***ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE***

Bonzo Delaney

Hi A quick question there's two adults and three u 18s in my house with its own septic tank on a mains water supply
Our capped charge for the two adults before metering comes in is 139€ including house hold allowance
The question is
Do we also qualify for the 3x u18s allowance ? which is worth roughly 50€ each which would cancel out the charge
Thanks to anyone in advance who answers. Bonzo.

Little CuChulainn

Bongalongherb wrote: »

With 44% of their country's water leaked into the ether ? makes sense alright.

Twice, like conditioned robots. Seriously, what strange dimension are people living in ? that cannot distinguish between Just & Unjust. Just like the other property-tax scenario... pay for your house twice... Eh I just finished the full payments of my abode, but, I am told I have to pay to own my own house just after I have paid for it fully ? WTF planet is your comment on dude ?

With 44% of the country's water leaked, even a moron can tell that the current financial model and council administration system is not working at all.

Hijpo wrote: »

Well now, that's my knuckles rapped.
I better not rock that boat again.

Still acting like a victim of oppression just because you are called out on your bull****.

Happyman42

In Other News: Gerry Adams branded a capitalist pig after sharing Rayban ads on Facebook.

www.independent.ie/notnewsatall...3099768.html

Fr. Ned

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Hmmm dirty politics ? That's never happened with FF, FG or labour?
And Dennis owns that rag you linked to.

Yea,you'd never catch a member of any of those party's lying about a political rival and then lying through a a sworn affidavit to the high court, would you?

Phoebas

Bang_Bang wrote: »

Hmmm dirty politics ? That's never happened with FF, FG or labour?

I'm sure none of them are above playing dirty.
In this case it was SF photoshopping a fake Facebook conversation with an election candidate in order to gain electoral advantage.

I suppose its in the same family of electoral tactics as 'vote early; vote often' and 'a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other' but on the more benign end of the scale. Thank goodness for small mercies.

Hijpo

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Still acting like a victim of oppression just because you are called out on your bull****.

Oh no, please stop.....

Fr. Ned

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm sure none of them are above playing dirty.
In this case it was SF photoshopping a fake Facebook conversation with an election candidate in order to gain electoral advantage.

I suppose its in the same family of electoral tactics as 'vote early; vote often' and 'a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other' but on the more benign end of the scale. Thank goodness for small mercies.

Suppose it's much like on this site when some smartarse changes someone's post and then goes 'There, FYP'.

Phoebas

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Suppose it's much like on this site when some smartarse changes someone's post and then goes 'There, FYP'.

You think that deliberately manufacturing a completely fake Facebook conversation with an election candidate during a campaign and using senior party figures to circulate that fake conversation is much like some poster on boards.ie going 'There, FYP'!

Wow!

dxhound2005

Hijpo wrote: »

Oh no, please stop.....

Going back to your accusation of badgering:

posters are being badgerd by the same people using the same methods and lines as government use

I could quote 10,000 or 20,000 posts where there is no badgering. Following your invitation for me to research the subject. In fact I was unable to find any evidence whatsoever of such badgering. But I'm am always happy to have my research validated and conversely I have no objection to it being challenged.

All you have to do is give three or four examples of badgering. It should be easy enough as you were already saw it in several posts.

Fr. Ned

Phoebas wrote: »

You think that deliberately manufacturing a completely fake Facebook conversation with an election candidate during a campaign and using senior party figures to circulate that fake conversation is much like some poster on boards.ie going 'There, FYP'!

Wow!

Anyone in SF who reposted it withdrew it almost immediately and apologised for their mistake. So, no, you wouldn't get an apology on boards.ie.
Why don't you start a thread on it anyway? This thread is about Irish Water.

Little CuChulainn

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Yea,you'd never catch a member of any of those party's lying about a political rival and then lying through a a sworn affidavit to the high court, would you?

Is that supposed to make it ok? Doesn't using the same tactics destroy their manufactured high ground? Much like the way they only get paid the average wage but put the rest into a slush fund for their expenses?

Fr. Ned

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Going back to your accusation of badgering:

posters are being badgerd by the same people using the same methods and lines as government use

I could quote 10,000 or 20,000 posts where there is no badgering. Following your invitation for me to research the subject. In fact I was unable to find any evidence whatsoever of such badgering. But I'm am always happy to have my research validated and conversely I have no objection to it being challenged.

All you have to do is give three or four examples of badgering. It should be easy enough as you were already saw it in several posts.

Rinse and repeat.

Fr. Ned

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Is that supposed to make it ok? Doesn't using the same tactics destroy their manufactured high ground? Much like the way they only get paid the average wage but put the rest into a slush fund for their expenses?

If you want to start a thread on SF, and I'm sure there's many, go ahead and start another one. Try and stay somewhat on topic.

Grandpa Hassan

Larbre34 wrote: »

Can't post a link on mobile, but another Indo article today publishes polling data that 1 in 5 will not pay the charges, citing a variety of reasons given - affordability, poor quality supply, the wastage not being addressed, already paying with taxes, disagreement in principle.

IW and Govt are worried about mass disobedience in refusal to pay wrecking the viability of the company. They also say the options to force people to pay are limited and that restriction of supply may not impact people noticeably unless they are in an area of the network with already low pressure.

This message will hopefully gain traction, it is exactly what needs to happen to remove this unnecessary money pit quango. They need to be bankrupted before they even get going.

So 80% will pay. I don't know any comparables, but I would guess that an 80% compliance rate with a new charge is pretty high

Fr. Ned

For the record, I don't vote Sinn Fein.

Recondite49

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

So 80% will pay. I don't know any comparables, but I would guess that an 80% compliance rate with a new charge is pretty high

All the more reason I doubt very much they'll come after little old me for refusing to fill in the form and pay.

Fr. Ned

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

So 80% will pay. I don't know any comparables, but I would guess that an 80% compliance rate with a new charge is pretty high

Maybe the super quango could give us some figures on the compliance rate?

Recondite49

Fr. Ned wrote: »

For the record, I don't vote Sinn Fein.

As an Englishman, believe it or not I don't either but am with Ned in saying these charges are abhorrent and won't pay a penny.

Phoebas

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Anyone in SF who reposted it withdrew it almost immediately and apologised for their mistake. So, no, you wouldn't get an apology on boards.ie.

After they got caught :pac:
Anyway, how was it a mistake to PhotoShop a fake Facebook conversation? - an innocent slip of the mouse maybe?

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Why don't you start a thread on it? This thread is about Irish Water.

The fake Sinn Fein conversation was about water charges and this thread is for
"***ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE***"

Its appropriate to discuss it here.

dxhound2005

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Rinse and repeat.

It still doesn't wash.

Little CuChulainn

Fr. Ned wrote: »

If you want to start a thread on SF, and I'm sure there's many, go ahead and start another one. Try and stay somewhat on topic.

It was a direct response to your post on the same topic you posted about.

Happyman42

Phoebas wrote: »

After they got caught :pac:
Anyway, how was it a mistake to PhotoShop a fake Facebook conversation? - an innocent slip of the mouse maybe?

Alan Shatter would still be a minister if he had owned up to his mistakes in a similar fashion.
And we may be saying the same about Enda and Humphreys fairly soon. The endemic arrogance of power is the problem with FG.

chasm

Bonzo Delaney wrote: »

Hi A quick question there's two adults and three u 18s in my house with its own septic tank on a mains water supply
Our capped charge for the two adults before metering comes in is 139€ including house hold allowance
The question is
Do we also qualify for the 3x u18s allowance ? which is worth roughly 50€ each which would cancel out the charge
Thanks to anyone in advance who answers. Bonzo.

The 139 includes the household allowance and the children's allowance. The Irish water website lists a 2 adult, 3 child household on one service as having an assessed volume per service of 150m3 which is 366e before allowance are applied and 139e after household and child allowances are applied.
If you look under the billing section on their site, the charges are listed before and after allowances and it might make more sense than my explanation

Satriale

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

So 80% will pay. I don't know any comparables, but I would guess that an 80% compliance rate with a new charge is pretty high

To be fair the man installing the meters owns the same paper. Didnt one of his journos or editors have something to say about his editorial control recently? Before they thought the better of it and retracted in the next edition.

Fr. Ned

Phoebas wrote: »

The fake Sinn Fein conversation was about water charges and this thread is for
"***ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE***"

Its appropriate to discuss it here.

The arguments in favour of the super quango are getting quite lame now so.

Larbre34

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

So 80% will pay. I don't know any comparables, but I would guess that an 80% compliance rate with a new charge is pretty high

No I think that rate is understated, the disgust at this whole exercise is rising and I believe the non compliance will be much higher.

I dont understand anyone who could legitimise this farce by paying them. The charges arent even for water, they are calculated based on an amount needed to RUN Irish Water.

Id put a few quid on with paddy power that this will escalate so far as to collapse the Govt early next year.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

After they got caught :pac:
Anyway, how was it a mistake to PhotoShop a fake Facebook conversation? - an innocent slip of the mouse maybe?


The fake Sinn Fein conversation was about water charges and this thread is for
"***ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE***"

Its appropriate to discuss it here.

Meh, in one hand, yeah it's bad form from those involved trying to undermine each other with dirty tricks.

On the other hand, there's absolutely no question that Mary Lou or any other senior member of the party knew what they were sharing was a fake screenshot. Paul murphy seems unsure of the actual source of it, saying himself it is either a photoshop, or from a bogus Paul Murphy Facebook account.

So to imply Mary Lou knew she was sharing bogus info is disingenuous.


Further proof politician's should just stay off Facebook and leave it to amazingballs teens, frapping each other with 'I love dicks' on their page.

Phoebas

Happyman42 wrote: »

The endemic arrogance of power is the problem with FG.

But apparently the manufactured lies propagated by SF in this instance is no problem at all (as long as you put your hands up as soon as you get caught).

Satriale

Larbre34 wrote: »

No I think that rate is understated, the disgust at this whole exercise is rising and I believe the non compliance will be much higher.

I dont understand anyone who could legitimise this farce by paying them. The charges arent even for water, they are calculated based on an amount needed to RUN Irish Water.

Id put a few quid on with paddy power that this will escalate so far as to collapse the Govt early next year.

Larbre, is that second hand from the journal? I cant find a link anywhere and the numbers seem out of whack. They didnt have those kind of figures when the revenue jackboots were clicking for the hhc

Banjo String

Larbre34 wrote: »

No I think that rate is understated, the disgust at this whole exercise is rising and I believe the non compliance will be much higher.

I dont understand anyone who could legitimise this farce by paying them. The charges arent even for water, they are calculated based on an amount needed to RUN Irish Water.

Id put a few quid on with paddy power that this will escalate so far as to collapse the Govt early next year .

I predicted pretty much just this very same thing only yesterday evening.

The most fatal mistake a govt can make is to underestimate it's electorates anger.