| Author |
Message |
M. Taylor
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 03:17 pm: |   |
I WAS in a hardware shop a couple of months ago when a retired deputy came in. We were discussing recycling when the deputy states that as the number of people entering Guernsey was increasing, and not being controlled, he was no longer recycling.
I didn’t get angry but my thoughts were how short-sighted this elderly gentleman was – to consider only this island. When we recycle we’re trying to help everyone in every country. We’re also trying to help all the animals and plants.
What I do is to burn all my paper and burnable waste once a week – 10 minutes that’s all it takes. I recycle my tins, metal, glass and plastic – anything decent goes to a charity shop or the recycle centre at St Sampson’s and all edible waste goes onto a compost heap or is dug in. I doubt if I put out more than four sacks of rubbish a year, if that.
The reason I burn my paper is because I got so fed up with the constant quarrelling over our waste by the States members and I dig in the burnt paper anyway, so it’s not wasted. If bonfires are banned I think the amount of rubbish going to the tip will increase.
Other things I do to keep as ‘green’ as possible is to only have a car (H) once a month to do my heavy work and shopping, using the bus or my bike otherwise. Most of my furniture, clothes, etc are from charity shops and I make sure I use wood from the recycle centre before going for new. I grow as much of my fruit and veg as possible. All of this not only keeps me ‘green’, but enables me to save money and have a better standard of living than if I were buying new, buying petrol, insurance, repairs, fertiliser, etc.
The last handbag I bought cost me £3. I priced one on the Bridge at £69.
My pets eat grass and vegetarian-based foods so no other animal is killed to feed them. I only eat meat three times a week and, at 65, my blood pressure is little different to the 120/80 of my teens.
I can only say how glad I am that people are now behaving closer to how they did during the war. We’re becoming less and less of a throwaway society. The charity shops are usually crowded, as are salerooms and the recycling yard and there is a strong sense of friendliness as we all do our rummaging.
Thank goodness.
M. TAYLOR. |
Rachel Meinke
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 02:06 pm: | |
MOST of us who live in Guernsey are careful to dispose of our litter and rubbish responsibly, having first filtered out all that can be recycled at the many sites around the island – aren’t we?
So much can be recycled that there is usually very little left for the bin men. It seems so easy to dispose of large stuff such as furniture, mattresses, old domestic appliances these days, by courtesy of the Longue Hougue reclamation site, and excessively large things can be collected by arrangement.
So why are there bedsteads and mattresses, shopping trolleys, bits of old bikes, bottles, and domestic rubbish left at places such as the Ivy Castle moat, Vale Castle, Fort Hommet and other historic sites, and thrown over the cliffs?
How can anyone criticise the historic sites’ people who have so many places to tend and oversee, when it is we, our children and our neighbours who cause dangers such as the broken glass all over the Vale Castle the other week?
The logistics involved mean it is easier physically to use the proper sites, which cost nothing except the petrol to get there, than to lug rubbish off the beaten track by hand (risking injury to back and limbs) and spoiling our lovely island for everyone else.
How much easier can we make disposal of unwanted stuff?
GCSE and A-level results are coming out soon and there will be more smashed bottles everywhere, left by our own young folk throwing them about after their triumphant (or commiserative) parties in remote places – once again – as usual.
Parties are good – actually I was young myself once – but it is essential that any rubbish is taken away from parties in public places and disposed of with care and thought for others.
RACHEL MEINKE. |
Laurie Queripel
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 - 03:05 pm: | |
REGARDING the waste issue, I, like many other islanders, campaigned for an alternative to mass incineration.
I'm very pleased that in all likelihood we are now going to have a strategy based on the reduce, reuse, recycle ethos. However, there is a sizeable blot on the landscape, namely the present sorry state of the Mont Cuet tip.
The Public Services Department is proposing a package of measures that will markedly improve the situation. (1) A net/sail that will catch the considerable amount of litter currently being blown about. (2) A system to deal more effectively with the leachate and therefore greatly reduce the foul smelling odour being produced at present and an improved gas extraction system.
It is essential that this work is done. States members must assign the highest priority to this project and approve the necessary funds.
There is no doubt that the parishes of the Vale and St Sampson's now truly constitute the 'industrial north'. This has been the result of deliberate States policy over the years and the deputies of both parishes are acutely aware of this, as indeed I suspect are all Assembly members.
With this in mind they must feel obligated to take the required action, anything less would be a woeful dereliction of duty and a total disregard towards residents of the Vale.
One of the main problems of course is caused by organic/ food waste. Looking ahead, I believe it is vital that separation of these materials from the waste stream should form part of the new strategy. The processes of anaerobic digestion and composting are now available commercially within the island. The ability also exists to further process compost into solid fuel.
An American company (Bloom) has developed a stand-alone energy cell/ generator capable of powering a small office block or complex of apartments. This system can be run on renewable fuel (probably in liquid/ gas form).
I'm given to understand that a number of businesses have already signed up as customers, including the Bank of America, Coca Cola and FedEx.
A classic case it seems of problems and challenges resulting in opportunities. Could further processed food and green waste be used to fuel such a system? Could the gas being produced by the tip be utilised for this purpose? Indeed, is there a way that such a system could feed energy back into the grid? It may be something that the States or even a local private enterprise could investigate further.
LAURIE QUERIPEL,
Vale.
l.b.l.w.27q@ amserve.com. |
T. Butcher
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - 02:20 pm: | |
I AM an anti-incinerator protester.
I really thought at the time there was a standby system ongoing, such as Rodney Brouard's.
Since we won this vote of not wanting the incinerator, absolutely nothing has been done.
The PSD seems to be saying, we are looking into this way, system, type etc. all the time and doing nothing. We don't want to wait another six to 12 months, or maybe years, before something is decided, we want it now. Give Rodney a chance.
It will cost us nothing if it works or not. It cannot do any harm, only good.
They can carry on looking at other ways in the meantime, just in case, and if Rodney's works OK, end of story, if not, bring in what they have in their pipeline. I'm sure Rodney would not submit any false statement on this, knowing that he would lose his reputation over it.
I went to recycle my stuff this morning, and could not find anywhere to put these black packaging trays.
Everything we buy packaged, meat, veg, fruit etc. has one of these, but no place in recycle. Guernsey should make a stand on this, and import nothing that is wrapped, packaged, boxed etc. unless it is at least 95% recyclable.
Deputies, get into gear now, or hand it over to our Rodney.
P.S: I am not getting a back-hander from anyone for supporting Rodney.
T. BUTCHER. |
Tony Holland
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 30, 2010 - 03:42 pm: | |
IN THESE days of recycling, could someone please explain to me why Condor Ferries, Flybe and Aurigny all fail to recycle empty drink cans, containers, plastics, glass, newspapers, etc? We have all seen during our journey the assistant sweeping around with a large black bin liner and everything just gets dumped.
Then again, here’s a thought. Those who don’t wish to separate the plastics, tins, cartons, etc., if we had a couple of sites around this beautiful island of ours where they could drop everything off every week, we could have Social Security send a crew down to separate it.
Failure to work I think would deem them unable to claim. This way, I am sure we would hit our recycling target.
TONY HOLLAND |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 02:27 pm: | |
AFTER reading the Guernsey Press on Friday 23 April I was concerned after reading an article on the future licensing of companies to remove rubbish to the tips.
As a small carpentry and joinery company, I generate waste materiel on any jobs that I work on. It is mainly timber and building boards, but of course varies.
Many of the jobs that I do require a sack or two and not enough to fill a ton bag or a skip as suggested by Valerie Cameron of Environmental Health.
From my understanding, that amount of waste will have to be left with the customer. It will become their responsibility to organise its disposal.
That could put people off having the work done. The alternative is for me to take all the rubbish home and wait until I have sufficient to fill a skip. Not something I wish to do.
As an example, I build many wardrobes and cupboards. That generates a fair amount of sawdust, timber, MDF and plywood off-cuts.
At the end of the job I will have to place all the rubbish in a corner and tell the customer it's their responsibility to dispose of it as I can't take it because I am no longer allowed to take it to the tip.
What are they going to do with it? There is not enough for a skip. Do they take it to the tip themselves? Will they be able to?
I recently knocked down a conservatory in Hauteville. The street, as people are aware, is very narrow and it wasn't practical to use a skip. The conservatory had 5.5m long rafters. I was able to carry these timbers on my van along with the others. All the glass was placed in bongos loaded in the van and taken to the tip. In future I will not be able to do this.
It was more convenient for everyone that I did it that way as it reduced the amount of inconvenience to road users. It was also much cheaper for the customer that I removed the rubbish as opposed to having to get a large skip and it gave me work.
Rubbish is already expensive enough to dispose of. If it is only skip companies that can remove rubbish, the price is going to go up.
The new licence, which is an exact copy of the UK's, was designed to licence carters of refuse and for skip companies that have sorting facilities.
It was also drafted to facilitate the incinerator as it would ensure that there would be sufficient material to keep the unit working. But that has changed now that there is to be no incinerator.
Unfortunately there has been no consideration for the small builders such as myself.
In reality what is going to happen is more rubbish is going to be dumped over the cliffs. Go to Les Tielles now and you will find all sorts at the bottom of the cliff, including plastic windows.
In the UK the amount of unlawfully dumped rubbish has increased since the law was introduced. In my view it is another piece of bureaucratic legislation to make life even more difficult than it is and thought up by people that have no concept of how small companies work.
Name and address withheld |
R. S. Mauger
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 24, 2010 - 10:22 am: | |
NOW that all the hype and drama of the voting for the incinerator has died down, what is the future? It's been a few weeks now but things do seem quiet on that front. Where are all the alternative ideas that were put forward during the run-up to the debate? I am seriously hoping that there are many meetings of ideas now taking place. Mr Brouard's idea seems to be quiet at the moment and many others.
On visiting the Safeway's recycling area on Sunday 18th it was amazing how many people are turning up to play their part and I see that often many who come to help the island. What I did see again is a complete mess, most of the banks were full to the brim and many of us were struggling to place all we had. The carton bins, all five of them, were overflowing and all around the floor area people had left piles of them. Why won't people be advised to flatten the cartons first to decrease the volume?
There was a split household size bin to accept plastic bags, which was overflowing. Those in charge of our recycling departments and committees should get out and about and see what is going on and start improving these areas dramatically before we all lose the heart to continue. At the moment we are only playing at this game of recycling. The island has voted against the incinerator so let's show what we can really do.
R. S. MAUGER. |
Mr & Mrs D. Bourgaize
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 16, 2010 - 02:00 pm: | |
THERE must be thousands of people in the island who have gardens, fields, allotments, greenhouses and back yards and if everyone was to adopt 'home composting' (preferably in a compost bin), the contents to consist of a kitchen and garden waste together with cardboard and paper, all of which is compostable material which then could be recycled back into the soil, we could thereby reduce the island 'waste' problem immensely.
We also agree with the idea of garden waste being placed in a black bin bag, which can be tied up and recycled back into the soil when rotted into compost.
MR AND MRS D. BOURGAIZE. |
Scott Ogier
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - 02:47 pm: | |
Nothing has changed as far as the actual disposal of vehicles is concerned. Islanders will still be able to have these scrapped without charge at Guernsey Recycling, and the cost of that service is, as your correspondent points out, covered under a levy on fuel.
However, due to budgetary constraints, Public Services has had to introduce a £30 charge to cover the cost of vehicle collection by our contractors under the bulk refuse scheme.
Far from being a stealth tax, this reflects the cost of collection, and in fact does not cover the other significant costs associated with operating the service.
I understand that not everyone can deliver vehicles themselves. However, there are many islanders who currently can and do. Last year nearly 2,000 cars and motorcycles were scrapped under the scheme, and nearly 800 of them were delivered by their owners and Public Services did not incur any cost for their collection.
The bulk refuse scheme, even with the new £30 charge, will offer an inexpensive alternative for those who cannot deliver.
On a more general note, the bulk refuse scheme has operated for free since 1994, and has provided a very popular disposal service.
However, the cost of providing such services has increased, and Public Services has also introduced new facilities, such as the Longue Hougue waste recycling facility, which offers another option for islanders to dispose of and/or recycle household items for free.
At a time when all States departments face tighter budgetary controls, it was necessary to review how these are paid for.
Hence the new charge for vehicle collection, and also the new £15 charge for collection of other bulky household items.
However, at the same time the number of household items that can be collected in one pick-up has been increased from three to five, so the cost to remove and dispose of each one could be as little as £3.
Scott Ogier,
Deputy minister,
Public Services Department |
David Newman
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 - 02:46 pm: | |
I NOTE with interest the new £30 fee for vehicles that are picked up and disposed of under the bulk refuse scheme. I also see that if I deliver the vehicle in person with the correct form I won't be charged.
My memory must be playing the same sort of trick as it did during the resurfacing 'again' paid parking discussion after fuel duty was increased to cover that very subject. I was under the impression that in 2005 (I think) the following was agreed.
When road tax was required, every vehicle owner paid £10 annually on top of the tax to fund the eventual disposal of the vehicle.
Since road tax was abolished, an equivalent sum has been recovered via duty on fuel.
So every time I drive my car a small percentage of the implemented increased duty on fuel (decided by the States just about the same time as fuel costs sky rocketed. Only in Guernsey) goes towards scrapping my vehicle. This is when the sad time comes for it to visit the great recycling dump in the sky.
So if that's the case why then decide to charge £30 for scrapping a car?
Unless you either own a skip lorry or one of those 'iniquitous' 4x4s (I do), I doubt you'll be able to drive or tow your deceased vehicle to the correct dumping area so therefore be charged again for something you've already paid for.
Another stealth tax. Surely not.
DAVID NEWMAN. |
Bob Perkins
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2010 - 03:46 pm: | |
ON 29 March you published a letter from Simon Cottell, which criticises Deputy Hadley for what Simon calls arrogance over the incinerator debate, and effectively suggests that the function of deputies is merely to sway in the winds of public opinion. But is it quite as simple as that?
I'd suggest that when we have employed deputies and full-time, professional staff to research an issue, then leadership is certainly necessary from our deputies in attempting to deliver that solution. This may not be so clear cut in this case, if the PSD had indeed been given a restricted original brief by the States. It is, though, perhaps an illustration of why democracies sometimes struggle to make difficult and potentially unpopular decisions. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it in this particular instance, it's clear that the rather emotive arguments of the pro-recyclers have prevailed.
It is totally wrong of those who have been trying to vilify Deputies Spruce and Hadley and the other members who backed or voted for the Spruce requete. All our deputies - on both sides of this debate - are honest and honourable men and women who are trying to do what is in the best interests of our island. Both sides were just involved in what was a very difficult and heart-searching decision.
On the one hand you had a fully researched solution, which was pretty much proven to be workable, and on the other you had a solution which is very moral and idealistic, but which is not yet proven. The decision was not easy, and there is no doubt that the weight of the lobbying swung the balance.
Personally, I was one of those who firmly believed that a vote against the incinerator was unwise. However, now a clear decision has been made, I for one certainly hope that this project will be made to work. And if there is anyone out there who thinks that, now the incinerator is thrown out, we can rest on our laurels and forget about waste management for a bit, you'd better think again. There is a difficult road ahead to make this work.
It's now up to the proponents of recycling to prove that their vision is going to work and to deliver on their promises. They now have the clear mandate and the clear responsibility. There is no time to waste either.
We need to be getting down to it and getting it on the road as quickly as possible.
And despite what one of your recent correspondents, Denis White, may have said, this recycling project cannot be just a try out. There is no time for that. This project has got to succeed, and soon. Failure is not an option.
There are, of course, some rocks to be prepared for along the route, not least of which is the lack of availability of landfill to support the project. This will be needed while the proportion of recycled waste is built up, and then to deal with the remaining residual waste for the foreseeable future. Unless any of the alternative technologies that are being promoted by private concerns is a no-residue solution, and is acceptable to the States and, it would seem, the recycling lobby, then we would do well to be planning for landfill capacity over and above that which can be reasonably expected from Mont Cuet, even if it's not in the end needed. This is just basic project risk management.
That is, unless we are able - and choose - to put ourselves under an obligation to Jersey. But would we find ourselves having to dance to their tune in the future over other matters, under threat of having our waste facilities withdrawn? Or is that too cynical? (Personally I'm a cynic).
If there is a showstopper for this project, then it's going to revolve around how much residual waste we're going to end up with. We need to be getting this down to virtually zero, by achieving near-100% recycling as soon as possible. Otherwise we may well require an additional landfill area over and above Mont Cuet, or - dare I say it - another incinerator project further down the line. We need to be fully aware of this now and keep it in view in the future.
BOB PERKINS |
Sue Solway
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 09, 2010 - 03:36 pm: | |
'A BIT of an error' was made by our Policy Council about our special important day 9 May because it will cost approximately £500,000 to keep it as a special holiday. Oh horror of horrors, we cannot waste that much money on what is so important to the indigenous population of this island, i.e. us locals, eh?
Yet they can throw nearly £12m. into the bin trying to decide what to do with our waste.
Am I the only one thinking something is dreadfully wrong here?
SUE SOLWAY |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 08, 2010 - 02:33 pm: | |
MR FLOUQUET jumped ship to save his job.
When he said back us or bin us on the Suez proposal, sadly he went into the recycle bin.
Name and address withheld. |
Bryan Vandertang
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 05, 2010 - 10:25 am: | |
THE reported scenes outside the Royal Court a couple of Wednesday mornings ago were hardly surprising when one considers the vehemence of the anti-incinerator lobby. Everyone has a right to an opinion - popular or not - and the 'booing' was, of course, unfortunate. Such moronic behaviour does nothing for the cause and reflects poorly on intelligence levels.
Now that the island has a positive decision on the waste 'strategy', in that there is now no strategy at all, it is of the utmost importance to cease recrimination and take rapid steps towards creating one. At a recent Vale 'clinic,' one of the deputies seemed to be of the considered opinion that a viable scheme could be set up within two or three months. Perhaps the task should be passed to this deputy as such superior knowledge is now invaluable because time is of the essence.
Full, or near full, recycling is essential and will need the unreserved co-operation of 60,000 people and this is likely to be difficult to achieve.
The present system of 'bring banks' will need to be dramatically expanded because not everyone has the means of removing their rubbish to these widely scattered sites, and the facilities provided at each site will need to be significantly increased in order to accept refuse not currently catered for. Also the sites themselves will need to be serviced far more frequently than at present when containers are often full to overflowing.
The authority already recognises this and has the audacity to erect a sign requesting the public to use another site when containers are full. The containers, or banks, should also be redesigned as some are extremely difficult to use in terms of height as short people, and frequently the elderly, find it difficult to put paper and card through the access slots.
The present system of refuse collection will need a radical rethink in order to accommodate the several different categories of domestic refuse, some of which will inevitably need further 'sorting' before final disposal. And final disposal will also need careful consideration because however small the volume, there will be a final residue.
Guernsey's waste management could now be described as a signed open cheque and therefore only provenly viable processes must be considered, involving the total compliance of the whole population - both domestic and commercial.
The future will be interesting.
BRYAN VANDERTANG |
David De Carteret
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 03, 2010 - 10:42 am: | |
I WAS surprised to read in today's paper, Monday, 29 March, in which it stated that Deputy Domaille and Deputy Langlois had said, 'that throwing out the incinerator may have delayed a sewerage solution'.
Deputy Domaille said that the Suez plant included dealing with sludge from a future sewerage plant. Deputy Domaille also said, 'the problem is that any sort of plant will leave us with a waste residue'.
I emailed all deputies prior to the last debate on Suez and here is an extract from that email.
'We would at our own cost erect and build and maintain a pyrolysis plant capable of dealing with the island waste now and in the foreseeable future. This plant would occupy approximately two acres and be capable of dealing with a wide range of waste including hospital waste and raw sewerage. For greater detail please see the attachment and visit www.guernseywaste.co.uk.
By occupying just two acres of the Longue Hougue site the island would have cost benefit over the incineration plant which would require eight acres, the rent for the freed up land over the 25 years would be a considerable sum.'
The attachment to which I refer also made it quite specific that the pyrolysis plant that we propose deals directly with raw sewage and there is no need for additional capital required to build a sewage plant at a cost to the island of some £50m.
It would appear that some deputies do not read and comprehend the information provided to them.
This fact was further illustrated by Deputy Hadley in his speech in the Suez debate which he said of Green Homes Guernsey 'they were not interested in the recycling that Suez intended to do.'
Deputy Hadley attended both our presentations and we clearly stated at them that after the autoclave process the material that could be recycled was separated out before the biomass went into the pyrolysis chamber.
The separating out of recyclables was also clearly illustrated in emailed information sent to all deputies. The recyclables are an important part of the revenue stream.
DAVID DE CARTERET,
Managing director,
Green Homes Guernsey. |
William Audoire
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 - 02:23 pm: | |
I HOPE our deputies have learnt a strong lesson over the incinerator escapade - when government make a mistake, the cost to the taxpayer runs into millions. The voters on this planet are like troops - for every walking voter there are thousands of islander families at home walking with them. I say again - Deputy Flouquet got the answer - the islanders need time to engage with debate and lobby their deputies to get public opinion on any major issue. This must be the future. True democracy from and by the people will always prevail.
There again, as far as incineration, we've always got Le Foulon.
WILLIAM AUDOIRE. |
Andre Quevatre
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2010 - 03:59 pm: | |
NOW that Suez is finally out of the picture, we need to formulate an effective waste strategy. It seems to me that many supporters of recycling (I am one) can only see a kerbside scheme as part of the way forward.
Why is it that when we are perfectly able to transport our jars, tins, and bottles of food and drink home from the supermarket, we require the expense, noise and pollution of a kerbside collection to recycle the clean empties? With a bit of fresh thinking and negotiation with the main supermarkets on the island, we could make one journey to both shop and recycle. There will still be a need for the current bring banks as many of us already recycle 'on the way' to somewhere else, but if we all learned to go shopping with the week's recycling in our bags, then this would represent a huge change in habits - which is what any new waste strategy will need.
Of course there is now no time for gentle encouragement, publicity and persuasion. We need to first improve the existing bring bank facilities, then provide further strategically placed facilities (as above). Once we are confident that no one has a valid excuse not to recycle, we simply change the refuse law to re-categorise household refuse so as to exclude recyclable items in the same way that garden refuse is already excluded. Then it will be against the law to put recyclables into your refuse sack.
Is this able to be policed?
Well, I am told that refuse collectors inform our parish office when someone tries to get rid of their hedge cuttings in this way - how much more difficult to disguise tins and bottles.
Zero tolerance would ensure that after the inconvenience (and embarrassment) of a hefty fine, habits would soon change. Other jurisdictions employ similar methods.
Surely making recycling mandatory is 'draconian,' isn't it? Well, my dictionary tells me that this word means 'excessively harsh.' My opinion is that if you have managed to carry your pot of jam home from the shop, then refusing to recycle the clean empty jar on your next visit is excessively lazy and selfish and I am more than happy to legislate against those in our community who cannot see further than their own front door.
We have low speed limits due to narrow roads, we have stringent development laws due to a finite, dwindling land resource, so what is wrong with tough recycling laws which reflect our position as a small island with nowhere to dispose of waste and (thankfully) no wish to burn it?
What about fly tipping? This already happens now, when we can put what we like in our dustbin and there is a free bulk-refuse scheme. So it is clear that those idiots who fly tip are not influenced by the law but have their own twisted agenda, which again should attract hefty fines upon the first offence.
To use fly tipping as an excuse not to introduce mandatory recycling is feeble indeed - our politicians need to be tougher than this.
The principle at work with the introduction of mandatory recycling would be the same one that, overnight, persuaded thousands not to use their mobile phones while driving. They knew it was a bad idea but just needed legislation to persuade them to change their habits.
Of course the call for kerbside recycling is only because most of us have grown up during a time when the 'bin men' removed food waste, tins, paper, bottles, in fact pretty much anything from your property without question. We now look blankly at the recyclables and think, 'I need a separate collection for this stuff,' rather than, 'I'll take this stuff with me next time I go shopping.'
We will always need a refuse collection as rotting food waste is hazardous and needs to be dealt with by professionals. How hazardous is an empty jam jar - especially when you consider the fact it was carried home full of jam without a problem?
I wouldn't class myself as a particularly 'green' person, I am just wanting a sensible and effective solution to our waste problem. To those really keen green types who are shouting for kerbside collections, I would ask whether they are in favour of these extra vehicles on the road.
My advice would be to fill up your shopping bag before you leave home and don't expect someone else to do something you are perfectly capable of doing yourself.
ANDRE QUEVATRE
andre@ quevatre.com. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
