On 2006-11-24 22:31:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message . com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-23 12:05:29 +0000, David Hansen
said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:58:01 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

Unless you plan to set up the 'Alternative Bin Emptying Company'.
A few people have talked about this in various places, to replace
the "missing" council collections.
I haven't heard of these enterprises taking off. Given the amount of
(local) mass media coverage they got when they were talked about I
would expect to have heard if they were a success. I suspect that
those who talked loudly discovered that they are not as
representative of the public's view as they thought they were.

It would simply take removal of the council monopoly to address that issue.

Do the council have a monopoly ?

Lets give you another example then, should make it easier to see. Lets
say you were forced to pay for breakfast at a certain eatery on the way
to work, you had to pay whether you used the service or not, and once
you'd paid you cold eat as much and often as you wanted, or not at all.
But you paid the same. Now, having paid, you're likely to eat there.
This is a monopoly in practice. Sure someone else could sell you food,
but since you've already been forced to pay for this place, its
monopolistic. This is how council garbage collection works.

Agreed. But while its an anti competitive practice, it's not strictly
a monopoly I guess.

In effect it is because the customer is, in effect, in a situation
where has to take what is non-optionally provided or has to pay twice.
To all intents and purposes, and for most people, it is a monopoly.

The same is true of education and of healthcare. The difference
with those is that people view those rather more seriously and are
willing to pay twice to get a proper service.

On 2006-11-24 22:32:26 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Do the council have a monopoly ? I'm aware that The Waste (Household
Waste Duty of Care) (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 - came into
force 21/11/2005, amending the Environmental Protection Act
"(2A) It shall be the duty of the occupier of any domestic
property in England to take all such measures available to
him as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that
any transfer by him of household waste produced on the
property is only to an authorised person or to a person for
authorised transport purposes."
I don't know if the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, or
the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 would be consistent
with you assertion of monopoly ?


So if that's the case, how does one apply to the local authority to opt
out of their waste collection arrangement?

You don't use their bins, and you don't put them out to be collected.

What is the method by which I deduct the amount going towards that from
my council tax?

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-24 22:31:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message . com,
writes
John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-23 12:05:29 +0000, David Hansen
said:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:58:01 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

Unless you plan to set up the 'Alternative Bin Emptying
Company'.
A few people have talked about this in various places, to replace
the "missing" council collections.
I haven't heard of these enterprises taking off. Given the amount of
(local) mass media coverage they got when they were talked about I
would expect to have heard if they were a success. I suspect that
those who talked loudly discovered that they are not as
representative of the public's view as they thought they were.

It would simply take removal of the council monopoly to address
that issue.
Do the council have a monopoly ?
Lets give you another example then, should make it easier to see.
Lets
say you were forced to pay for breakfast at a certain eatery on the way
to work, you had to pay whether you used the service or not, and once
you'd paid you cold eat as much and often as you wanted, or not at all.
But you paid the same. Now, having paid, you're likely to eat there.
This is a monopoly in practice. Sure someone else could sell you food,
but since you've already been forced to pay for this place, its
monopolistic. This is how council garbage collection works.
Agreed. But while its an anti competitive practice, it's not
strictly a monopoly I guess.

In effect it is because the customer is, in effect, in a situation
where has to take what is non-optionally provided or has to pay twice.
To all intents and purposes, and for most people, it is a monopoly.

OK - so the situation is analogous to private education.

You can send your children to private school, but if you do, you don't
get a tax rebate.

You can have no children at all, and still get no tax rebate.

There is plenty of history of this kind of thing, but people don't
generally think of state education as a monopoly.


The same is true of education and of healthcare. The difference
with those is that people view those rather more seriously and are
willing to pay twice to get a proper service.

Quite so - demonstrating that it's not a monopoly.


Cheers J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-24 22:32:26 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Do the council have a monopoly ? I'm aware that The Waste
(Household Waste Duty of Care) (England and Wales) Regulations
2005 - came into force 21/11/2005, amending the Environmental
Protection Act
"(2A) It shall be the duty of the occupier of any domestic
property in England to take all such measures available to
him as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that
any transfer by him of household waste produced on the
property is only to an authorised person or to a person for
authorised transport purposes."
I don't know if the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005,
or the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 would be
consistent with you assertion of monopoly ?
So if that's the case, how does one apply to the local authority
to opt out of their waste collection arrangement?
You don't use their bins, and you don't put them out to be
collected.

What is the method by which I deduct the amount going towards that from
my council tax?

You can't, but you can opt out of collections trivially.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On 2006-11-25 00:51:47 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-24 22:31:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message . com,
writes

Lets give you another example then, should make it easier to see. Lets
say you were forced to pay for breakfast at a certain eatery on the way
to work, you had to pay whether you used the service or not, and once
you'd paid you cold eat as much and often as you wanted, or not at all.
But you paid the same. Now, having paid, you're likely to eat there.
This is a monopoly in practice. Sure someone else could sell you food,
but since you've already been forced to pay for this place, its
monopolistic. This is how council garbage collection works.
Agreed. But while its an anti competitive practice, it's not strictly
a monopoly I guess.

In effect it is because the customer is, in effect, in a situation
where has to take what is non-optionally provided or has to pay twice.
To all intents and purposes, and for most people, it is a monopoly.

OK - so the situation is analogous to private education.

You can send your children to private school, but if you do, you don't
get a tax rebate.

You should.


You can have no children at all, and still get no tax rebate.

Again, you should.


There is plenty of history of this kind of thing, but people don't
generally think of state education as a monopoly.

In practical terms, to those who could otherwise afford private
education if they didn't have to pay that proportion of council tax, it
is.




The same is true of education and of healthcare. The difference
with those is that people view those rather more seriously and are
willing to pay twice to get a proper service.

Quite so - demonstrating that it's not a monopoly.

The local authority collects money from every household. Part of this
goes towards refuse collection.

- It does not offer a choice of level of service.

- It does not offer a choice of refuse collection company

- It does not allow its customers a part in the selection of the single
chosen company

- It does not provide a discount on council tax if the customer wants
to shop elsewhere.


It's a monopoly in terms of profile and effect, and a poorly run one at that.

On 2006-11-25 00:52:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-24 22:32:26 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Do the council have a monopoly ? I'm aware that The Waste (Household
Waste Duty of Care) (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 - came into
force 21/11/2005, amending the Environmental Protection Act
"(2A) It shall be the duty of the occupier of any domestic
property in England to take all such measures available to
him as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that
any transfer by him of household waste produced on the
property is only to an authorised person or to a person for
authorised transport purposes."
I don't know if the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, or
the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 would be consistent
with you assertion of monopoly ?
So if that's the case, how does one apply to the local authority to
opt out of their waste collection arrangement?
You don't use their bins, and you don't put them out to be collected.

What is the method by which I deduct the amount going towards that from
my council tax?

You can't, but you can opt out of collections trivially.


Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the service,
but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)?

Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or its
representative is the only "authorised person" If so, it's a monopoly.

Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and to
offer the customer a choice. Again a monopoly.

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-24 22:01:13 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes

The trouble is that only partial views are taken and the true
economic and environmental impacts not taken into account.
Actually, local authorities do quite a bit of life cycle analysis to
try and get this stuff right.
While they don't / can't because it's hard to get the data and
interpret the results, they may be better informed than you think.

One would hope so too, considering the number of people I am paying
them to employ to do so.

However, the outcome, which is what I am interested in, is weak indeed.

In some respects. Not sure that's all down to LAs though.


This is always assuming that items genuinely are recycled as
claimed and not just thrown in with the rest of the landfill. I
still see instances of refuse collectors throwing what naive people
have separated into their recycling bins in the back of the truck
with the rest of the rubbish.
Or even landfilling green waste because they don't have the facility
to process it. Bu bad examples don't mean that there is never a
benefit, or that it's not beneficial in the general case.

They should begin with things where there is a demonstrable and clear
cut case for an economic saving and the means exists to do it.

Well - you might think that. As an environmentalist I think there is
more to this than picking a bit of low hanging fruit...


When I am convinced of that, I will stop putting everything into
the standard bins and liners.

Well - you can do what you like, though I suspect that LA recycling is
very much driven by the processing of those materials for which they can
find markets.


Nobody has asked for a reduction in service, but the service they
are required to give is no longer the same.
That's pure marketing nonsense.
Well no - it's umpteen changes in the law.

I am quite sure that there is nothing in the law that requires them to
reduce collection frequencies.

If there is a requirement to collect a greater range of stuff without
doubling up road miles and staff, it may amount to that.


I am almost as sure that there is nothing that requires the
householder as opposed to the collection outfit sorting out what needs
to be recycled and what doesn't.

Indeed, but most people recognise that separation at source is easier
than separation after mixing and covering in slime.


I don't have the time, motivation or interest to sort through a whole
pile of different types of assorted plastic crap to determine what is
what and what should go where.

Yet you have the time, motivation or interest to consume the contents.
It seems unfortunate that expect to gain the benefit of modern
materials, but are utterly reluctant do deal with the consequences of
their use.


These people are paid a great deal of money.

By whose standards ?


Moreover, they know, or should know what facilities they have for
dealing with different types of material.

The LA may have very few facilities - they sub out the process usually,
remember ?

I'm not sure that the subcontractors are paid enough to hand sort or
invest in the necessary machinery, especially if contracts only last 5
years or so.


Quite reasonably I want and expect them to deal with it.

What you regard as reasonable is up to you, but I don't hear the sound
of you scurrying off to tender for this sort of processing, well paid
though you maintain it to be !


Convince people that they no longer need something that you don't
want to provide or to achieve some PC positioning. You may be
impressed with that - I'm not. It should be exposed for what it is.
As I see it, UK local authorities were happily filling up old holes
in the ground with all our crap, when along came the EU, who in a bold
attempt to solve a problem we didn't have, (but the likes of Greece did
!), and imposed a range of waste directives which have subsequently
found their way into UK law. To blame the LAs as though they we
proactive agents if change is slightly missing who and what is driving
this change.

I'm sorry but there is the equivalent of blood on the hands of both
central and local government. EU Directives are not generally
prescriptive in terms of the detail of implementation and neither is
their transposition into UK statute. There is a lot more flexibility,
I am sure than they would have people believe.

There may be flexibility in method, but perhaps less in targets,
politics and culture.


I know it's huge fun to rant and demean them, but your view of
what they are paid to do still seems to be about 10 years out of date.
It's not fun at all. Actually it's rather serious because large
amounts of money are being wasted by these people and there are not
too many mechanisms to redress it other than exposure and bringing
suitable pressure to bear when needed. When one has to resort to
taking issues to the chief executive of the LA because of
incompetence in his departments covered by people hiding behind
statutes (e.g. "I can't do this because the law doesn't empower me
to do it"), and middle management want to sit out a quiet life until
their retirement; one becomes of the opinion that the organisation
is long overdue for some wholesale sackings.
Well you may be right that there a lot of incompetents in LAs, but
that law has changed, and that does have consequences.

Then the law needs to change again, if indeed it does actually
prescribe what they are supposed to do to the level of detail that they
claim. Therein lies the doubt. I am sure that if I look, I will
find that there is a great deal more flexibility than they suggest.

Possibly, but look for example at Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) which
bans the landfill of some hazardous wastes, liquid wastes and tyres,
sets targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent
to landfill to 75% of 1995 baseline levels by 2006, to 50% by 2009 and
to 35% by 2016 to reduce methane greenhouse gas emissions which partly
originate from the anaerobic breakdown of biodegradable waste in
landfill.

It additionally aims to reduce the amount and toxicity of landfilled
waste, defines standards for the design and operation of existing and
new landfills, promotes the pre-treatment of waste before it is
landfilling, and prevents potentially harmful wastes mixing by requiring
certain types of waste to be disposed of in particular sites.

If you go to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ and search for "Landfill Directive
(1999/31/EC)", you can see the bulk of material that even this recent
change throws up.


That isn't ranting about something - it's a statement of reality.
They are paid to provide a service. That's it. The measure is
whether or not they are doing it.
I'll give you an example. My local authority used to collect bins
etc. from anywhere at the front of the property. I in common with
many of my neighbours have quite a long drive - mine longer than most.
A couple of years ago, the LA wrote saying that they were changing
the policy such that bins had to be placed at the edge of the
property at the road. I didn't have a particular problem with
that, other than the fact that they lied about the reason. The
story was that it was for "health and safety" reasons - one of the
great things to hide behind when you don't want to do something.
Nobody really believed it, but several contacted the head of the
department who assured us that this was the reason. We went one
level up and spoke to an empty suit who wasn't interested; so
following that it was letters to the chief exec. cc. to the MP and
the local press.
In the end, there was an admission that it was for cost reasons.
When they had accepted contractor bids for the collection contract,
they found that they could save money by the bin men not having to
walk up drives to people's houses. That was the truth of the situation.

I would have had no problem with this apart from two things:
1) They lied about the reasons. In writing. Several times
2) They didn't ask their customers before implementing this whether
they wanted collections conducted in this way.


OK - now we're getting somewhere - but this is still nothing to do
with your original claims about recycling.

It is an illustration that this is all part and parcel of the disease
in local and central government and how there needs to be a massive
cull of headcount.

I'm not sure that sacking a bung of people makes the remainder more
honest. Probably more like more paranoid and devious.


One day, and probably not in public, get me to tell you about
Brightstar in Derby.

With nonsense like this going on, I have a very hard time trusting
anything they say about recycling arrangements.
You don't have to trust them. The EU directives and UK legislation
are all on the web.

I know that very well. It will be interesting to read what the
requirements actually are. I expect them to be a long way from what is
being implemented.

Well, Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) might be an interesting one to
start with.


There may be *some* value in doing *some* recycling, but when the
package and reasons are tainted with this and the PC arguments of
"being seen to do the right thing", people become disillusioned with
the whole thing.
Elected members have an incentive to be seen to do the right thing,
but statutory compliance is perhaps the bigger driver once you get
past the political speech writers.

If one is a jobsworth, I am sure it is.

Yes - exactly that - if you want to keep your job...


The mindset is to use as much of the regulation as possible,
especially if it results in the need to employ more bureaucrats and to
build bigger empires. It's not at all impressive.

But it is the civil service way.


If they want to reduce that for cost reasons, then fine, but
take that element out of the council tax, and I'll make my own
arrangements with a private contractor.
I think there's more to it than saving money.
Such as an excuse to hire more jobsworths for the gravy train.
Such as a desire, and externally imposed requirement, to deliver
better environmental performance, yet all your criticism of those
to whom council tax is paid suggests that you are criticising LAs.
Yet the framework in which they operate, and the targets imposed on
them largely come from central government and indeed the EU.
They do have the ability to implement things in different ways, but
choose to lie and cheat. I wasn't singling out LAs for special
treatment. The disease goes all the way to the top.
Well, you did refer to council tax and say
"Nobody has asked for a reduction in service, so there is no
reason
for the supplier (i.e. the LA) to reduce it".
You'll have to forgive me for assuming that you were thinking about
what you were writing about.

Absolutely. There is no inconsistency in what I said.

Possibly not - it's just not very obvious to the reader.


Basically, they are not adding any value, only cost. There is no
reason or excuse for them to be in the supply chain.
...that you perceive...
It's hard to find evidence to support any other view given the way
that they execute what they are supposed to do.
Well - you may have reason to assume this based on your experience.
My experience is different to yours, though the politicisation of
the issue is unfortunate in that it stops LA officers speaking freely,
and gives them a party line to follow.

This really isn't a matter of politicisation, but of demonstrable incompetence.

Well, you may regard it as demonstrated within your LA. In mine, some
of the officers have been a bit useless, but from one mayor down, I've
seen startling levels of confusion, politicisation and denial of the
obvious. If it's like that at the top of the organisation, it's no
wonder the lower echelons are stressed, reciting garbage by rote, and
wishing you'd stop asking smart questions.


It would be far more effective for there to be a free market in
collection and disposal in the same way as there is in the energy
sector. People who want to pay the lowest price can buy from a
supplier who offers that. Those who want to go for more of a tree
hugging operator and pay more because it gives them a warm fuzzy
can do that, and people who want to buy a value add service where
the supplier comes, sorts and disposes of the rubbish in groups or whatever can have that.
I guess the point here is that LAs are obliged to implement
recycling, and the minimum specification is not something they can
alter. They will almost certainly then go through some sort of
tendering process to get that service delivered at the lowest price.
If you want to change the way this is done, it's a matter for
central government.
Absolutely. I'm directing some efforts there as well. This
does need to be exposed for the scam it is.
Well - I'm not sure that its a scam in that there is no obvious
beneficiary of a fraud, but where the wrong thing is being done this
should be fixed, and where the right thing is done badly, that should
be fixed.

Where public money is involved, as it is here, this does need to be
fully and openly investigated.

If there is any basis to assume an offence has been committed. The
offence you seem to identifying is 'not doing it your way'.


There are plenty of opportunities for the hangers on to be making
money.

Which "hangers on" ?


The employment of each extra person in the LA to run the charade is
a fraud in itself.

I'm not convinced.


Of course, what *should* happen is that instead of spinning
greenwashed rubbish and expecting people to be gullible enough
to fall for it, there should be massive reductions in LA employees.
Well again, that's your view.
It seems to be a fairly widely held one from what I read in the
local press
It may be "widely held", but that doesn't make it 'well informed'.
That depends on the source of the information. When the source is
people in LAs who simply don't tell the truth, one has to be on one's
guard to separate the truth from the lies.
Absolutely, and if it would help if more than a handful of members
of the public per LA took a serious interest in this stuff.
Does your LA have an 'environmental scrutiny group' ? They might
find your experience very interesting.

They might well, if there is one. I prefer to deal with these
things at a higher level. Things are more likely happen as a result of
pressure from above.

Maybe, but scrutiny can be fairly effective if you get them on the case.
It's their job, where as the CEO may opt to bury bad news or delegate
investigation to the officers responsible for the problem. Been there,
got the T-shirt.


People seem to be getting heartily sick of being talked down to,
snowed with PC nonsense, attempts to pull the wool over their eyes
and running their lives for them.
Well yes, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a benefit to
recycling, or that fortnightly bin collections are not the least
worst way to do it given the resources available, and the statutory
framework in which LAs operate.
There *may* be *some* benefit to *some* recycling. At the point
that I see honestly presented data with impartial and not
greenwashed figures to support it, the matter can be taken seriously.
You should probably try looking at something like the Open
University T860 course then.

I wonder if the cost is tax deductible.

Depends on what you do I guess - I deducted it.


Until that time, it is seriously discredited.
Oh dear ! This is so crap. You may regard it as discredited for
whatever reasons you have, but to state
"it is seriously discredited"
as though there was some consensus is just ********.

I repeat the comment. It is seriously discredited. I am looking at
the complete picture.

I'm not at all sure that you are. You have some conjecture about the
[lack of] benefit, and some allegations about the people who implement
the process, but no evidence that you have seen the big picture or
looked beyond your own LA to speak of.


The problem is that it takes only a small number or even one obviously
bogus aspect, whether it be wasting peoples' time with figuring out
which product is which and prosecuting them if they get it wrong;

How often does this happen ?


material that is supposed to be recycled going in with the general
trash, ridiculous shipping of materials to remote locations

Not necessarily an issue. It depends what it is.


and the employment of extra bureaucrats to run it all.

Well - how many ? It won't run itself.


Then on top of that, we are told that it's all wonderful

And indeed - it may well be better environmentally that what we had
before.


That is what I mean by seriously discredited. A dose of honesty
would go a very long way.

Honesty is always good, but some lack of it in some quarters doesn't
mean that the net effect isn't a benefit, or that all Las are as bad as
the one you have dealt with.


It's a shame really because the few worthwhile environmental
activities are then tarred with the brush of the easily discredited.
Well possibly, and I'm not saying the situation is great or
adequate, but so far you've given us hot air and opinion which
amount to a counter proposal that I doubt would even be legal.
That depends. So often I have heard the excuse (phrase above) that
"the law doesn't empower them to do something". If one asks the
supplementary question of does it prevent them; then the answer is
typically silence because either they don't know or they no full well
that it doesn't prescribe particular methods of delivery of services.
Yes - this is a particularly poor aspect of LA culture.
Certainly there seems to be a culture of delivering no more than the
LA has to on the off chance that if they ever do, people may want it
again !

Which is precisely why they should be taken out of the chain. They add
no value.

Well - somebody has to organise at a local level.


It is for these types of reason that there needs to be a massive cut
back in the public sector at all levels and people put into gainful
employment.
I'm not convinced. I think a culture more permissive to innovation
is required, but there will always be a trade off between allowing
innovation and learning from it even in failure, and scrutinising /
penalising anything that might cause embarrassment to the council.
It seems to me that in the present culture, LA staff are in an
environment where indolence isn't necessarily penalised, but
innovation is regarded as somewhere between boat rocking and
disciplinary offence.

Whichever. Either way, it is not an environment which attracts the
innovators and entrepreneurs anyway.

Not many anyway. I can think of a couple.


Somebody once said to me in connection with university culture that the
politics are so great because the stakes are so small.

In a way, this is the same thing, except that the stakes are not quite
so small.

Maybe. Local politicians only have a small tank to swim in.


I suspect this culture is handed down from the elected members who
want a quiet risk free life, in which they can worry about inter
party bickering, where they can manage voters expectations, rather
than dealing with the details of managing change in their locale.

I haven't seen evidence of elected members handing down this kind of
culture; in terms of the risk free aspect.

Well it's their lives they want free form risk, not the officers...

Having seen one mayor bang the table about the definition of an
incinerator and be really quite wrong at a technical level, and having
seen short termism when choosing the build quality for major projects, I
can well see why some officers are reluctant to speak out of turn.


I am in contact with a few of the better ones in my district and
gradually the excess bureaucracy is being exposed.

OK, good !


The challenge becomes how to do the sackings.

....Oh so vindictive...


I hope that that will come but will probably not be before a change
of central government.

What has central government got to do with it ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 00:51:47 +0000, John Beardmore said:

OK - so the situation is analogous to private education.
You can send your children to private school, but if you do, you
don't get a tax rebate.

You should.

You can have no children at all, and still get no tax rebate.

Again, you should.

Well - maybe.


There is plenty of history of this kind of thing, but people don't
generally think of state education as a monopoly.

In practical terms, to those who could otherwise afford private
education if they didn't have to pay that proportion of council tax, it
is.

Yes - but in that sense, not having a Rolls Royce is a monopoly thing.


The same is true of education and of healthcare. The difference
with those is that people view those rather more seriously and are
willing to pay twice to get a proper service.
Quite so - demonstrating that it's not a monopoly.

The local authority collects money from every household. Part of this
goes towards refuse collection.

- It does not offer a choice of level of service.

- It does not offer a choice of refuse collection company

- It does not allow its customers a part in the selection of the single
chosen company

- It does not provide a discount on council tax if the customer wants
to shop elsewhere.


It's a monopoly in terms of profile

?


and effect,

Except you do have the option to have any licensed agent take your waste
if you want them to.


and a poorly run one at that.

In some respects.

I guess to some extent this situation has perhaps arisen to address a
need from an era when the private sector did not offer waste collection
services, but imperfect though the present situation is, I'm not sure
that having three providers working the same streets would be more
efficient, reduce congestion, or otherwise be too smart.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 00:52:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the service,
but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)?

Same reason you can't opt out of buying Trident but keep a few grenades
under the kitchen sink I guess.


Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or its
representative is the only "authorised person"

No - it's to do with having waste transfer licenses.


Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and to
offer the customer a choice.

It might have discretion to do that. I'm still not convinced it would
result in better service or greater efficiency.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On 2006-11-25 01:34:24 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-24 22:01:13 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes

The trouble is that only partial views are taken and the true
economic and environmental impacts not taken into account.
Actually, local authorities do quite a bit of life cycle analysis to
try and get this stuff right.
While they don't / can't because it's hard to get the data and
interpret the results, they may be better informed than you think.

One would hope so too, considering the number of people I am paying
them to employ to do so.

However, the outcome, which is what I am interested in, is weak indeed.

In some respects. Not sure that's all down to LAs though.

Possibly. Possibly not. I pay the LA though.





This is always assuming that items genuinely are recycled as claimed
and not just thrown in with the rest of the landfill. I still see
instances of refuse collectors throwing what naive people have
separated into their recycling bins in the back of the truck with the
rest of the rubbish.
Or even landfilling green waste because they don't have the facility
to process it. Bu bad examples don't mean that there is never a
benefit, or that it's not beneficial in the general case.

They should begin with things where there is a demonstrable and clear
cut case for an economic saving and the means exists to do it.

Well - you might think that. As an environmentalist I think there is
more to this than picking a bit of low hanging fruit...

That you may, but if you want what you are attempting to do to be
effective as opposed to a feel good, then it needs to be low hanging
fruit to almost everybody. The most effective ways to achieve that is
to make it financially attractive to people and to tell the truth.
Until that happens, it is rather pointless.






When I am convinced of that, I will stop putting everything into the
standard bins and liners.

Well - you can do what you like, though I suspect that LA recycling is
very much driven by the processing of those materials for which they
can find markets.

or easy disposal without too many questions being asked.




Nobody has asked for a reduction in service, but the service they are
required to give is no longer the same.
That's pure marketing nonsense.
Well no - it's umpteen changes in the law.

I am quite sure that there is nothing in the law that requires them to
reduce collection frequencies.

If there is a requirement to collect a greater range of stuff without
doubling up road miles and staff, it may amount to that.

Then the premise is wrong in the first place.

If the objective can't be acheved without reducing the level and
quality of service, then the objective is wrong.




I am almost as sure that there is nothing that requires the
householder as opposed to the collection outfit sorting out what needs
to be recycled and what doesn't.

Indeed, but most people recognise that separation at source is easier
than separation after mixing and covering in slime.

That's for the contractor to figure out. It is what they are being
paid a great deal to do.

OTOH, if the expectation of the LA is that I should do this, then I am
looking for a reduction in the price I pay.




I don't have the time, motivation or interest to sort through a whole
pile of different types of assorted plastic crap to determine what is
what and what should go where.

Yet you have the time, motivation or interest to consume the contents.
It seems unfortunate that expect to gain the benefit of modern
materials, but are utterly reluctant do deal with the consequences of
their use.

I am not reluctant to deal with the consequences of their use at all.
I pay a great deal of money to the LA to do the job for me. Either
they do the job and I pay them to do it, or I do it and pay them a lot
less. I don't expect to pay *and* do their work for them.




These people are paid a great deal of money.

By whose standards ?

By any standards.




Moreover, they know, or should know what facilities they have for
dealing with different types of material.

The LA may have very few facilities - they sub out the process
usually, remember ?

I'm not sure that the subcontractors are paid enough to hand sort or
invest in the necessary machinery, especially if contracts only last 5
years or so.

So the obvious solution is to take the LA out of the loop and allow
multiple contractors to compete for the business on household by
household basis. This would allow a range of choice in terms of price
and service and people can choose which they want.





Quite reasonably I want and expect them to deal with it.

What you regard as reasonable is up to you, but I don't hear the sound
of you scurrying off to tender for this sort of processing, well paid
though you maintain it to be !

There are a whole range of business activities that one can do. I
could probably make a lot of money being a barrister as well, or
perhaps a dentist, but it wasn't a path I chose. However, both seem
to be quite lucrative.



I'm sorry but there is the equivalent of blood on the hands of both
central and local government. EU Directives are not generally
prescriptive in terms of the detail of implementation and neither is
their transposition into UK statute. There is a lot more flexibility,
I am sure than they would have people believe.

There may be flexibility in method, but perhaps less in targets,
politics and culture.

... or in ability, I suspect.




Then the law needs to change again, if indeed it does actually
prescribe what they are supposed to do to the level of detail that they
claim. Therein lies the doubt. I am sure that if I look, I will
find that there is a great deal more flexibility than they suggest.

Possibly, but look for example at Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) which
bans the landfill of some hazardous wastes, liquid wastes and tyres,
sets targets to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent
to landfill to 75% of 1995 baseline levels by 2006, to 50% by 2009 and
to 35% by 2016 to reduce methane greenhouse gas emissions which partly
originate from the anaerobic breakdown of biodegradable waste in
landfill.

It additionally aims to reduce the amount and toxicity of landfilled
waste, defines standards for the design and operation of existing and
new landfills, promotes the pre-treatment of waste before it is
landfilling, and prevents potentially harmful wastes mixing by
requiring certain types of waste to be disposed of in particular sites.

If you go to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ and search for "Landfill Directive
(1999/31/EC)", you can see the bulk of material that even this recent
change throws up.

I expect that they will be mandating the collection of cow farts next.

This is typical of the kind of Directive that the EU should not be
doing across the whole continent. It should be a matter for individual
government.



It is an illustration that this is all part and parcel of the disease
in local and central government and how there needs to be a massive
cull of headcount.

I'm not sure that sacking a bung of people makes the remainder more
honest. Probably more like more paranoid and devious.

That's fine. I wasn't setting limits on how many should be sacked.
There are many departments where running it down to zero would be just
fine.




There may be *some* value in doing *some* recycling, but when the
package and reasons are tainted with this and the PC arguments of
"being seen to do the right thing", people become disillusioned with
the whole thing.
Elected members have an incentive to be seen to do the right thing,
but statutory compliance is perhaps the bigger driver once you get
past the political speech writers.

If one is a jobsworth, I am sure it is.

Yes - exactly that - if you want to keep your job...


The mindset is to use as much of the regulation as possible,
especially if it results in the need to employ more bureaucrats and to
build bigger empires. It's not at all impressive.

But it is the civil service way.

Which is precisely why there needs to be a massive slash and burn operation.

Public sector employment is back to over 20% for the UK as a whole -
nearly 30% in Northern Ireland and 25% in Scotland, the North East and
Wales. Nearly 60% of them had been in their jobs for over 5 years.

There is absolutely no justification for this in terms of numbers or of
lack of mobility. Under 10% of the workforce at the outside should be
in the public sector






If they want to reduce that for cost reasons, then fine, but take
that element out of the council tax, and I'll make my own arrangements
with a private contractor.
I think there's more to it than saving money.
Such as an excuse to hire more jobsworths for the gravy train.
Such as a desire, and externally imposed requirement, to deliver
better environmental performance, yet all your criticism of those to
whom council tax is paid suggests that you are criticising LAs. Yet
the framework in which they operate, and the targets imposed on them
largely come from central government and indeed the EU.
They do have the ability to implement things in different ways, but
choose to lie and cheat. I wasn't singling out LAs for special
treatment. The disease goes all the way to the top.
Well, you did refer to council tax and say
"Nobody has asked for a reduction in service, so there is no reason
for the supplier (i.e. the LA) to reduce it".
You'll have to forgive me for assuming that you were thinking about
what you were writing about.

Absolutely. There is no inconsistency in what I said.

Possibly not - it's just not very obvious to the reader.

You just need to read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.




Basically, they are not adding any value, only cost. There is no
reason or excuse for them to be in the supply chain.
...that you perceive...
It's hard to find evidence to support any other view given the way
that they execute what they are supposed to do.
Well - you may have reason to assume this based on your experience.
My experience is different to yours, though the politicisation of the
issue is unfortunate in that it stops LA officers speaking freely, and
gives them a party line to follow.

This really isn't a matter of politicisation, but of demonstrable incompetence.

Well, you may regard it as demonstrated within your LA. In mine, some
of the officers have been a bit useless, but from one mayor down, I've
seen startling levels of confusion, politicisation and denial of the
obvious. If it's like that at the top of the organisation, it's no
wonder the lower echelons are stressed, reciting garbage by rote, and
wishing you'd stop asking smart questions.

I can always get more P45s......




It would be far more effective for there to be a free market in
collection and disposal in the same way as there is in the energy
sector. People who want to pay the lowest price can buy from a
supplier who offers that. Those who want to go for more of a tree
hugging operator and pay more because it gives them a warm fuzzy can do
that, and people who want to buy a value add service where the
supplier comes, sorts and disposes of the rubbish in groups or
whatever can have that.
I guess the point here is that LAs are obliged to implement recycling,
and the minimum specification is not something they can alter. They
will almost certainly then go through some sort of tendering process to
get that service delivered at the lowest price.
If you want to change the way this is done, it's a matter for central
government.
Absolutely. I'm directing some efforts there as well. This does
need to be exposed for the scam it is.
Well - I'm not sure that its a scam in that there is no obvious
beneficiary of a fraud, but where the wrong thing is being done this
should be fixed, and where the right thing is done badly, that should
be fixed.

Where public money is involved, as it is here, this does need to be
fully and openly investigated.

If there is any basis to assume an offence has been committed. The
offence you seem to identifying is 'not doing it your way'.

Not really. Whether or not criminal offences as commonly understood
have been committed is neother here nor there. The issue is that these
people have the stewardship of our money, yet their standard of
performance is very weak indeed as witnessed by the poor value for
money.




There are plenty of opportunities for the hangers on to be making money.

Which "hangers on" ?

Extra people brought into departments permanently or temporarily.

Firms of management consultants ineptly making the decisions that the
employees should be making but aren't.

etc.





The employment of each extra person in the LA to run the charade is a
fraud in itself.

I'm not convinced.

At one in five of the workforce and rising, each person unnecessarily
employed in this area, which is completely a cost centre and not a
profit centre in terms of UK PLC is a fraud.




They might well, if there is one. I prefer to deal with these
things at a higher level. Things are more likely happen as a result of
pressure from above.

Maybe, but scrutiny can be fairly effective if you get them on the
case. It's their job, where as the CEO may opt to bury bad news or
delegate investigation to the officers responsible for the problem.
Been there, got the T-shirt.

That depends on how you go about it.





I repeat the comment. It is seriously discredited. I am looking at
the complete picture.

I'm not at all sure that you are. You have some conjecture about the
[lack of] benefit, and some allegations about the people who implement
the process, but no evidence that you have seen the big picture or
looked beyond your own LA to speak of.


One can look on multiple levels.

ON a local one, it is possible to see the most detail and to do so personally.

On a larger scale, there are plenty of press and other sources to be
found without looking at all far.





The problem is that it takes only a small number or even one obviously
bogus aspect, whether it be wasting peoples' time with figuring out
which product is which and prosecuting them if they get it wrong;

How often does this happen ?

It only needs to happen once with something as stupid as this.




material that is supposed to be recycled going in with the general
trash, ridiculous shipping of materials to remote locations

Not necessarily an issue. It depends what it is.


and the employment of extra bureaucrats to run it all.

Well - how many ? It won't run itself.

It doesn't need to be "run". The whole thing can be outsourced to
several commercial operators and customers can pay them directly, just
as they pay for many other services and that's that.





Then on top of that, we are told that it's all wonderful

And indeed - it may well be better environmentally that what we had before.

... and it may not. More greenwash.



Which is precisely why they should be taken out of the chain. They add
no value.

Well - somebody has to organise at a local level.

Very little if anything needs to be "organised"

I heard this same silly nonsense from the highways dept of my LA.
They were asked to justify why they had hired quite a substantial
number of people in a consulting firm (about the same as the dept
itself) to go out and do traffic surveys plan layouts etc. The answer
was that they had to "organise" the consulting firm. Complete
nonsense. The whole department should be sacked, along with the
consulting firm.




I suspect this culture is handed down from the elected members who
want a quiet risk free life, in which they can worry about inter party
bickering, where they can manage voters expectations, rather than
dealing with the details of managing change in their locale.

I haven't seen evidence of elected members handing down this kind of
culture; in terms of the risk free aspect.

Well it's their lives they want free form risk, not the officers...

Having seen one mayor bang the table about the definition of an
incinerator and be really quite wrong at a technical level, and having
seen short termism when choosing the build quality for major projects,
I can well see why some officers are reluctant to speak out of turn.


I am in contact with a few of the better ones in my district and
gradually the excess bureaucracy is being exposed.

OK, good !


The challenge becomes how to do the sackings.

...Oh so vindictive...

Not really. If people are adding value to something, it is reasonable
to employ them. If they are not, then they should be removed from the
position and encouraged to do something gainful.

The challenge is that it is too hard to do that, especially with those
of public sector mentality.





I hope that that will come but will probably not be before a change
of central government.

What has central government got to do with it ?

A great deal. Some holding of purse strings with respect to LAs is
one example.

On 2006-11-25 01:41:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 00:51:47 +0000, John Beardmore said:

OK - so the situation is analogous to private education.
You can send your children to private school, but if you do, you don't
get a tax rebate.

You should.

You can have no children at all, and still get no tax rebate.

Again, you should.

Well - maybe.


There is plenty of history of this kind of thing, but people don't
generally think of state education as a monopoly.

In practical terms, to those who could otherwise afford private
education if they didn't have to pay that proportion of council tax, it
is.

Yes - but in that sense, not having a Rolls Royce is a monopoly thing.

Not influenced by taxation in that sense, though.





The same is true of education and of healthcare. The difference
with those is that people view those rather more seriously and are
willing to pay twice to get a proper service.
Quite so - demonstrating that it's not a monopoly.

The local authority collects money from every household. Part of this
goes towards refuse collection.

- It does not offer a choice of level of service.

- It does not offer a choice of refuse collection company

- It does not allow its customers a part in the selection of the single
chosen company

- It does not provide a discount on council tax if the customer wants
to shop elsewhere.


It's a monopoly in terms of profile

?


and effect,

Except you do have the option to have any licensed agent take your
waste if you want them to.

Fine. Then they should be in a position to compete in the market for
weekly collection as well as delivery and collection of large skips.
I should be in a position that if I choose one, I opt out of paying the
council tax amount for it.





and a poorly run one at that.

In some respects.

I guess to some extent this situation has perhaps arisen to address a
need from an era when the private sector did not offer waste collection
services, but imperfect though the present situation is, I'm not sure
that having three providers working the same streets would be more
efficient, reduce congestion, or otherwise be too smart.


I'd settle for 3 licensed operators with each having a different
collection day on a given street.

On 2006-11-25 01:44:09 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 00:52:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the service,
but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)?

Same reason you can't opt out of buying Trident but keep a few grenades
under the kitchen sink I guess.

Different issue I think.







Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or its
representative is the only "authorised person"

No - it's to do with having waste transfer licenses.

Fine, so no need for a restriction.



Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and to
offer the customer a choice.

It might have discretion to do that. I'm still not convinced it would
result in better service or greater efficiency.

Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they
want at the right price.

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 01:41:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 00:51:47 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

OK - so the situation is analogous to private education.
You can send your children to private school, but if you do, you
don't get a tax rebate.
You should.

You can have no children at all, and still get no tax rebate.
Again, you should.
Well - maybe.

There is plenty of history of this kind of thing, but people don't
generally think of state education as a monopoly.
In practical terms, to those who could otherwise afford private
education if they didn't have to pay that proportion of council tax,
it is.
Yes - but in that sense, not having a Rolls Royce is a monopoly
thing.

Not influenced by taxation in that sense, though.

True. My point though is that calling waste collection a monopoly isn't
strictly accurate but is certainly emotive.


The same is true of education and of healthcare. The
difference with those is that people view those rather more
seriously and are willing to pay twice to get a proper service.
Quite so - demonstrating that it's not a monopoly.
The local authority collects money from every household. Part of
this goes towards refuse collection.
- It does not offer a choice of level of service.
- It does not offer a choice of refuse collection company
- It does not allow its customers a part in the selection of the
single chosen company
- It does not provide a discount on council tax if the customer
wants to shop elsewhere.
It's a monopoly in terms of profile
?

So what do you mean by profile here ?


and effect,
Except you do have the option to have any licensed agent take your
waste if you want them to.

Fine. Then they should be in a position to compete in the market for
weekly collection as well as delivery and collection of large skips.

You mean the government should butt out of the market and leave it to
private firms ?


I should be in a position that if I choose one, I opt out of paying the
council tax amount for it.

Yes - that might be fair. While we are at it we should give people tax
rebates for not using any government service... How much bureaucracy
would that create ?


and a poorly run one at that.
In some respects.
I guess to some extent this situation has perhaps arisen to address
a need from an era when the private sector did not offer waste
collection services, but imperfect though the present situation is,
I'm not sure that having three providers working the same streets
would be more efficient, reduce congestion, or otherwise be too smart.


I'd settle for 3 licensed operators with each having a different
collection day on a given street.

OK - by this implies that there will be a licensing process and
tendering process to select the three.

More bureaucracy.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 01:44:09 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 00:52:39 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the
service, but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)?
Same reason you can't opt out of buying Trident but keep a few
grenades under the kitchen sink I guess.

Different issue I think.

A parallel one I think.


Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or
its representative is the only "authorised person"
No - it's to do with having waste transfer licenses.

Fine, so no need for a restriction.

Well - you seem keen to have three players selected to provide the
service. That's hardly unfettered capitalism. There will certainly be
people kept out of what you claim is a very lucrative market.


Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and to
offer the customer a choice.
It might have discretion to do that. I'm still not convinced it
would result in better service or greater efficiency.

Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they
want at the right price.

I want an electron microscope for 50p.

Almost...


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:36:56 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-


This is complete and utter bull****.

Excellent, more personal abuse.

Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable.

Ah, proof by assertion.

As others have said, experience seems to be that switching to
collection of residual waste once a fortnight initially causes loud
complaints by some, but the silent majority have no problem with it.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:48:39 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

Most of the output is liquid feed, which would be put on the house
plants.

That takes care of the first three weeks output and gives enough
plant food for a year

Really. I suppose that if someone only had one house plant and a
large wormery that might be the case. However, that's unlikely.

Most of the wormery instructions I've seen recommend composting the
output from a wormery further in a conventional composter before
using it.

Have they really. The most well known wormery manufacturer is
probably Original Organics. Their web site isn't working at the
moment, but the last time I checked their instructions they said
nothing of the sort.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:07:56 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

Indeed. Some would rather pay for a monthly general bin collection.

Would be fine for me, though I'm still not convinced that private
contractors sound that great.

It was fashionable at one time. Whether individual householders have
so much time on their hands that they can individually arrange waste
contracts is debatable. I suppose some have, typically the retired.
However, such people would have little bargaining power with the
contractors.

If one wants to involve contractors then the way to do it is
probably to do so collectively, as is done with many other things,
like roads.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:22:12 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

And of course many would reduce energy use by reducing collection
frequency, just as many would not. We could all have the collection
frequency we wanted.

Though possibly much more duplication and poorer utilisation of
equipment, all of which has to be funded somehow.

Perhaps a year ago I saw three waste lorries heading down Leith Walk
in Edinburgh, stopping in various places (sometimes at the same
place). Two were from different companies and one from the council.
It didn't strike me as a good way of utilising equipment or staff or
road space, though no doubt it warmed the cockles of competition
enthusiasts' hearts.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:41:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
:-

Has still to propose, in some detail, something better.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...

How much energy is used raising a moderate amount of water to say 55
degrees, (and the tail end of the washing up water will probably do !), as
opposed to melting glass ?

55C ???? That's VERY hot for washing up - unnecessarily so.

But with a solar water heat very little energy need be used to get water hot
enough for washing up.

Mary

On 2006-11-25 10:38:00 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 01:41:16 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 00:51:47 +0000, John Beardmore said:

OK - so the situation is analogous to private education.
You can send your children to private school, but if you do, you don't
get a tax rebate.
You should.

You can have no children at all, and still get no tax rebate.
Again, you should.
Well - maybe.

There is plenty of history of this kind of thing, but people don't
generally think of state education as a monopoly.
In practical terms, to those who could otherwise afford private
education if they didn't have to pay that proportion of council tax, it
is.
Yes - but in that sense, not having a Rolls Royce is a monopoly thing.

Not influenced by taxation in that sense, though.

True. My point though is that calling waste collection a monopoly
isn't strictly accurate but is certainly emotive.

This is hair splitting. It has nothing to do with emotion but freedom
of choice over how services are bought by the individual, who is, after
all, paying. The current arrangements do not provide a freedom of
choice unless people pay twice. It is none other than a monopoly.
If you consider the activity of the Competition Commission, this would
qualify for its attention by any metre stick.




The same is true of education and of healthcare. The difference
with those is that people view those rather more seriously and are
willing to pay twice to get a proper service.
Quite so - demonstrating that it's not a monopoly.
The local authority collects money from every household. Part of this
goes towards refuse collection.
- It does not offer a choice of level of service.
- It does not offer a choice of refuse collection company
- It does not allow its customers a part in the selection of the
single chosen company
- It does not provide a discount on council tax if the customer wants
to shop elsewhere.
It's a monopoly in terms of profile
?

So what do you mean by profile here ?

The points above list 4 characteristics of a monopoly. Undoubtedly
there are more that one could add.





and effect,
Except you do have the option to have any licensed agent take your
waste if you want them to.

Fine. Then they should be in a position to compete in the market for
weekly collection as well as delivery and collection of large skips.

You mean the government should butt out of the market and leave it to
private firms ?

Absolutely. The government should butt out of every market, with a
very few exceptions.




I should be in a position that if I choose one, I opt out of paying the
council tax amount for it.

Yes - that might be fair. While we are at it we should give people
tax rebates for not using any government service... How much
bureaucracy would that create ?

Simple. It could be done the other way around. Don't collect the tax
in the first place and people pay for the service.



and a poorly run one at that.
In some respects.
I guess to some extent this situation has perhaps arisen to address a
need from an era when the private sector did not offer waste collection
services, but imperfect though the present situation is, I'm not sure
that having three providers working the same streets would be more
efficient, reduce congestion, or otherwise be too smart.


I'd settle for 3 licensed operators with each having a different
collection day on a given street.

OK - by this implies that there will be a licensing process and
tendering process to select the three.

More bureaucracy.

Nope. No tendering process because the local authority would not be
in the commercial path between the customer and the supplier.
Licensing would consist of a maximum price point to provide the minimum
statutory requirement - and I mean the minimum, not some interpretation
of it.
All operators would be required to provide that. They would be at
liberty to offer lower pricing and also to offer services over and
above the minimum.

On 2006-11-25 11:41:17 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:07:56 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

Indeed. Some would rather pay for a monthly general bin collection.

Would be fine for me, though I'm still not convinced that private
contractors sound that great.

It was fashionable at one time. Whether individual householders have
so much time on their hands that they can individually arrange waste
contracts is debatable. I suppose some have, typically the retired.
However, such people would have little bargaining power with the
contractors.

If one wants to involve contractors then the way to do it is
probably to do so collectively, as is done with many other things,
like roads.

Collectivism is the poison of advancement.

Of course people can arrange their own waste collection agreements
in exactly the same way that they buy food, gas, electricity, telecommunication
and most other commodities.

There is no issue with bargaining power unless there is a monopoly as
there is today.

It doesn't require a big bureaucracy to organise people's lives for them.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:02:53 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

When they asked what would happen if they
put all their rubbish in the black (landfill) bin they were told they
couldn't be fined for this. So now to avoid the chance of a fine for
another mistake they simply tip everything in the black bin, recycle
nothing and are advising their neighbours to do likewise.

The sort of own-goal which councils are noted for. Another own-goal
was to put RFID chips on bins without having a discussion about it
with the public.

However, there is rather more information on what is going on than
the nay-sayers assert. In this country a good starting point is
http://www.wascot.org.uk/html/index.asp and should one wish to look
at the plans then http://www.sepa.org.uk/nws/guidance/awp.htm has
them all.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2006-11-25 11:02:44 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 01:44:09 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 00:52:39 +0000, John Beardmore said:

Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the service,
but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)?
Same reason you can't opt out of buying Trident but keep a few
grenades under the kitchen sink I guess.

Different issue I think.

A parallel one I think.

Not really.






Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or its
representative is the only "authorised person"
No - it's to do with having waste transfer licenses.

Fine, so no need for a restriction.

Well - you seem keen to have three players selected to provide the
service. That's hardly unfettered capitalism. There will certainly be
people kept out of what you claim is a very lucrative market.

Three was a number chosen as being sufficient to have competition.
It could be ten, or an unlimited number.

The economic equation is smple enough Today, I pay £X to the local
authority of which an amount goes for rubbish collection. The local
authority subcontracts to a private firm to do the work but in addition
employs a large department of people who are supposed to be
administering it, but in practice do very little of any value. The
private firm still makes a profit or it would not be doing the work.
If the unnecessary overhead of the local authority is taken out of the
loop, the firm can do more for the same money or deliver the same for
less money.
The only people to lose out would be the bureaucrats in the local
authority who aren't adding any value in the first place. They should
view it as an opportunity to find something gainful to do. That would
be a benefit to them as well as to the population as a whole.




Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and to
offer the customer a choice.
It might have discretion to do that. I'm still not convinced it would
result in better service or greater efficiency.

Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they
want at the right price.

I want an electron microscope for 50p.

Almost...

Check out your local Aldi. They are bound to have a Christmas offer on
one. Just for you. Just today.

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:26:47 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

Plastic bottles are OK, but plastic tubs are not (even if of the same
plastic as the bottles).

I just stuff them in anyway to be honest, but I guess the issue may be
contamination with non food grade materials, e.g. PVC with horrible
plasticisers etc, sheet metal e.g. steel coated with cadmium or zinc...

It varies from place to place. Some places accept any plastics of
the appropriate types. The same is true of various types of
cardboard and shredded paper.

When things are different in different places some people whine
about how it should all be standardised to avoid confusion. However,
when things are standardised the same people whine about how they
are straight jacketed by a centrally imposed system.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2006-11-25 11:27:55 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:36:56 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-


This is complete and utter bull****.

Excellent, more personal abuse.

No it isn't. The comment was about the statement being complete and
utter bull****, not the person
who made it. Of course if you wish to feel inadequate because you
made it, that's your affair. I guess that that's a form of self
abuse.....



Fortnightly bin collections are not acceptable.

Ah, proof by assertion.

Nope. Just conversations with many people in my area and what their
concerns are.
Rubbish collection is very high on the local agenda.



As others have said, experience seems to be that switching to
collection of residual waste once a fortnight initially causes loud
complaints by some, but the silent majority have no problem with it.

It may be where you live. It certainly isn't where I am. People will
not accept
paying a lot of money to get third rate service.

On 2006-11-25 11:46:14 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:22:12 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

And of course many would reduce energy use by reducing collection
frequency, just as many would not. We could all have the collection
frequency we wanted.

Though possibly much more duplication and poorer utilisation of
equipment, all of which has to be funded somehow.

Perhaps a year ago I saw three waste lorries heading down Leith Walk
in Edinburgh, stopping in various places (sometimes at the same
place). Two were from different companies and one from the council.
It didn't strike me as a good way of utilising equipment or staff or
road space, though no doubt it warmed the cockles of competition
enthusiasts' hearts.

The simple solution would be for an arrangement that each company
collects in different areas on different days.

That would take a ten year old an afternoon to work out.

For the local authority it would probably take three permanent
employees, a secretary, a consulting firm to go out and remap the area
and someone from Accenture to oversee it all just in case someone needs
to be blamed.

On 2006-11-25 11:56:52 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:41:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
:-

Has still to propose, in some detail, something better.

I don't *have* to anything.

There are already plenty of ideas; the most obvious of which is to take
the local authorities out of the food chain.

On 2006-11-25 12:11:28 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:02:53 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry
wrote this:-

When they asked what would happen if they
put all their rubbish in the black (landfill) bin they were told they
couldn't be fined for this. So now to avoid the chance of a fine for
another mistake they simply tip everything in the black bin, recycle
nothing and are advising their neighbours to do likewise.

The sort of own-goal which councils are noted for. Another own-goal
was to put RFID chips on bins without having a discussion about it
with the public.


All of which illustrates the motivations of those involved. It has to
do with control games and nothing to do with the objectives or the
requirements of the customer.

On 21 Nov 2006 00:33:06 -0800 someone who may be
wrote this:-

Thre are some historic
buildings with a firewall that rises maybe 3 bricks above the roofline,
but most houses dont have those.

This was a feature of regulations in some places. However, they are
a point of weakness for water penetration and rain is more common
than fire, so their value is debatable.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2006-11-25 12:16:09 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:26:47 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

Plastic bottles are OK, but plastic tubs are not (even if of the same
plastic as the bottles).

I just stuff them in anyway to be honest, but I guess the issue may be
contamination with non food grade materials, e.g. PVC with horrible
plasticisers etc, sheet metal e.g. steel coated with cadmium or zinc...

It varies from place to place. Some places accept any plastics of
the appropriate types. The same is true of various types of
cardboard and shredded paper.

When things are different in different places some people whine
about how it should all be standardised to avoid confusion. However,
when things are standardised the same people whine about how they
are straight jacketed by a centrally imposed system.

Which means that the solution is for everything to go into one
collection container and for it to be sorted by those being paid to do
it. Of course if FoE and others would like to volunteer to go and sift
through the stuff at waste transfer stations on Sunday afternoons, I'd
have no objection at all. I might even buy them a packet of biscuits
at Christmas.

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 11:56:52 +0000, David Hansen
said:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:41:34 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
:-

Has still to propose, in some detail, something better.

I don't *have* to anything.

There are already plenty of ideas; the most obvious of which is to take
the local authorities out of the food chain.

Hardly a detailed proposal for what should replace them.


J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Mary Fisher
writes
"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...

How much energy is used raising a moderate amount of water to say 55
degrees, (and the tail end of the washing up water will probably do !), as
opposed to melting glass ?

55C ???? That's VERY hot for washing up - unnecessarily so.

But with a solar water heat very little energy need be used to get water hot
enough for washing up.

Yes - I'm inclined to agree, but people do get very up tight about
Legionella.

This concern has a huge energy cost.

Some cooks seem keen to have washing up water hot enough to blister skin
too...


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 12:16:09 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:26:47 +0000 someone who may be John Beardmore
wrote this:-

Plastic bottles are OK, but plastic tubs are not (even if of the
same
plastic as the bottles).
I just stuff them in anyway to be honest, but I guess the issue may
be contamination with non food grade materials, e.g. PVC with
horrible plasticisers etc, sheet metal e.g. steel coated with
cadmium or zinc...
It varies from place to place. Some places accept any plastics of
the appropriate types. The same is true of various types of
cardboard and shredded paper.
When things are different in different places some people whine
about how it should all be standardised to avoid confusion. However,
when things are standardised the same people whine about how they
are straight jacketed by a centrally imposed system.

Which means that the solution is for everything to go into one
collection container and for it to be sorted by those being paid to do
it.

I think you'll find there is more than one solution.

One might be for you to sort your own waste in a responsible way.


Of course if FoE and others would like to volunteer to go and sift
through the stuff at waste transfer stations on Sunday afternoons, I'd
have no objection at all.

No doubt you would be willing to exploit them, but I doubt they'd have
time to sort through all the waste people like you produce and can't be
bothered to sort themselves.


I might even buy them a packet of biscuits at Christmas.

Good to see such a responsible attitude !


J/.
--
John Beardmore

In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 11:02:44 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 01:44:09 +0000, John Beardmore
said:
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-11-25 00:52:39 +0000, John Beardmore
said:

Why can't I opt out of the payments if I don't want to buy the
service, but choose my own while still complying with the EPA (above)?
Same reason you can't opt out of buying Trident but keep a few
grenades under the kitchen sink I guess.
Different issue I think.
A parallel one I think.

Not really.

Well - no doubt anybody reading this will understand the analogy and
recognise the extent of its limitations.


Perhaps there is another clause saying that the local authority or
its representative is the only "authorised person"
No - it's to do with having waste transfer licenses.
Fine, so no need for a restriction.
Well - you seem keen to have three players selected to provide the
service. That's hardly unfettered capitalism. There will certainly
be people kept out of what you claim is a very lucrative market.

Three was a number chosen as being sufficient to have competition. It
could be ten, or an unlimited number.

The economic equation is smple enough Today, I pay £X to the local
authority of which an amount goes for rubbish collection. The local
authority subcontracts to a private firm to do the work but in addition
employs a large department of people who are supposed to be
administering it, but in practice do very little of any value. The
private firm still makes a profit or it would not be doing the work.
If the unnecessary overhead of the local authority is taken out of the
loop, the firm can do more for the same money or deliver the same for
less money.

Unless the LA have a useful QA function. Depends how much you trust the
private contractors to do it right if unpoliced.


The only people to lose out would be the bureaucrats in the local
authority who aren't adding any value in the first place. They should
view it as an opportunity to find something gainful to do. That would
be a benefit to them as well as to the population as a whole.

Maybe in some instances, but I'm not convinced it's true in the general
case.


Perhaps the authority chooses not to use multiple contractors and
to offer the customer a choice.
It might have discretion to do that. I'm still not convinced it
would result in better service or greater efficiency.
Competition almost always results in the customer getting what they
want at the right price.
I want an electron microscope for 50p.
Almost...

Check out your local Aldi. They are bound to have a Christmas offer on
one. Just for you. Just today.

I doubt it.


J/.
--
John Beardmore

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:27:46 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

When things are different in different places some people whine
about how it should all be standardised to avoid confusion. However,
when things are standardised the same people whine about how they
are straight jacketed by a centrally imposed system.

Which means that the solution is for everything to go into one
collection container and for it to be sorted by those being paid to do
it.

That is one solution, though even then there are two options about
where the sorting is done.

The first option is the Stalinst one of a central "facility" at
which to do the sorting. I assume this is the option you are in
favour of. Sorting out compostable and other waste at such a
"facility" is a rather dirty operation.

The second option is to do the sorting at the container, with staff
sorting the contents of the container into a multi-compartment
vehicle. If one provides a separate bin for compostable waste, which
is taken off separately to a composter, then the sorting operation
is very much less dirty. One could then provide two containers, to
be collected on alternate weeks. One container is the one for
residual waste and one for recyclable waste. The second option seems
a lot better to me.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:03:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Of course people can arrange their own waste collection agreements
in exactly the same way that they buy food, gas, electricity, telecommunication
and most other commodities.

People tend not to consider these things too carefully. Rather they
stick with what they know. The number of people who have not
switched gas and electricity suppliers is a case in point. Many
people have better things to do with their lives than switch
suppliers.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:17:03 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

No it isn't. The comment was about the statement being complete and
utter bull****, not the person
who made it. Of course if you wish to feel inadequate because you
made it, that's your affair.

Excellent, mind reading as well. Don't take up mind reading for a
living, you aren't very good at it.

As others have said, experience seems to be that switching to
collection of residual waste once a fortnight initially causes loud
complaints by some, but the silent majority have no problem with it.

It may be where you live.

Ah, another attempt at personalisation. My comment has nothing to do
with where I live, rather it relates to a couple of postings by
others in this thread.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"John Beardmore" wrote in message
...

How much energy is used raising a moderate amount of water to say 55
degrees, (and the tail end of the washing up water will probably do !),
as
opposed to melting glass ?

55C ???? That's VERY hot for washing up - unnecessarily so.

But with a solar water heat very little energy need be used to get water
hot
enough for washing up.

Yes - I'm inclined to agree, but people do get very up tight about
Legionella.

They do, without considering that Legionella has to get into the system to
be a problem.

This concern has a huge energy cost.

Some cooks seem keen to have washing up water hot enough to blister skin
too...

I know. And then wear gloves to protect their hands from it.

Daft I call it.

Mary

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 12:03:30 +0000 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

Of course people can arrange their own waste collection agreements
in exactly the same way that they buy food, gas, electricity,
telecommunication
and most other commodities.

LOL! Can you imagine the mayhem if several contractors were collecting
rubbish?

That WOULD give you something to complain about. And John, David and I
wouldn't be happy either so for once we'd be in accord.

People tend not to consider these things too carefully. Rather they
stick with what they know. The number of people who have not
switched gas and electricity suppliers is a case in point. Many
people have better things to do with their lives than switch
suppliers.

I haven't switched suppliers because I'm happy with my present ones. What's
more, we're not on the breadline so we don't need to 'save' money.

Mary



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54