On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:39:25 +0100 someone who may be Grunff
wrote this:-

I couldn't agree more. I cannot stand this whole "you need to separate
your waste into 14 different bins" approach. It's crazy, and I suspect
of anyone carried out a full process analysis they'd find that it used a
lot more energy than simply separating the waste at a central location.

If you can find an easy way of decontaminating waste gathered
together in this way then I'm sure there are people would like to
hear what you have to say.


--
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, 14 Sep 2007 14:22:49 GMT someone who may be "John"
wrote this:-

Personally, I find it easy to just put jars and cans into the sink for a
rinse and then take them straight out to the blue bin. We only have one bin
in the house - for general waste that goes into the black bin.

indeed. If one uses washing up water so much the 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

On 14 Sep 2007 18:35:46 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

In a despirate effort to find something to do with mountains of
broken glass, they've been grinding it up to use as substrate for
roads and pavements instead of sand and gravel.

The manager of a reasonably local glass recycling plant said in the
spring that using glass in this way has made it more expensive for
him to get hold of glass to put through his plant. He was not happy
about the situation.

Remember that things vary round the UK. The glass mountain is in SE
England, not the rest of the UK.


--
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

"Peter Lynch" wrote in message
...

Re-cycling is a waste of time. It takes more energy to re-cycled than just
to burn the stuff. 99% of all household waste is burnable (incendiary if
iron and aluminium). Stack scrubbers are good enough now to keep the
products of combustion to safe levels. mentioned on the Defra web site too.
It is better to burn the stuff and make electricity out of it and save oil.
Have local stations and all the waste heat can be piped to homes taking the
efficiencies way high; as in Scandinavia.

On 15 Sep 2007 07:33:21 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

I am very much in favour of recycling, when it makes
real sense.

What terms do you put into your real sense equation?

Does it include terms for the necessary space, the equivalent of
Murrayfield stadium every day for Scotland? Does it include terms
for the water pollution? Does it include terms for those living near
landfill sites? Does it include terms for the wildlife caught up in
plastic, for example plastic bags?



--
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 2007-09-16 09:05:51 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:39:25 +0100 someone who may be Grunff
wrote this:-

I couldn't agree more. I cannot stand this whole "you need to separate
your waste into 14 different bins" approach. It's crazy, and I suspect
of anyone carried out a full process analysis they'd find that it used a
lot more energy than simply separating the waste at a central location.

If you can find an easy way of decontaminating waste gathered
together in this way then I'm sure there are people would like to
hear what you have to say.

How about "decontamination" when householders put items in the wrong
containers?

If it's *really* so important then it should be dealt with in a way
that is automated or does not rely on people who are not qualified to
do the work.

On 2007-09-16 09:07:18 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:22:49 GMT someone who may be "John"
wrote this:-

Personally, I find it easy to just put jars and cans into the sink for a
rinse and then take them straight out to the blue bin. We only have one bin
in the house - for general waste that goes into the black bin.

indeed. If one uses washing up water so much the better.

What happens in the case of a dishwasher? There are several problems

- Items that are being thrown out taking up space and resulting in the
DW needing to be run again

- Labels coming off and blocking the filter


Better to just chuck the lot in the one bin and be done with it.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:39:41 +0100, tim..... wrote:

----------------------8
And whilst you're ranting on. This morning I went down
to our communal bins (which had been emptied yesterday)
and two of then were already completely full.

Some bugger had thrown away four large boxes and couldn't
be bothered to squash them up. I took them out and put
them in the recycling shed. The bins are now empty again.

Why are people so lazy.

Because somebody else takes the necessary action to shield them from the
consequences?

In article ,
David Hansen writes:
On 15 Sep 2007 07:33:21 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

I am very much in favour of recycling, when it makes
real sense.

What terms do you put into your real sense equation?

Does it include terms for the necessary space, the equivalent of
Murrayfield stadium every day for Scotland? Does it include terms
for the water pollution? Does it include terms for those living near
landfill sites? Does it include terms for the wildlife caught up in
plastic, for example plastic bags?

Yes.

My waste is sorted at source into separete kitchen bins.
It splits into about 75% recyclable and 25% non-recyclable.
My non-recyclable wheelie bin goes out to be emptied about
once every 10 weeks, and it's never more than about half full.
(I do laugh when I hear people complaining of 2-weekly collections;-)

I have a large hole in the garden where some trees were pulled
out. Compostable waste goes in that together with the grass
clippings, until such time as it fills up. (I'm not interested
in using the compost, but having the hole filled will be useful.)

We have a separate glass collection. It's taken me a year to
fill the glass collection box, so that's only ever gone out
once, pointless though it is as it just gets added to a large
glass mountain that no one can find any viable use for.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

John wrote:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John" writes:
Glass must me the most recyclable material there is, so I can't
understand
why all councils cannot collect it.
There's no market for it -- it's much easier to make new glass
than to recycle glass contaminated with just about everything.
"Driving to the bottle bank" is a euphemism for pointless recycling.

In a despirate effort to find something to do with mountains of
broken glass, they've been grinding it up to use as substrate for
roads and pavements instead of sand and gravel.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

That is what I was thinking of. Seems better than quarrying.


It's an excellent material as it happens. As are ground up car tyres.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
"John" writes:
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John" writes:
Glass must me the most recyclable material there is, so I can't
understand
why all councils cannot collect it.
There's no market for it -- it's much easier to make new glass
than to recycle glass contaminated with just about everything.
"Driving to the bottle bank" is a euphemism for pointless recycling.

In a despirate effort to find something to do with mountains of
broken glass, they've been grinding it up to use as substrate for
roads and pavements instead of sand and gravel.
That is what I was thinking of. Seems better than quarrying.

Better in what respect? It's all done at a loss, but just to
keep the recycle figures up so councils don't get bigger fines.
You are paying a premium for this pointless glass recycling in
your taxes. I am very much in favour of recycling, when it makes
real sense.

Very little recycling makes any sense at all. Its being forced on
councils by strict landfill regulations. Their response has been to pass
the separation costs onto the taxpayer. And in the case of bottle banks,
the transport costs as well.

Derek Geldard wrote:

Glass cannot be easily be re-cycled. The various grades of special
glasses such as Pyrex, Monax, etc. cannot be included with general
purpose run of the mill glass of current origin, the resulting glass
would not run through our current machinery, and nobody can guarantee
they won't appear in the waste glass stream offered for recycling.

Some glasses have ingredients which are incompatible with food use,
lead, cadmium etc. They also would spoil batches of recycled glass.
There can be no guarantees about the quality of glass taken in glass
recycling centres.

Coloured glass can not be recycled such that it may be included with
un-coloured glass to produce new clear glass. Sorting coloured glass
from clear glass is not workable at all from the cost point of view.
The controls applied to the donation of glass at recycling centres
cannot of themselves guarantee the purity of the glass donated to a
workable level, or currently to any level at all.

The raw materials of glass are dirt cheap anyway, because glass is
actually made of dirt.

Recycled glass can be crushed to make "Cullet" the only use for which
is in roadmaking. However the road surfaces it makes wears faster than
traditional road surfaces and would not be not economic here. There
is no rational market for Cullet in this country.

Actually, it makes halfway decent ballast for concrete and hardcore type
applications.

Myself I'd dump it in the sea and let nature turn it into pretty
pebbles, which takes a week or two.

David Hansen wrote:

On 14 Sep 2007 18:35:46 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

In a despirate effort to find something to do with mountains of
broken glass, they've been grinding it up to use as substrate for
roads and pavements instead of sand and gravel.

The manager of a reasonably local glass recycling plant said in the
spring that using glass in this way has made it more expensive for
him to get hold of glass to put through his plant.

I suspect he was talking ********. Most of the glass used in this way is
from wine bottles. There is little use for green cullet in the UK and
that's why it mounts up in areas where wine bottles form a greater
proportion of recycled glass. Brown and clear glass are usually kept
separately from green and remain available to those wanting cullet.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:20:56 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


What happens in the case of a dishwasher? There are several problems

- Items that are being thrown out taking up space and resulting in the
DW needing to be run again

- Labels coming off and blocking the filter


Better to just chuck the lot in the one bin and be done with it.

Ahh, Quelle finesse !

DG

In message , Derek Geldard
writes
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:20:56 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


What happens in the case of a dishwasher? There are several problems

- Items that are being thrown out taking up space and resulting in the
DW needing to be run again

- Labels coming off and blocking the filter


Better to just chuck the lot in the one bin and be done with it.

Ahh, Quelle finesse !

I've just thrown out 500 video cassettes

Glowing feeling now

only another 2000 to go


--
geoff

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:55:11 GMT, clot wrote:

Broadback wrote:
Grunff wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

I had an invoice from an electrical supplier today with a line item
for a WEEE levy charge. Quantity 2 @15p each. I queried
it. It turns out that this is a new government charge for
lightbulbs and certain electrical goods:

* Fluorescent Tubes
* Low Energy bulbs
* Mercury, Metal Halide SON & SOX, bulbs
* Most Commercial Light Fittings
* Electrical appliances including Fridges, Microwaves, Fans and
Heaters.


WEEE applies to all electrical and electronic household items. As a
retailer, we've had to join up to the central takeback scheme. This
is essentially an additional tax, no more. We've chosen not to pass
this on to the consumer directly.

I compost, therefore I have refused the "garden" bin, I even compost
paper. I do not have a wormery, therefore cooked kitchen waste goes in
the council bin. The bottle bank has a notice saying "only bottles, no
broken glass", odd when I toss my bottles in I hear them breaking. I
refuse to wash out cans and bottles, this is surely worse for the
environment than throwing them away. Why cannot our council do as
they do on the continent, burn waste and use it to generate
electrickery?"

Mainly due to NIMBYism. At a plant I visited in Hamburg, the sewage
sludge was dewatered in the same way as it is in many works in the UK
and then transferred to another plant (on the same site by a conveyor)
operated by either RWE or Eon and termed the power station - i.e. not an
incinerator. The local public were very supportive of this power
station. RWE/Eon encouraged other organisations with comparable
materials to dispose of their waste to the power station to maximise the
use of the plant. The environmental controls over emissions are
precisely the same as those over incinerators in the UK. There, it seems
that "Power Station" is not seen as a euphemism for "Incinerator". It
seems to me to be a logical outlet for mixed organic wastes or say
treated timber that cannot find another secondary use.

ISTR that sewage sludge used to be pumped from Manchester to Liverpool for
ultimate dumping at sea, but that some years ago a power station was built
along the route of the pipeline and the flow was reversed in the lower half
of the pipeline, allowing Manchester and Liverpool to provide fuel.

Steve Walker wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:55:11 GMT, clot wrote:

Broadback wrote:
Grunff wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

I had an invoice from an electrical supplier today with a line
item for a WEEE levy charge. Quantity 2 @15p each. I
queried it. It turns out that this is a new government
charge for lightbulbs and certain electrical goods:

* Fluorescent Tubes
* Low Energy bulbs
* Mercury, Metal Halide SON & SOX, bulbs
* Most Commercial Light Fittings
* Electrical appliances including Fridges, Microwaves, Fans and
Heaters.


WEEE applies to all electrical and electronic household items. As a
retailer, we've had to join up to the central takeback scheme. This
is essentially an additional tax, no more. We've chosen not to pass
this on to the consumer directly.

I compost, therefore I have refused the "garden" bin, I even compost
paper. I do not have a wormery, therefore cooked kitchen waste goes
in the council bin. The bottle bank has a notice saying "only
bottles, no broken glass", odd when I toss my bottles in I hear
them breaking. I refuse to wash out cans and bottles, this is
surely worse for the environment than throwing them away. Why
cannot our council do as they do on the continent, burn waste and
use it to generate electrickery?"

Mainly due to NIMBYism. At a plant I visited in Hamburg, the sewage
sludge was dewatered in the same way as it is in many works in the UK
and then transferred to another plant (on the same site by a
conveyor) operated by either RWE or Eon and termed the power station
- i.e. not an incinerator. The local public were very supportive of
this power station. RWE/Eon encouraged other organisations with
comparable materials to dispose of their waste to the power station
to maximise the use of the plant. The environmental controls over
emissions are precisely the same as those over incinerators in the
UK. There, it seems that "Power Station" is not seen as a euphemism
for "Incinerator". It seems to me to be a logical outlet for mixed
organic wastes or say treated timber that cannot find another
secondary use.

ISTR that sewage sludge used to be pumped from Manchester to
Liverpool for ultimate dumping at sea, but that some years ago a
power station was built along the route of the pipeline and the flow
was reversed in the lower half of the pipeline, allowing Manchester
and Liverpool to provide fuel.

Partly pumped and also via the Manchester Sh1t/p Canal, ISTR. I think
that you are right -Shell Green?

Grunff wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

Frankly, they should simply forget the whole idea of householders
doing recycling at all and provide what they are being paid to do -
i.e. removal of domestic rubbish. If they wan't to separate it
into different categories, sell it, bury it, burn it, ship it to China
or whatever, then they should deal with that and not waste the time of
the householders.

I couldn't agree more. I cannot stand this whole "you need to separate
your waste into 14 different bins" approach. It's crazy, and I suspect
of anyone carried out a full process analysis they'd find that it used a
lot more energy than simply separating the waste at a central location.

The ones that really get on your tits are the schemes that have the
householders do all the separation, and then promptly lump it all back
together again at the point of collection or shortly after. Usually
justified with some words about getting householders used to doing this
for the point in the future when it actually becomes viable to do
something with all the separated materials.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

raden wrote:

I remember Laithwaite giving the royal soc xmas lecture when I was about 15

I saw him do some live demos at the RI when I was about 15... still look
for the seat I sat in every time I see it on telly ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 16 Sep 2007 09:20:56 GMT someone who may be
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-

What terms do you put into your real sense equation?

Does it include terms for the necessary space, the equivalent of
Murrayfield stadium every day for Scotland? Does it include terms
for the water pollution? Does it include terms for those living near
landfill sites? Does it include terms for the wildlife caught up in
plastic, for example plastic bags?

Yes.

I note that despite all your subsequent typing you failed to add any
more to this assertion.


--
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 Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:50:02 +0100 someone who may be
(Steve Firth) wrote this:-

The manager of a reasonably local glass recycling plant said in the
spring that using glass in this way has made it more expensive for
him to get hold of glass to put through his plant.

I suspect he was talking ********.

Yawn.


--
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 Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:06:43 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

The ones that really get on your tits are the schemes that have the
householders do all the separation, and then promptly lump it all back
together again at the point of collection or shortly after.

My residual waste bin and garden waste bin are collected on the same
day. I did check once and they were collected by lorries with
different number plates.

Perhaps I should ask my councillors to find out what actually
happens to everything and then check up on what they say.

Alternatively I could decide that the claims you make/report are
greatly exaggerated. There was a case here where materials were not
recycled. It was due to a short term problem which was spotted and
revealed in the weekly newspaper. It was not, as some suggest,
something hat happened all the time.





--
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, 15 Sep 2007 00:55:11 GMT someone who may be "clot"
wrote this:-

Mainly due to NIMBYism. At a plant I visited in Hamburg, the sewage
sludge was dewatered in the same way as it is in many works in the UK
and then transferred to another plant (on the same site by a conveyor)
operated by either RWE or Eon and termed the power station - i.e. not an
incinerator. The local public were very supportive of this power
station. RWE/Eon encouraged other organisations with comparable
materials to dispose of their waste to the power station to maximise the
use of the plant. The environmental controls over emissions are
precisely the same as those over incinerators in the UK. There, it seems
that "Power Station" is not seen as a euphemism for "Incinerator". It
seems to me to be a logical outlet for mixed organic wastes or say
treated timber that cannot find another secondary use.

Sewage sludge is burnt in Longannet, has been for years. Due to
changes in EU Directives it now needs to be burnt in a more
controlled fashion, though they have been granted an exemption the
legality of which is dubious. Scottish Power are in the planning
process to build a new power station, which will also take the sort
of wood (chipboard for example) which cannot be recycled. While it
would be better not to have the sludge that isn't going to happen
overnight and burning it in a controlled fashion is one of the
better things to do with it. Following lobbying Scottish Power say
they are looking at a use for the heat, which they originally
intended to dump into the atmosphere.

However, this is very different to waste incinerators, especially if
they are PFI schemes. They encourage the production of waste to feed
the furnace, when what is needed is a reduction of waste.


--
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

David Hansen wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:50:02 +0100 someone who may be
(Steve Firth) wrote this:-

The manager of a reasonably local glass recycling plant said in the
spring that using glass in this way has made it more expensive for
him to get hold of glass to put through his plant.

I suspect he was talking ********.

[Unmarked snip]
"Most of the glass used in this way is
from wine bottles. There is little use for green cullet in the UK and
that's why it mounts up in areas where wine bottles form a greater
proportion of recycled glass. Brown and clear glass are usually kept
separately from green and remain available to those wanting cullet."
[End]

Yawn.

Ah good, pointless ad hominem and avoidance of the actual point being
made noted. Not only that, but an unmarked snip worthy of Drivel.

On 2007-09-17 08:43:33 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:06:43 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

The ones that really get on your tits are the schemes that have the
householders do all the separation, and then promptly lump it all back
together again at the point of collection or shortly after.

My residual waste bin and garden waste bin are collected on the same
day. I did check once and they were collected by lorries with
different number plates.

Perhaps I should ask my councillors to find out what actually
happens to everything and then check up on what they say.

That would always be a good plan unless you trust the LA implicitly.



Alternatively I could decide that the claims you make/report are
greatly exaggerated. There was a case here where materials were not
recycled. It was due to a short term problem which was spotted and
revealed in the weekly newspaper. It was not, as some suggest,
something hat happened all the time.

That's naive.

John Rumm wrote:
Grunff wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

Frankly, they should simply forget the whole idea of householders
doing recycling at all and provide what they are being paid to do -
i.e. removal of domestic rubbish. If they wan't to separate it
into different categories, sell it, bury it, burn it, ship it to
China or whatever, then they should deal with that and not waste the
time of the householders.

I couldn't agree more. I cannot stand this whole "you need to separate
your waste into 14 different bins" approach. It's crazy, and I suspect
of anyone carried out a full process analysis they'd find that it used
a lot more energy than simply separating the waste at a central location.

The ones that really get on your tits are the schemes that have the
householders do all the separation, and then promptly lump it all back
together again at the point of collection or shortly after. Usually
justified with some words about getting householders used to doing this
for the point in the future when it actually becomes viable to do
something with all the separated materials.


I am fully expecting that there will be a national law making us eat
vegetables only, three days a week, ready for the time when we have
separate **** processing plants that seal with animal, vegetable and
mineral ****.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Grunff wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

Frankly, they should simply forget the whole idea of householders
doing recycling at all and provide what they are being paid to do -
i.e. removal of domestic rubbish. If they wan't to separate it
into different categories, sell it, bury it, burn it, ship it to
China or whatever, then they should deal with that and not waste the
time of the householders.

I couldn't agree more. I cannot stand this whole "you need to
separate your waste into 14 different bins" approach. It's crazy, and
I suspect of anyone carried out a full process analysis they'd find
that it used a lot more energy than simply separating the waste at a
central location.

The ones that really get on your tits are the schemes that have the
householders do all the separation, and then promptly lump it all back
together again at the point of collection or shortly after. Usually
justified with some words about getting householders used to doing
this for the point in the future when it actually becomes viable to do
something with all the separated materials.


I am fully expecting that there will be a national law making us eat
vegetables only, three days a week, ready for the time when we have
separate **** processing plants that seal with animal, vegetable and
mineral ****.

Mineral **** would certainly make your eyes water

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:57:05 +0100 someone who may be
(Steve Firth) wrote this:-

Yawn.

Ah good, pointless ad hominem and avoidance of the actual point being
made noted. Not only that, but an unmarked snip worthy of Drivel.

Yawn.


--
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

David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:57:05 +0100 someone who may be
(Steve Firth) wrote this:-

Yawn.

Ah good, pointless ad hominem and avoidance of the actual point being
made noted. Not only that, but an unmarked snip worthy of Drivel.

Yawn.

Drivel, is that you?

David Hansen wrote:

My residual waste bin and garden waste bin are collected on the same
day. I did check once and they were collected by lorries with
different number plates.

The garden waste scheme is an interesting one. You pay extra to have a
brown wheelie bin that you can put garden wast into. They collect it
fortnightly. They will also sell you compost. So they charge you to take
it away, let it decompose some and sell it back to the punters!

Nice scheme if you can get away with it. (meanwhile most people stick
small quantities of garden waste in the regular wheelie bins.

Perhaps I should ask my councillors to find out what actually
happens to everything and then check up on what they say.

Perhaps. Depends, do you trust your average elected official?

Alternatively I could decide that the claims you make/report are
greatly exaggerated. There was a case here where materials were not

You could, but they seem common enough to be easy to research for yourself.

Collecting glass sorted into colours is the most common example. Often
the bins do not even have any subdivisions inside irrespective of have
green, brown and clear holes on the outside.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:53:51 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

The garden waste scheme is an interesting one. You pay extra to have a
brown wheelie bin that you can put garden wast into.

I pay extra to have a brown bin do I? A fascinating claim, but an
untrue one.

Collecting glass sorted into colours is the most common example. Often
the bins do not even have any subdivisions inside irrespective of have
green, brown and clear holes on the outside.

Given that all the containers I have seen in the locality for glass
are intended for one colour of glass only, there are no
multi-compartment bins, I'll draw my own conclusions about this
assertion. Things may be different elsewhere.

Perhaps I should keep an eye on the recycling point too, but given
that the claims of the trolls about garden waste are false I suspect
that their claims about other things are equally false.



--
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 Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:07:36 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:53:51 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

The garden waste scheme is an interesting one. You pay extra to have a
brown wheelie bin that you can put garden wast into.

I pay extra to have a brown bin do I? A fascinating claim, but an
untrue one.

I'll bet you do.

Isn't it paid for from your council tax?

--
Frank Erskine

David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:53:51 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

The garden waste scheme is an interesting one. You pay extra to have a
brown wheelie bin that you can put garden wast into.

I pay extra to have a brown bin do I? A fascinating claim, but an
untrue one.

I have no idea what you do (and was not claiming to either - apologies
if I was not clear), but that is how it works here.

Collecting glass sorted into colours is the most common example. Often
the bins do not even have any subdivisions inside irrespective of have
green, brown and clear holes on the outside.

Given that all the containers I have seen in the locality for glass
are intended for one colour of glass only, there are no
multi-compartment bins, I'll draw my own conclusions about this
assertion. Things may be different elsewhere.

You may as well assume it is correct - the bin in our local Sainsbury's
car park is as I describe. Others have reported seeing the same in this
very fora.

Perhaps I should keep an eye on the recycling point too, but given
that the claims of the trolls about garden waste are false I suspect
that their claims about other things are equally false.

Would I lie to you?

http://www.rochford.gov.uk/rdc/main.asp?page=291



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:34:58 +0100 someone who may be Frank Erskine
wrote this:-

I pay extra to have a brown bin do I? A fascinating claim, but an
untrue one.

I'll bet you do.

Isn't it paid for from your council tax?

It may well be paid for from council or general taxation. However,
there are other costs to be considered, including the reduction in
landfill charges.


--
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

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:53:51 +0100 someone who may be John Rumm
wrote this:-

The garden waste scheme is an interesting one. You pay extra to have a
brown wheelie bin that you can put garden wast into.

I pay extra to have a brown bin do I? A fascinating claim, but an
untrue one.

Not in Oxfordshire. Perhaps John Rumm meant "one pays extra" rather than
"you pay extra" but, even where you don't pay upfront, it gets paid for
somewhere and the council has only one source of extra revenue!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)