... i could go on but i will only get worked up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red696 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 42 minutes ago, ditchman said: they dont seem to have problems siteing HS2 and bloody motorways ..... True, but they class that as National infrastructure and a Public asset.. A reservoir is Regional infrastructure, and a Private asset belonging to the Water Company. It would be like Tesco deciding to put a Petrol forecourt on your front lawn whilst ignoring your protestation. Water should never have been privatised, but criticisng the Tories on this Forum is like signing your own death warrant…. Re-Nationalising it would be a mistake in my opinion, it should remain regionalised but put into Public ownership and all profit retained within the region that generates it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 4 minutes ago, Red696 said: True, but they class that as National infrastructure and a Public asset.. A reservoir is Regional infrastructure, and a Private asset belonging to the Water Company. It would be like Tesco deciding to put a Petrol forecourt on your front lawn whilst ignoring your protestation. Water should never have been privatised, but criticisng the Tories on this Forum is like signing your own death warrant…. Re-Nationalising it would be a mistake in my opinion, it should remain regionalised but put into Public ownership and all profit retained within the region that generates it. im not critisising the tories.........water belongs to the people...it is our right...we need it to live...........it should be classed as a national/peoples asset...we all agree that a charge needs to be made to us........only for the development and maintenance of our water asset....................NOT FOR RICH GREEDY SCUMBAGS TO GET RICHER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red696 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 12 minutes ago, ditchman said: im not critisising the tories.........water belongs to the people...it is our right...we need it to live...........it should be classed as a national/peoples asset...we all agree that a charge needs to be made to us........only for the development and maintenance of our water asset....................NOT FOR RICH GREEDY SCUMBAGS TO GET RICHER That’d get my vote, although prefer regional as we’ve loads of the bloody stuff here in the North West. Plus I work for them 😂 I’m happy to critcise the Tories on this and much more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted March 29 Report Share Posted March 29 11 hours ago, Newbie to this said: Don't worry the good old tax payer will come to the rescue. The best advice I've seen, is let them go bankrupt, and then take it back into public ownership. But I'll bet that our politicians do the complete opposite. If they take it into public ownership, then the Government will have to invest in the infrastructure, which they simply don’t have the money to do. Prisons are failing, Police, Fire, NHS are all short staffed compared to demand. They don’t have the money or the skills and ability to run Thames Water. Instead of loaning the billions needed and messing it all up, they instead allow a private company to come in and attempt it. That private company’s first priority is to make a reasonable return on their investment. Once they take out their dividends. What’s left over gets spent on the services. It’s no different in many many industries. Good luck finding anyone to input the money needed to build the infrastructure needed without wanting to take those dividends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red696 Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 9 hours ago, Lloyd90 said: If they take it into public ownership, then the Government will have to invest in the infrastructure, which they simply don’t have the money to do. Prisons are failing, Police, Fire, NHS are all short staffed compared to demand. They don’t have the money or the skills and ability to run Thames Water. Instead of loaning the billions needed and messing it all up, they instead allow a private company to come in and attempt it. That private company’s first priority is to make a reasonable return on their investment. Once they take out their dividends. What’s left over gets spent on the services. It’s no different in many many industries. Good luck finding anyone to input the money needed to build the infrastructure needed without wanting to take those dividends. To improve things we need to forget the past mistakes from: Governments of each party, Ofwat, EA, Executives at the water companies. The price paid could not provide return to the investors and improve infrastructure at the same time. They all knew this but also knew it would be someone elses problem further down the line, well we at the end of that line.. It could work without being private, but it would require us as customers to pay the rates required. At present private equity gives funds in advance and takes a dividend from the operating profits, that same model would work for government investment. They borrow the money and pay it back from the dividends rather than taxes, it just needs the regulator to change it’s current practices. Change the current AMP timescales from 5 years to 10 years giving the businesses a longer term planning process, increase the price to the required level for sustaining the infrastructure and then link it to inflation. Give the EA the sqme level of power that the DWI have, fund both the EA and DWI to allow full staffing and we then have effective regulation. IT CAN BE DONE BUT IT NEEDS PAYING FOR, easier to sell the price increases when you show that the profits are going to this Country instead of foreign investors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 (edited) 10 hours ago, Lloyd90 said: If they take it into public ownership, then the Government will have to invest in the infrastructure, which they simply don’t have the money to do. Prisons are failing, Police, Fire, NHS are all short staffed compared to demand. They don’t have the money or the skills and ability to run Thames Water. Instead of loaning the billions needed and messing it all up, they instead allow a private company to come in and attempt it. That private company’s first priority is to make a reasonable return on their investment. Once they take out their dividends. What’s left over gets spent on the services. It’s no different in many many industries. Good luck finding anyone to input the money needed to build the infrastructure needed without wanting to take those dividends. 17 hours ago, Newbie to this said: Surely they have a contact. Like I said, either way the Tax payer is going to foot the bill. Best advice I have seen so far is, let them go bankrupt. Same should have happened in 2008. Edited March 30 by Newbie to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red696 Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 @Newbie to this But what would bankrupcy achieve? Apart from richer legal & financial teams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Red696 said: @Newbie to this But what would bankrupcy achieve? Apart from richer legal & financial teams The tax payer not funding a private company. Either another buyer can come in, buys the company at a much reduced price and put the money in required by their contract. Or it comes back into public ownership, without the Tax payer, paying Thames water for their failures. Edited March 30 by Newbie to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 21 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: Like I said, either way the Tax payer is going to foot the bill. Best advice I have seen so far is, let them go bankrupt. Same should have happened in 2008. I would imagine if Sunak does bail them out it’ll be the final nail in the Tory coffin. A PR dream for Labour, if Starmer doesn’t capitalise on it then he’s a bigger idiot that people claim. “UK tax payer subsidised private companies while at working families can’t pay their bills or feed their kids”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 4 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: I would imagine if Sunak does bail them out it’ll be the final nail in the Tory coffin. A PR dream for Labour, if Starmer doesn’t capitalise on it then he’s a bigger idiot that people claim. “UK tax payer subsidised private companies while at working families can’t pay their bills or feed their kids”. Just the unbalanced way it is? The politicos have to look after their sponsors first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 7 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: I would imagine if Sunak does bail them out it’ll be the final nail in the Tory coffin. A PR dream for Labour, if Starmer doesn’t capitalise on it then he’s a bigger idiot that people claim. “UK tax payer subsidised private companies while at working families can’t pay their bills or feed their kids”. I agree, but it's way too late for that nail. Labour/Starmer would be showing their hypocrisy, after Labour bailed out the banks with Tax payer's money. Either way 5 minutes ago, old man said: Just the unbalanced way it is? The politicos have to look after their sponsors first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 1 hour ago, Red696 said: IT CAN BE DONE BUT IT NEEDS PAYING FOR, easier to sell the price increases when you show that the profits are going to this Country instead of foreign investors. And pesky pensioners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 30 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: I would imagine if Sunak does bail them out it’ll be the final nail in the Tory coffin. A PR dream for Labour, if Starmer doesn’t capitalise on it then he’s a bigger idiot that people claim. “UK tax payer subsidised private companies while at working families can’t pay their bills or feed their kids”. TBH, what incentive is there for any persuasion to give a rats rear? The same 5 star lifestyle is available whether in or out of power, all by their design enabling the continuation of living the dream? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 Thames water is in debt tothe tune of £14.7 billion........when you see who owns it ..it will make you cry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 2 hours ago, oowee said: And pesky pensioners. Says the man with a large, index linked, Tax payer funded pension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red696 Posted March 30 Report Share Posted March 30 4 hours ago, oowee said: And pesky pensioners. who’s pension funds are all propped up by pesky foreign investors.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.