EU to ban olive oil jugs from restaurants

Spursex

Alert Team
Good grief is this all they can do with tax payers hard earned money?!!

FFS end this nonsense of an organisation once and for all!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10064787/EU-to-ban-olive-oil-jugs-from-restaurants.html


EU to ban olive oil jugs from restaurants

The European Union is to ban olive oil jugs and dipping bowls from restaurant tables in a move described by one of Britain's top cooks as authoritarian and damaging to artisanal food makers.

The European Union is to ban olive oil jugs and dipping bowls from restaurant tables.

The European Union is to ban olive oil jugs and dipping bowls from restaurant tables. Photo: ALAMY
Bruno Waterfield

By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels

5:52PM BST 17 May 2013

The small glass jugs filled with green or gold coloured extra virgin olive oil are familiar and traditional for restaurant goers across Europe but they will be banned from 1 January 2014 after a decision taken in an obscure Brussels committee earlier this week.

From next year olive oil "presented at a restaurant table" must be in pre-packaged, factory bottles with a tamper-proof dispensing nozzle and labelling in line with EU industrial standards.

The use of classic, refillable glass jugs or glazed terracotta dipping bowls and the choice of a restaurateur to buy olive oil from a small artisan producer or family business will be outlawed.

Sam Clark, the food writer, chef and proprietor of the award winning Moro restaurant in London, told The Daily Telegraph that the ban would stop him serving his customers specially selected Spanish olive oil in dipping bowls with bread when they are seated at their table.

"This will affect us. It is about choice and freedom of choice. We buy our oil, which we have selected from a farm in Spain, to serve our customers," he said

"Yet more packaging is not going to be eco-friendly and will limit choice to more mass produced products."

Mr Clark attacked the regulation as one that would kill off artisan producers and accelerate the demise in Europe of traditional ways of making and serving food, in favour of large industrial producers. "It is very upsetting. Haven't they already done enough damage to artisan products?," he said.

The European Commissions justification for the ban, under special Common Agriculture Policy regulations, is "hygiene" and to protect the "image of olive oil" with a measure that will benefit struggling industrial producers in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal.

From the beginning of next year, Britain, which abstained during a vote of national food experts on the issues on Tuesday, must enforce the ban via local authority food inspections of restaurants.

Officials defended the ban as a protection for consumers who would know that they were getting a safe, guaranteed product with proper labelling of its origin and with tamper-proof, hygienic dispensers.

"This is to guarantee the quality and authenticity of the olive oil put at the disposal of consumers. The aim is to better inform and protect consumer. We also expect hygiene to be improved too," said an official.

The idea that restaurant customers, who want to eat olive oil with their bread or to dress their food, could not distinguish between a fake product and the real thing was dismissed as patronising by Mr Clark.

"Customers aren't stupid - they would be the first to know if someone was being dishonest," he said.

The decision, which will be automatically adopted by the commission in next few days, has dismayed many officials who are concerned that a ban crafted to help industry will damage the reputation of the EU at a time of growing hostility to Brussels bureaucrats.

"This is sort of thing that gets the EU a deservedly bad name. I shouldn't say so but I hope people disobey this ban," said an official.

"It will seem bonkers that olive oil jugs must go while vinegar bottles or refillable wine jugs can stay."

Responding to the ban, Martin Callanan MEP, the leader of the European Conservative and Reformist group, asked: "Is it April 1st?".

"With the euro crisis, a collapse in confidence in the EU, and a faltering economy surely the commission has more important things to worry about than banning refillable olive oil bottles? They should be seeking to reduce unnecessary packaging," he said.

A Defra spokesperson said: “While we welcome some of the new rules on improved labelling, we did not support this ban as it will likely lead to unnecessary waste and place added burdens on businesses.

“We will continue to work with the catering industry to help them adapt to these changes.”
 
Galvin's Shinpads - 18/5/2013 15:58

I wait for the aptly named Paul Nuttall, of the UKIP to have his rant!

Clearly, you'd have a few 'nuts' loose to agree with these nutters within the EU..
 
:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:
:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:
:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:
:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:
:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:
:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:
 
Spursex - 18/5/2013 17:07

Galvin's Shinpads - 18/5/2013 15:58

I wait for the aptly named Paul Nuttall, of the UKIP to have his rant!

Clearly, you'd have a few 'nuts' loose to agree with these nutters within the EU..

Who agrees??? Bit presumptuous there. You two crackpots are eager to jump on someone eh??

It's a mental decision. Doesn't stop the UKIP wagons from shooting in the dark!
 
80deg16minW - 18/5/2013 17:31

:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:
:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:
:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:
:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:
:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:
:59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59: :59:

Shot your load early again I see!
 
Here Ex, seeing as you managed to dodge it the last time of asking, please answer this for me will you...

Are you affiliated with, or have previously worked with, the British Conservative Party?

A 'yes' or 'no' will do.
 
Galvin's Shinpads - 18/5/2013 18:27

Here Ex, seeing as you managed to dodge it the last time of asking, please answer this for me will you...

Are you affiliated with, or have previously worked with, the British Conservative Party?

A 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Galvin Are you affiliated with, or have previously worked with any party?

A 'yes' or 'no' will do.
 
80deg16minW - 18/5/2013 19:26

Galvin's Shinpads - 18/5/2013 18:27

Here Ex, seeing as you managed to dodge it the last time of asking, please answer this for me will you...

Are you affiliated with, or have previously worked with, the British Conservative Party?

A 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Galvin Are you affiliated with, or have previously worked with any party?

A 'yes' or 'no' will do.

No. Never.

What about you loverly leaning-self?

Ex has still to answer if he kindly will.
 
Galvin's Shinpads - 18/5/2013 19:34

80deg16minW - 18/5/2013 19:26

Galvin's Shinpads - 18/5/2013 18:27

Here Ex, seeing as you managed to dodge it the last time of asking, please answer this for me will you...

Are you affiliated with, or have previously worked with, the British Conservative Party?

A 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Galvin Are you affiliated with, or have previously worked with any party?

A 'yes' or 'no' will do.

No. Never.

What about you loverly leaning-self?

Ex has still to answer if he kindly will.

No. Asked by 2 different ones and turned them both down. What difference does it make? Everyone should do their part.
 
What cracks me up with this sort of decision some bright spark has sat down with his team and come up with this idea. Yeah what a brilliant idea, pat on the back and pay rise for you son. Suffering christ. Any wonder why this world is financially screwed with retards running the show.
 
80deg16minW - 18/5/2013 19:39

Galvin's Shinpads - 18/5/2013 19:34

80deg16minW - 18/5/2013 19:26

Galvin's Shinpads - 18/5/2013 18:27

Here Ex, seeing as you managed to dodge it the last time of asking, please answer this for me will you...

Are you affiliated with, or have previously worked with, the British Conservative Party?

A 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Galvin Are you affiliated with, or have previously worked with any party?

A 'yes' or 'no' will do.

No. Never.

What about you loverly leaning-self?

Ex has still to answer if he kindly will.

No. Asked by 2 different ones and turned them both down. What difference does it make? Everyone should do their part.

It makes a big difference. Everyone's part is not that sacrosanct.


Also, for these forum "debates", it is important to acknowledge this.
 
Real Deal - 18/5/2013 20:05

What cracks me up with this sort of decision some bright spark has sat down with his team and come up with this idea. Yeah what a brilliant idea, pat on the back and pay rise for you son. Suffering christ. Any wonder why this world is financially screwed with retards running the show.

and now the target of these genius's efforts is....(drum roll...) vacuum cleaners!!


:10: :10:




Now EU cuts power of your vacuum cleaner
THE suction power of new vacuum cleaners is to be reduced under yet another “Mad Hatter” diktat from Europe.
By: Nathan Rao

Published: Thu, May 30, 2013


The-suction-power-of-new-vacuum-cleaners-is-to-be-reduced The suction power of new vacuum cleaners is to be reduced

Regulations due to come into force next year to cut energy usage will see the cleaners graded on an energy efficiency scale similar to the one used on fridges and freezers.

Makers have warned this means popular models used in millions of homes around the country will be redesigned with considerably lower ability to suck up the dirt.

Britain will be harder hit than most of our European neighbours because hard-to-clean carpets are much more common here.

There is even a potential health risk because lower powered cleaners will not pick up allergy-provoking dust properly.

The move, part of an European Union drive for energy efficiency, has been branded “utter guff”.

Diktats like the vacuum cleaner rules have already contributed to huge support for the Daily Express crusade to get Britain out of the EU.

Rob Gosling, senior engineer at Dyson, said that when regulations come into force the power of household vacuum cleaners will be slashed from more than 2,000 watts to no more than 1,600.

He added: “Many models will be made with much less power than they are now. It means although they may perform in the laboratory, they will end up not working at home because as they become loaded with dust there won’t be enough power to drive them.”

He warned that the price of popular models could increase and added: “Design changes like making them stick closer to the floor to compensate for lower power could mean many are much more difficult to use.

“We agree with this in theory but customers should be warned by way of clear labelling that some models may be more feeble than they are used to.”

MEP Roger Helmer, Ukip’s energy spokesman, said: “This is yet another example of the EU trying to suck the life out of British policymakers and householders.

“They say restricting the power of vacuum cleaners will save enough electricity to power two million homes. That sounds like utter guff.

“Experts say reducing the power of vacuums would make these appliances incapable of picking up the dust particles that really aggravate allergy sufferers and asthmatics.

“Here we have another case of where a decision would be better made in Britain rather than have meddling Eurocrats unnecessarily interfere.”

It means although they may perform in the laboratory, they will end up not working at home because as they become loaded with dust there won’t be enough power to drive them

Rob Gosling, senior engineer at Dyson

Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation branded the move “nonsense”. He said: “This is the usual Mad Hatter policy coming out of Brussels. This will not save the planet. All the costs associated with redesigning and building new models will be passed on to the consumer.”

Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, said: “This is probably very nice for our European neighbours where they have tiled and wooden floors but not so much here where we all have carpets. Vacuum cleaners need a much bigger suck factor here.”

No one from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was available for comment.

A Defra spokesman said: “Labeling on machines that show energy efficiency gives consumers more information about a product than was previously available.

"Energy efficient machines can save consumers money on their electricity bills.”
 
Spursex - 30/5/2013 18:48

Real Deal - 18/5/2013 20:05

What cracks me up with this sort of decision some bright spark has sat down with his team and come up with this idea. Yeah what a brilliant idea, pat on the back and pay rise for you son. Suffering christ. Any wonder why this world is financially screwed with retards running the show.

and now the target of these genius's efforts is....(drum roll...) vacuum cleaners!!


:10: :10:




Now EU cuts power of your vacuum cleaner
THE suction power of new vacuum cleaners is to be reduced under yet another “Mad Hatter” diktat from Europe.
By: Nathan Rao

Published: Thu, May 30, 2013


The-suction-power-of-new-vacuum-cleaners-is-to-be-reduced The suction power of new vacuum cleaners is to be reduced

Regulations due to come into force next year to cut energy usage will see the cleaners graded on an energy efficiency scale similar to the one used on fridges and freezers.

Makers have warned this means popular models used in millions of homes around the country will be redesigned with considerably lower ability to suck up the dirt.

Britain will be harder hit than most of our European neighbours because hard-to-clean carpets are much more common here.

There is even a potential health risk because lower powered cleaners will not pick up allergy-provoking dust properly.

The move, part of an European Union drive for energy efficiency, has been branded “utter guff”.

Diktats like the vacuum cleaner rules have already contributed to huge support for the Daily Express crusade to get Britain out of the EU.

Rob Gosling, senior engineer at Dyson, said that when regulations come into force the power of household vacuum cleaners will be slashed from more than 2,000 watts to no more than 1,600.

He added: “Many models will be made with much less power than they are now. It means although they may perform in the laboratory, they will end up not working at home because as they become loaded with dust there won’t be enough power to drive them.”

He warned that the price of popular models could increase and added: “Design changes like making them stick closer to the floor to compensate for lower power could mean many are much more difficult to use.

“We agree with this in theory but customers should be warned by way of clear labelling that some models may be more feeble than they are used to.”

MEP Roger Helmer, Ukip’s energy spokesman, said: “This is yet another example of the EU trying to suck the life out of British policymakers and householders.

“They say restricting the power of vacuum cleaners will save enough electricity to power two million homes. That sounds like utter guff.

“Experts say reducing the power of vacuums would make these appliances incapable of picking up the dust particles that really aggravate allergy sufferers and asthmatics.

“Here we have another case of where a decision would be better made in Britain rather than have meddling Eurocrats unnecessarily interfere.”

It means although they may perform in the laboratory, they will end up not working at home because as they become loaded with dust there won’t be enough power to drive them

Rob Gosling, senior engineer at Dyson

Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation branded the move “nonsense”. He said: “This is the usual Mad Hatter policy coming out of Brussels. This will not save the planet. All the costs associated with redesigning and building new models will be passed on to the consumer.”

Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, said: “This is probably very nice for our European neighbours where they have tiled and wooden floors but not so much here where we all have carpets. Vacuum cleaners need a much bigger suck factor here.”

No one from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was available for comment.

A Defra spokesman said: “Labeling on machines that show energy efficiency gives consumers more information about a product than was previously available.

"Energy efficient machines can save consumers money on their electricity bills.”

Luckily for me I got my Dyson at 2000 watts a few years back. :45: