Must have missed the part where your post expressed the slightest consideration for people in that scenario.
You do accept the machines are frequently out of order?
So whats your suggestion for someone who arrives on foot with a bag of return items only for the RVM to be down?
And needs to carry home the new shopping purchased?
Shouldnt Return be making it clearer to consumer and retailer that the retailer must manually take back the items?
There is proof of this on the thread based on query submitted to Return.
Man dear what are you on about? No-one has "told" people who have to walk or are housebound to go to NI 😅.
However it has been said several times that home delivery should be exempt from this scheme.
I don't know, I've never encountered what you describe.
If you want an opinion on your theory I think it's unlikely they are purposely leaving machines out of order so they can snaffle the cans.
Too many variables make it hard to believe.
Would the manager not be displeased to see his customers upset by such antics ?
Would the other staff members not want a cut of the action ?
What if an area manager arrived when they are doing the deed ?
I'll leave it at possible but unlikely.
I understand the difficulty for people walking and the only real solution is to have the machines working.
Earlier on the thread the same poster was trying to claim Brexit regs meant you couldnt bring cans of coke and beer bought in the North to the Republic.
Despite several posts on boards from ppl who regularly go north to stock up.
I have never seen anyone abandoning a bag of cans/bottles at a machine. How could someone have seen that happening countless times?
It's the Brewdog mix so they all have a different ABV. It averages out at about 4.9% so it's about 30c under MUP for the box.
Latest update: 4 in scope including 2 with logos. 1 not in scope.
I'm still impressed that they had put logos on some products six or seven months before the DRS was introduced.
Both shuttered and out of order in Bayside on Tuesday evening with a note on them saying "awaiting engineer", probably from NASA.
It's like the machines were built in the back of someone's shed and not "used successfully for decades" in other countries. The machines are not even 6 months old, shocking reliability, I hope they kept the receipts.
If they weren't being recycled, the outcry would surely close the scheme overnight
Nothing massively vague here I don't think. Taken from the lead page of the re-turn website
With that being said, if there is proof to the contrary let's see it
That's impressive alright, and Brewdog is relatively decent stuff. Enjoy them!
Where does the directive say what Return is claiming is says?
They are already misleading you. The directive they are quoting actually says this.
Specific targets include
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/plastics/single-use-plastics_en
Why?
That's a very strong assertion "surely" backed up by exactly nothing.
Return are already muddying the water about collection and recycling.
If they were being recycled surely we should be told where and how.
The point being made is we are aren't being told. Just because it says on Re-Turn.ie containers are being "collected for recycling" it seems we should just take that as gospel 😅. That could mean we shipped them off abroad "for recycling" but once we hand them over we really have no idea what happens and we dont care much either. Once again no transparency.
Again, if you have proof that they aren't being recycled, which shouldn't be too hard to come by as we don't live in China, let's see it
The words in my screenshot above
In other words we will never get to that magic 90% we were told the scheme is designed to lead to.
And what will the Government do when we are not meeting the target? Increase the deposit. Win-win for Re-scam.
That's not what was asked.
This is what the directive actually says, and it is not what Return is claiming.
collection target
If it is so easy, why can't you prove that they ARE being recycled?
Well?
Below
Once again. There is no proof they are being recycled. It should not be hard to come by as all it need is for them to say who and where but they are simply keeping quiet about it. Zero information means every other assertion is plausible unless proven wrong. It is not state secret, hardly even commercial one and yes, we do not live in China so they should be open about it. To reassure public that recycling is happening. What we know that is happening right now is collection only.
https://www.rte.ie/news/environment/2024/0822/1465952-trifol-resources/
Interesting development here.
At 58kg per capita, Ireland generates more plastic packaging waste per person than any other country in the EU.
My proof is not from the directive, it's from the website. You can't recycle unless you collect just because the directive doesn't mention recycling doesn't mean it won't happen. The directive says the material needs to be collected and the re-turn website says that the collected material will be recycled. They don't contradict each other
But, again, if you can show proof to the contrary I will happily agree
Once again. There is no proof they are being recycled
It says it on the website. The burden of proof now lies with those that don't believe what the website says
That isn't proof of what you are claiming.
It isn't proof of anything.
How can it be proof of what you are claiming when the actual EU directive figures they quote are for collection?
You are little confused here.
Collection is not recycling.
I am not surprised as it is return confusing people like you when they change EU directive wording from collection to recycling. Two whole different animals there.
But then again, environmentalists in the EU are known to be quite creative people by inventing green biomass or green hydrogen so I would not be surprised to see some clever idea saying that collected plastic was recycled to energy in some green incinerator.
That isn't proof, are you having a laugh?
You have no proof then, yet in previous post you claimed it "wasn't hard" to come by.
The directive mentions collection, therefore, it doesn't mean recycling will happen.
The return website is contradicting the EU directive, because the figures is it quoting directly relates to collection NOT recycling. It is all there in black and white on the actual EU website. Return are posting misinformation or disinformation. So if the return website is confused about collection and recycling, then any claims it makes about recycling are immediately discredited.
So posters have raised reasonable, plausible suspicion that not all items collected will be recycled.
And you have provided nothing to dispel those suspicions. The opposite I would say.
This is what the EU directive says in black and white.
a 77% separate collection target for plastic bottles by 2025 – increasing to 90% by 2029
So what you have provided is the opposite of proof, it establishes there is false information on the Return website.
Return are misrepresenting the targets for collection as targets for recycling.
Therefore any claims made on the Return website about recycling are garbage, plain and simple.
If that company wants my money to fund their operation they better tell me what is happening with them and in a detail not just some vague nonsense without any accounting. There is way too much secrecy surrounding everything they do and quite a lot of money involved. A recipe for skepticism.
Asking questions is a good thing.
Continually asking questions of the people you know don't have the answers is unlikely to be a fruitful exercise.
It's fairly clear that nobody on this thread can provide the categorical proof being sought.
Re-turn can and should be asked to comment.
If I was devising a PR strategy for Re-turn it would include addressing this issue.
