More uselessness from DBC

[John Wright]

6 minutes ago, Reportage said:

It’s up to the media or anyone directly connected to deny any familial link.

Still waiting for all those investigative journalists to butt in. 

No, you’re the one claiming the link. It’s up to you to establish a link. You’ve got a surname in common. Nothing else. I’ve done 5 minutes of elementary internet searching ( FB, Google, 192.com, LinkedIn  etc. )

Edited December 13, 2022 by John Wright

[WTF]

'pleased to be able to recycle more' ???????

why wasn't he recycling to the max before  ???

[The Voice of Reason]

9 minutes ago, Reportage said:

It’s not nonsense at all. It’s called openness and common sense. 

So I’m in the queue at the supermarket till. My uncle is in front of me. Am I obliged to tell the cashier that my uncle is in front of me. For what purpose?

You really do Martin Bell a disservice 

Edited December 13, 2022 by The Voice of Reason

[Passing Time]

13 hours ago, Reportage said:

Residents lambast council 

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/residents-lambast-council-at-bins-meeting-582564

Last night's public meeting discussing Douglas Council’s move to fortnightly bin collections probably didn’t go as councillors planned, as residents spoke out against the change.

 

Only a few could be arsed turning up. Only you frothing at the mouth appear to be that bothered.

[NoTailT]

3 minutes ago, Passing Time said:

Only a few could be arsed turning up. Only you frothing at the mouth appear to be that bothered.

Reportage is a bit like these morons blocking motorways in the UK.

Their underlying issue or belief may actually be well placed. But they piss enough people off conveying it that it gets lost.

[John Wright]

18 minutes ago, Reportage said:

It’s not nonsense at all. It’s called openness and common sense. 

There’s a hurdle you’ve got to get over first, to hold your position, and that’s to establish the relationship. You haven’t. You can’t. It’s a pretty common gammon move, shout, loudly, make unsubstantiated allegations in the hope mud will stick, hope no one fact checks. When challenged dissemble and obfuscate.

If you can’t you’re in the firing line for letters before action from lawyers acting for both. You’ve alleged Kath acted unprofessionally on two counts, using a family member as a ringer and then not declaring to the meeting that Nick was related. You’ve alleged that Nick was acting as a stooge of DBC, and clearly that has lowered him in the estimation of some posters.

Ah, well, I’m not moderating anymore. Perhaps a councillor or two will draw your posts to the attention of Kath.

Edited December 13, 2022 by John Wright

[Viddy well]

7 hours ago, Tailless said:

Actually, they are working in the interests of a significant majority of DBC ratepayers. I may not have a huge circle of friends in Douglas, but everyone I speak to is supportive - even those whose political persuasion would have led me to suspect otherwise.

Suck it up buttercups, DBC is actually in tune with most of its residents. And realize that no matter what they do, haters gonna hate.

Here's a question for you.

Let's say that the dissenters are truly a very small minority and "most of its in-tune residents" are recycling to the max.

The recycling rate has gone from 5% to 15%.

That's a win, until you ask what is required to get it from 15% to 100%. If "most of its in-tune residents" are already doing the right thing and that only gets you a 10% gain, then where will the other 85% come from? 

Of course the 5% to 15% could be made up. Thank goodness the Council has that evidence available to publish to sceptics. 
 

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

There’s a hurdle you’ve got to get over first, to hold your position, and that’s to establish the relationship. You haven’t. You can’t. It’s a pretty common gammon move, shout, loudly, make unsubstantiated allegations in the hope mud will stick, hope no one fact checks. When challenged dissemble and obfuscate.

If you can’t you’re in the firing line for letters before action from lawyers acting for both. You’ve alleged Kath acted unprofessionally on two counts, using a family member as a ringer and then not declaring to the meeting that Nick was related. You’ve alleged that Nick was acting as a stooge of DBC, and clearly that has lowered him in the estimation of some posters.

Ah, well, I’m not moderating anymore. Perhaps a councillor or two will draw your posts to the attention of Kath.

I suspect we will hear little more from Reportage.  But look, Viddy Well has turned up! 😏

[John Wright]

1 minute ago, Viddy well said:

Here's a question for you.

Let's say that the dissenters are truly a very small minority and "most of its in-tune residents" are recycling to the max.

The recycling rate has gone from 5% to 15%.

That's a win, until you ask what is required to get it from 15% to 100%. If "most of its in-tune residents" are already doing the right thing and that only gets you a 10% gain, then where will the other 85% come from? 

Of course the 5% to 15% could be made up. Thank goodness the Council has that evidence available to publish to sceptics. 
 

Except you don’t understand the data and statistics. It’s gone up from 5% to 15% of total refuse, both of which are measurable.

You can’t get recycling up to 100% of household rubbish, however. Some things are not recyclable. But you might get up to 30-40% quite easily.

[Banker]

24 minutes ago, Reportage said:

It’s up to the media or anyone directly connected to deny any familial link.

Still waiting for all those investigative journalists to butt in. 

What a load of conspiracy bollocks that only you and offshore manc are preaching, produce your evidence of connection!! 

[Viddy well]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I suspect we will hear little more from Reportage.  But look, Viddy Well has turned up! 😏

Play the ball madam. 
You said you'd taken part in a consultation on fortnightly collections. Yesterday Wells said on the record that there was no consultation, "because it wasn't required."

[Viddy well]

4 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Except you don’t understand the data and statistics. It’s gone up from 5% to 15% of total refuse, both of which are measurable.

You can’t get recycling up to 100% of household rubbish, however. Some things are not recyclable. But you might get up to 30-40% quite easily.

Okay I'll bite.

Everyone bar a small minority is recycling as required. The rate has gone from 5% to 15%.
How will you get it to 45%? Make people recycle three times harder - how?

[John Wright]

2 minutes ago, Viddy well said:
You said you'd taken part in a consultation on fortnightly collections. Yesterday Wells said on the record that there was no consultation, "because it wasn't required."

I said that also. There was, I did. Heavens knows what Wells is calling it. But there was a questionnaire.

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

Play the ball madam. 
You said you'd taken part in a consultation on fortnightly collections. Yesterday Wells said on the record that there was no consultation, "because it wasn't required."

When you start playing the ball, so will I.  There was a questionnaire, perhaps that is not the same as a full consultation, but views were sought. 

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

Okay I'll bite.

Everyone bar a small minority is recycling as required. The rate has gone from 5% to 15%.
How will you get it to 45%? Make people recycle three times harder - how?

It’s not a question of “as required”. There’s no real requirement. People who weren’t recycling are now recycling, or recycling more than they did before. It’s a process of encouragement, public education, carrot/stick. And, maybe, I’m the future, if it’s not done voluntarily, it will be required, with penalties for non compliance.

There are other ways. Deposits on glass bottles. Recycling collection points that pay you for things fed in. It’s true the IoM hasn’t kept up. It’s also true that recycling as a practical thing on island May be hard to justify from either an economic or green point of view.

And of course, volume of waste can be cut down quite easily. It’s happened with plastic bags, food containers, straws, cutlery. There’s lots more. Although bags for life aren’t necessarily “for life” or any more green friendly than the plastic they replace.

But, burning it in the incinerator isn’t a 100% option and landfill is too controversial to go back too on a large scale.

The last 60 years have seen lots of compulsory green requirements, smokeless zones, ethyl lead additives removed, lowered nox in ship fuels, controls on pollution. Slow, but all in one direction.

Edited December 13, 2022 by John Wright