You know how Nanny is telling us to ensure that our refuse is sorted into paper, plastic etc etc; so that it can be recycled?
You know how Nanny's chums in her much "respected" and "useful" local councils are spying on us, to make sure that we sort our rubbish properly?
You know that we are to be taxed according to what we throw away?
You know that Nanny's local councils fine people who do not sort their rubbish properly?
Yes?
All of the above so that Nanny can claim that she is environmentally friendly etc?
You know that don't you?
Yes?
Guess what?
It's a farking con trick!
Nanny isn't recycling much of the stuff at all.
Paper, bottles and plastic that we have spent time and trouble sorting for recycling is in fact being dumped in land fill sites.
Why is this?
Recycling companies have told the Times that the rubbish that they receive from our "respected" and "efficient" local councils is so contaminated, or badly sorted, that it has to be rejected or dumped.
Why are councils not sorting the waste properly?
I will tell you:
1 They are cutting corners in order to meet Nanny's targets for recycling up to 40% of their residents' waste by 2010.
2 They don't give a fark about the environment
3 They are useless
4 They want to maximise the profit from the council tax that they charge us (allegedly to dispose of our rubbish in an environmental manner), so that they can spend it on their underfunded pension schemes, excess salaries and other useless schemes.
So, when Nanny comes round to spy on your rubbish and tries to fine you for not sorting it properly, tell her to fark off!
It is time that the citizens of this country dealt with Nanny once and for all, and stood up to the interfering deceitful old witch.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteAnd I thought this was just a series of PPI tax scams - sorry I meant schemes - that would have use washing bottles and plastics and similar items using metered water (at ever increasing prices due to claimed 'shortages') before they wer cramed into containers and shipped to Indonesia to be sorted into landfill sites.
But now you are tellin gus that the Times have spoken to some waste disposal subcontractors who tell them that the recycling waste is 'contaminated' so badly they can do nothing with it!
Well I never.
So we do a lot of unpaid or credited work, the council makes a mockery of that and the contractors have a good excuse for why they can't perform their part of the bargain.
How very convenient.
And who, if anyone, checks the veracity of this series of claims?
I read some years ago that New York abandoned glass recycling as there was little or no market for recycled glass and it was costing $70m per annum to collect and ship the material.
I also read that in the UK it was uneconomic to collect waste glass if the nearest re-processing operation was more than 50 miles away maximum. At that time there were not too many plants to deal with glass re-cycling so it was uneconomic for most of the country - probably still is.
Like renewable energy and trains the output is only economically viable IF the market is heavily subsidised by tax money. Hence the need for ever more tax take.
Which is why our PM Unelect likes Green policies. People can be groomed to pay for their own masochistic tendencies and ultimately feel good about being conned and robbed. Malleability achieved without undue effort.
No wonder Putin fancies he has an opportunity to extend his power and influence.
The previous poster was bang on. This is exactly why I read in the news today (again) about kids being fingerprinted at school. The only reason for all this is to literally "condition" younger generations into accepting such bollocks-up idealogies such as the big brother society and consider it "normal".
ReplyDeleteThis is why most modern Britons know little (or even care about) the 1689 Bill of Rights or Magna Carta. People are more concerned about who the next "pop idol" will be.
Let's put any jokes aside for a moment. We're in serious shit Ken. This country really is in serious shit.
and they will still claim 40% recycling (eventually) because the measurement is on rubbish collections, not on disposals.
ReplyDelete