Smart Meter removal

[HawkEye244]

yes of course I do, but they need a court order to break into somebody's house.

When they can do it remotely by the touch of a button, or change the tariff because they are under the impression there is a bill outstanding, I'm sure they will do it more freely.

If you happen to be a new resident, or you live in a house with a similar address, or have a similar name to a defaulter, they will do it to you more often.

They claim to get warrants that are not actually warrants, which is fraud, and they are doing it nationwide.

Do you think that by giving them the power to cut you off remotely they wouldn't use it despite the fact you might be vulnerable?

This doesn't bother you at all, clearly.

 

[JohnD]

you are wrong to assume that I am in favour of people being wrongly cut off; or of having prepayment meters forced on them; or of smart meters.

 

[JohnW2]

Do you think that by giving them the power to cut you off remotely they wouldn't use it despite the fact you might be vulnerable?

Well, the evidence of what we discussed (and I posted) above indicates that at least DNOs are trying to identify 'vulnerable' (or 'electricity-dependent') people and to give them appropriately sympathetic attention/support, so one might at least hope that 'suppliers' would behave likewise.

Indeed, even if they are not compassionate/'decent', they definitely have commercial interests. In these days of a competitive electricity supply market (and easy 'switching'), I would imagine that suppliers would do everything they could to avoid the possibility of the media going to town if they caused harm (or even death) to a vulnerable person by remotely cutting off their electricity supply.

Kind Regards, John

 

[HawkEye244]

Well, the evidence of what we discussed (and I posted) above indicates that at least DNOs are trying to identify 'vulnerable' (or 'electricity-dependent') people and to give them appropriately sympathetic attention/support, so one might at least hope that 'suppliers' would behave likewise.

Indeed, even if they are not compassionate/'decent', they definitely have commercial interests. In these days of a competitive electricity supply market (and easy 'switching'), I would imagine that suppliers would do everything they could to avoid the possibility of the media going to town if they caused harm (or even death) to a vulnerable person by remotely cutting off their electricity supply.

Kind Regards, John

Are they fukc. They are just saying what they know people want to hear.

''avoid the possibility of the media going to town if they caused harm (or even death) to a vulnerable person by remotely cutting off their electricity supply.''

- it happens every day for fukc sake, it's happening now.

Anyway, no point me posting anymore because as you can see I'm dead set against it, and no way anybody is going to convince me they are in my interest, unless at gun point.

 

[JohnW2]

Are they fukc. They are just saying what they know people want to hear.

As I said, even if one wants to take a cynical viewpoint, there are good 'selfish'/commercial reasons why they would not want to get bad PR by harming vulnerable people (or, if you prefer, harming more vulnerable people).

Anyway, no point me posting anymore because as you can see I'm dead set against it, and no way anybody is going to convince me they are in my interest, unless at gun point.

As I recently wrote, it seems that a number of suppliers have said that they would not use remote disconnect/re-connect functionality because of safety concerns. Even if it's true that they have said that, they could, of course, be lying.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I would imagine that suppliers would do everything they could to avoid the possibility of the media going to town if they caused harm (or even death) to a vulnerable person by remotely cutting off their electricity supply.

Neither they nor the media gave a rat's behind, let alone went to town, about people being killed as part of subsidising the middle classes with their vanity projects.

 

[JohnW2]

Neither they nor the media gave a rat's behind, let alone went to town, about people being killed as part of subsidising the middle classes with their vanity projects.

You seem to have a very tormented life. I can't help wondering whether you ever manage to get a "peaceful night's sleep".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You seem to have a very tormented life.

Tormented?

What a strange judgement to make of someone who does not agree that people should be killed in order to improve the performance of an investment vehicle, and is critical of all those who do.

In these days of a competitive electricity supply market (and easy 'switching'), I would imagine that suppliers would do everything they could to avoid the possibility of the media going to town if they caused harm (or even death) to a vulnerable person by remotely cutting off their electricity supply.

So what about the vulnerable people who were harmed, or died, because they were pushed into, or further into, fuel poverty by electricity price increases which were put in place so that people far better off than they could be paid 4x what it worth for electricity they made, or in some cases were simply assumed to have made?

Do you not recall how lots of people looked at PV FITs in ROI terms, and not as an environmentally conscious electricity generation system? Invest X get a rate of Y% - better than the building society and to hell with the little old lady down the road who then dies of hypothermia because she can no longer afford the electricity she needs because it's been made more expensive in order for them to get that Y%?

Where were the suppliers concerned about their reputation then? Where was the media then?

I can't help wondering whether you ever manage to get a "peaceful night's sleep".

Every night.