New waste plans that could see U.K. households have as many as seven bins to comply with recycling laws have been blasted as “madness” by MPs. The Mail has more.
Under the new plans, which are set to be announced in mid-April, all councils across the U.K. would be required to individually collect paper, cardboard, metal, plastic and glass as well as garden and food waste.
This would in theory mean some households could have seven waste receptacles in what has been described as a “national bin service”.
The proposed change has been brought about by a Government consultation on household and business recycling, with Environment Secretary Thérèse Coffey due to publish her report next month.
The changes are being made to increase the consistency of waste recycling across the country due to disparity in the rates under different local authorities.
In order to be exempt from some of the changes, councils would have to demonstrate that it is “not technically or economically practicable” to collect different forms of recycling waste separately.
Another get out clause would be that they are able to demonstrate there would be no “significant environmental benefit in doing so”. …
However there has been backlash from within the Conservative party over the changes with Bob Blackman, MP for Harrow East and member of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities parliamentary committee criticising the decision.
Speaking to the Telegraph, he said: “It would be of great concern if we end up with huge numbers of types of bins. That would be madness. In urban environments, people already have four sets of bins and to go beyond that would be absolutely crazy.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I’m more than happy for Pfizer to produce whatever drugs it wants and try to sell them, and for people to buy them should they choose. Also more than happy for people to produce, buy and sell cocaine.
Just don’t give them immunity from prosecution or the stamp of approval from some fake regulatory quango, or provide these drugs free or with a subsidy using my money, or have doctors and nurses paid with my money push them on people.
It’s the pharma companies that sit there at the top of the financial food chain dictating health policy to everything downstream, like the regulators and health services. The MHRA don’t bite the hand that feeds… if Pfizer or AstraZeneca say jump they say “how high?”. The drugs they produce are only approved pending INTERNAL trials (probably no risk assessments) with no external regulation.
In the scenatrios you describe we also need a means of internalising to the suppliers and/or users the costs which would otherwise fall on the rest of us.
Why, for example, should the public at large bear the risks of serious injury or death from a cannabis user who has developed mental illness. Why should we have to pay the costs of treatment and care for such people (and also likely the cost of continued consumption because it would be treated as their right to continue to use even when in secure institutions).
That’s a fair point though I am not in favour of giving free drugs to prisoners- in fact I am not sure I’d want prisoners to use drugs or alcohol at all, even in the unlikely event they could pay market price.
I am now almost paranoid about anything that smells of socialism, but I think it’s a reasonable argument you are making. On the other hand lots of people use drugs and alcohol and do no particular harm to society.
I think you are presupposing that legislation would lead to a significant increase in use and that the increase would lead to more collateral damage.
Perhaps there is evidence for that, though from my experience getting hold of illegal drugs seems very easy and most people who want to are able and willing to do so.
Putting the cost partly onto the supplier is a possible approach though it socialises the cost across a user base many of whom may not cause societal problems.
I agree. Key point is that the tax payer is funding this.
Lots of medicines are not available for free because of failing the cost/benefit test (the job of NICE).
The problem with this approach is that the means by which these vaccines reached full authorisation was irregular to say the least, and PMS is hopelessly in denial about the possibility that sudden cardiac deaths, neuropathies and turbocancers could be vaccine related.
We can’t be in a situation that Pharma gets to put dangerous drugs out there and just let the public choose. We are watching the next health disaster unfolding now with weight loss drugs with this approach.
The only way to restore public trust now, as Bhattacharya has proposed, is the equivalent to a full Morbidity & Mortality conference on what has gone wrong. Only then can we move forward to a proper regulatory framework, shorn of all commercial influence.
A preventive medicine physician, employed at the FDA as Deputy Commissioner since 2019, recants at a recent “Make America Healthy Again” round table…
https://blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/top-fda-official-admits-she-refused
…One of the most powerful figures at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has admitted she refused the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine while pregnant—even as her agency promoted it as “safe and effective” for all pregnant women.
“Knowing what I knew—not only about nanotechnology, about medicine, about the medical countermeasures—but also having a very strong and firm grounding in bioethics… there were many things that were not right.”
Medical autonomy for me but not for thee.
Freedom Means Medical Autonomy
Carry on rock fishing as much as you like, is my opinion, but how about just leaving foetuses alone?
The idea that “knowingly reprogramming the dividing cells of a foetus to produce a toxic protein, such as by injecting Covid mRNA vaccines into pregnant women, would require overwhelming evidence of safety before even being considered” is totally repugnant, even leading aside the overwhelming evidence there was no ‘pandemic’. There is nothing to consider, in my opinion.
The Exposé recently published the article “Childhood vaccines cause autism, a review of 850 studies concludes” (https://expose-news.com/2025/05/27/childhood-vaccines-cause-autism/), admonishing the US recommended 76 vaccinations (the first being given one hour after birth).
How about reconsidering the whole idea of whether vaccination is ever a good thing?
Agreed. The medical fraternity has shown time and time again that they can’t be trusted.
Bodily autonomy is one of the CORE natural rights (these predate the often nonsensical concept of “human right” – such as, the right to family life. You fucking what?)
Without bodily autonomy, your body belongs to the state, they can do to it what they want, which means – you are a slave.
The author appears to have no idea of the real harm that these toxic mRNA injections have caused across the Western world. We are hopefully just beginning to get the people to understand that we have been subjected to an unprecedented crime against humanity. By March 2021 VAERS and Yellow Card data was screaming stop, but the regulators, bought and paid for by Pharma were silent and complicit, withholding data, obfuscating and lying where necessary to maintain the “safe and effective” mantra.
Medical ethics established over a hundred years ago were thrown out of the window. First do no harm was thrown into the waste paper bin, and informed consent and bodily autonomy sneered at.
Medical journals disgraced themselves and trashed their reputation. The media appeared to be in receipt of significant globalist elite donations in return for propaganda and silence. Coordinated instructions and control were peddled out in lock step across countries. We don’t need a Covid enquiry burning millions of taxpayers money. Nothing less than Nuremberg 2 is required and the total ruination of the Big pharmaceutical companies to pay for the £Bns in compensation. Fraud makes indemnity null and void.