This is a terrible straw man argument. Even for you.

There are examples from the USA to the Republic of Ireland where private water companies have tried to claim the rights to ground water collected on householders land.

You may be able to collect enough water to supply your drinking needs but would it cover your washing and cooking requirements? If you have a car would you be able to keep the radiator topped up?

If you have a garden you might have the surface area to collect rainwater but what about those living in flats?

We may live in a country where we have plentiful fresh water but the population is increasing all the time and I think that we waste a terrible amount of potable water.

A couple of years ago the chairman of Nestle said “access to water is not a public right.”. He may be just a representative of a private company but that company has huge influence in global politics.

Nestle being producers of bottled water, I would hope (although I know my hope could well be misplaced) that enough politicians will not be corrupted by offers of investments and directorships at Nestle in order to say, "Erm, hang on, don't you sell bottled water..." when lobbied.

These are interesting times with private businesses having the ear of a willing cabinet office and billions in revenue to divert to private profits and dividends yet the recent refusal of fracking rights in the Fylde area reminding business that sometimes we can just stick two fingers up and send them packing - now Cameron has one big headache to deal with, on the one hand he has a major business banging on his door shouting that he said it would all be ok, and on the other hand a public image to maintain where a PM who overturns local planning committees will appears to be of a dictator status and quickly turn to be the most hated man in politics - he's hidden behind his own "nasty men" for six years now and done a good job of deflecting a lot of harsh decisions onto Ministers - this one should be his baby.

Cameron's JOB is to play the villain this parliament. Just as happened under Thatcher, the news media gave the Tories an easy ride during their first term. From hereon in they'll go after them like Van Helsing chasing Dracula. Meanwhile New New Labour will be rubbed down to the base metal, primed and taken to the spray booth. Ideologically-speaking there'll be no difference (Labour's ideology being - anything trans-national capital desires is good for Britain) - but there'll be a fresh new image which the media will market like they do with washing powder or refrigerators. Throw in a few gormless celebrities, actors and musicians who've never seen a paid political rally they didn't like, one or two juicy sex-scandals in government and a corruption investigation where some insignificant Tory who doesn't have enough political clout to defend himself, is thrown to the wolves and the British public will embrace New New Labour like Christ resurrected.

I mean, it's crazy to think there exists a division between media and government. Half the special adviser positions in government are filled by ex-journalists, whilst Portillo and company walk through the revolving door in the opposite direction. The BBC [uIS[/u government - period. Anyone who thinks otherwise only needs to consider the near total absence of serious investigations into parliamentary wrongdoings. If the BBC were as independent from government as it claims why is it that almost all of the major recent political bombshells have been broken by the likes of the Guardian (a paper I have serious issues with at the best of times!) which has only a fraction of the resources, journalists, researchers etc. present at the BBC? Why is it that investigations into the paedophile scandal are being driven mostly by tiny, shoestring budget media outlets like Exaronews whilst the BBC is doing everything in its power to minimize, marginalize and dilute what is an outrageous political scandal of titanic significance?

Why is it that whenever the PM is gearing up for one of his bloody foreign wars the Beeb falls lockstep in behind him? One only need consider some of the Beeb's utterly RIDICULOUS claims leading up to the war in Afghanistan.

Anybody a bit suspicious of the governments reaction to the massacre in Tunisia? The defence secretary says we may have to bomb Syria now, hundreds of miles away. Was this not the plan all along? Remember Cameron wanted to bomb Assad but was defeated in parliament, now he wants to bomb ISIS, the same forces they initially backed.