On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:38:21 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-04-17 19:47:02 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:20:59 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

You don't say why it is "nonsense" to reduce water consumption.

Because we are on an island drenched with the stuff.

Even in Scotland that isn't true. It is certainly not the case in
drier places in the south.

It's a matter of collection and distribution.

AND treatment.

It most certainly isn't simply a matter of pouring rainwater into your
pipes.

Your water bill also includes treatment and disposal of sewage.

--
Frank Erskine

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:45:16 +0100, Derek
wrote:

Potential saving less than 1 pence per day

ITYM:- "1 penny per day"

:-)

--
Frank Erskine

Piers Finlayson wrote:
Dont forget you're paying for water disposal as well as delivery, so
if you discharge the rain to the waterboard you're still liable for
the
disposal charge.


I recalled that if rainwater from your property discharges down the
sewer you have to pay a (fixed, not metered, clearly) charge for
that. May be wrong here though, as I haven't paid for my water for a
while.
Don't see why you should pay extra for using the rainwater before it
discharges ...

(percentages are apporximate - but it shows the system used)
You pay for sewage as 90% of the fresh water supplied by the meter. ie if
you buy 100cu m water
and then pay for 90 cu m of sewage.

If you prove that you do not return rain water (have a soak etc) you pay
only 80%. ie if you buy 100cu m water
and now only pay for 80 cu m of sewage.

--
Mark BR

On 2008-04-17 23:59:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4807c38b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-17 21:13:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4807a996@qaanaaq...


Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a selection
of quality potable products and offer the consumer choice of product.
Tap water almost universally tastes disgusting.



Rubbish, mineral water taste awful, it should be banned.

Rubbish mineral water probably does. The decent products don't



They all do.

So you've tried them all?

On 2008-04-18 00:41:05 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:38:21 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-04-17 19:47:02 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:20:59 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

You don't say why it is "nonsense" to reduce water consumption.

Because we are on an island drenched with the stuff.

Even in Scotland that isn't true. It is certainly not the case in
drier places in the south.

It's a matter of collection and distribution.

AND treatment.

It most certainly isn't simply a matter of pouring rainwater into your
pipes.

It wouldn't be necessary to treat piped water as it is, if there was
not the assumption that it would be used as drinking water. 99%+ is
not used for that, so it's a nonsense to treat all of it.



Your water bill also includes treatment and disposal of sewage.

It's itemised.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

Rubbish mineral water probably does. The decent products don't



They all do.

You've tasted ALL of them???

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:45:16 +0100, Derek
wrote:

Potential saving less than 1 pence per day

ITYM:- "1 penny per day"

:-)

Well said, that man!

Mary

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:38:21 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-04-17 19:47:02 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:20:59 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

You don't say why it is "nonsense" to reduce water consumption.
Because we are on an island drenched with the stuff.
Even in Scotland that isn't true. It is certainly not the case in
drier places in the south.
It's a matter of collection and distribution.

AND treatment.

YES!!

If you want a loo covered in green slime, or are prepared to tip in
chemicals at far higher cost than te water company does..



It most certainly isn't simply a matter of pouring rainwater into your
pipes.

Your water bill also includes treatment and disposal of sewage.


Mine doesn't. I do that myself.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-18 00:41:05 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:38:21 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2008-04-17 19:47:02 +0100, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:20:59 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-

You don't say why it is "nonsense" to reduce water consumption.

Because we are on an island drenched with the stuff.

Even in Scotland that isn't true. It is certainly not the case in
drier places in the south.

It's a matter of collection and distribution.

AND treatment.

It most certainly isn't simply a matter of pouring rainwater into your
pipes.

It wouldn't be necessary to treat piped water as it is, if there was not
the assumption that it would be used as drinking water. 99%+ is not
used for that, so it's a nonsense to treat all of it.



I think you will find that organic growth is more of a hazard than just
to people's health.

We must have pulled a couple of tons of nice orginic clogging matting
algae out of our pond before we got the oxygenation plants going.


Certainly enough to clog any valves or pumps that might have been in the
way.

Ok a closed tank will stop photosynthesis, but any water but I have ever
known is just FULL of mosquito larvae etc etc.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:46:05 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:45:16 +0100, Derek
wrote:

Potential saving less than 1 pence per day

ITYM:- "1 penny per day"

:-)

Well said, that man!

Mary


What was all that Bovine Scatology about modern ways of thinking?

"English Currency

Before 1971, a single penny was always one penny, never one pence. In
1971 the penny became One New Pence and there were 100 New Pence to
the pound." ...
www.bignell.uk.com/english_currency.htm - 16k

© C P Bignell 2000

Better said *that* man ...

Derek

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:46:05 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:45:16 +0100, Derek
wrote:

Potential saving less than 1 pence per day

ITYM:- "1 penny per day"

:-)

Well said, that man!

Mary


What was all that Bovine Scatology about modern ways of thinking?

"English Currency

Before 1971, a single penny was always one penny, never one pence. In
1971 the penny became One New Pence and there were 100 New Pence to
the pound." ...
www.bignell.uk.com/english_currency.htm - 16k


He follows this by saying (which you omitted) "The new was eventually
dropped and the name penny has returned"

mainly, I would say, because "pence" is a plural and therfore "one new
pence" didn't mean anything, being akin to saying "one pounds". Don't bring
Mr Bignell (better said though he is) in on your specious argument ;o)


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

Bob Mannix wrote:
"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:46:05 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:45:16 +0100, Derek
wrote:

Potential saving less than 1 pence per day
ITYM:- "1 penny per day"

:-)
Well said, that man!

Mary

What was all that Bovine Scatology about modern ways of thinking?

"English Currency

Before 1971, a single penny was always one penny, never one pence. In
1971 the penny became One New Pence and there were 100 New Pence to
the pound." ...
www.bignell.uk.com/english_currency.htm - 16k


He follows this by saying (which you omitted) "The new was eventually
dropped and the name penny has returned"

mainly, I would say, because "pence" is a plural and therfore "one new
pence" didn't mean anything, being akin to saying "one pounds". Don't bring
Mr Bignell (better said though he is) in on your specious argument ;o)


Funny how "three ha'ppence" (however spelled) became "one point five
pence" or "one and a half pence". In fact, the "point five" form now
seems frequently to have replaced the simple "half".

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...
"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:46:05 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:45:16 +0100, Derek
wrote:

Potential saving less than 1 pence per day

ITYM:- "1 penny per day"

:-)

Well said, that man!

Mary


What was all that Bovine Scatology about modern ways of thinking?

"English Currency

Before 1971, a single penny was always one penny, never one pence. In
1971 the penny became One New Pence and there were 100 New Pence to
the pound." ...
www.bignell.uk.com/english_currency.htm - 16k


He follows this by saying (which you omitted) "The new was eventually
dropped and the name penny has returned"

mainly, I would say, because "pence" is a plural and therfore "one new
pence" didn't mean anything, being akin to saying "one pounds". Don't
bring Mr Bignell (better said though he is) in on your specious argument
;o)

Yes, pence is the plural of pence.
Pence is not the plural of penny.
They are different things even if penny is still used to refer to one pence.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4808340b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-17 23:59:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4807c38b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-17 21:13:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4807a996@qaanaaq...


Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a selection
of quality potable products and offer the consumer choice of product.
Tap water almost universally tastes disgusting.



Rubbish, mineral water taste awful, it should be banned.

Rubbish mineral water probably does. The decent products don't



They all do.

So you've tried them all?



As much as you have tried all tap water, yes.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

Rubbish mineral water probably does. The decent products don't



They all do.

You've tasted ALL of them???






They wouldn't ve mineral water if they didn't have minerals in them and the
minerals taste the same in the same concentrations.. there is nothing
magical about mineral water its just chemical soup.

dennis@home wrote in




Yes, pence is the plural of pence.
Pence is not the plural of penny.

You may be right but, if that's so, the first half dozen searches on
Google - inc. the OUP - have it wrongly down as the plural of penny.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...
"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:46:05 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:45:16 +0100, Derek
wrote:

Potential saving less than 1 pence per day

ITYM:- "1 penny per day"

:-)

Well said, that man!

Mary


What was all that Bovine Scatology about modern ways of thinking?

"English Currency

Before 1971, a single penny was always one penny, never one pence. In
1971 the penny became One New Pence and there were 100 New Pence to
the pound." ...
www.bignell.uk.com/english_currency.htm - 16k


He follows this by saying (which you omitted) "The new was eventually
dropped and the name penny has returned"

mainly, I would say, because "pence" is a plural and therfore "one new
pence" didn't mean anything, being akin to saying "one pounds". Don't
bring Mr Bignell (better said though he is) in on your specious argument
;o)

Yes, pence is the plural of pence.

No it isn't

Pence is not the plural of penny.

Yes it is (OED etc)

They are different things even if penny is still used to refer to one
pence.

The 1p coin says "One Penny" on it, the 2p coin "Two pence"

Do you actually live in the real world or a parallel universe?

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

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4808340b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-17 23:59:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4807c38b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-17 21:13:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4807a996@qaanaaq...


Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a selection
of quality potable products and offer the consumer choice of product.
Tap water almost universally tastes disgusting.



Rubbish, mineral water taste awful, it should be banned.

Rubbish mineral water probably does. The decent products don't



They all do.

So you've tried them all?



As much as you have tried all tap water, yes.

Ah but I'm not making any claims bout all tap water tasting the same!

"Rod" wrote in message
...


Funny how "three ha'ppence" (however spelled) became "one point five
pence" or "one and a half pence". In fact, the "point five" form now seems
frequently to have replaced the simple "half".

It was ridiculous to have a decimal system which used a half!

Mary

On 2008-04-18 11:57:37 +0100, said:

On 18 Apr,
Andy Hall wrote:

It wouldn't be necessary to treat piped water as it is, if there was
not the assumption that it would be used as drinking water. 99%+ is
not used for that, so it's a nonsense to treat all of it.

It would still be necessary to treat it, but to not quite the same standards.
I wouldn't want to shower with legionella riddled water, or even flush my
toilet with it.

Probably, which makes one wonder about the advisability of collecting
rainwater for these purposes.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4808340b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-17 23:59:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4807c38b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-17 21:13:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4807a996@qaanaaq...


Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a
selection of quality potable products and offer the consumer choice
of product. Tap water almost universally tastes disgusting.



Rubbish, mineral water taste awful, it should be banned.

Rubbish mineral water probably does. The decent products don't



They all do.

So you've tried them all?



As much as you have tried all tap water, yes.

Ah but I'm not making any claims bout all tap water tasting the same!

Ah but I am replying to Andy. ;-)

"PeterMcC" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote in




Yes, pence is the plural of pence.
Pence is not the plural of penny.

You may be right but, if that's so, the first half dozen searches on
Google - inc. the OUP - have it wrongly down as the plural of penny.

Not pennies then?.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4808340b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-17 23:59:54 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4807c38b@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-17 21:13:51 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news:4807a996@qaanaaq...


Mineral water suppliers do a far better job of delivering a
selection of quality potable products and offer the consumer choice
of product. Tap water almost universally tastes disgusting.



Rubbish, mineral water taste awful, it should be banned.

Rubbish mineral water probably does. The decent products don't



They all do.

So you've tried them all?



As much as you have tried all tap water, yes.

Ah but I'm not making any claims bout all tap water tasting the same!

Ah but I am replying to Andy. ;-)

Someone has to ...

"Owain" wrote in message
news:F5OdnVUH4anBeJXVnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@plusnet...
Andy Champ wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
Let the water supplier deliver what they are being paid to do.
Round here they are about to deliver through a brand new 4ft diameter
pipe through the SSSI near my house. A bit more care from the users and
that wouldn't have been necessary.

Or pay the supplier more and they could use a longer pipe and
circumnavigate the obstacle.

Owain

Would you pay for that?

And all the other associated expenses ...

Derek wrote:

Which SSSI is it ?

Part of Swinley Woods, Bracknell

Will the pipe damage the SSSI ?


Not much. It clips the edge, and they've checked nesting times for
birds. In fact, the only reason they had to ask for planning permission
was because of the nature - us people didn't count. They were going to
put some kind of works yard just behind my neighbours' house until we
all complained... and they are taking no notice at all of the working
hours in the permission, nor taking any care to keep mud off the road.

/soapbox

Andy

Andy Hall wrote:

Are they going to run it overground or will they bury it?

Buried. All 10 miles of it.

Andy

On 2008-04-18 20:07:02 +0100, Andy Champ said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Are they going to run it overground or will they bury it?

Buried. All 10 miles of it.

Andy

OK, so apart from some inconvenience during the construction, there is
no long term impact?

Bob Mannix wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message

Pence is not the plural of penny.

Yes it is (OED etc)

They are different things even if penny is still used to refer to one
pence.

The 1p coin says "One Penny" on it, the 2p coin "Two pence"

Do you actually live in the real world or a parallel universe?


Pennies from heaven.

dennis@home wrote in


"PeterMcC" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote in




Yes, pence is the plural of pence.
Pence is not the plural of penny.

You may be right but, if that's so, the first half dozen searches on
Google - inc. the OUP - have it wrongly down as the plural of penny.

Not pennies then?.

Perhaps we could try:

X pence = sum of money represented by the value of a number of one penny
coins. That way a 10 pence coin and a 5 pence coin would represent the value
of 15 one penny coins although there would be no actual one penny coins
involved.

x pennies = actual number of one penny coins.

Works for me but always happy to be enlightened otherwise.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Andy Hall wrote:

OK, so apart from some inconvenience during the construction, there is
no long term impact?



On us, no. According to theory anyway...

The effect on the Thames of pulling that much water out, especially if
we get a dry summer (not like last year!) may be more significant.

Andy

On 2008-04-19 17:49:28 +0100, Andy Champ said:

Andy Hall wrote:

OK, so apart from some inconvenience during the construction, there is
no long term impact?



On us, no. According to theory anyway...

The effect on the Thames of pulling that much water out, especially if
we get a dry summer (not like last year!) may be more significant.

Andy

So they will have to arrange additional supplies if that happens.....

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-19 17:49:28 +0100, Andy Champ said:

Andy Hall wrote:

OK, so apart from some inconvenience during the construction, there
is no long term impact?



On us, no. According to theory anyway...

The effect on the Thames of pulling that much water out, especially if
we get a dry summer (not like last year!) may be more significant.

Andy

So they will have to arrange additional supplies if that happens.....



Does it not occur to you that utility companies can only deal with what
is average or normal? Just because you pay them an amount of money
doesn't mean they can protect you against floods, or drought, or
anything abnormal.

On 2008-04-20 12:48:27 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-19 17:49:28 +0100, Andy Champ said:

Andy Hall wrote:

OK, so apart from some inconvenience during the construction, there is
no long term impact?



On us, no. According to theory anyway...

The effect on the Thames of pulling that much water out, especially if
we get a dry summer (not like last year!) may be more significant.

Andy

So they will have to arrange additional supplies if that happens.....



Does it not occur to you that utility companies can only deal with what
is average or normal? Just because you pay them an amount of money
doesn't mean they can protect you against floods, or drought, or
anything abnormal.

They can. The issue is the cost.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-20 12:48:27 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-19 17:49:28 +0100, Andy Champ said:

Andy Hall wrote:

OK, so apart from some inconvenience during the construction, there
is no long term impact?



On us, no. According to theory anyway...

The effect on the Thames of pulling that much water out, especially
if we get a dry summer (not like last year!) may be more significant.

Andy

So they will have to arrange additional supplies if that happens.....



Does it not occur to you that utility companies can only deal with
what is average or normal? Just because you pay them an amount of
money doesn't mean they can protect you against floods, or drought, or
anything abnormal.

They can. The issue is the cost.



A cost that would make the price unaffordable for the average person.
And when it comes to water we're all average. You can't ring-fence yourself

On 2008-04-21 10:41:58 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-20 12:48:27 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Does it not occur to you that utility companies can only deal with what
is average or normal? Just because you pay them an amount of money
doesn't mean they can protect you against floods, or drought, or
anything abnormal.

They can. The issue is the cost.



A cost that would make the price unaffordable for the average person.

I don't accept the notion of "average person".

And when it comes to water we're all average.

Really? Then why is it that we don't all pay the same for water supply?

You can't ring-fence yourself

To a degree one can. For example, with flooding. The impact of that
in terms of property could largely be avoided by not building or living
on land susceptible to flooding, or making arrangements like the Dutch
do.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-21 10:41:58 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-20 12:48:27 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Does it not occur to you that utility companies can only deal with
what is average or normal? Just because you pay them an amount of
money doesn't mean they can protect you against floods, or drought,
or anything abnormal.

They can. The issue is the cost.



A cost that would make the price unaffordable for the average person.

I don't accept the notion of "average person".

We're all average when it comes down to it. If your house catches fire,
the same fire engine will arrive, whether you're on a council estate or
a private plot. If you collapse in the street, the same ambulance.

And when it comes to water we're all average.

Really? Then why is it that we don't all pay the same for water supply?

Not exactly the same, but near enough. Thames Water seem to charge me
the same as everyone else that's not on a meter.

You can't ring-fence yourself

To a degree one can. For example, with flooding. The impact of that
in terms of property could largely be avoided by not building or living
on land susceptible to flooding, or making arrangements like the Dutch do.

I wonder how much it costs the Dutch. I'm sure that cost is borne
universally. You might object to that if you lived on top of a (the) hill

On 2008-04-21 11:43:23 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-21 10:41:58 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-20 12:48:27 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

Does it not occur to you that utility companies can only deal with what
is average or normal? Just because you pay them an amount of money
doesn't mean they can protect you against floods, or drought, or
anything abnormal.

They can. The issue is the cost.



A cost that would make the price unaffordable for the average person.

I don't accept the notion of "average person".

We're all average when it comes down to it. If your house catches fire,
the same fire engine will arrive, whether you're on a council estate or
a private plot. If you collapse in the street, the same ambulance.

Different issues. You are giving examples of emergency services.
This discussion is about a utility commodity planned for an provided
with decades of notice.



And when it comes to water we're all average.

Really? Then why is it that we don't all pay the same for water supply?

Not exactly the same, but near enough. Thames Water seem to charge me
the same as everyone else that's not on a meter.

I have rateable value charging.



You can't ring-fence yourself

To a degree one can. For example, with flooding. The impact of that
in terms of property could largely be avoided by not building or living
on land susceptible to flooding, or making arrangements like the Dutch
do.

I wonder how much it costs the Dutch. I'm sure that cost is borne
universally. You might object to that if you lived on top of a (the)
hill

I might well.