That's right, they reckon he's got a contract, so it should be honoured. Whereas the rest of are saying - supposing he had a contract saying he could piss in the water supply - should that be honoured?

Getting an immoral amount of money from people who can't really afford it, and who have come bleating to the tax payer about being in debt, is more environmentally unfriendly than a piss (or a plop even) in the reservoir.