The new recycling system

Youre statement was that there was conclusive evidence. You've not provided a shred of evidence to support your claim.

Instead you want to restart a debate that we may have already met the target via kerbside collection. That's not a discussion I want to have with you. I want you to stand over your points with data to back it up or retract it.

Very simply put, its yes or no, do you believe there is conclusive evidence to show that we will not meet the collection targets via the RVM model?

Very simply put, its yes or no, do you believe there is conclusive evidence to show that we will not meet the collection targets via the RVM model?

Again I stated no such thing.

As I have explained several times already. I know the collection targets.

I don't know the current collection rates, neither do you. So you are asking me to answer a question no one could possibility answer.

So it could be that we have already surpassed the collection targets, so there is no need for this bloated inconvenient mess, is there?

What part of that could still be confusing you?

The secrecy could be because maybe all previous tins work in the machine too? maybe its too expensive to track the bottles with logo's on them, and they don't want some hoarder getting a bunch of deposits day 1 when it goes live, maybe thats why all the secrecy.

The whole "product must have our logo" on it thing could be a major bluff. The way its worded even on the website, pay close attention to the part saying what is meant to go into it, but then compare it to what is not meant to go into it. You might notice there is something missing.

it might be nothing, or it might be worth looking into.

And yet again, you refuse to answer the question.

do you believe there is conclusive evidence to show that we will not meet the collection targets via the RVM model?

Like I stated multiple times, impossible to answer that question without knowing the current collection rates.

It's like demanding to know what time it will be in an hour from a person who doesn't have a watch.

We will have to leave it there, it's just a complete time sink ironically.

Its impossible to give an opinion? Its impossible to say if you have conclusive data or not?

You refuse to answer a simple question. You're evasive because you know the answer is "no, there is no conclusive evidence that RVMs do not work". The evidence from Germany is clear, RVM and the system that is being rolled out has demonstrated it is capable of achieving collection rates in excess of 90% for plastic containers and aluminium cans. You might disagree with the rollout, you might disagree that we are not already achieving the target but you cannot disagree that the system being rolled out should be expected to work.

Is it an elaborate and expensive mechanism of achieving that? That's where the debate it. You have no conclusive evidence. Stop pretending you do.

The new cans will have new barcodes as per the scheme rules which have been linked to eleventy billion times on here already.

The barcode and logo recognition will be optically read - and the logo is not even consistently replicated across different products anyway, so that isn't a way to commit fraud here

Is CCTV part of the spec / requirement for RVM installs?

I Was theorizing the first part myself, i had a hunch. As for the rest i've seen what some cctv footage looks like before, unless the cctv is on the actual rvm itself (simular to that on atm's) its going to be hard for them to see each can in good enough quality on the cctv to see if it has a return logo on it, or to see who's doing it. I Can imagine the timestamp's of the machines usage, or the code number on the receipt being used to try identify who's putting what where. But considering the cost of all that i doubt they will actually install that sort of security until it becomes such a problem that they're forced to. Remember they want money out of this too.

Actually come to think of it, would'nt this be doing them a favor in terms of helping them reach their target goal for upping the numbers of cans recycled? is the end goal meeting the numbers required to show the EU? or is the end goal profit? if both, which is the main end goal is what im asking, the priority

Interesting, but this is assuming such a perpetrator has their vehicle in distance of cctv, or even has a vehicle.

Would be funny to see someone dressed as a farmer, or dressed as a clown, with a wheelbarrow full of dodgey cans on the cctv.

Realisticly though, jokes aside, detection of this sort of thing might be harder because the deposit of dodgy or modified cans (if they did work and give a deposit) would not show anythings up until after the deposited number has exceeded the cans sold. Hard to put into words, what im trying to say is that on paper re-turn could assume does redeems are the unclaimed deposits.

it only becomes noticeable AFTER the deposit becomes exceeded vs the amount sold. its when the numbers don't make sense is when attention is drawn to this issue.

As someone had mentioned earlier, recycling rates 140% lol. Until then its easily assumed that people are just getting back their deposits (fraudster getting the unclaimed deposits via other nonsuitable cans). After thats done, when the real people who actually paid a deposit on their cans start to redeem their cans for the deposit voucher, thats when the numbers start to go crazy. And the legit person can't be blamed. it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack, unless theres someway to trace what time the dodgy nonsuitable cans where deposited. And if the machine is gonna crush them or shread them anyway, How will we know? by assuming the highest redeemer of deposits is guilty? thats not feasible in court. There needs to be some way of proving it beyond all resonable doubt. Otherwise all you got is a video of someone putting cans into a machine.

However, each shipment of bottles from each RVM can be identified at the processing centre as they are bagged and tagged upon collection.

Really, have you a link for that?

Absolute nightmare for a driver to bag a load of shredded plastic and metal.

I guess MUP and duty is a charge on the contents rather than the container type, when there are alternatives it might push consumption from plastic to glass and aluminium. Which I think make more sense to recycle. Or reusable containers. It worked for plastic bags.

I never suggested it was a plastic bag.

However, each shipment of bottles from each RVM can be identified at the processing centre as they are bagged and tagged upon collection.

You suggested it was bagged.

past tense: bagged; past participle: bagged

1. 1.
2. put (something) in a bag.

Is this another one of those alternative facts?

Another reason why I wouldn't choose to implement it if true.

Provide your evidence and I’ll give you the link. You can argue about semantics all day long if you desire.