Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 3] *Poll Reset*

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

I find it kinda odd that someone not employed in that sector knows so much about council entitlements, etc.

He's well informed for a non employee....

I do good research ghandee. I also know a lot about man utd does that mean I play for them? Seriously though is that what you are basing your accusations on? Sorry is that too many questions? Oops that was another one wasn't it? Damn it.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

I do good research ghandee. I also know a lot about man utd does that mean I play for them? Seriously though is that what you are basing your accusations on? Sorry is that too many questions? Oops that was another one wasn't it? Damn it.

Does your research extend to informing others on how to prepare for their interview (civil service job) ?

Genuinely curious here.

I mean, I work in the private sector, I'm a fleet engineer/ consultant for a variety of haulage/logistic firms, I don't post job advice in medical profession forums though.

I don't, simply because I'm not employed in that industry. (and therefore know eff all about it)

If it looks and quacks like a duck.......

http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=448937&showmore=1&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&forum=10

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Does your research extend to informing others on how to prepare for their interview (civil service job) ?

Genuinely curious here.

I mean, I work in the private sector, I'm a fleet engineer/ consultant for a variety of haulage/logistic firms, I don't post job advice in medical profession forums though.

I don't, simply because I'm not employed in that industry. (and therefore know eff all about it)

If it looks and quacks like a duck.......

http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=448937&showmore=1&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&forum=10

I'm confused where did I say I work in the civil service they seem to be about trying to give someone advice on interviews. Maybe I did an interview once or have interviewed people before maybe. I give plenty of advice here about different things so I guess I must have a hundred jobs.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

I'm confused where did I say I work in the civil service they seem to be about trying to give someone advice on interviews. Maybe I did an interview once or have interviewed people before maybe. I give plenty of advice here about different things so I guess I must have a hundred jobs.

I believe you. Thousands won't.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

I believe you. Thousands won't.

Thousands won't read this ghandee ten people maybe and seriously I don't care if you believe me or not. I lost faith in you a good while back your credibility flew out the window as far as I'm concerned a few days ago with the fg nonsense and I had thought you to be one of the more sensible ones on the anti side. Tayto is about the only one left on the anti side I'd listen to now

Bullseye1

I don't think you listen to anyone. You just answer a question with another question. You have been trained well.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

Also what about those on the other side saying a landlord should have to pay the hhc?

Why dont they just listen to dv, register and not pay. Problem solved.

donalg1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I don't think you listen to anyone. You just answer a question with another question. You have been trained well.

How so? What questions havent I answered

darkhorse

tayto lover wrote: »

Again. Do your own searching back. I ain't doing it for you or repeating myself.

Here, here, tayto. I was going to get it for him, as his memory is not great, then I seen your post and thought, why should I. You are right, some posters just keep asking that same question.

donalg1

darkhorse wrote: »

Here, here, tayto. I was going to get it for him, as his memory is not great, then I seen your post and thought, why should I. You are right, some posters just keep asking that same question.

Could that be because that question has never been answered properly?

Or maybe the goalposts have been moved by those that claim to have answered it that their previous answers no longer cover it or make sense.

darkhorse

donalg1 wrote: »

What a ridiculous answer the anti side is becoming a joke at this stage with their refusals to answer even the most basic questions..

Ya mean, with their refusals to keep answering.

donalg1

darkhorse wrote: »

Ya mean, with their refusals to keep answering.

Nope its quite clear what I mean

darkhorse

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I don't think you listen to anyone. You just answer a question with another question. You have been trained well.

Hi, Bullseye, I have a couple of drinks in me and I cant really see the calculator so will you add these figures up for as I just want to see where some of the HHC is going. Thanks.



The remuneration packages of the IBRC staff in Britain and Ireland are listed as:
* 774 on wages up to €99,000.
* 146 on €100,000 -€149,000.
* 44 on €150,000 -€199,000.
* 24 on €200,000 -€299,000.
* 12 on €300,000 -€399,000.
* 0 on €400,000 -€499,000.
* 6 on over €500,000.

Ghandee

donalg1 wrote: »

Thousands won't read this ghandee ten people maybe and seriously I don't care if you believe me or not. I lost faith in you a good while back your credibility flew out the window as far as I'm concerned a few days ago with the fg nonsense and I had thought you to be one of the more sensible ones on the anti side. Tayto is about the only one left on the anti side I'd listen to now

'FG' nonsense. You gonna persist in this?

I'm saying here and now that I never accused you of any such thing, and if you interpreted a post of mine wrongly I can only apologise. I can't see why you've the reluctance to point me and others ago might be wondering what you're on about to this post though.


I think I'll be waiting a while though, councillor Donal

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

'FG' nonsense. You gonna persist in this?

I'm saying here and now that I never accused you of any such thing, and if you interpreted a post of mine wrongly I can only apologise. I can't see why you've the reluctance to point me and others ago might be wondering what you're on about to this post though.


I think I'll be waiting a while though, councillor Donal

My reluctance to point you and others to what exactly what part of that post was unclear or you.

I asked you a hundred times to clarify what you meant about the fg stuff and you never did the above is the closest you have come but still doesnt really cut it.

Le_Dieux

darkhorse wrote: »

Hi, Bullseye, I have a couple of drinks in me and I cant really see the calculator so will you add these figures up for as I just want to see where some of the HHC is going. Thanks.



The remuneration packages of the IBRC staff in Britain and Ireland are listed as:
* 774 on wages up to €99,000.
* 146 on €100,000 -€149,000.
* 44 on €150,000 -€199,000.
* 24 on €200,000 -€299,000.
* 12 on €300,000 -€399,000.
* 0 on €400,000 -€499,000.
* 6 on over €500,000.

DH

Based on the €99k being the correct figure, and the AVERAGE of the 2 figures mentioned for the other categories, and the €500k being a figure also, the sum of this salary bill, which WE are dishing out to these bleeding leeches is €115,663,000 - REVOLTING!!!

Le_Dieux

Hijpo wrote: »

they wont answer that as they will deflect with "thats got nothing to do with the HHC"

And You are correct Hijpo:-) So one-tracked they must all be either cllrs or td's.

Bannasidhe

A 'reminder' letter was delivered last week- it was addressed to my ex-sister in law who hasn't lived in Ireland since a brief 6 month stint in the late 1970s (she's German) when she was engaged to my brother and not only has nothing to do with my house- she has never even seen it.....:rolleyes:

Makes you wonder where they are getting their info.

bgrizzley

thats very strange. a database didnt make the connection between your home => your brother=>30 year old relationship to a german lady.

donalg1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A 'reminder' letter was delivered last week- it was addressed to my ex-sister in law who hasn't lived in Ireland since a brief 6 month stint in the late 1970s (she's German) when she was engaged to my brother and not only has nothing to do with my house- she has never even seen it.....:rolleyes:

Makes you wonder where they are getting their info.

Germany maybe

Bannasidhe

bgrizzley wrote: »

thats very strange. a database didnt make the connection between your home => your brother=>30 year old relationship to a german lady.

My brother - a Non-Resident - does own property here (3) and already paid the HCC (and 2nd property charge where relevant) on those. He's been divorced for 5 years and although his 3 Irish properties were originally in his and (now ex) wife's names that was changed as part of their divorce settlement - all the legalities of that were done and dusted over 4 years ago (he is a bit OCD about sorting out legalities).

The deeds are in my name, the entry in the land registry is in my name, all the utilities are in my name and he is certainly not on the electoral register at this address - in fact, I don't think he is on the electoral register in Ireland at all as apart from flying visits he hasn't lived here since 1979.

He did go guarantor on my mortgage but his (now ex) wife had nothing to do with that (they were legally separated at the time) so it's a bit strange that her name is on the letter.
If the info had come from the bank then it would make sense that the letter was addressed to him and me - not to his ex wife.

Plus - the address is wrong - it's not the one on either the land registry or the electoral register so it didn't come from Cork County council.

Still not paying....:D

Bannasidhe

donalg1 wrote: »

Germany maybe

She hasn't lived in Germany since 1976 .

Le_Dieux

Hijpo wrote: »

they wont answer that as they will deflect with "thats got nothing to do with the HHC"

On the contrary HJ....it has a LOT to do with payment of the HHC.

Here we have an excuse for a govt telling us we MUST pay this charge/tax as it's what the troika wants.

Yet, here we have the same govt(?), DISREGARDING the findings of the HIGHEST court in the land & spending PUBLIC money ILLegaly on a referendum which no matter what the outcome is, is MIRED in controversy and will ultimatly end up in the very same courts that the govt(?) chose to disregard on Thursday.

Then they have the nerve to take the NON-payers of the HHC to court???

.....I am WAITING

donalg1

Le_Dieux wrote: »

On the contrary HJ....it has a LOT to do with payment of the HHC.

Here we have an excuse for a govt telling us we MUST pay this charge/tax as it's what the troika wants.

Yet, here we have the same govt(?), DISREGARDING the findings of the HIGHEST court in the land & spending PUBLIC money ILLegaly on a referendum which no matter what the outcome is, is MIRED in controversy and will ultimatly end up in the very same courts that the govt(?) chose to disregard on Thursday.

Then they have the nerve to take the NON-payers of the HHC to court???

.....I am WAITING

Well of course they are going to take non payers to court they did break the law after all. I'm still waiting for the mass civil unrest and protests and major uproar and riots that were apparently going to happen if they brought someone to court. Now obviously I realise when they did bring the first court case the anti side who were supposed to protest and all just moved the goal posts again because they didn't do anything.

Le_Dieux

donalg1 wrote: »

Well of course they are going to take non payers to court they did break the law after all. I'm still waiting for the mass civil unrest and protests and major uproar and riots that were apparently going to happen if they brought someone to court. Now obviously I realise when they did bring the first court case the anti side who were supposed to protest and all just moved the goal posts again because they didn't do anything.

I noticed that You failed to comment on what I would consider the comparisons:

HOW can an excuse for a govt. take people to court over the non-payment of a charge/tax, and at the same time BLATANTLY ignore the ruling of the HIGHEST Court in the land in regard to a much more serious issue - that pertaining to the Constitution. You say ' Well of course they are going to take non payers to court they did break the law after all' while at the same time this lot are IGNORING a Law that the Supreme Court laid down, and are in effect breaking the law themselves.

I am boycotting this shambolic effort at a referendum, and hope that this bunch of clowns see their asses and end up with egg on their faces.

bgrizzley

donalg1 wrote: »

Well of course they are going to take non payers to court they did break the law after all. I'm still waiting for the mass civil unrest and protests and major uproar and riots that were apparently going to happen if they brought someone to court. Now obviously I realise when they did bring the first court case the anti side who were supposed to protest and all just moved the goal posts again because they didn't do anything.

if the yes side werent so obsessed with having violence on the streets you would see that the biggest protest that ever happened in this country is into its 8th month

Ghandee

bgrizzley wrote: »

if the yes side werent so obsessed with having violence on the streets you would see that the biggest protest that ever happened in this country is into its 8th month

Must be frustrating, not seeing their streets wrecked.

Le_Dieux

bgrizzley wrote: »

if the yes side werent so obsessed with having violence on the streets you would see that the biggest protest that ever happened in this country is into its 8th month

Hear Hear BG.......WELL SAID!!!

I'm a man of peace, never been in trouble wit the law, and no matter where this charade ends up, I'll still have my pride and dignity intact, despite what the 'yes' brigade think!

darkhorse

Le_Dieux wrote: »

DH

Based on the €99k being the correct figure, and the AVERAGE of the 2 figures mentioned for the other categories, and the €500k being a figure also, the sum of this salary bill, which WE are dishing out to these bleeding leeches is €115,663,000 - REVOLTING!!!

Wow, a company would need to have a fairly good turnover to pay the above out on wages alone. It would need to be turning over at least 2.23 million a week.

Le_Dieux

darkhorse wrote: »

Wow, a company would need to have a fairly good turnover to pay the above out on wages alone. It would need to be turning over at least 2.23 million a week.

And on and on it goes..................

Seems we are not alone in having ministers rape our funds:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20269373

HOW can these clowns justify an increase of 6.8%?