After reviewing the Indemnities to Water Companies section of the 2003 Water Bill, NPWA found the anecdotal reports from the fluoridation objectors were based in fact.
IT’S TRUE! – Read excerpts below – the Government has indemnified them for almost everything under the sun including “third party debt”!
2005 No. 920
WATER INDUSTRY, ENGLAND
The Water Supply (Fluoridation Indemnities) (England) Regulations 2005
Made 24th March 2005
Coming into force 1st April 2005
2. – (1) Pursuant to section 90 of the Act and subject to clauses 3 to 5 below, the Secretary of State for Health hereby indemnifies the water undertaker-
(a) against all claims, proceedings, actions, damages, legal costs, expenses and any other liabilities;
(b) in respect of any death or personal injury, or loss of or damage to property;]
In essence, all that people who live in fluoridated areas have to do is write a letter to their water company stating that they are deducting money from their water bill to pay for water filters or bottled water, and the Department of Health will pick up the tab.
All the water company has to do is say that they made a “reasonable effort” to recover the debt, which means that you will get a few reminder notices in the mail and perhaps, a phone call, but that will probably be the extent of it. (Water companies want to minimise costs.) The water company will then bill the DoH. At that point it is up to the DoH to send the water company a cheque, and then attempt to recover the “third party debt” – at huge cost to the taxpayer.
The DoH has taken on the responsibility of being a debt collection agency for the water industry. Presumably they believe their own propaganda, and assume that only a few ‘kooks and crackpots’ will refuse to pay their water bills. Imagine if it was the 90% of people who actually oppose fluoridation! 6 million people are already being fluoridated. Is the DoH going to take 5.4 million people to court now, and millions more later?
However, NPWA sees a problem with the term “reasonable”: it was not defined in the Act. What is “a reasonable effort” to one party might not seem reasonable to another party – in this case, neither party has any idea of what definition of “reasonable” the other party is assuming.
In reality, while the DoH appears to be indemnifying the water industry for everything, they have actually indemnified them for nothing, because of the vagueness of the document’s language – everything is open to interpretation, e.g. “reasonable”. We foresee the water industry having to take the Government to court in order to recover its losses.
However, before the vague wording of the Act is clarified in court, fluoridation objectors living in fluoridated areas might want to help the UK water industry test the goodwill of the Government. Write a letter to your water company and tell them that you are starting to deduct the cost of your water filter, or bottled water, from your monthly bill, and see what happens.
See Imdemnities http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050920.htm