Talk:Thames Water/Archive 1

Archive 1

Privatization

What is the history of privatization of the water board authorities in England? The article mentioned a date of 1989 which would have been under a Tory government.

At the present time there are announcements of purified water shortages, hosepipe bans including banning washing private autos and watering lawns and gardens with home hosepipes, bans on commercial auto washes that don't use recycled water, threats of installing standpipes on the streets of London to maintain minimum pressure, and even threats of cutting off water supply for part of the day.

On the other hand there are numerious local media reports of water mains leaking 800 million litres of water per per due to old mains and lack of repair, etc., 31% profit increase for Thames Water PLC, reports of customers not paying water/sewage charge bills, rules against cutting off water supply to private customers who don't pay bills, many customers in older homes who pay an unmetered (allowing unrestricted use) flat rate charge while those with meters pay for each litre of water.

It appears that the end result of privatization of the public water supply in London is a disaster. --TGC55 10:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hosepipe bans have been known well before privatisation occurred and aren't a direct result of privatisation. Any recent problems cannot automatically be blamed on the privatisation process. Making a profit in a company is generally regarded as a good thing, unless you want the company to go under. The 30% touted may be true, and is quite sizable, but you need to make a profit for shareholders to want to invest. You need shareholders to invest if you want some capital within the company. New homes in the UK tend to have water meters while older homes don't tend to. More homes are moving towards metered usage. The benefit of metered usage is that you pay for what you use rather than paying the same amount regardless. Having a meter isn't automatically worse, as seems to be implied here.Neilajh 12:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thames water.gif

Image:Thames water.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Biased criticism

It seems somewhat remarkable that the criticism section almost entirely focusses on water leakage without any mention of the fact that it largely due to the Victorian pipework that is currently being replaced. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It was also historical leakage criticism, and not a current picture - but then the current picture is somewhat more complimentary. I would prefer to reduce this section, and introduce a statement on the current discussions on, say, Tideway tunnel access points. Ian Cairns (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Victorian pipework is largely irrelevant as the leakage criticism focuses on Thames Water failing to meet their own targets, which would take the age of the pipework into account. The criticism also stemed from the independent regulator. Rather than reducing this section, let's try and expand it with information on how they have improved. We could perhaps then delete the "criticism" heading as we would have a balanced view under the "leakages" title. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I renamed the section and added details about an improvement in leakages in 2007 - does anyone have more recent sources? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Article improvement

I think it is possible to improve this article, by correcting some of its existing deficiencies, and adding new, additional, relevant detail. The intention should be that we all get this article up towards Good Article status. To that end, can we produce a list below of:

Existing article aspects which need correction

• clarify leakage criticism in terms of leaky Victorian iron pipework, cold water during exceptional winter spells, etc.

Missing detail which needs adding

• expand tideway tunnel - either here or in that article? - to detail the pros and cons of access tunnels. Temporary loss of parks vs long-term clean-up of Thames.
  • probably best in Talk:Thames Tideway Scheme ?? Itc editor2 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• we could talk about some of Category:Thames Water reservoirs --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • again, Category talk:Thames Water reservoirs is available Itc editor2 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please add your entries to this list. Clearly, each entry may need discussion / consensus - but we must be able to improve this article. I've added something for a start. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.water-technology.net/projects/water-desalination/

  Triggered by \bwater-technology\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

An alternative link / reference was used instead. So problem averted. 109.149.245.165 (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Profitability, loan finance and tax

I am surprised that there is no mention in the finance section about firstly the overall financial position of the company with special reference to profitability and money flowing offshore and secondly about tax-favourable loan arrangements of Kemble which i understand involve a Cayman Island subsidiary. Surely these facts are relevant especially in the context of the contentious issue of water privatisation? I would have thought this information of interest to the general reader in understanding how the company operates in any case.Richwil (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Richwil: WP:SOFIXIT :) Keri (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)