Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Very rural Ireland

Options
1…45679

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,873 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    Well for starters a proper functioning septic tank should never need to be touched, when you start messing about with the bacteria levels then they stop functioning properly

    Secondly THE biggest polluter in this country is the state itself, via its county councils pumping raw sewage into rivers. In my area i can name at least 4 or 5 villages which do not have any sewage treatment plants, 2 of which are very large villages. Our nearest village only got a plant about 3-4 years ago, and that was built by a builder as a condition for building a housing scheme

    When the councils get there house in order then let them start doing inspections

    The part where you say "our nearest village" suggests you live in a one-off house out of town. This attitude is typical of one-off house dwellers; the council should shell out to provide sewage treatment plants in every village and install the pipes connecting all the houses in the area to it. Of course the fact that the dispersed nature of rural settlements in this country means connecting all these one-off houses would cost a fortune (money the state didnt have during the boom, never mind in recession) doesnt cross the one-off house dwellers mind. They are too busy complaining about the state of the roads, or the lack of a bus service, or how slow their internet connection is, all things they expect the state to pay for, that they dont have time to worry about the damage their septic tank could be doing.

    The reason the councils cant afford to get their house in order is because of you.


  • Options
    #243
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    The part where you say "our nearest village" suggests you live in a one-off house out of town. This attitude is typical of one-off house dwellers; the council should shell out to provide sewage treatment plants in every village and install the pipes connecting all the houses in the area to it. Of course the fact that the dispersed nature of rural settlements in this country means connecting all these one-off houses would cost a fortune (money the state didnt have during the boom, never mind in recession) doesnt cross the one-off house dwellers mind. They are too busy complaining about the state of the roads, or the lack of a bus service, or how slow their internet connection is, all things they expect the state to pay for, that they dont have time to worry about the damage their septic tank could be doing.

    The reason the councils cant afford to get their house in order is because of you.

    nice rant there Pete, I suppose as a farmer i should have to live in a town and drive 10 miles out to my farm every day should I??? Would that make you happy??

    Oh we can't have houses out the country now can we, the horror of it.

    If you had read my post correctly you would have seen 2 things,

    1. that a septic tank which is functioning properly should have no problems so not every one off house needs to be on a main sewage line

    2. the county councils of this country are the biggest offenders when it comes to water pollution because they have not developed proper treatment plants to deal with the sewage that THEY are pumping into rivers. So like i said let them get their own house in order first


  • Options
    #244
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Tipp Man wrote: »

    2. the county councils of this country are the biggest offenders when it comes to water pollution because they have not developed proper treatment plants to deal with the sewage that THEY are pumping into rivers. So like i said let them get their own house in order first

    In fairness to the Councils, they have pretty much no way of garnering funds. They heavily rely on central government for, effectively, handouts. Hopefully the councils will have the means to levy income/consumption taxes in the future (of course with a commensurate reduction in state taxes), so that local issues like these can be addressed more readily.


  • Options
    #245
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Aard wrote: »
    In fairness to the Councils, they have pretty much no way of garnering funds. They heavily rely on central government for, effectively, handouts. Hopefully the councils will have the means to levy income/consumption taxes in the future (of course with a commensurate reduction in state taxes), so that local issues like these can be addressed more readily.

    Rates in most counties of this country are extorionate and that money stays directly with the council. When they charge high rates then they have to provide the service to match


  • Options
    #246
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users Posts: 6,873 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    nice rant there Pete, I suppose as a farmer i should have to live in a town and drive 10 miles out to my farm every day should I??? Would that make you happy??

    Oh we can't have houses out the country now can we, the horror of it.

    If you had read my post correctly you would have seen 2 things,

    1. that a septic tank which is functioning properly should have no problems so not every one off house needs to be on a main sewage line

    2. the county councils of this country are the biggest offenders when it comes to water pollution because they have not developed proper treatment plants to deal with the sewage that THEY are pumping into rivers. So like i said let them get their own house in order first
    The issue I was getting at was the attitude that many one-off house dwellers have that the council should provide them with infrastructure, in this case sewerage treatment plants, and "get their own house in order first". Many one-off house dwellers think it is ok for them to pollute because the council does the same thing, while ignoring the fact that it is the dispersed settlements that make it too expensive for the council to provide the infrastructure to get their house in order. They want the council to spend several million of taxpayers money (most of which is generated in urban areas) upgrading the sewerage infrastructure while they refuse to spend two hundred having their septic tank serviced. If one-off house dwellers are so concerned about the council pumping sewerage into rivers then move into a town where proper sewerage treatment facilities can be provided.

    And I understand that farmer must live on their land and have said several times that those who use land productively should be allowed live outside towns and villages.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    The issue I was getting at was the attitude that many one-off house dwellers have that the council should provide them with infrastructure, in this case sewerage treatment plants, and "get their own house in order first". Many one-off house dwellers think it is ok for them to pollute because the council does the same thing, while ignoring the fact that it is the dispersed settlements that make it too expensive for the council to provide the infrastructure to get their house in order. They want the council to spend several million of taxpayers money (most of which is generated in urban areas) upgrading the sewerage infrastructure while they refuse to spend two hundred having their septic tank serviced. If one-off house dwellers are so concerned about the council pumping sewerage into rivers then move into a town where proper sewerage treatment facilities can be provided.

    And I understand that farmer must live on their land and have said several times that those who use land productively should be allowed live outside towns and villages.

    I don't agree with you though as it is only a minority doing that. Your trying to make a sweeping generalisation using the word many when in reality is most likely a small subset of people.

    The problem is nobody has made this a priority and won't do until its too late because then the problem will be in their face and they will have to live with it.

    I don't think it needs a massively expensive program inspecting all tanks. If they had a number people could call if they suspect problems in their area, it would probably sort it out.


  • Options
    #248
    Clareboy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 536 ✭✭✭Clareboy


    The reality is that our failure to urbanise and our lax planning laws that have allowed a proliferation of one off housing in the countryside have been disasterous mistakes that will cost us dearly as a society. It was an awfull pity that back in the 1960s, during our first wave of prosperity, that we did not ask ourselves - " What kind of an Ireland do we want? ". It was in the 1950s and 60s that the first of the ' new bungalows ' started to sprout up around the countryside. After 6 decades of uncontrolled urban generated ribbon developement, we have a blighted and ravaged landscape, that one would be ashamed to show to any visitor, native or foreign.

    There is an ugliness and a vulgarity in the Irish rural housing style that is unmatched in any part of Europe. The tragedy is that irreparable damage has been done to landscapes that have inspired poets, artists and writers for centuries. Where do we go from here? I really don't know. Basically, we have screwed up big time!


  • Options
    #249
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Clareboy wrote: »
    The reality is that our failure to urbanise and our lax planning laws that have allowed a proliferation of one off housing in the countryside have been disasterous mistakes that will cost us dearly as a society. It was an awfull pity that back in the 1960s, during our first wave of prosperity, that we did not ask ourselves - " What kind of an Ireland do we want? ". It was in the 1950s and 60s that the first of the ' new bungalows ' started to sprout up around the countryside. After 6 decades of uncontrolled urban generated ribbon developement, we have a blighted and ravaged landscape, that one would be ashamed to show to any visitor, native or foreign.

    There is an ugliness and a vulgarity in the Irish rural housing style that is unmatched in any part of Europe. The tragedy is that irreparable damage has been done to landscapes that have inspired poets, artists and writers for centuries. Where do we go from here? I really don't know. Basically, we have screwed up big time!

    Whoa! Hold on it ain't that bad. Where we go from here is to the cities!


  • Options
    #250
    Clareboy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 536 ✭✭✭Clareboy


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Whoa! Hold on it ain't that bad. Where we go from here is to the cities!

    I have never suggested that everyone should live in a city, but if our cities were larger, they would be able to support all kinds of essential services such as airports and hospitals.


  • Options
    #251
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,307 ✭✭✭markpb


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Whoa! Hold on it ain't that bad. Where we go from here is to the cities!

    Nope. Between rural living and cities are villages, small towns and large towns


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    sh1tstirrer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭sh1tstirrer


    Jo King wrote: »
    Soon the farmer will no longer live on his land but travel out from a nearby town.
    This has to be the most nonsensical statement I have ever read anywhere :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #253
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    Rates in most counties of this country are extorionate and that money stays directly with the council. When they charge high rates then they have to provide the service to match
    True, rates are high. They're a bad way of collecting money though. The councils are very weak though still. Afaik, there's only a certain number of things that they can spend their money on. Several councils have several million in reserve that pretty much can't be spent. I hope more powers are devolved to councils in the future so that, like you say, they can provide better services than central government do.


  • Options
    #254
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    sh1tstirrer wrote: »
    This has to be the most nonsensical statement I have ever read anywhere :rolleyes:
    They do that in France, aka the farmer of Europe.


  • Options
    #255
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Aard wrote: »
    They do that in France, aka the farmer of Europe.

    France isn't necessarily the best model for anybody to be following.

    Have you seen their national debt? Or their reliance on Nuclear Power?

    No wonder they don't want people living in the countryside.


  • Options
    #256
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    thebman wrote: »
    France isn't necessarily the best model for anybody to be following.
    I ... never said that.


    I was merely pointing out that the post wasn't the most nonsensical statement ever read anywhere.


  • Options
    #257
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Aard wrote: »
    They do that in France, aka the farmer of Europe.

    What type of farm?


  • Options
    #258
    sh1tstirrer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭sh1tstirrer


    Aard wrote: »
    I ... never said that.


    I was merely pointing out that the post wasn't the most nonsensical statement ever read anywhere.
    I ... never said that.


    I was merely pointing out that the post was the most nonsensical statement I have read anywhere.


  • Options
    #259
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,798 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    thebman wrote: »
    Or their reliance on Nuclear Power?

    You say this like its a bad thing.

    Our reliance on gas turbines is far worse.


  • Options
    #260
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    People do realise that there is a major push on in France to get people BACK to the country as their rural towns are villages are dying due to volume of people moving to cities??

    They want people back on the land not the other way around


  • Options
    #261
    Aidan1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Aidan1


    Sorry Tipp Man, but since when did moving people 'back to the land' become the same thing as trying to encourage people back to rural villages?

    Also, the French have been having that discussion with themselves for the last 150 years; the outcome never really changes, people still want to live close to or in cities.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0628/education.html
    Cannon insists school bus cuts will be made
    Minister of State for Training and Skills Ciaran Cannon has insisted that proposed changes and cutbacks in the primary school transport system will be implemented from September.

    The measures are aimed at saving €3.5bn per year, but they are being bitterly opposed in rural communities across the country.

    Many primary school pupils who enjoyed a free bus service up to now will be charged a minimum of €50 from September. This rises to €110 per family each year.

    It rises to a maximum of €650 when including sending children to secondary school.

    In addition, the Department of Education is cutting around 150 routes where the number of pupils on that route who live more than 3km from the school is fewer than ten.

    More than 300 angry parents and teachers from across Munster attacked the measures at a public meeting in Listowel last night.

    But Minister Cannon held firm and insisted that the cutbacks will be implemented unless the money can be found elsewhere within his department.

    Listening to this on radio there and they mentioned that actual cost to state was at least €1,000 per student. Of course the more interesting bit that is been missed is the cutting of 150 route


  • Options
    #263
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    They are getting in there to cut them quick while the parents still have cars and before the census shows the birth rate is increasing even in rural reas.

    Is it not 5km ( 3 MILES) that qualifies you for a bus...3km sound wrong.


  • Options
    #264
    Clareboy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 536 ✭✭✭Clareboy


    I am sick and tired of listening to rural dwellers complaining about the lack of services in rural areas. The question that I would like to ask them is " What brought them out there in the first place? ". The Irish pattern of scattered rural housing and the unhealthy car bound lifestyle that goes with it is totally unsustainable and is no longer viable going forward into the future.


  • Options
    #265
    marathont
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭marathont


    dubhthach wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0628/education.html


    Listening to this on radio there and they mentioned that actual cost to state was at least €1,000 per student. Of course the more interesting bit that is been missed is the cutting of 150 route

    That must be a typo there, I think the savings will be 3.5 million not 3.5 billion.


  • Options
    #266
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,721 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Personally I've never understood why kids living in rural areas get a bus to school for "free" (really paid by my taxes).

    Living in a city, but going to a school outside walking distance, I always had to get a bus and pay for it. What makes kids in rural areas so special?

    If there parents have decided to live in one off houses in the middle of nowhere for quality of life reasons, then surely they should pay the full costs for that?


  • Options
    #267
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    marathont wrote: »
    That must be a typo there, I think the savings will be 3.5 million not 3.5 billion.

    It wouldn't surprise me if RTÉ got it wrong, I think Spongebob is probably right about it been 3miles (5km) instead of 3 km as well.


  • Options
    #268
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    Seems like a sensible proposal especially when you look at the possible savings.

    It is called car pooling... Parents in rural areas can setup a rotational system in which parents take turns to pick up kids in their area and bring them to school if they are available and the others fund the expense of running costs for the cars.


  • Options
    #269
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bk wrote: »
    Personally I've never understood why kids living in rural areas get a bus to school for "free" (really paid by my taxes).

    Living in a city, but going to a school outside walking distance, I always had to get a bus and pay for it. What makes kids in rural areas so special?

    If there parents have decided to live in one off houses in the middle of nowhere for quality of life reasons, then surely they should pay the full costs for that?
    They're not "free", we pay €20 a week for our kids and the bus is full.


  • Options
    #270
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,677 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They're not "free", we pay €20 a week for our kids and the bus is full.

    Is your bus route threatened? Surely it isn't if you are paying. Is that €20 per child?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    John_Rambo wrote: »
    Is your bus route threatened? Surely it isn't if you are paying. Is that €20 per child?

    No it's not and it's €20 for the two of them, the journey is about 3km, part of it along a main road.


Advertisement