Postby fidgit » Wed May 06, 2009 10:07 pm

Hi all this is my letter to United Utilities after repeatedly trying to ask someone REAL to put their name on the line to say that the water is clean, safe and a non poison contaminate. I know that they can't !! especially after fobbing me off with the incorrect information which I have patiently tried to tell them, that it is the infomation which they have on water fluoridation that is the problem, it's bogus, wrong, false, misleading, incorrect etc and is the source from which it comes from that is the problem:- business interests + GovernMent(i) = Mind Manipulation. My belief is that this is just another trick from the elite to dumb down the population like they did in experiments during WW2 in German and Russian prisoners camps (fact) to roll in the New World Order with least resistance from the people. Oh yes and it could cause dental dis-eases and bone rott !!!


To United Utilities, Account no: 401 . . . . . . . .

I have recently received a letter from you stating that I owe you £298.59 for the year’s water supply. I am happy to pay you anything that you think I may owe you for safe, clean water if I can be assured of non-poisoned water which I have requested a signed letter to confirm this on a number of occasions. Could someone please send me a signed letter of conformation that the water supply where I live is not going to be fluoridated without my or other members of the public’s consent. To do so would be medicating the public without their consent! You do not have my consent. I am aware that on the 8th September 2003 The House of Lords gave a majority vote that water companies “must” fluoridate water when asked. The fact that it is illegal and contravenes human rights (as to what the individual decides to put in his/her body) doesn’t seem to concern many politicians. In a letter I received from you about water fluoridation dated 14th January 2009 you tried to explain that water fluoridation is ok due to your misinformed information. I do not agree with that letter at all or the Fluoridation of drinking water supplies letter you send out with the bogus conclusion that it is beneficial to your health. I do not agree at all. No-one knows how much fluoride we are already ingesting and what the safe levels are and if you claim you do have the facts you must understand that the same agencies that are telling you these so called facts are the same people who maybe purposefully misinforming people to meet their goals.

The facts are that:
• The fluoride used is a “part ll poison” and has repeatedly been refused designation as a medicinal substance by the UK’s Medicines Control Agency
• The EU Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive prohibits using fluoride as a medical intervention unless it is first registered as a medical intervention unless it is first registered as a medicinal substance.
• State-sponsored fluoridation violates the ethical principles set out in the council of Europe’s Convention on Biomedicine.
• Fluoridation also contravenes numerous articles of the European Human Rights Convention and Charter

If you seem to think that any amount of poison is ok to put in the water supply whether your information is bogus or not (and who supplied your information) is a massive issue to be dealt with properly and not to just go ahead with anyway. Unless the complete facts which you do not seem to have to assure the population that the water you supply is safe and there are other (apart from yours) sources of information which suggest that it is not. It is my belief that it is not safe and until this matter is properly dealt with I feel that I or any other member of the public should/must not be medicated without their consent (of which you do not have mine) and after the full disclosure of all of the information out there. Please would you only respond in writing as I will also need evidence of our correspondences if I am required to need them. Until this matter is completely resolved and I have the complete assurance of not being poisoned by my water supply now or future, I feel that myself, or any other member of the public should not pay for their, own possible ill health. I have stated on a number of occasions that I think this matter should go to a court as a full explanation, evidence, facts and past history would be out in the open to find out the real truth about water fluoridation from sources other than the “official” ones.

I have also sent along with this letter other information which I have sent to the British Fluoridation Society and my local Newspaper.

I hope someone who seems to realize that this is of the upmost importance will do the right thing instead of just trying to redirect the facts, blame, evidence, corruption, business interests and the lives or deaths of many people around the UK and the World onto trusted minds. Until this matter is properly resolved I feel that I must not pay for my own illegal medication that could lead onto my own ill health, dysfunction or even early death. And I would assume that this should go for any unsuspecting member of the public until this matter is resolved and I have assurance of SAFE CLEAN WATER.

All I am asking is that the water that I drink, wash with, give to other people and ingest is safe and will cause no ill effects, noticed or unnoticed by the body. I will be completely happy to pay for my water service if it causes me no stress is any way and that someone can give me assurance of this issue. Please be aware that I am not refusing to pay for my fresh, clean water supply, I am just trying to get to the truth by doing what I feel is right amongst the big corporate interests.



Yours Sincerely
Last edited by fidgit on Mon May 11, 2009 7:59 am, edited 4 times in total.
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:35 pm
Location: Manchester


Postby BaldBeardyDude » Wed May 06, 2009 10:16 pm

Nice :yes:
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire


Postby IamallthatIam » Wed May 06, 2009 10:26 pm

HI Fidgit,
Great to see you here on the forum !
I have just sent something similar to dwr cymru , should get some interesting responses.
Keep us informed if you get a response , i`ll do the same
love and light Angie x x
Invito beneficium non datur - A benefit is not conferred upon one against his consent.
I DO NOT offer legal advice
- "I just say what I say because everyone is entitled to my opinion!" -

- Saffi Elder (Aged 7)-
User avatar
Posts: 1044
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:36 am


Postby jonboy » Wed May 06, 2009 10:27 pm

very nice, keep us posted. :yes: BTW it is "utmost" not "upmost", :hug:
"Reason is the life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing else but reason. The law which is perfection of reason" Sir Edward Coke 1552-1634.


It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
User avatar
Posts: 1375
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:17 pm
Location: Albion


Postby fidgit » Wed May 06, 2009 11:11 pm

cheers guy, I didn't get chance to post the rest - your all " t u n e d " in. This is the info and letter I sent to the British Fluoridation Society. It may be of interest:-

Please could your take a small amount of time to read these short fact and please could you give me your responce if possible as this is a very serious matter.

Dental disease increases six-fold by fluoridation

The American Journal of Diseases of Children states: “With few exceptions the biochemistry of fluorine (fluoride) emphasizes its toxic features. The production of endemic dental fluorosis in human beings by drinking water is an outstanding example of the toxic effect of the excessive intake of the element.” Dental fluorosis is fluoride poisoning that causes hypomineral iz ation (irregular calcification) and a disorder of ameloblasts (enamel forming cells) that mottle, weaken and discolour childrens' teeth. In 2000 , the Newcastle NHS Trust reported dental fluorosis in 54% of children aged 8-9 years compared to 24% of 8-9 year olds in non-fluoridated Northumberland.

The 1ppm (part per million) level of fluoride in UK water supplies deemed “safe” by government is 100 times higher than normally found in mothers milk. Prof Paul Connett, a leading authority on fluoride, spoke out at the Science, Medicine and The Law conference in London last week. He said, “There are no benefits only risks for infants ingesting heightened levels of fluoride at such an early age, [when] susceptibility to toxins are particularly high.”

In 1999, Baroness Hayman responded in a Written Answer for the Government, “We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity.” Despite this sanction, the Government have backtracked on the safety of fluoride , supported by the British Dental Association, which states that fluoride is a positive step towards narrowing the health inequalities that currently exist.
Fluoride is poison

Hydrofluosilic acid (H 2 SiF 6 ) and other fluorosilicates are not naturally occurring. They are waste products derived from the industrial manufacture of aluminium, zinc, uranium, aerosols, insecticides, fertilizers, plastics, lubricants and pharmaceuticals.

Professor Kaj Roholm , former Chief of the Toxicology Committee for the National Research Council the author of the first and most comprehensive monograph on fluorosilicates classifies hydrofluorosilic acid and hexafluorosilic acid as “extremely toxic.” One chemical company selling fluoride to water suppliers describes it as “a colourless to straw yellow, transparent, fuming, corrosive liquid with a pungent odour and irritating action on the skin.”

Hydrofluo ros ilic a cid is listed as a Part II poisons under the Poisons Act 1972. As such its use as a commercially ingestible product in water contravenes UK and EU pharmaceutical legislation governing the regulation of medicinal substances, as well as the Poisons Act.

Dr Arvid Carlsson of Sweden, a co-winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2000 advises against fluoridation. He says, “Fluoridation of water supplies would also treat people who may not benefit from the treatment. Side effects cannot be excluded and thus some might only have negative effect without any benefit”.


I have tried to contact you on a number of occasions but you choose to ignore what is going on !!! your recorded phone call I made to you should be availabe on YouTube & Google so people are Aware of the abruptness and ignorance of this massively serious matter ( The Lives of Millions of People) by the British Fluoridation Society.

Thank you

oh, and to my local NewzPapper:

Fluoride in Water will kill you

In a leaked Government Paper Sodium fluoride (not the natural kind)is going to be added to all drinking water in england and wales. The bogus reason for this is bad dental care. Sodium Fluoride can be found at any hardware store in all Rat Poisons and although the stated dose is under the regulation dose, why is any of this stuff even being considered to be put in our fresh water. In infintesimally small doses the subject would not be aware of the poison because it is a slow gradual imperment of various brain functions. During WW2 the Nazis and Russians did experiments with fluoridated water and found that the prisoners who were given fluoridated water to drink were easier to manage because it makes people more stupid and dosile, it alters brain function. I phoned United Utilities about this and they told me it was the council I needed to speak to so I called the Drinking Water Inspectorate (note the name) who also told me it had Nothing to do with them and I needed to call some other agency (I did and got fed up of being told nothing). Basically people who work at United Utilities are not aware of this and the people who are don't want to talk about it. It is my belief that this is a plan to dumb down the population so that the New World Order can be easily implemented with the least resistence from the People. Another note to add is that Sodium Fluoride is the same chemical that is put in anti-depressents !!! The facts are this: wether the dosage being put in the water is under the regulated dose or not, who sets the regulations? and why is any of this stuff being put in anyway when a 2 gram dose can kill a full grown man? What is it doing to us in time? Also, why has no-one been told about this as the government will be medicating people without there consent although United Utilities did say they did have consent, but for a bogus health risk of tooth decay. I have told United Utilities that I will not pay my £81.88 bill until I know that the water I am paying for is Clean and I am prepared to go to court to argue Our case. They told me they would give me until 30th November to pay (account on hold). No one is really bothered it seems and if this ludicrus bill goes through, well things will only get worse. This is a knock on effect from 911 you know, 911 is a FRAUD that was conducted as a false flag operation to knock down there (Bush's government) own buldings so that the War on TERROR can be implemented and then the peoples liberties can be taken away on the strength of Social Security as Hitler did with his own Reichstag building. 7/7 over here in London was the same deal and unless peole start to WAKE UP to this REALITY you will start to see things like Fluoridation of water and other dumbing down of society. Please be very carefull of disregarding this information as all of this can be found in an abundence if anyone would care to look. (BEN, please contact me for any information)


Below is the second letter I am sending to United Utilities after just giving me blah blah blah and not answering the questions I asked them. I feel I should not pay them anything that they "think" I lawfully owe them, ha, they will owe me *soon for all the s t r e s s they are causing !! me:-


To United Utilities, Account no: 401 . . . . . .

Thank you for your letter dated 21 April 2009, In light of reading your letter I cannot find any indication of assurance or benefit to my or other people’s health as asked for. And as the letter I received from you does not state whether the water you supply is safe or unsafe I must remind you of the main issues of concern here from my previous letter:

• The fluoride used is a “part ll poison” and has repeatedly been refused designation as a medicinal substance by the UK’s Medicines Control Agency
• The EU Codified Pharmaceuticals Directive prohibits using fluoride as a medical intervention unless it is first registered as a medical intervention unless it is first registered as a medicinal substance.
• State-sponsored fluoridation violates the ethical principles set out in the council of Europe’s Convention on Biomedicine.
• Fluoridation also contravenes numerous articles of the European Human Rights Convention and Charter

Also as stated in the previous letter I sent to you, “Until this matter is properly resolved I feel that I must not pay for my own illegal medication that could lead onto my own ill health, dysfunction or even early death. And I would assume that this should go for any unsuspecting member of the public until this matter is resolved and I have assurance of “SAFE CLEAN WATER”.

Your most recent letter I received from you does not give me any assurance of SAFE, CLEAN WATER but you have given me another company’s name (North West Strategic Health Authority) to address about the water fluoridation issue. As I am a member of the public who is expected to pay you for a service of “safe, clean water” and who is disputing this issue I feel that it is not my obligation to do your work for you and so my suggestion is that your multi-million (billion) pound company should find out the true facts about the public service you are expecting people to pay for by extracting the correct information from whatever sources and companies you deal with including the NWSHA which is another big corporate business and to go to extreme lengths to find out the real issues concerning public health, no matter how high up the chain of command that is required. Your job is to assure a safe clean water supply and until this matter is resolved I cannot logically pay for my own ill health or even early death until I am assured that this is not the case and this issue no longer causes me sleepless nights and stress. In light of this I feel that I cannot and should not pay for a service I believe that I am not receiving and I am surely not expected to find out the facts about fluoride from a 3rd party business interest when it is you I am expected to pay for the service in question. Until the facts about fluoride are settled I feel I should not be paying you for a service that is causing me any harm either directly or indirectly or until you can assure me that the water you supply is safe to use and which by now I am starting to think that you cannot. I am asking serious questions about human life and a possible threat to it and I am receiving letters that wash straight over the issues and that are re-directed to some 3rd party business interest, it seems that you cannot even be bothered to find out the facts for yourself! If an issue as serious as this can be thrown around as just business, then the people who are allowing this will have to face their children in years to come and look them in the eyes and tell them that human life is just another business interest, the world of corporate business first, the value of human health and life somewhere further down the list. I am not willing to be one of these people and I have no tolerance for the ultimate lie on whatever level of understanding it comes from.

Until this issue is completely resolved by directly answering my previous questions and concerns on this matter, I feel that any other letters that are not directly and substantially answering these questions and concerns will be of no value of resolving this most important and essential issue of human life and therefore will be immaterial so no response will be required and automatically be redirected back to this letter until a satisfactorily outcome is resolved. Should you send any non-relevant letters, statements, bills or correspondence I will be forced to send you my Fee schedule as doing this work should not be my job, it should be yours surely.

I have forwarded on some information that I feel is very important and relevant to this serious issue.

Yours respectfully,

The information I have forwarded them is something that may take a small amount of time for them to get up to speed on the deception, years of digging - ha ha. We'll see what happens

Do what you believe in and believe in what you do. All else is a waste of time
- Nisargadatta
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:35 pm
Location: Manchester


Postby daizi » Sun May 31, 2009 5:41 pm

heres a useful link http://www.southwestwater.co.uk/media/pdf/5/g/Fluoride.pdf

of course its from a companies' PR but it does highlight the issue of fluorosis

good luck! : )
2 + 2 = 4
User avatar
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 8:19 am


Postby museman » Sun May 31, 2009 6:51 pm

I have some research papers from the Fluoride talk in Birmingham if any of you are interested, in that it states that the only parts of the UK that currently add fluoride to the water are the Midlands, North West and Yorkshire with Southampton just going to join them. I'm not sure how accurate that is, maybe they are the only ones admitting it, I dunno?

Nevertheless there is some very good information in the papers if anyone wants a copy, just PM me and I'll send them over to you.
User avatar
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Wolverhampton, UK


Postby Veronica » Sun May 31, 2009 7:01 pm

This is a great effort, and goes along with my fight against Thames Water.
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England


Postby rockinsoul » Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:55 pm

I recently added my name to an online petition to 10 Downing Street regarding water fluoridation. Here is their sickeningly dismissive and untruthful reply:

Read the Government’s response

Thank you for your e-petition.

There have been fluoridation schemes in the UK for over 30 years, and even longer in the USA, with currently over 160 million people in these countries drinking water with the fluoride content increased to one part per million – the optimum level for preventing tooth decay. No ill effects have been identified.

The University of York report A Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation, published in September 2000, concluded that water fluoridation increased the number of children without tooth decay by 15 per cent. All water supplies contain some fluoride and it was from observing different patterns of dental decay in areas of differing levels of naturally fluoridated water that the benefits of fluoride were first observed.

The York report found no evidence of any risk to overall health from fluoridation. Apart from the benefits to oral health, the only other effect observed has been dental fluorosis, a mottling of the teeth which is of aesthetic concern to very few people.

However, the York research team did call for more good quality research on fluoridation, and in September 2002, a working group appointed by the Medical Research Council (MRC) made recommendations about the research necessary to strengthen the evidence base on the effect of fluoridation on health. As a result, the Department of Health commissioned the University of Newcastle’s School of Dental Sciences to undertake a study into the bioavailability (absorption) of fluoride in naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water. This study, which was published in July 2004, concluded that there was no statistically significant difference (in absorption of fluoride) between artificially and naturally fluoridated water, or between soft and hard water.

The Government is committed to a continuing programme of further research that takes account of the MRC’s findings.

In March 2005, Parliament approved, with large majorities in both Houses, the regulations on the public consultations that Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) proposing to fluoridate their water would be required to undertake. Guidance on their implementation was issued to SHAs and Primary Care Trusts on 8 September 2005. It is the Government’s policy that no new fluoridation schemes should be introduced before there has been a public consultation in the area that would be affected.

On 5 February 2008, the Chief Dental Officer wrote to all SHAs. His letter encompassed guidance on a new legislative framework governing the consultations and assessment of public opinion that SHAs need to undertake when they propose to make arrangements with a water company to increase the fluoride content of a water supply. This guidance is available on the Department of Health website at www.dh.gov.uk (enter ‘guidance on fluoridation’ in the search bar).

In addition, the guidance announced that £14million would be made available in each of the next three years to meet the capital costs of setting up new fluoridation schemes.

It should be clarified that the Government does not have plans to extend fluoridation. The Government wishes there to be local consultations on proposals for new schemes in areas with high levels of dental disease, at which the evidence from research studies is made available for discussion, and both opponents and supporters of fluoridation are given a platform.

It has been suggested by some people that adding fluoridation to water supplies would be unethical, as it would represent the provision of medication to people who had not consented to it.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) determines whether a product is a medicine with reference to the definition of ‘medicine’ in Article 1 of European Directive 2001/83, relevant legal precedent and its own published guidance. The MHRA has ruled that neither the fluoride added to drinking water, nor the resulting fluoridated water, are medicinal products and marketing authorisations are not required, as for medicines. In our view this argues against claims that fluoridation is a form of ‘mass medication’.

Moreover, we consider that fluoridation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights because new schemes could not be introduced before there has been a public consultation in the area that would be affected. In addition, the European Commission on Human Rights decided in 1992 that any interference with the right to respect for private and family life was justified by the benefits that fluoridation brings to oral health.

The attraction of fluoridation is that it provides for a public health approach that benefits all sections of the population, including people in areas of social deprivation who are most at risk of dental disease. Academic studies show that oral health is better in areas where tap water is already fluoridated and that the number of children with tooth decay decreases by 15 per cent. In practice the benefits are even greater. For example, children in fluoridated Birmingham have half the cases of tooth decay compared with children in non-fluoridated Manchester.

Fluoridation is an effective and relatively easy way to help address health inequalities, giving children from poorer backgrounds a dental health boost that can last a lifetime, reducing tooth decay and thereby cutting down on the amount of dental work they need in the future.
A Living Cosmic Coloured Synthesis of Progressive and Psychedelic Consciousness Expanding Rock'n'Soul

Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:26 pm
Location: Durham, UK


Postby daizi » Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:27 pm

reading that last letter....really makes me want to swear....FFFSSS!

what a load of utter and complete...insanity

thanks for the highlighting this, and keep up the amazing work

: )
2 + 2 = 4
User avatar
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 8:19 am


Return to Utility Bills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest