Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

DublinWriter · 16-10-2014 6:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

3. Beware articles in the Lancet that talk about the causes of autism. They have a bad track record.

Very easy to generalise on the topic without doing the research into the guy, his work, and some of the other players. He was one of the UK's leading paediatric endocrinologists with a practise in a major London teaching hospital when he submitted his original article to the Lancet.

All Wakefield did in this original Lancet article was to call for more empirical research.

Of course you think he's a loon - you've read the headlines.

Carawaystick · 17-10-2014 8:41am

DublinWriter wrote: »

All Wakefield did in this original Lancet article was to call for more empirical research.

Very few Doctors get called to fitness to practice hearings, let alone stricken from the register for calling for more research....

He was involved in research fraud and unethical behaviour collecting samples from children.

17-10-2014 12:46pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

Very easy to generalise on the topic without doing the research into the guy, his work, and some of the other players. He was one of the UK's leading paediatric endocrinologists with a practise in a major London teaching hospital when he submitted his original article to the Lancet.

All Wakefield did in this original Lancet article was to call for more empirical research.

Of course you think he's a loon - you've read the headlines.

You managed to glean my understanding of his paper in the Lancet from that sentence? How very impressive.

However; his "research" on young children, his selective use of evidence, his extremely unethical behaviour that lead to him being struck off, the guilty finding on 12 counts of the abuse of developmentally challenged children (his "call for more research" came after performing lumbar punctures on autistic children), his financial conflicts of interest and the resounding level of proof that there is no causal link between the MMR Vaccine and autism, all of those things pretty much back up my reading of "the headlines".

But please, feel free to generalise more.

DublinWriter · 20-10-2014 8:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

But please, feel free to generalise more.

No problem.

Work in 'big pharma' yourself for ten-plus years, have an autistic kid, do a little more research into Wakefield other than reading his Wikipedia bio, then come back to me.

In the meantime, I'm more than happy to concede the argument to you. You Sir, are the king of the Internets. You are duly saluted.

21-10-2014 1:59am

DublinWriter wrote: »

No problem.

Work in 'big pharma' yourself for ten-plus years, have an autistic kid, do a little more research into Wakefield other than reading his Wikipedia bio, then come back to me.

In the meantime, I'm more than happy to concede the argument to you. You Sir, are the king of the Internets. You are duly saluted.

First off, I never called Wakefield a loon. You kind of just leapt in there. I just said the Lancet has a bad record in this area and unless you're trying to suggest there is a link between autism and the MMR vaccine then I can't imagine you disagree with me.

Forget about Wakefield for a moment, the research has been thoroughly discredited by any number of papers. The British Medical Journal flat out called him a fraud. Not to mention Brian Deer's excellent work on the topic.

If you have a specific statement or fact about Wakefield to point me towards that contradicts what I've "read on his wiki bio" I'd love to see it. If you work in "big-pharma" and can direct me towards respected peer-reviewed research supporting Wakefield then please; let me see it.

If not then I'll leave you be. If you have an autistic child as you say then I would imagine that this is rather close to you and it can't be enjoyable to discuss these matters in such a forum.

hullaballoo · 21-10-2014 2:35pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

In the meantime, I'm more than happy to concede the argument to you. You Sir, are the king of the Internets. You are duly saluted.

I always find that when people start taking this tone, it's not long before all civility goes out the window. I'd ask that you take a step back from this discussion because it may be bothering you more than an online discussion ought to.

I know that when I get upset about something posted here at a personal level that I need to take a time out.

Although there's always room for robust debate, this forum is really not supposed to upset people.

Grolschevik · 23-10-2014 4:01pm

If there is no agreement in place with the Minister, on what statutory basis is the collection and processing of PPS numbers taking place?

http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2014/10/22/irish-water-ppsns-and-the-missing-ministers-agreement/

Little CuChulainn · 23-10-2014 4:30pm

Grolschevik wrote: »

http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2014/10/22/irish-water-ppsns-and-the-missing-ministers-agreement/

It's a poor argument. The statutory basis is clear. It's quoted in the article. The article then goes on to say

"The Minister must be shown and must agree with the proposal for use and processing of the PPS number, on the basis (amongst other things) that it is necessary and proportionate under the general principles of data protection."

but this isn't part of the statute they originally referred to, it's part of the general guidelines set out by the data protection commissioner. It doesn't actually interfere with the original statutory basis.

Grolschevik · 23-10-2014 4:33pm

Yeah, it was pretty weak and possibly by now out of date.

sandrahug · 24-10-2014 12:04am

I have read and seen all about the legal terms and conditions on the water charges. Is there any legal representatives that could provide me with some useful information about this new bill. I understand that Irish water is a private company so is it my right as a Irish citizen to be able to chose what company I use and there fore pay. I would like to know basically if i send back the contract and i refuse to pay the amount in January can i be brought to court. It seems that I have read so much that I feel totally confused I would like to know in a nutshell what my rights are. If there is any one from a legal team please inform me. Thank you. Sandra

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy · 24-10-2014 12:14am

If you write "no contract, no consent" on the envelope and post it back to them then there's nothing they can do.

_______________________________________________
Lionel Hutz
Attorney-at-law

sandrahug · 24-10-2014 12:17am

I never recieved a letter from them so I cant send one back, I dont know why I havent, it seems everyone has got one by now. what happens if i dont register as well.

BornToKill · 24-10-2014 12:19am

I'm not sure if the 'yes' and 'no' options really work here on the poll question posited.

24-10-2014 12:20am

The Cunning Linguist wrote: »

If you write "no contract, no consent" on the envelope and post it back to them then there's nothing they can do.

_______________________________________________
Lionel Hutz
Attorney-at-law

Lol.

OP you been fed a bull**** line of contract law sounding terms that mean nothing.

If you wanna protest then protest but if you don't pay then they can take you to Court.

yes there · 24-10-2014 12:21am

Why would you need to send it back to refuse a contract? Could anyone clarify that?

24-10-2014 12:24am

yes there wrote: »

Why would you need to send it back to refuse a contract? Could anyone clarify that?

Fun answer: Cause when you're making up fairy stories you get to make up the rules yourself.

Real Answer: To fool people into thinking their utterly ridiculous scam was genuine the idiots who came up with this whole thing needed to make it sound reasonable and like it might have some basis in law. It doesn't.

MarkAnthony · 24-10-2014 12:26am

Hi Sandra many jurisprudential thinkers believe that an unjust law is not a law. This is sometimes expressed by the phrase lex iniusta non est lex. I would suggest writing this on the envelope in various coloured highlighters and most importantly, and this cannot be overstated, underlined in red, you may also double underline, but triple underlining will cancel out the effect so be careful.

Please excuse my (hopefully) obvious sarcasm but there is a search function, a megamerge, and only a certain level of nonsense one can take before things become stagnant (geddit?).

On a serious note, the time for action has passed, this should have been dealt with when it was in the proposal stage, not now and not by these means. I have a friend who cites the English Poll tax riots and subsequent abandonment of that tax as triumph of civil disobedience and in a sense he is right, that said there is still a council tax and all that would be achieved by a defeat of the water charge is it taxed by an increase somewhere else so why not simply go with it an institute a 'three wees per flush' policy at home.

FreudianSlippers · 24-10-2014 9:10am

Effectively, the situation is that they are authorised by statute to collect the data, but have not yet finalised their agreement with DSP to then share that data with the DSP. I don't see the big deal; once that agreement is in place before they actually share the data with the DSP then they're in the clear.

FreudianSlippers · 24-10-2014 9:39am

Enough with the 'jokes'

FreudianSlippers · 24-10-2014 9:46am

sandrahug wrote: »

I have read and seen all about the legal terms and conditions on the water charges.

Ok?

I understand that Irish water is a private company

It is a private company in that it is a private company limited by shares. Those shares happen to be owned by Ervia (which is owned by the state) and the Minister for Finance.

so is it my right as a Irish citizen to be able to chose what company I use and there fore pay.

Yes, you are free to choose to not engage with UÉ for water/sewage services. I believe you can ask the Local Authority to disconnect you from the mains supply in order to do so.

I would like to know basically if i send back the contract and i refuse to pay the amount in January can i be brought to court.

If you avail of UÉ's servies (i.e. you take water from their supply and dispose of sewage to their pipes, you are in a contract with them and you will need to pay them. Non-payment will result in being brought to court most likely.

It seems that I have read so much that I feel totally confused I would like to know in a nutshell what my rights are. If there is any one from a legal team please inform me. Thank you. Sandra

Again, if you supply your own water and dispose of your own waste, you have no need to contract with or pay UÉ. If you receive your water and dispose of your sewage through pipes owned by UÉ, you are obliged to pay them for their services.

Johnboy1951 · 24-10-2014 11:07am

sandrahug wrote: »

I never recieved a letter from them so I cant send one back, I dont know why I havent, it seems everyone has got one by now. what happens if i dont register as well.

You are not the only one not to have received a letter ... there are quite a number of people in that boat, from what I read.

Because you did not receive a letter, which would contain a PIN you cannot register on line (need the PIN).

So it seems the onus would be on you as the user of the service to contact them and set up an account.
I read that they are inundated with such calls .... no idea how true that is.

I have also heard reference to only 50% of expected accounts being set up.

What happens if you fail to set it up before the expiry date is unknown to me ....... maybe someone with more knowledge could comment?

For instance how long would one be 'allowed' to wait to receive their letter?

FreudianSlippers · 24-10-2014 11:13am

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

You are not the only one not to have received a letter ... there are quite a number of people in that boat, from what I read.

Because you did not receive a letter, which would contain a PIN you cannot register on line (need the PIN).

So it seems the onus would be on you as the user of the service to contact them and set up an account.
I read that they are inundated with such calls .... no idea how true that is.

I have also heard reference to only 50% of expected accounts being set up.

What happens if you fail to set it up before the expiry date is unknown to me ....... maybe someone with more knowledge could comment?

For instance how long would one be 'allowed' to wait to receive their letter?

I heard on the radio over a week ago that all packs had been sent and if you hadn't received it you should ring UÉ right away to be issued your pin.

actuallylike · 24-10-2014 11:31am

sandrahug wrote: »

I would like to know basically if i send back the contract and i refuse to pay the amount in January can i be brought to court.

Someone brought up the analogy earlier about jumping on the Luas without paying. If you were caught you can be fined right? But you have no signed contract with Veolia? By jumping on the Luas you have entered a contract with them by using their service. By turning on a tap and allowing water to pass through your pipes, you have used UE's service and so the same applies.

brownej · 24-10-2014 11:59am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I heard on the radio over a week ago that all packs had been sent and if you hadn't received it you should ring UÉ right away to be issued your pin.

My husband never received a pack for the appartment he rents in Dublin. When he contacted Irish Water he was told that his address was not on their database and that was that. The call centre was surprised to hear that there were several hundred separate residences in the complex, none of which were on their database.
Unsurprisingly there was an Irish water van trying to gain access to the complex when he got home. left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

Ogham · 24-10-2014 1:18pm

brownej wrote: »

My husband never received a pack for the appartment he rents in Dublin. When he contacted Irish Water he was told that his address was not on their database and that was that. The call centre was surprised to hear that there were several hundred separate residences in the complex, none of which were on their database.
Unsurprisingly there was an Irish water van trying to gain access to the complex when he got home. left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

There could be several thousand missing off their database. Good news for some (free water!) - see http://www.moneyguideireland.com/irish-water-and-non-existent-addresses.html

Fred Swanson · 24-10-2014 1:46pm

This post has been deleted.

fxotoole · 24-10-2014 1:54pm

brownej wrote: »

My husband never received a pack for the appartment he rents in Dublin. When he contacted Irish Water he was told that his address was not on their database and that was that. The call centre was surprised to hear that there were several hundred separate residences in the complex, none of which were on their database.
Unsurprisingly there was an Irish water van trying to gain access to the complex when he got home. left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

Their database probably treats the entire complex as a single property. They probably can't put meters on each individual apartment within the complex.

Which will be a nightmare for them when they try to figure out who to charge for the entire complex's water usage.

Johnboy1951 · 24-10-2014 4:13pm

Interesting development locally ...... there are houses on a group water scheme, who received their letter and returned it as appropriate == not a customer due to being on a group water scheme.

Today sub-contractors for IW began digging up at the side of the road to expose the pipes and fit IW water meters.

As far as I am aware those pipes would be 'private property' and to do this work is deliberate damage to private property without any permission to do so.

I believe this has also happened in other locations, but I have not read anything about what the consequences of those actions were.

Has anyone got information about such events?

Ogham · 24-10-2014 4:49pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Interesting development locally ...... there are houses on a group water scheme, who received their letter and returned it as appropriate == not a customer due to being on a group water scheme.

Today sub-contractors for IW began digging up at the side of the road to expose the pipes and fit IW water meters.

As far as I am aware those pipes would be 'private property' and to do this work is deliberate damage to private property without any permission to do so.

I believe this has also happened in other locations, but I have not read anything about what the consequences of those actions were.

Has anyone got information about such events?

Is it a group scheme that was taken over by the council?

Johnboy1951 · 24-10-2014 7:00pm

Ogham wrote: »

Is it a group scheme that was taken over by the council?

No.

Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

Comments