Acceptable Daily Intake of Slug Repellant!!

Acceptable Daily Intake of Slug Repellant!!

Postby FASEN8R » Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:12 am

Hi All!!

I have recently written to our local water authority to find out why Metaldehyde is present in our drinking water when they state that our drinking water is of 'excellent' quality. It is obviously NOT of excellent quality and I have concerns regarding the fact that they expect us to PAY for the 'priviledge' of them providing us with poisoned water. I find it absolutely shocking that they consider there is an 'ACCEPTABLE DAILY INTAKE' of Metaldehyde as well as 'all substances like this'. I would like to know WHO finds this 'acceptable' because I sure as hell DONT!!
There has been an ongoing awareness of the addition of Flouride in our drinking water for some time and they are very quick at saying they have stopped adding flouride to it but in my opinion this just goes from bad to worse!
After sending a letter requesting clarification as to why AW had failed to comply with 'regulations' regarding the removal of Metaldehyde in our drinking water, I received the letter below. I would like others to comment but a few things i've noticed.....
If EU regulations 'requires pesticides to be absent from drinking water' then how come there is an 'acceptable daily intake'??
It is also 'believed that it can be consumed on a daily basis over a lifetime without harm'..... Again....WHO believes it because I dont!!
TOXIC is TOXIC, it is NOT SAFE!! and I dont know anyone that has been convinced otherwise, do you??


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11 January 2012
Anglian Water
Services Limited
PO Box 10642
Harlow
CM20 9HA

Re: Account No : XXXXXXXXXX
Notice of Agreement of Offer and Request for Clarification.

Dear Sir or Madam,
Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding.
It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.
The reason why you need to read carefully is simple. I am offering agreement. This removes controversy, and means that you no longer have any ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter, because there is no controversy upon which it could adjudicate. The agreement is conditional.
For this reason it is important that you consider and respond to the offer in substance. The 'nearest official form' will not suffice, neither will an automated or standard reply, and consequently any such is likely to be ignored by myself without any dishonour on my part.
On the other hand there is a time-limit of 10 days on the agreement being offered. It is reasonable considering the quote on your website stating: 'If you write to us with a query about your bill, we will reply within 10 working days.’ If it runs out then you and all associated parties are in default, removing any and all lawful excuse on your part for proceeding in this matter.
For these reasons it is recommended that you carefully consider this notice and respond in substance.
You have apparently made demands upon me for an alleged 'debt' of £229.34 for providing the above address (XX XXXXXXXX, Grimsby) with 'Water that’s cleaned to the highest standard', as quoted from your website. I am requesting you provide me with the PROOF that this 'claim' is correct due to the latest findings from your website whereas it states that 'All samples taken from this supply zone in the period January to September 2011 fully complied with the standards as set in the Regulations, except for one sample from Covenham water treatment works which did not meet the standard for the pesticide metaldehyde.'

It is my understanding that the above statement is an admission by yourselves, Anglian Water Limited, that the water provided to the above address (XX XXXXXXXX, Grimsby) is IN FACT NOT 'excellent' as stated in the 'Drinking Water Quality Report' for this zone.
It is also my understanding that Metaldehyde is a form of slug repellent which is often used by farmers and gardeners and is highly toxic to animals in general. Based on this information I am requesting clarification as to IF and WHY Anglian Water is adding Metaldehyde to the water that is provided for human consumption. Again, I require a FULL explanation in substance. A simple response stating that 'levels added are within such and such a perimeter and is perfectly safe for human consumption' IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH as i've already witnessed that 'claim' on your website. I require FULL proof and detailed scientific analysis that human consumption of ANY AMOUNT of Metaldehyde is actually perfectly safe. Bearing in mind that you claim our water quality to be 'excellent' I expect you to provide this proof due to my concerns regarding the health and welfare of myself and my family. May I also remind you that "Access to safe water is a fundamental human need and therefore a basic human right." As stated by Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary General.

In the case of Anglian Water Limited, the only CONSIDERATION I would be prepared to accept would be the service of providing My Human Self and family with clean, healthy, fresh drinking water, free of ALL toxic substances, and that Anglian Water should be prepared to prove the condition of the water to My Satisfaction upon reasonable demand. I repeat, MY SATISFACTION, it does not mean yours, nor does it mean anyone else's. My family and I are the people that are expected to drink it.
The CONSIDERATION I would offer on my part would be to pay for this service. However the amount payable by My Human Self would, by necessity, be fixed by the contract, since variable amounts (uncertain amounts) void any contract in law. In the circumstance where you may be unable to produce sight of such a contract at this time, please feel free to offer me one under the conditions described above, and I will consider it.
Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within (ten) 10 days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon My Human Self, Kevin: of the Fletcher family, and/or the legal fiction person KEVIN FLETCHER, voiding any and all future offers, and creating a lawfully permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiesce for evermore. Consequent to this I would not be in dishonour by ignoring any and all future demands you may care to send, since they would have no substance in law.
This is My Truth, and My Law.
Yours sincerely, without vexation, ill-will, or frivolity,

Kevin: of the Fletcher family.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Rights Reserved.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


After writing this post and trying to upload an image of the reply I received from AW, I get a message stating "Sorry, the board attachment quota has been reached.". If one of the Moderators or Admins can sort this out then i will upload the reply. I would like others to respond to it and hopefully it may help others too.

Kev Barefoot
:peace:

Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I may remember. Involve me and I Learn!!
User avatar
FASEN8R
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: Acceptable Daily Intake of Slug Repellant!!

Postby pitano1 » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:29 am

hi kevin.
you may find this link interesting.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_of_unapproved_chemicals

pitano1
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED -AB INITIO - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
pitano1
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1147
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: Acceptable Daily Intake of Slug Repellant!!

Postby holy vehm » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:38 am

Who indeed kev.

We have the world health organisation, the UN and our own government health advisor, add to that the shyte that comes out of europe plus common purpose and a whole host of other 'experts' who deem what is and isnt safe for human consupmtion.

Cannabis - unsafe and therfore banned.
Flouride - safe and therfore in everything.

Experts decided the above.

We on the other hand are deemed to be experts on fuck all and need to be told by 'experts' what is and isnt.

They use the rule of average in their decisions. They take the average and decide that it is safe (for the average) which also says that it isnt safe for others, how many make up the average?
Personally none of it is safe, when you start putting toxic chemicals into the food chain where it never existed before it can only lead to illness.

Without reading the reply and reading through your notice to them, i would want to know under what statute they operate, the interpretation they have taken from it and where they get their authority from.
Also it is stated in both common law and statutory rule that where ever possible the law should be in plain english and the words to mean what they are commonly known to mean (in other words no bullshit legal language)
Also the wording we tend to use would depend on the choice of law.
They will claim statute law, we would claim common law. Thats why other than pure corruption we often get short change out of the courts.
They (company) make a claim in a maj court or summary court, we try to rebutt that generally with common law, yet these courts cannot hear a common law defence because they are not courts in the first place, they cannot hear us so we have to choose the law, so they have to move it to a relevant court that can hear both sides and adjudicate accordingly.
In their chosen arena the 'court' will only hear statute so we have to make sure that it goes into a court that will hear any defence, it is there that common will trump statute.

We have fundemental basic human rights that cannot be taken away. To deny me the ability to live is to deny me the right to life. By contaminating the air/water/food chain is to deny me the right to live as it contains substances that endanger my life.
Under the present system and under contract they deem that we have negotiated these rights away, we accept what they put into the supply and government will oversee its safety (regulate)
Where in reality the whole water system is contaminated, the rain is contaminated thus so are the under ground wells and springs.

We are denied access to natural springs (in the main) (one near me has been capped as the water supply is contaminated by the shyte sprayed on farms) so i am left with no reasonable alternative but to use the municipal water supply but that too is contaminated.
It is unreasonable to have to buy bottled water as i already own or have share in these water companies. They may be private owned (shareholders) but they were all once public owned (humans) which the tory government sold off (i did not consent to that).
If a person (government) restricts my access to safe drinking water that naturally occurs (rainfall/springs) it has a human duty to supply me with clean safe water through its network.
As it restricts both it also restricts my human right to life as it is detrimental to my life to consume their shyte, by drinking it i am in effect committing suicide which is illegal and unlawful.

Another thing worth thinking on is that most reserviours are on what once was common land that was flooded. That land is still common land in my opinion and thus all the water is common water and the common opinion is no contamination.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Acceptable Daily Intake of Slug Repellant!!

Postby holy vehm » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:44 am

pitano1 wrote:hi kevin.
you may find this link interesting.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_of_unapproved_chemicals

pitano1



This is interesting from that reply.

As you acknowledge in your correspondence, with the Company and ourselves, Anglian Water use hexafluorosilicic acid to fluoridate some supplies in their area. They purchase this chemical from Yara and verify that it is compliant with the appropriate BS:EN. The chemical is therefore being used legally by Anglian Water.


Notice the phrase "some supplies" as in not all the water. Well which supplies, is it the poorer areas that get that supply while the richer areas get no contaminated supplies?
Requires further investigation does that phrase
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Acceptable Daily Intake of Slug Repellant!!

Postby FASEN8R » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:57 pm

FASEN8R wrote:After writing this post and trying to upload an image of the reply I received from AW, I get a message stating "Sorry, the board attachment quota has been reached.". If one of the Moderators or Admins can sort this out then i will upload the reply. I would like others to respond to it and hopefully it may help others too.

Kev Barefoot
:peace:



Anyone?? Please??
I have one guy waiting to read it on this forum.....
:shake:

Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I may remember. Involve me and I Learn!!
User avatar
FASEN8R
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: Acceptable Daily Intake of Slug Repellant!!

Postby knightron » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:02 pm

Check your inbox Kev..;)
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Re: Acceptable Daily Intake of Slug Repellant!!

Postby enegiss » Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:16 am

As you acknowledge in your correspondence, with the Company and ourselves, Anglian Water use hexafluorosilicic acid to fluoridate some supplies in their area. They purchase this chemical from Yara and verify that it is compliant with the appropriate BS:EN. The chemical is therefore being used legally by Anglian Water.


Notice the phrase "some supplies" as in not all the water. Well which supplies, is it the poorer areas that get that supply while the richer areas get no contaminated supplies?
Requires further investigation does that phrase
http://www.policeinvestigationgroup.com/
jeez! :puke:
if you wish to create a favourable History, then you have to start now.
enegiss
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: Acceptable Daily Intake of Slug Repellant!!

Postby FASEN8R » Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:55 am

Thanks for the reply enegiss :shake:
Now sorted.... why I didn't think of that in the first place....... :puzz: :giggle:

As promised, here's the response I received from AW.......
The first one is direct from customer services, then the 2nd and 3rd are from 'Claire' the 'Scientist'.

Image

Image

Image


I find it quite intriguing that Hayley (customer services) states that Claire (scientist) has explained that payment is still due unyet Claire says she 'has been advised' that it does not absolve me of the obligation to pay! I wonder who exactly is claiming the payment is due?? :puzz:
I'm currently busy with my reply and would appreciate any comments or suggestions offered....

Kev Barefoot
:love: :peace:

Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I may remember. Involve me and I Learn!!
User avatar
FASEN8R
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: Acceptable Daily Intake of Slug Repellant!!

Postby knightron » Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:09 am

A notice of "Non responsive reply " is due I think bud..keep us informed Please Kev..all the best with it bud.:) :shake: :hug:

P.s I would also be asking them for a scientific (factual) break down of the reaction to human tissue, that is the result of the toxins used by them to ensure water "Safety"..:) I mean come on ..Lets get the Facts straight eh?.. (facepalm)
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Re: Acceptable Daily Intake of Slug Repellant!!

Postby squark » Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:03 pm

You could of course collect and clean your own rain water. That would be taking full responsibility for yourself. :yes: Disconnect the supply? :no: That would maybe halve the bill?
I did my first and attempt at A4V 3 days ago with a severn trent water bill. I think the water here is pretty good. It certainly never dried up. No fluoride either!
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
squark
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Next

Return to Utility Bills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest