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

benny79

I'm surprised as anyone with the Indo saying only 33% have registered!
So it must be even less! Good to see the fighting Irish back and finally taking a stand enough is enough! Keep up the good work, IW are on the ropes and they know it! The whole set up is a Joke!!!! This is people power and long overdue...

gandalf

suicide_circus wrote: »

My only issues with this fiasco are:

1. The gombeen manner in which IW was set up and is being run.

2. I really don't want to give my pps number to a company which will be privatised.

This plus the fact a monopolised Private company will control our water infrastructure.

I have no problem paying a consumption based tax once the tax burden is lowered elsewhere because anyone who has been paying tax in Ireland has always been paying towards their water supply.

The issue with taxes is our National Government and Local Government have allowed severe wastage to become endemic in the system. This whole Irish Water farce looks like it might be the tipping point for people to demand real accountability in the ways our tax monies are spent.

Banjo String

Even if the Indo is correct isn't spoofing (doubtful as it's GMC Sierra's media mouth piece, via Dennis the menace)

Over 1million home owners, and potential coalition voters have rejected this scam.

The Govt would do well not to ignore them. Pressure needs to be kept up on the backbenchers, shyting it that this will cost them their seats.

emo72

I wonder how many of those 500000 returned are spoiled?

DamagedTrax

emo72 wrote: »

I wonder how many of those 500000 returned are spoiled?

no matter the answer they tell us to this, i know 1 that is definitely spoiled

Little CuChulainn

emo72 wrote: »

I wonder how many of those 500000 returned are spoiled?

Spoiled? It's not a vote system. If it's not readable or incomplete they'll just throw it out. If it contains false information then they'll hopefully be following up with prosecutions.

Banjo String

emo72 wrote: »

I wonder how many of those 500000 returned are spoiled?

Or how many have been.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prUeTKpF9kg

DamagedTrax

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Spoiled? It's not a vote system. If it's not readable or incomplete they'll just throw it out. If it contains false information then they'll hopefully be following up with prosecutions.

predictable side argument.. because how somebody words something is the important issue isnt it? :rolleyes:

im pretty sure over 33% of thread participants knew what emo72 meant.

Little CuChulainn

DamagedTrax wrote: »

predictable side argument.. because how somebody words something is the important issue isnt it? :rolleyes:

im pretty sure over 33% of thread participants knew what emo72 meant.

I didn't. That's why I explained what would happen in both cases.

In Lonesome Dove

"What really happened with Irish Water and Denis O' Brian. So, lets see – Irish Water: a synopsis so far. Ireland goes bankrupt and the Troika calls for more taxes. Water meters are decided upon and a plan to build Irish Water are hatched. Siemens, a company with massive resources and know-how in this area – and also with a massive installed base in the UK – offer to install the meters for free. Phil Hogan declines Siemens’ offer – no answer as to why he decided this was ever forthcoming – “just, no – we have an Irish solution to this” Both Siemens and industry analysts are baffled as to why a state would go for a far more expensive solution. Denis O Brien, the man accused by a High Court Judge to have “beyond all doubt” bribed a FG government to gain control of a a state asset (Esat)- and to have subsequently made hundreds of millions by selling same – “purchases” a company called Siteserv which specialises in the installation of water meters. This is about a year before the water meter tender. Now, numerous European companies also wanted to buy Siteserv and offered way more money for the company (which then owed €100 million to Anglo Irish Bank and was completely insolvent). The Irish Government (weirdly again FG) – (or actually you, Mr(s). Irish Taxpayer) gave the company to Denis O Brien with the €100 million owed to Anglo (now state owned – i.e. by you) written off. It’s not written off for you, the taxpayer – you still pay it – it’s just that Denis doesn’t, got it? Some gamble for Denis to buy a company with €100 million written off and with no guarantee of a lucrative water meter contract. A business in an area where he has no previous experience or competence. Siteserv subsequently bids in the EU tendering process and, lo and behold, wins. The contract is for hundreds of millions of Euros. Now, enter Irish Water. The CEO of which used to be the financial officer of an organisation which spent €100 million of Irish taxpayer’s money on the, according to the EU, illegal process to build an incinerator in Dublin. No incinerator was ever built or will ever be built but €100 million, again of your money, is gone – and John is now the CEO of Irish Water. No minutes of meetings – which spent €100 million of your money were ever recorded – the money is just gone. John then installs his homeboys and homegirls from the Poolbeg project to Irish Water – citing the abysmal salaries at Irish Water as the reason why nobody else would apply for these jobs. People who were direct beneficiaries of the illegal Poolbegl scam are now newly fledged semi-state employees. Paid for by you, the taxpayer – again. Okay? The biggest langer in this solar system is the Irish taxpayer. This is just the latest episode of the calamity that is Ireland Inc. We haven’t a chance – no matter who we vote for. But, we’re great craic."

mikom wrote: »

The indo.............. yes the indo.

Let me tell you about the indo.
You will love the story.

This was a brilliant comment a few months ago from a user at politics.ie on one of the threads happening there and I went and found it and copied and pasted above.

DamagedTrax

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I didn't.

it wasnt that complicated to be honest.

Little CuChulainn

DamagedTrax wrote: »

it wasnt that complicated to be honest.

It had a number of different possible meanings depending on where the poster stood on the argument. He could have meant spoiled as in writing "no contract no consent" or he could have defaced it or he could have put false information. As such I tried to address all possibilities. Sorry if that offended you in some way.

DamagedTrax

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It had a number of different possible meanings depending on where the poster stood on the argument. He could have meant spoiled as in writing "no contract no consent" or he could have defaced it or he could have put false information. As such I tried to address all possibilities. Sorry if that offended you in some way.

the passive aggression is boring.

its transparent what your agenda is and your post sat right into it.

nobody on the 'right to water' side is advocating what you suggested.

no contract/no consent is all thats needed.

Little CuChulainn

DamagedTrax wrote: »

the passive aggression is boring.

its transparent what your agenda is and your post sat right into it.

nobody on the 'right to water' side is advocating what you suggested.

no contract/no consent is all thats needed.

No contract/No Consent is freeman nonsense. And people in this thread have advocated all the possibilities I covered.

DamagedTrax

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No contract/No Consent is freeman nonsense. And people in this thread have advocated all the possibilities I covered.

no contract/no consent X 1 million households is a lot more than freeman nonsense. its the kind of nonsense that is going to bury the politics that have brought this country to where it currently is.

if that bothers you then get used to it. when 66% of households dont sign up within the timeframe, you gotta wonder if you've been wrong about all this.. after all we do live in a majority led democracy, dont we?

Barely There

DamagedTrax wrote: »

no contract/no consent X 1 million households is a lot more than freeman nonsense. its the kind of nonsense that is going to bury the politics that have brought this country to where it currently is.

if that bothers you then get used to it. when 66% of households dont sign up within the timeframe, you gotta wonder if you've been wrong about all this.. after all we do live in a majority led democracy, dont we?

So what if they don't sign up for a free allowance - they'll still be getting a bill.

Little CuChulainn

DamagedTrax wrote: »

no contract/no consent X 1 million households is a lot more than freeman nonsense. its the kind of nonsense that is going to bury the politics that have brought this country to where it currently is.

if that bothers you then get used to it. when 66% of households dont sign up within the timeframe, you gotta wonder if you've been wrong about all this.. after all we do live in a majority led democracy, dont we?

We do. And if the democratic will of the electorate vote in a party that promises to abolish water charges then so be it. It doesn't change the fact that "no contract no consent" is complete nonsense fabricated by people who believe the law only applies to you if you want it to. It won't free you from the obligations placed upon you by legislation.

Smidge

Well Noonan and Endas attitude really sum things up nicely.
Noonan says the charge is "modest"
For who?
For the likes of you and the well paid in the country.
Not for the rest of us who are struggling day in and day out.

And Enda says that it is "outside of their power to do anything about the bonus paid within IW and it has nothing to do with him"

Arrogance of the highest order which will not be forgotten by the vast majority of the electorate.

DamagedTrax

Barely There wrote: »

So what if they don't sign up for a free allowance - they'll still be getting a bill.

which will get equally ignored. the threats will come, the water will be turned down to a trickle, people will turn it back up, court proceedings will be issued which drag on and on... all the time the government and irish water create even more ill will towards themselves with an election in 18 months.

i just dont see it playing out that way, sorry.

DamagedTrax

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

We do. And if the democratic will of the electorate vote in a party that promises to abolish water charges then so be it. It doesn't change the fact that "no contract no consent" is complete nonsense fabricated by people who believe the law only applies to you if you want it to. It won't free you from the obligations placed upon you by legislation.

see above.

Little CuChulainn

DamagedTrax wrote: »

which will get equally ignored. the threats will come, the water will be turned down to a trickle, people will turn it back up, court proceedings will be issued which drag on and on... all the time the government and irish water create even more ill will towards themselves with an election in 18 months.

i just dont see it playing out that way, sorry.

Didn't work that way with the M50 though did it?

Banjo String

Barely There wrote: »

So what if they don't sign up for a free allowance - they'll still be getting a bill.

Please let mine be Murray or Cosby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVzdSPhcMUo

DamagedTrax

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Didn't work that way with the M50 though did it?

unless i'm mistaken, the m50 isnt a natural resource. and you have a whole different buch of enviromental factors and politics involved that were never going to gain the support of the majority.

water on the other hand is very very different.

you can argue all you want but the proof will be in the pudding and right now its starting to taste good.

DamagedTrax

Banjo String wrote: »

Please let mine be Murray or Cosby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVzdSPhcMUo

i think mine is a clinton

Little CuChulainn

DamagedTrax wrote: »

unless i'm mistaken, the m50 isnt a natural resource. and you have a whole different buch of enviromental factors involved that was never going to gain the support of the majority.

water on the other hand is very very different.

you can argue all you want but the proof will be in the pudding and right now its starting to taste good.

The right to travel seems to be as ingrained as the right to water and the lunatics who were calling no contract no consent for the m50 on that ground didn't get very far. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Don't eat too much pudding though, you may need to follow it up with some pie.

DamagedTrax

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The right to travel seems to be as ingrained as the right to water and the lunatics who were calling no contract no consent for the m50 on that ground didn't get very far. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Don't eat too much pudding though, you may need to follow it up with some pie.

the right to travel is very much ingrained. the right to travel says nothing about motorways. i could still get where i want without the m50. im not so sure i'd do so well without water.

m50 = small fry
water = full irish with tea and toast on the side.

and dont worry about me leaving room for pie.. from what i hear its all gone anyway, the lads at leinster house have been stuffing themselves with it all week.

Little CuChulainn

DamagedTrax wrote: »

the right to travel is very much ingrained. the right to travel says nothing about motorways. i could still get where i want without the m50. im not so sure i'd do so well without water.

m50 = small fry
water = full irish with tea and toast on the side.

and dont worry about me leaving room for pie.. from what i hear its all gone anyway, the lads at leinster house have been stuffing themselves with it all week.

You are missing my point. Not engaging at all with Irish Water is one thing, writing "no contract no consent" is idiotic.

Barely There

DamagedTrax wrote: »

which will get equally ignored. the threats will come, the water will be turned down to a trickle, people will turn it back up, court proceedings will be issued which drag on and on... all the time the government and irish water create even more ill will towards themselves with an election in 18 months.

i just dont see it playing out that way, sorry.

Why would they drag on and on?

A District Court judge will rattle through a dozen non-payment of tv license cases in twenty minutes.

Doesn't take very long at all - hand out a few €200 fines and everyone will be paying their modest water rates very quickly indeed.

Banjo String

Barely There wrote: »

Why would they drag on and on?

A District Court judge will rattle through a dozen non-payment of tv license cases in twenty minutes.

Doesn't take very long at all - hand out a few €200 fines and everyone will be paying their modest water rates very quickly indeed.

By the time the court cases will be heard, I'd imagine will be mid/late 2015, right on time for the General Election campaigns to get underway.

Keep telling yourself that FB.

DamagedTrax

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You are missing my point. Not engaging at all with Irish Water is one thing, writing "no contract no consent" is idiotic.

why is it idiotic?

explain why a majority (cause thats what it is at the moment, nobody can argue that right now) of people standing up against the possible corporate control of our rescources is idiotic?

ive stated clearly in this thread that i hve no issue paying a charge for water. my issues are with

A. the set up process and dealings with o'brien. the man is a cancer on our reputation.

B. the distinct possibility that IW (along with our PPS numbers) could be sold off to the highest bidder in the future. anyone that says it wont happen needs to look at the world news a little more. it can and IS happening at an alarming rate.

C. the billing system. how is it fair that a low paid single mother of 1 could end up paying the same amount as a single mother of 1 on 100,000 per annum. (thats an extreme case im using to highlight the madness of it)