TheOldFellow wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:32:19 GMT
"Julian" wrote:

I was doing a routine check for water leaks at home today, I just
observe the little 'spinning' wheel on the water meter with
everything turned off to make sure it's not moving - it wasn't.

Then I started thinking. The meter works by way of a little turbine
wheel that spins in proportion to water flow and is geared to the
counter unit. I wondered if the turbine needs a certain minimum flow
of water to overcome the meter's internal friction. So, by opening a
cold tap just a tiny amount (just little more than a constant stream
of drips) I observed that the meter wasn't rotating at all. My theory
would appear correct.

So, what if I fitted two ball cocks to the DHW header tank? One half
way down the tank to work normally and one at the top with a stop
valve upstream throttled to allow a drip feed only. With this working
24/7 I should get 'free' water maybe?

I'm not from Yorkshire BTW, I just like the idea of getting something
for nothing!

Julian.


No, you're a thief.

No, he is only considering the possibility.



--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

raden wrote:
In message , George
writes

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"George" wrote in message
...

"TheOldFellow" wrote in message

No, you're a thief.
No one seems to have any morals these days.
Bring back the birch!

R.

Lol and the UU are not?

My water rates used to be £25.70 a month,the bill stated what I was
paying
for...even the rain that came down the gutter.
I then got a meter in and reduced the bill by less than half of
previous
unmetered bill it would seem those on umetered water pay for
sewerage,sanitation,piping ect.
And when you go on a meter you only pay for what you use.

No, you pay for sewage and dranage services too.

Mary



No you don't.

Of course you do, it's factored into the incoming water usage

What do you expect - they put a meter on your crapper ?

well I DO NOT pay for sewage. I process my own.

AND it gets me a reduction in the water rate.

wrote:
No, he is suggesting using the water that comes through the meter. He
is not wrongfully6 using his tap is he if he doesn't have it on full
when he doesn't want it on full.

He is howevr breaking the law if he deliberately contrives to cause
the meter to read incorrectly.

The "2 cistern" proposal wouldseemto do exactly that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999

PART II

REQUIREMENTS

Restriction on installation etc. of water fittings

(2) No water fitting shall be installed, connected, arranged or used
in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause-

(i) waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of water
supplied by a water undertaker; or

(ii) the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water
undertaker.

Oh dear. I suppose that means that all taps that regulate flow are now
illegal?

On Jun 7, 10:43 pm, " wrote:
No, he is suggesting using the water that comes through the meter. He
is not wrongfully6 using his tap is he if he doesn't have it on full
when he doesn't want it on full.

He is howevr breaking the law if he deliberately contrives to cause
the meter to read incorrectly.

The "2 cistern" proposal wouldseemto do exactly that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999

PART II

REQUIREMENTS

Restriction on installation etc. of water fittings

(2) No water fitting shall be installed, connected, arranged or used
in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause-

(i) waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of water
supplied by a water undertaker; or

(ii) the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water
undertaker.

Quite right
I had only considered the aspect of how criminal it might be to open a
tap. Now you mention the installation of the tanks, I can see you are
a total fool.

"LSR" wrote in message
...
....
If the water goes back into the sewer system (eventually) he's only
borrowed it. He's not "permanently deprived the owner with intent", so
it's not theft.

He is taking potable water (fluid category 1 in the language of the Water
Regulations) and returning grey water or soil (fluid category 2,3,4, or 5).
He is, therefore, permanently depriving the owner of the substance he
received.

Colin Bignell

"George" wrote in message
...

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"George" wrote in message
...

"TheOldFellow" wrote in message

No, you're a thief.
No one seems to have any morals these days.
Bring back the birch!

R.

Lol and the UU are not?

My water rates used to be £25.70 a month,the bill stated what I was
paying
for...even the rain that came down the gutter.
I then got a meter in and reduced the bill by less than half of
previous
unmetered bill it would seem those on umetered water pay for
sewerage,sanitation,piping ect.
And when you go on a meter you only pay for what you use.

No, you pay for sewage and dranage services too.

Mary



No you don't.

You're wrong. I do :-)

On Jun 7, 1:58 pm, "Andy McKenzie"
wrote:
"LSR" wrote in message

...





TheOldFellow wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:26:47 -0700
adder1969 wrote:

So, what if I fitted two ball cocks to the DHW header tank? One
half way down the tank to work normally and one at the top with a
stop valve upstream throttled to allow a drip feed only. With
this working 24/7 I should get 'free' water maybe?

I'm not from Yorkshire BTW, I just like the idea of getting
something for nothing!

Julian.

No, you're a thief.

It's not theft.

Care to explain that? He doesn't own it, the water company does. He
steals it, it's theft. QED.

R.

If the water goes back into the sewer system (eventually) he's only
borrowed it. He's not "permanently deprived the owner with intent", so
it's not theft.
--
LSR

So if I nick your car it will be OK if I give it back a few years later?


If I rent you my car by the mile and the odometer doesn't work below
5mph, if you drive everywhere at 4mph are you stealing from me?

The OP isn't bypassing the meter.

"adder1969" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 7, 1:58 pm, "Andy McKenzie"
wrote:
"LSR" wrote in message

...





TheOldFellow wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:26:47 -0700
adder1969 wrote:

So, what if I fitted two ball cocks to the DHW header tank? One
half way down the tank to work normally and one at the top with a
stop valve upstream throttled to allow a drip feed only. With
this working 24/7 I should get 'free' water maybe?

I'm not from Yorkshire BTW, I just like the idea of getting
something for nothing!

Julian.

No, you're a thief.

It's not theft.

Care to explain that? He doesn't own it, the water company does. He
steals it, it's theft. QED.

R.

If the water goes back into the sewer system (eventually) he's only
borrowed it. He's not "permanently deprived the owner with intent", so
it's not theft.
--
LSR

So if I nick your car it will be OK if I give it back a few years later?


If I rent you my car by the mile and the odometer doesn't work below
5mph, if you drive everywhere at 4mph are you stealing from me?

The OP isn't bypassing the meter.

No, that's quite true. In fact the OP has only had a thought on the
matter,(as you do) and a whole host of usenet oddballs have already accused
him of thieving :-) But that's the nature of the game in this surreal
world - it made me laugh though... It's a good job Barnes Wallace didn't
have access to usenet when he was thinking about designing a bouncing bomb -
who knows what he would have been accused of.

I'm still tempted by the idea, I've got a spare cistern valve on a drinking
trough somewhere, I can't think where it is at the mo, I'll maybe have a
look for it later. Thanks for the (one or two) helpful replies!

Julian.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
No, you're a thief.
No, he is only considering the possibility.

That's probably an offence under the Terrorism Act...

Owain

I've been thinking about this poster, it must be awful to fall on such hard
times that you can't afford to pay for what you use.

Mary

I'm still tempted by the idea, I've got a spare cistern valve on a drinking
trough somewhere, I can't think where it is at the mo, I'll maybe have a
look for it later. Thanks for the (one or two) helpful replies!

Julian.

Your "2 cistern" proposal would break the law by deliberately
contriving to cause
the meter to read incorrectly:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999

PART II

REQUIREMENTS

Restriction on installation etc. of water fittings

(2) No water fitting shall be installed, connected, arranged or used
in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause-

(i) waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of water
supplied by a water undertaker; or

(ii) the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water
undertaker.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
big snip


well I DO NOT pay for sewage. I process my own.


Now ; why doesn't surprise anybody in the newsgroup?

--

Brian

wrote in message
ups.com...

I'm still tempted by the idea, I've got a spare cistern valve on a
drinking
trough somewhere, I can't think where it is at the mo, I'll maybe have a
look for it later. Thanks for the (one or two) helpful replies!

Julian.

Your "2 cistern" proposal would break the law by deliberately
contriving to cause
the meter to read incorrectly:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999

PART II

REQUIREMENTS

Restriction on installation etc. of water fittings

(2) No water fitting shall be installed, connected, arranged or used
in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause-

(i) waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of water
supplied by a water undertaker; or

(ii) the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water
undertaker.


Fancy that.

This afternoon I've just been spraying out docks and ragwort in a field, and
one of the nags had just had a drink out of a trough as I passed close by.
The trough is (very roughly) about 50 gallons in capacity and as a rule a
horse will drink about half a gallon at a go. So, the level was only down by
about one or two millimetres and the ball cock valve was just filling at a
very fast drip. I 'downed tools' and ran over to the meter to observe, and
just as I thought, it wasn't turning.

Now that I am aware that I (aided and abetted by a friend's horse) have
pinched water IAW the following:

(2) No water fitting shall be installed, connected, arranged or used
in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause-

(i) waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of water
supplied by a water undertaker; or

(ii) the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water
undertaker.

I wonder what you suggest I should do. We actually have about 5 troughs on
the property and they all are only likely to ever fill at a slow rate due to
horse's drinking habits. If you wish to draft a letter of enquiry for me
I'll gladly forward it to United Ut's.


Julian.

I wonder what you suggest I should do.

Well that's old nags for ya. They've probably been pooing in the
street and flouting minimum tread depths on their hooves too.

Like it or not, the water regulations are as they ahttp://
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991148.htm

Most likely your local suppliers couldn't care less about what your
old nags get up to - but might be more concerned about a householder
that deliberately set out to draw water from the supply without it
registering on the meter, no matter how they did it.

"Julian" wrote in message
...

Your "2 cistern" proposal would break the law by deliberately
contriving to cause
the meter to read incorrectly:

Now that I am aware that I (aided and abetted by a friend's horse) have
pinched water IAW the following:

(2) No water fitting shall be installed, connected, arranged or used
in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause-

(i) waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of water
supplied by a water undertaker; or

(ii) the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water
undertaker.

I wonder what you suggest I should do. We actually have about 5 troughs on
the property and they all are only likely to ever fill at a slow rate due
to horse's drinking habits. If you wish to draft a letter of enquiry for
me I'll gladly forward it to United Ut's.

The difference is you can't demonstrate intent with what you've got at the
moment - mostly because there wasn't any. If you have a 2-cistern solution
for no apparent reason other than to ensure you get water as slow as
possible, that shows intent.

cheers,
clive

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Julian" wrote in message
...

Your "2 cistern" proposal would break the law by deliberately
contriving to cause
the meter to read incorrectly:

Now that I am aware that I (aided and abetted by a friend's horse) have
pinched water IAW the following:

(2) No water fitting shall be installed, connected, arranged or used
in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause-

(i) waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of water
supplied by a water undertaker; or

(ii) the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water
undertaker.

I wonder what you suggest I should do. We actually have about 5 troughs
on the property and they all are only likely to ever fill at a slow rate
due to horse's drinking habits. If you wish to draft a letter of enquiry
for me I'll gladly forward it to United Ut's.

The difference is you can't demonstrate intent with what you've got at the
moment - mostly because there wasn't any. If you have a 2-cistern solution
for no apparent reason other than to ensure you get water as slow as
possible, that shows intent.

That would be a difference, but in this instance I'm fully aware that I am
drawing water from UU's system without paying for it and that must change
things. Ie No water fitting shall be installed, (I have several) & cause
the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water undertaker.(which I
have proven to take place) So, my question remains - what action do I now
need to take? Maybe some of the characters who think I'm a thief could put
their thinking caps on!

Julian

"Julian" wrote in message
...

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Julian" wrote in message
...

Your "2 cistern" proposal would break the law by deliberately
contriving to cause
the meter to read incorrectly:

Now that I am aware that I (aided and abetted by a friend's horse) have
pinched water IAW the following:

(2) No water fitting shall be installed, connected, arranged or used
in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause-

(i) waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of water
supplied by a water undertaker; or

(ii) the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water
undertaker.

I wonder what you suggest I should do. We actually have about 5 troughs
on the property and they all are only likely to ever fill at a slow rate
due to horse's drinking habits. If you wish to draft a letter of enquiry
for me I'll gladly forward it to United Ut's.

The difference is you can't demonstrate intent with what you've got at
the moment - mostly because there wasn't any. If you have a 2-cistern
solution for no apparent reason other than to ensure you get water as
slow as possible, that shows intent.

That would be a difference, but in this instance I'm fully aware that I am
drawing water from UU's system without paying for it and that must change
things. Ie No water fitting shall be installed, (I have several) &
cause the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water
undertaker.(which I have proven to take place) So, my question remains -
what action do I now need to take? Maybe some of the characters who think
I'm a thief could put their thinking caps on!

Julian


Take no action;
Your _confession_ has been noted by Echelon!
Soon -well for some definition of soon- a report will be forwarded to DEFRA
and the Rural Payments Agency will be visiting! {after George Brown has
re-shuffled _his_ Cabinet.)

--

Brian

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
TheOldFellow wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:32:19 GMT
"Julian" wrote:

I was doing a routine check for water leaks at home today, I just
observe the little 'spinning' wheel on the water meter with
everything turned off to make sure it's not moving - it wasn't.

Then I started thinking. The meter works by way of a little turbine
wheel that spins in proportion to water flow and is geared to the
counter unit. I wondered if the turbine needs a certain minimum flow
of water to overcome the meter's internal friction. So, by opening a
cold tap just a tiny amount (just little more than a constant stream
of drips) I observed that the meter wasn't rotating at all. My theory
would appear correct.

So, what if I fitted two ball cocks to the DHW header tank? One half
way down the tank to work normally and one at the top with a stop
valve upstream throttled to allow a drip feed only. With this working
24/7 I should get 'free' water maybe?

I'm not from Yorkshire BTW, I just like the idea of getting something
for nothing!

Julian.


No, you're a thief.

No, he is only considering the possibility.

So, is it theft to deliberately buy your petrol at night when it's
colder and thus more dense ?


--
geoff

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 18:25:22 UTC, "Brian Sharrock"
wrote:

and the Rural Payments Agency will be visiting! {after George Brown has
re-shuffled _his_ Cabinet.)

Is he still alive?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 15:19:45 +0100
"Mary Fisher" wrote:


"Owain" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
TheOldFellow wrote:
No, you're a thief.
No, he is only considering the possibility.

That's probably an offence under the Terrorism Act...

Owain

I've been thinking about this poster, it must be awful to fall on
such hard times that you can't afford to pay for what you use.

Mary




I think everyone is missing my point. The OP is an immoral b.....d who
wants us to help him design a system to steal water from the rest of us.
It's the immorality that disgusts me, not the illegality.

I don't give a tinker's cuss for the legality or otherwise of his
proposal, it's the immorality of taking what the rest of us have to pay
for. What also disgusts me is that in this post-Thatcher, post-Blur,
post-Christian country of ours, this is considered acceptable. This is
a far more real, and insidious, threat to our freedoms than Islamic
Terrorism.

(and yes, I have a very nice life thank you, in Cumbria, where I have
loads of good friends who drop in through my ever-open front door
whenever they feel like it.)

R.

raden wrote:
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
TheOldFellow wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:32:19 GMT
"Julian" wrote:

I was doing a routine check for water leaks at home today, I just
observe the little 'spinning' wheel on the water meter with
everything turned off to make sure it's not moving - it wasn't.

Then I started thinking. The meter works by way of a little turbine
wheel that spins in proportion to water flow and is geared to the
counter unit. I wondered if the turbine needs a certain minimum flow
of water to overcome the meter's internal friction. So, by opening a
cold tap just a tiny amount (just little more than a constant stream
of drips) I observed that the meter wasn't rotating at all. My theory
would appear correct.

So, what if I fitted two ball cocks to the DHW header tank? One half
way down the tank to work normally and one at the top with a stop
valve upstream throttled to allow a drip feed only. With this working
24/7 I should get 'free' water maybe?

I'm not from Yorkshire BTW, I just like the idea of getting something
for nothing!

Julian.


No, you're a thief.

No, he is only considering the possibility.

So, is it theft to deliberately buy your petrol at night when it's
colder and thus more dense ?

Na, you are probably not even reversing out the fiddle where the garage
owner is selling you just under the litre (but still within the
"allowable tolerance") because their pumps are accurate enough to do it
now.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
TheOldFellow wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:32:19 GMT
"Julian" wrote:

I was doing a routine check for water leaks at home today, I just
observe the little 'spinning' wheel on the water meter with
everything turned off to make sure it's not moving - it wasn't.

Then I started thinking. The meter works by way of a little turbine
wheel that spins in proportion to water flow and is geared to the
counter unit. I wondered if the turbine needs a certain minimum flow
of water to overcome the meter's internal friction. So, by opening a
cold tap just a tiny amount (just little more than a constant stream
of drips) I observed that the meter wasn't rotating at all. My theory
would appear correct.

So, what if I fitted two ball cocks to the DHW header tank? One half
way down the tank to work normally and one at the top with a stop
valve upstream throttled to allow a drip feed only. With this working
24/7 I should get 'free' water maybe?

I'm not from Yorkshire BTW, I just like the idea of getting something
for nothing!

Julian.


No, you're a thief.

No, he is only considering the possibility.

So, is it theft to deliberately buy your petrol at night when it's colder
and thus more dense ?

That's actually given me another thought. The petrol (I've got mainly
Diesels but it's the same thing) needs to be cooled as it emerges from the
pump - so you would be getting more for your money. I wonder if it would be
possible to 'T' a loop of pipe from the vehicle airconditioner expansion
valve and wrap the pipe around the pump delivery hose. You'd have to rev the
engine up (use the fool pump furthest from cashier so as not to arouse
suspicion!) and deliver the fuel slowly.... Worth a try? I know that oil SG
changes a fair bit with temperature.

Julian.

That's actually given me another thought.

Or just crawl under parked cars and spike the tank.

All still versions of taking something that isn't rightfully yours.

"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
...

I think everyone is missing my point. The OP is an immoral b.....d who
wants us to help him design a system to steal water from the rest of us.
It's the immorality that disgusts me, not the illegality.

It does me too, I haven't missed the point!

I don't give a tinker's cuss for the legality or otherwise of his
proposal, it's the immorality of taking what the rest of us have to pay
for. What also disgusts me is that in this post-Thatcher, post-Blur,
post-Christian country of ours, this is considered acceptable.

It disgusts me too.

Mary

In message , John
Rumm writes
raden wrote:
In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
TheOldFellow wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:32:19 GMT
"Julian" wrote:

I was doing a routine check for water leaks at home today, I just
observe the little 'spinning' wheel on the water meter with
everything turned off to make sure it's not moving - it wasn't.

Then I started thinking. The meter works by way of a little turbine
wheel that spins in proportion to water flow and is geared to the
counter unit. I wondered if the turbine needs a certain minimum flow
of water to overcome the meter's internal friction. So, by opening a
cold tap just a tiny amount (just little more than a constant stream
of drips) I observed that the meter wasn't rotating at all. My theory
would appear correct.

So, what if I fitted two ball cocks to the DHW header tank? One half
way down the tank to work normally and one at the top with a stop
valve upstream throttled to allow a drip feed only. With this working
24/7 I should get 'free' water maybe?

I'm not from Yorkshire BTW, I just like the idea of getting something
for nothing!

Julian.


No, you're a thief.

No, he is only considering the possibility.

So, is it theft to deliberately buy your petrol at night when it's
colder and thus more dense ?

Na, you are probably not even reversing out the fiddle where the garage
owner is selling you just under the litre (but still within the
"allowable tolerance") because their pumps are accurate enough to do it
now.


There you go then

all these bloody "holier than thou" moralising *******s going on about
what a crim someone is for wondering if an effect that he has noticed
might save a few pennies on his water bill, when they are being ripped
off left right and centre everywhere else

Really, there are things worth getting worked up about and things which
just aren't


--
geoff

In message , Julian
writes

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
TheOldFellow wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:32:19 GMT
"Julian" wrote:

I was doing a routine check for water leaks at home today, I just
observe the little 'spinning' wheel on the water meter with
everything turned off to make sure it's not moving - it wasn't.

Then I started thinking. The meter works by way of a little turbine
wheel that spins in proportion to water flow and is geared to the
counter unit. I wondered if the turbine needs a certain minimum flow
of water to overcome the meter's internal friction. So, by opening a
cold tap just a tiny amount (just little more than a constant stream
of drips) I observed that the meter wasn't rotating at all. My theory
would appear correct.

So, what if I fitted two ball cocks to the DHW header tank? One half
way down the tank to work normally and one at the top with a stop
valve upstream throttled to allow a drip feed only. With this working
24/7 I should get 'free' water maybe?

I'm not from Yorkshire BTW, I just like the idea of getting something
for nothing!

Julian.


No, you're a thief.

No, he is only considering the possibility.

So, is it theft to deliberately buy your petrol at night when it's colder
and thus more dense ?

That's actually given me another thought. The petrol (I've got mainly
Diesels but it's the same thing) needs to be cooled as it emerges from the
pump - so you would be getting more for your money. I wonder if it would be
possible to 'T' a loop of pipe from the vehicle airconditioner expansion
valve and wrap the pipe around the pump delivery hose. You'd have to rev the
engine up (use the fool pump furthest from cashier so as not to arouse
suspicion!) and deliver the fuel slowly.... Worth a try? I know that oil SG
changes a fair bit with temperature.

It's measured way before you can get to it or have any effect. You'd
also need a lot of energy to cool it sufficiently

The flow meters are inaccurate at low flow rates, so trickling the
petrol in slowly will under measure the amount you are pumping

but, at the end of the day ... is it all worth it


--
geoff

Mary Fisher wrote:
"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
...
I think everyone is missing my point. The OP is an immoral b.....d who
wants us to help him design a system to steal water from the rest of us.
It's the immorality that disgusts me, not the illegality.

It does me too, I haven't missed the point!
I don't give a tinker's cuss for the legality or otherwise of his
proposal, it's the immorality of taking what the rest of us have to pay
for. What also disgusts me is that in this post-Thatcher, post-Blur,
post-Christian country of ours, this is considered acceptable.

It disgusts me too.

Quick write to the daily mail!

Minor point, but what was being discussed here was a thought experiment,
not a real practical one. Are you outraged at thought crime now? There
is nothing immoral about thinking through or debating the possible
outcomes and implications of various actions, even if would be immoral
to actually carry them out.

It seems rather ironic that one can be so outraged at the prospect of
someone defrauding a water company/meter when by the nature of its
design any owner of such a beast has no choice but to also be guilty of
the same "offence". Its especially ironic when the vast majority of the
"theft" of water is being carried out by the distribution pipework in
the first place, long before it reaches any meters. You are paying for
that as well. Finally your logic seems to imply that someone with a
float valve cistern in their house is behaving morally, but only when on
a flat "water rate", but suddenly their behaviour becomes immoral should
they opt to have a meter installed. But only then if they know that
there meter under-reads on low flow rates. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

So if you have a water meter fitted, you now know that it is allowing
you un-metered water under certain flow rate conditions. So *you* are
also guilty of this same crime as the OP. Are you suitably disgusted
with your own behaviour?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
"TheOldFellow" wrote in message
...
I think everyone is missing my point. The OP is an immoral b.....d who
wants us to help him design a system to steal water from the rest of us.
It's the immorality that disgusts me, not the illegality.

It does me too, I haven't missed the point!
I don't give a tinker's cuss for the legality or otherwise of his
proposal, it's the immorality of taking what the rest of us have to pay
for. What also disgusts me is that in this post-Thatcher, post-Blur,
post-Christian country of ours, this is considered acceptable.

It disgusts me too.

Quick write to the daily mail!

I'll leave that to you. We don't read newspapers.

Minor point, but what was being discussed here was a thought experiment,
not a real practical one. Are you outraged at thought crime now? There is
nothing immoral about thinking through or debating the possible outcomes
and implications of various actions, even if would be immoral to actually
carry them out.

Some of us think that there is.

It seems rather ironic that one can be so outraged at the prospect of
someone defrauding a water company/meter when by the nature of its design
any owner of such a beast has no choice but to also be guilty of the same
"offence". Its especially ironic when the vast majority of the "theft" of
water is being carried out by the distribution pipework in the first
place, long before it reaches any meters. You are paying for that as well.
Finally your logic seems to imply that someone with a float valve cistern
in their house is behaving morally, but only when on a flat "water rate",
but suddenly their behaviour becomes immoral should they opt to have a
meter installed. But only then if they know that there meter under-reads
on low flow rates. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

Who on Earth has said all that? You seem to think that you know what's in
people's minds. You don't.

So if you have a water meter fitted, you now know that it is allowing you
un-metered water under certain flow rate conditions. So *you* are also
guilty of this same crime as the OP. Are you suitably disgusted with your
own behaviour?

That's a very silly argument.

On 8 Jun, 18:37, "Julian" wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message

...





"Julian" wrote in message
...

Your "2 cistern" proposal would break the law by deliberately
contriving to cause
the meter to read incorrectly:

Now that I am aware that I (aided and abetted by a friend's horse) have
pinched water IAW the following:

(2) No water fitting shall be installed, connected, arranged or used
in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause-

(i) waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of water
supplied by a water undertaker; or

(ii) the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water
undertaker.

I wonder what you suggest I should do. We actually have about 5 troughs
on the property and they all are only likely to ever fill at a slow rate
due to horse's drinking habits. If you wish to draft a letter of enquiry
for me I'll gladly forward it to United Ut's.

The difference is you can't demonstrate intent with what you've got at the
moment - mostly because there wasn't any. If you have a 2-cistern solution
for no apparent reason other than to ensure you get water as slow as
possible, that shows intent.

That would be a difference, but in this instance I'm fully aware that I am
drawing water from UU's system without paying for it and that must change
things. Ie No water fitting shall be installed, (I have several) & cause
the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water undertaker.(which I
have proven to take place) So, my question remains - what action do I now
need to take?


I beleive some or all water co's have a tarrif for unmetered feeds to
horsetroughs. Perhaps you should enquire of them whether you should
be paying for 5 of these!

On 7 Jun, 18:55, Martin wrote:
George wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message
In scouse terminology its whats knows as putting the meter on the drip :-P
--
mart@home

As opposed to electric...they're all musicaly minded...even the meter is on
the fiddle. :-p

Not sure what terminology it is when the gas meter is done, maybe no
ones lived long enough to name it :-P
--
mart@home

Hang on a minute, this is uk.d-i-y! Surely the discussion should be
about what might happen to the lower ball valve which the op is
attempting to submerge in a couple of foot of water. Surely aren't
designed to do? Would it survive?

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 00:57:38 +0100, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my
surname here.uk.com wrote:


"LSR" wrote in message
...
...
If the water goes back into the sewer system (eventually) he's only
borrowed it. He's not "permanently deprived the owner with intent", so
it's not theft.

He is taking potable water (fluid category 1 in the language of the Water
Regulations) and returning grey water or soil (fluid category 2,3,4, or 5).
He is, therefore, permanently depriving the owner of the substance he
received.

Colin Bignell


Not permanently. It can be cleaned.
--
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 09:03:23 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Quick write to the daily mail!

I'll leave that to you. We don't read newspapers.

That may be so, but you fit the rather annoying profile of one who
writes to it. I find your use of terms such as 'disgusting' in this
context not only annoying but also inappropriate, but it does fit the
model.

Minor point, but what was being discussed here was a thought experiment,
not a real practical one. Are you outraged at thought crime now? There is
nothing immoral about thinking through or debating the possible outcomes
and implications of various actions, even if would be immoral to actually
carry them out.

Some of us think that there is.

Shades of 1984.

So if you have a water meter fitted, you now know that it is allowing you
un-metered water under certain flow rate conditions. So *you* are also
guilty of this same crime as the OP. Are you suitably disgusted with your
own behaviour?

That's a very silly argument.

Not unless you take steps to mitigate the effect of depriving the water
company of income.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"Mogga" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 00:57:38 +0100, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my
surname here.uk.com wrote:


"LSR" wrote in message
...
...
If the water goes back into the sewer system (eventually) he's only
borrowed it. He's not "permanently deprived the owner with intent", so
it's not theft.

He is taking potable water (fluid category 1 in the language of the Water
Regulations) and returning grey water or soil (fluid category 2,3,4, or
5).
He is, therefore, permanently depriving the owner of the substance he
received.

Colin Bignell


Not permanently. It can be cleaned.

Nobody can deprive anything from anyon permanently. Nothing lasts for ever.
--
http://www.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

Mary Fisher wrote:

It disgusts me too.

Quick write to the daily mail!

I'll leave that to you. We don't read newspapers.

Who said anything about reading them? You can still write "Disgusted of
Leeds". (the Daily Mail hardly fits the profile of a newspaper anyway).

Minor point, but what was being discussed here was a thought experiment,
not a real practical one. Are you outraged at thought crime now? There is
nothing immoral about thinking through or debating the possible outcomes
and implications of various actions, even if would be immoral to actually
carry them out.

Some of us think that there is.

Slippery slope don't you think?

It seems rather ironic that one can be so outraged at the prospect of
someone defrauding a water company/meter when by the nature of its design
any owner of such a beast has no choice but to also be guilty of the same
"offence". Its especially ironic when the vast majority of the "theft" of
water is being carried out by the distribution pipework in the first
place, long before it reaches any meters. You are paying for that as well.
Finally your logic seems to imply that someone with a float valve cistern
in their house is behaving morally, but only when on a flat "water rate",
but suddenly their behaviour becomes immoral should they opt to have a
meter installed. But only then if they know that there meter under-reads
on low flow rates. Ignorance is indeed bliss.

Who on Earth has said all that? You seem to think that you know what's in
people's minds. You don't.

It seems that you did by implication. You claimed to be disgusted in
response to a posting that observed that a meter did not register low
flow rates which then postulated whether this behaviour could be used to
advantage.

Perhaps there was some other aspect that you were disgusted by that was
not as immediately obvious. In which case please enlighten me.

So if you have a water meter fitted, you now know that it is allowing you
un-metered water under certain flow rate conditions. So *you* are also
guilty of this same crime as the OP. Are you suitably disgusted with your
own behaviour?

That's a very silly argument.

It is? even though you know you are defrauding the water company of some
of their income?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

wrote in message
ps.com...


Hang on a minute, this is uk.d-i-y! Surely the discussion should be
about what might happen to the lower ball valve which the op is
attempting to submerge in a couple of foot of water. Surely aren't
designed to do? Would it survive?



They would survive OK. My mate's farm has all his water troughs fitted with
two. The lower one is normal, and the upper is fed with water from a holding
tank supplied from waste warm water from a heat exchanger that's used to
partially cool milk.
(that was what helped with my initial idea)

Julian.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On 8 Jun, 18:37, "Julian" wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message

...





"Julian" wrote in message
...

Your "2 cistern" proposal would break the law by deliberately
contriving to cause
the meter to read incorrectly:

Now that I am aware that I (aided and abetted by a friend's horse)
have
pinched water IAW the following:

(2) No water fitting shall be installed, connected, arranged or used
in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause-

(i) waste, misuse, undue consumption or contamination of water
supplied by a water undertaker; or

(ii) the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water
undertaker.

I wonder what you suggest I should do. We actually have about 5
troughs
on the property and they all are only likely to ever fill at a slow
rate
due to horse's drinking habits. If you wish to draft a letter of
enquiry
for me I'll gladly forward it to United Ut's.

The difference is you can't demonstrate intent with what you've got at
the
moment - mostly because there wasn't any. If you have a 2-cistern
solution
for no apparent reason other than to ensure you get water as slow as
possible, that shows intent.

That would be a difference, but in this instance I'm fully aware that I
am
drawing water from UU's system without paying for it and that must change
things. Ie No water fitting shall be installed, (I have several) &
cause
the erroneous measurement of water supplied by a water undertaker.(which
I
have proven to take place) So, my question remains - what action do I now
need to take?


I beleive some or all water co's have a tarrif for unmetered feeds to
horsetroughs. Perhaps you should enquire of them whether you should
be paying for 5 of these!


Yes, that's true I think, but for 'remote' troughs where it would be
uneconomic or unreasonable to create a separate account. I'm on a commercial
tariff for my farm. And all the water comes from the one supply.

Julian.

"raden" wrote in message
...

It's measured way before you can get to it or have any effect. You'd also
need a lot of energy to cool it sufficiently

Shhhhh, I took a gamble that the normal suspects wouldn't work that out - I
was hoping to create another crescendo of judgemetal protests, (and assorted
referenced to Cumbria, Muslins and Maggie T) it worked pretty well :-)



The flow meters are inaccurate at low flow rates, so trickling the petrol
in slowly will under measure the amount you are pumping

but, at the end of the day ... is it all worth it

No, I don't think it would be worth it at all, but it was funny!

Julian.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
....

So if you have a water meter fitted, you now know that it is allowing
you un-metered water under certain flow rate conditions. So *you* are
also guilty of this same crime as the OP.

We're not.
Are you suitably disgusted with your own behaviour?

That's a very silly argument.

It is? even though you know you are defrauding the water company of some
of their income?

I'm not. We don't have dripping taps. We try not to waste anything.

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
...
So if you have a water meter fitted, you now know that it is allowing
you un-metered water under certain flow rate conditions. So *you* are
also guilty of this same crime as the OP.

We're not.
Are you suitably disgusted with your own behaviour?
That's a very silly argument.
It is? even though you know you are defrauding the water company of some
of their income?

I'm not. We don't have dripping taps. We try not to waste anything.

Does your toilet not have a cistern? What about the cold water cistern
in your loft? These will all require very low flow rates at some point
in their operation - so they must by implication be at least partially
filled with unmetered water.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...


I'm not. We don't have dripping taps. We try not to waste anything.

Does your toilet not have a cistern? What about the cold water cistern in
your loft? These will all require very low flow rates at some point in
their operation - so they must by implication be at least partially filled
with unmetered water.

Our plumbing is well maintained and monitored. There is no unregistered
water.

End of story.

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

I'm not. We don't have dripping taps. We try not to waste anything.
Does your toilet not have a cistern? What about the cold water cistern in
your loft? These will all require very low flow rates at some point in
their operation - so they must by implication be at least partially filled
with unmetered water.

Our plumbing is well maintained and monitored. There is no unregistered
water.

Nothing to do with your plumbing. The OP pointed out that the meter
itself will not register low flow rates. I bet your meter has not been
"maintained" since it was installed.

Your well maintained plumbing has float valves. Float valves will use a
low flow rate for a period of time near to the cistern being full. The
inescapable conclusion?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/