Irish Water application pack

delahuntv

Manach wrote: »

No. Paying another tax on what had been one of the few core government tasks, provision of water which had been paid for out of the already numerous forms of taxation, just seems wrong.

I just can't grasp this line used by so many people.

We are not being asked to pay for water used last year or last month. We are being asked to now pay for water that we currently use on a user pays syste.

Previously it was paid for via general taxation which was totaly unfair - those with no regard to use were subsidised by those who used less. How on earth is that fair?

Should we all have electricity paid through taxation too? - Its the same, its a utility. Same with gas?

At the end of the day, its either higher direct taxes to meet everyday expenditure or to charge those who use products and services relevant to how much they use.

Of course we'll also have the argument of the bank bailout - but even taking away ALL costs in relation to the bank bailout, we simply do not pay enough taxes to meet everyday expenditure on health, social welfare, policing etc. - Its getting there, but is it really fair to share the costs out evenly amongst everyone via general taxation or is it fairer to charge you for what you use and ensure those who genuinely can;t afford the charge, get allowances?

V.W.L 11

delahuntv wrote: »

I just can't grasp this line used by so many people.

We are not being asked to pay for water used last year or last month. We are being asked to now pay for water that we currently use on a user pays syste.

Previously it was paid for via general taxation which was totaly unfair - those with no regard to use were subsidised by those who used less. How on earth is that fair?

Should we all have electricity paid through taxation too? - Its the same, its a utility. Same with gas?

At the end of the day, its either higher direct taxes to meet everyday expenditure or to charge those who use products and services relevant to how much they use.

Of course we'll also have the argument of the bank bailout - but even taking away ALL costs in relation to the bank bailout, we simply do not pay enough taxes to meet everyday expenditure on health, social welfare, policing etc. - Its getting there, but is it really fair to share the costs out evenly amongst everyone via general taxation or is it fairer to charge you for what you use and ensure those who genuinely can;t afford the charge, get allowances?

You're either loaded or a do gooder with a comment like that in my case like many it's a case of can't pay not won't pay just because it's money people do not have you can't get blood from a stone, on the other hand its double taxation

.red.

monkeynuz wrote: »

The milky appearance is probably just air getting into the system, I have seen it a lot over the years, nothing to worry about.

And is it air thats making my kettle go so white on the inside that i need to scrub it every few days?

mikeym

Irish Water is going to be the downfall of Labour and Fine Gael.

Just look at the results of the Two By-Elections yesterday.

Im in favour of paying for water and im not stupid but the metering of water is a step too far and the government havent listened to the people.

Im sick of the paycuts.

Im sick of the property charges.

Im sick of paying through the nose in Road tax and Petrol.

Im sick of the arrogant attitude from the government they must think were millionaires.

Bring in a small charge for water but dont be putting pressure on low income families that are struggling to pay for bills as it is.

the beer revolu

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

You're either loaded or a do gooder with a comment like that in my case like many it's a case of can't pay not won't pay just because it's money people do not have you can't get blood from a stone, on the other hand its double taxation

While I accept that there are many people out there that genuinely can't pay, I am not very believing of the number who claim not to be able to pay.
I suspect it's a case for many that they can't afford broadband, cable TV, 2 cars, foreign holidays etc. and still pay water charges.

V.W.L 11

the beer revolu wrote: »

While I accept that there are many people out there that genuinely can't pay, I am not very believing of the number who claim not to be able to pay.
I suspect it's a case for many that they can't afford broadband, cable TV, 2 cars, foreign holidays etc. and still pay water charges.

in those cases yes I agree with you,in my particular case I have had to
Give up my car
Give up drink
give up fags
most other luxuries

for god sake the only thing I haven't given up yet is sex!and I await a tax on that next!

the beer revolu

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

in those cases yes I agree with you,in my particular case I have had to
Give up my car
Give up drink
give up fags
most other luxuries

for god sake the only thing I haven't given up yet is sex!and I await a tax on that next!

Well, if you're paying for sex, a tax on it would be perfectly reasonable.

V.W.L 11

the beer revolu wrote: »

Well, if you're paying for sex, a tax on it would be perfectly reasonable.

its free (for now) :cool: the government might start charging per child as a result of it though

monkeynuz

.red. wrote: »

And is it air thats making my kettle go so white on the inside that i need to scrub it every few days?

I am not convinced that it is limescale, it doesn't generally make the water cloudy on leaving the tap and you wouldn't be able to just scrub it off, that's why there is such a big market in acids and potions to remove it.

Also replacing the pipe on a water supply wouldn't change the water you receive surely? I can't imagine you have several water mains fed from different sources going past your house!

Stepping Stone

Still waiting for the application. Called them and it will arrive apparently. I will be filling it out. Working in a related industry, I know just how expensive water provision/ treatment is and how underfunded it actually is. It will take a hell of a long time to sort.

People rant about how bad their water is and how pipes are leaking, but this is because there just isn't enough money. The cost of clean water production and waste water treatment is huge. Any waste water treatment plants are bloody expensive to run but when you consider the cost of building even one it is huge. Loads of towns and villages currently have a basic filter system to filter out the soilds from raw sewage that is pumped into rivers and the sea. Our taxes just don't provide enough money to actually do enough.

On a related note, one of my Facebook 'friends' is militantly posting about the evil of IW and how she sent back her pack unopened. Going to lots of protests, etc. Had a rant on Fri about how it took IW workers three hours to come and fix an issue she had. Terrible service apparently. Three hours is pretty good in my book, especially for something she is fundamentally against (apparently).

j8wk2feszrnpao

Stepping Stone wrote: »

The cost of clean water production and waste water treatment is huge.

Yes it is. And I don't have a problem with the charge. I'm also in favour of subsidizing those that cannot pay.

But I believe that we'll see IW continue to waste money at the expense of proving the service the charge should pay for. The implementation of IW stinks.

delahuntv

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

, on the other hand its double taxation

I heard this before too - but yet to get someone to explain HOW it is doubloe taxation. There is no tax on water. Previously it was paid from taxation collected from various sources, now it has to be paid by the user.

It was never a "tax" - thats like saying childrens allowance are a tax - its not a taxed item, but its paid from taxation.

Unfortunately, the taxation collect simply does not cover the costs of the various services/allowances/payments that are given out.

Maybe would t be fairer to cut €5 a week off the jobseekers and drop the tax free allowance for workers by €1000? - It would cause an awful lot less hassle, probably bring in more money, but it would be an unfair system.

Unfortunately, many people just can't grasp that the user pays system is the fairest of all systems. - But mnay people think everything is free!

And I'm defintely not loaded, but paying for water is the norm in neqrly every country in the world - maybe SF will do what they did in NI - postpone the water charges, but cut social welfare spending?

twowheelsonly

In theory I'm not against paying for water but certainly not in favour of the current (proposed???) scheme.
I get the feeling though that there will be massive changes before this is implemented.
My main objection is the Quango set up and the bonus culture being literally promised!! This IS a private company in all but name, like it or not. Within 2 years they'll be telling the Gov that water charges need to rise. That's literally a guarantee. Either that or they'll need Gov subsidies to keep them afloat i.e. more money from our taxes so therefore we'll be paying twice.
29 Staff already on 100k+ a year, plus cars etc. A very moderate estimate of 125k average would meant that the bills of the first 12,500+ 'customers' would be just to pay these privileged 29 their basic pay!!

ABajaninCork wrote: »

If you don't send back the pack, then you won't be able to avail of the allowance - as little as it is, and will be charged in full.

In the UK, you're charged the standard rate - no allowances. My last bill before I came here was £391. So E280 is small change to me, relatively speaking.

Don't for one minute presume that your bill is going to be €280 as the system stands at the moment. IMO you can add another 100 to that Government supplied estimation. They'll have 'unexpected costs' appearing as soon as the Budget has come and gone. This is the same people, remember, that are opposed to taxing a family home (FG) and opposed to water meters (Lab). Why would you believe them?

Colibri wrote: »

Fair enough about them not posting the information, but the information isn't exactly hard to find.

On the contrary, definitive information on what it will cost after the capping period are 'estimates'. Nobody knows what the true costs are going to be.

Stepping Stone wrote: »

Still waiting for the application. Called them and it will arrive apparently. I will be filling it out. Working in a related industry, I know just how expensive water provision/ treatment is and how underfunded it actually is. It will take a hell of a long time to sort.

.... The cost of clean water production and waste water treatment is huge. Any waste water treatment plants are bloody expensive to run but when you consider the cost of building even one it is huge. Loads of towns and villages currently have a basic filter system to filter out the soilds from raw sewage that is pumped into rivers and the sea. Our taxes just don't provide enough money to actually do enough.

Genuine question - what makes the costs so high? (In an up-and running centre, not new build.)
Is it high wages costs or are there actually high material and service costs?


Final point - PPS numbers. Allegedly adults don't have a personal allowance, just a household allowance. There's no kids in my house - all over 20 now. Why should we hand over PPS numbers when the allowance will remain the same. Not a hope will they be getting that.
I also happen to think that they won't push it as they know the ground is shaky. Govt passed legislation that allowed them to request it yet they got everyones name and address from the Dept of SW. Why didn't they also give them the PPS numbers? Fear?

delahuntv

twowheelsonly wrote: »

My main objection is the Quango set up and the bonus culture being literally promised!! This IS a private company in all but name, like it or not. Within 2 years they'll be telling the Gov that water charges need to rise. That's literally a guarantee. Either that or they'll need Gov subsidies to keep them afloat i.e. more money from our taxes so therefore we'll be paying twice.
29 Staff already on 100k+ a year, plus cars etc. A very moderate estimate of 125k average would meant that the bills of the first 12,500+ 'customers' would be just to pay these privileged 29 their basic pay!!




Don't for one minute presume that your bill is going to be €280 as the system stands at the moment. IMO you can add another 100 to that Government supplied estimation. They'll have 'unexpected costs' appearing as soon as the Budget has come and gone. This is the same people, remember, that are opposed to taxing a family home (FG) and opposed to water meters (Lab). Why would you believe them?


Genuine question - what makes the costs so high? (In an up-and running centre, not new build.)
Is it high wages costs or are there actually high material and service costs?


Final point - PPS numbers. Allegedly adults don't have a personal allowance, just a household allowance. There's no kids in my house - all over 20 now. Why should we hand over PPS numbers when the allowance will remain the same. Not a hope will they be getting that.

It is not sudden additional wages - most staff have transferred from local authorities. The higher paid staff would be involved in the infrastructural and management end of things, if we want a long term supply we need to plan now and staff with relevant experience are required. - Previously to this, councils outsourced this element and were charged huge amounts. (As a commercial rate payer for many years I can get a breakdown of costs in councils)

There is not a bonus culture, but there is a performance related payment. I offer that too and I'm a retailer here in cork. Many other companies offer similar schemes - it rewards those who work hard and penalises those who don't. Its a pity its not in the general civil service.

Irish water also collect water charges from business (business have always been paying for water). They also receive government subsidy for the domestic part (about 40% is still paid from taxation)

Water is expensive to produce as is waste water expensive to process - use less and the costs are less, hence there should be no need for material increase in charges (though the anti brigade will ALWAYS say stuff like this)

As for PPS numbers - just one is needed if you want the household allowance - it prevents the same number being used multiple times. If there are 2 adults or more in the house, only the main householder is required to give pps number. It means those with holiday homes don't get 2 allowances - that's fair isn't it?

The pps argument is a laugh - we give pps numbers to so many people over the years - many even use their PPS cards as ID. But sure its was a great argument for the anti brigade and got people fearful because they wanted something to latch on to.

Of course, if you don't want the free allowance, don't give the pps number.

j8wk2feszrnpao

delahuntv wrote: »

The pps argument is a laugh

There's very few people laughing about it.

ABajaninCork

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Don't for one minute presume that your bill is going to be €280 as the system stands at the moment. IMO you can add another 100 to that Government supplied estimation. They'll have 'unexpected costs' appearing as soon as the Budget has come and gone. This is the same people, remember, that are opposed to taxing a family home (FG) and opposed to water meters (Lab). Why would you believe them?

Perhaps you should read what I wrote again...

To give an example. I remember getting my first water bill in 1987, when I moved into my flat. It was £110 for that year's rate. A lot of money to me at the time. My last bill in 2008 before I moved over was £391. Two little things called inflation and privatisation got in the way!! So you, see, the cost isn't fixed. The cost isn't fixed. Well, it is, but not in the way you think. It's a moving target.

I'm well aware that the first bill is E278 with the allowances having spoken to IW direct last week . I'm also well aware having read all the information available, that the water rate will be ESTIMATED until at least 2016 (and probably later) when all the meters have been installed. The water will then be metered. So - of course, the costs will rise! It's the same for the gas/electric/oil. You'll be paying for what you use. Which to me is fair comment. People will then think about conserving the water and not wasting it, which is what I've seen here.

I agree the way IW has been set up is a total shambles. And yes - there'll probably be more costs added, but for political reasons, that bill won't rise until next year. Maybe even later with an election in the offing...

I'd also lay money IW will be broken up and sold off to private companies in much the same way as the UK have. That's a racing cert IMO.

V.W.L 11

The government are handing relief to low earners and welfare recipients, another disincentive to return to full time employment, will there be another 100,000 protesters out after budget day?I very much doubt it

Stepping Stone

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Genuine question - what makes the costs so high? (In an up-and running centre, not new build.)
Is it high wages costs or are there actually high material and service costs?

The costs are high for a variety of reasons. There are two sides to it; clean water and waste water. In the case of clean water, material costs are relatively high. In an ideal world, staff costs would be low but most of these things are decades old. They need to be serviced, parts replaced, etc. Then there is the pipework. In an ideal world, you would lay pipes once and that would be it. For pipes laid in the 60s, they are not capable of carrying the volume of water required for modern living and the population expansion. The pipes don't last forever either. Why do you think we have so many leaks. Best case senario, the pipes hold up and only need the odd repair but in an awful lot of cases, they need to be replaced. This involves a study to see what volume of water needs to be transported, population growth predictions, etc. Then they need to sample the soil and do testing to see what sort of pipes need to be used. Finally, they have to dig up the old pipes, replace them and incur the costs of the initial reports, new materials, disposal of old stuff, permit costs and staff costs. It just is not cheap. There is nowhere in the country that isn't like this.

Take waste water. The plants need to be staffed at all times. They need maintenance, replacements, etc. Same issue with ther waste water network not being able to handle the huge volumes of waste we produce. Then there are blockages. Know anyone who flushes wipes? They will cause a blockage which costs money to clear.

None of the systems last long to be honest. The waste water treatment plant in Midleton cannot handle all the waste produced there. The housing boom was too much. I was in Togher recently and I drove over a dip in the road. That is a collapsed sewer. I am sure that most people wouldn't recognise it but it will have to be dug up and replaced. If we had consistently invested in the systems, we wouldn't be in this mess.

I have spent years seeing the actual costs of new builds and sometimes they work out cheaper than the upgrades of existing systems.

I hope that this explains a bit of the cost. Unfortunately, it is completely unavoidable.

rob316

I went to the protest down town on Saturday, the idiots really come out for these.

" We live in a fascist state, making us pay for water"
" What a country my family will go thirsty if I don't pay, they will cut off our water supply, a basic human right"

This was coming from the organisers. There was really no middle ground or room for intelligent conversation. Either fcuk the establishment or your a yes man, really annoying it was.

I was trying to make the point that I am totally against Irish Water and the introduction of water charges right now after a crippling recession. I feel the timing is wrong, the government have made a grave error thinking it will be accepted after previously introducing property tax, and the way meters were installed without you actually knowing the cost was ridiculous.

But most of the west pay for water but they didn't want to hear it, as a country we need to expand our tax base, they didn't want to hear it.

The socialists are the worst, basically €15 should be the minimum wage, free healthcare, tax the rich to oblivion and the average working man pays nothing. Wouldn't mind living there :rolleyes:

ABajaninCork

rob316 wrote: »

I went to the protest down town on Saturday, the idiots really come out for these.

" We live in a fascist state, making us pay for water"
" What a country my family will go thirsty if I don't pay, they will cut off our water supply, a basic human right"

This was coming from the organisers. There was really no middle ground or room for intelligent conversation. Either fcuk the establishment or your a yes man, really annoying it was.

I was trying to make the point that I am totally against Irish Water and the introduction of water charges right now after a crippling recession. I feel the timing is wrong, the government have made a grave error thinking it will be accepted after previously introducing property tax, and the way meters were installed without you actually knowing the cost was ridiculous.

But most of the west pay for water but they didn't want to hear it, as a country we need to expand our tax base, they didn't want to hear it.

The socialists are the worst, basically €15 should be the minimum wage, free healthcare, tax the rich to oblivion and the average working man pays nothing. Wouldn't mind living there :rolleyes:

In La La Land? LOL!!

the beer revolu

@rob

It really wouldn't matter when charges are introduced, the kneejerk politics of "what will it mean to my pocket and fcuk society as a whole" would always come into play regardless of the timing. It seems to be the only thing that politically motivates the majority of Irish people.

The anti war march against the invasion of Iraq is the only mass protest I can recall that wasn't directly related to every protesters pocket. I felt proud that day. The idiot rhetoric of most anti water charge (or water tax as they stupidly call it) people makes me feel like I live in a country of ignorant, self serving whingebags.

I'd March tomorrow to burn the bond holders, to radically reform our political system and to see justice done regarding the bankers, politicians and regulators responsible for our financial woes but what the hell does that have to do with the user paying for the water that they use like in every developed country?

the beer revolu

I had to laugh at a poster I saw the other day saying Boycott Irish Water.
By all means boycott Irish water in the same way one would boycott anything else!
Now, you wouldn't boycott, for example, Tesco and still expect to get your shopping there for free, now would you?
So by all means, boycott Irish Water. Disconnect you house, drill a well, treat your water, build a complient septic tank and off you go - Irish Water successfully boycotted!

listermint

the beer revolu wrote: »

@rob

It really wouldn't matter when charges are introduced, the kneejerk politics of "what will it mean to my pocket and fcuk society as a whole" would always come into play regardless of the timing. It seems to be the only thing that politically motivates the majority of Irish people.

The anti war march against the invasion of Iraq is the only mass protest I can recall that wasn't directly related to every protesters pocket. I felt proud that day. The idiot rhetoric of most anti water charge (or water tax as they stupidly call it) people makes me feel like I live in a country of ignorant, self serving whingebags.

I'd March tomorrow to burn the bond holders, to radically reform our political system and to see justice done regarding the bankers, politicians and regulators responsible for our financial woes but what the hell does that have to do with the user paying for the water that they use like in every developed country?

You sneer at the protesters, I wasnt at the one in Cork i was at the massive one in Dublin so i cannot compare who was there or the agenda. But the Dublin one was full of normal people and families. Yes there was some mad left loonies but any large scale protest has that.

Facts are facts On your last paragraph above. Does Irish Water as an entity not epitomize everything that you just said you stand against.

It was setup with a sole purpose to drive money into Bond Holders Pockets, The CEO and much of the board members are Ex County Planners whom left their various constituencies in ruin and many failed projects left right and centre. But these are the same guys that 'retired' on massive 60K + pensions but are now fully employed by another so called semi state at salaries over 120K.

Irish Water is a vehicle to privatize our national network and in return lump more money to bondholder.

Whatever your feelings about lefty mad protesters. This whole setup and continued billing is afront to the normal tax payer. It is against everything you supposedly would march tomorrow for. Its a government downing instrument.



How in the hell could one be up for it ?? boggles

the beer revolu

listermint wrote: »

How in the hell could one be up for it ?? boggles

Because the principle of "the user pays as per their usage of water publicly provided" is a fair and sensible one. I don't believe people are against Irish Water per se, they are against paying for water. Gripes about IW are only to back up the argument against that.

Do you howl that every cent of duty on your fuel is going to pay bondholders? If not why not? Why is revenue from water any different from any other money in the public purse?

Disregarding, the debt from the fallout, we are borrowing every day to provide basic services. Personally, I'd prefer to pay for what I use and not subsidise people with no concept of conservation.

The last thing I need is another bill but I genuinely believe it is right to have water metered and paid for.

Ludo

the beer revolu wrote: »

Do you howl that every cent of duty on your fuel is going to pay bondholders? If not why not? Why is revenue from water any different from any other money in the public purse?

Frankly, because it was always paid for seperately and is not being imposed as a DIRECT result of the banks collapse and under orders from the IMF. That to me is why this is such a big issue.

I have no issue with the principle of water charges...my issue is indeed that IF we didn't have to pay the bondholders under orders from Germany/EU/IMF then we would not have this extra charge now on top of everything else which has happened as a result of it. It has to stop at some point and say enough is enough.

I am probably over simplifying it a lot there and possibly have some "facts" wrong...but when this is a direct result of a order from the IMF as a condition of the bailout to pay off the banks debt then yeah...i object.

delahuntv

Firstly this thread has been the most polite water thread I've seen! - Yes there are different opinions, but at least people repsect other views.

Ideally IW should have gone about marketing it differently.

An allowance for each home should have been provided with an honesty system for holiday homes. In that way PPS numbers would not be required for standard household allowance, just for children's allowances.

Explaining the full cost of processing clean water and waste water and how there was a choice of cutting social welfare by a fiver a week and cutting tax free allowance by a grand a year and continue to pay for it from the taxation purse would penalise those who use less than others. It would also unfairly penalise houses with 2 or more earners living there whilst homes with one large earner and heavy water use would be unfairly advantaged.

I can't see it going away - not even if SF get in as the options are less palatable and far more unfair.

Hopefully tomorrow's budget will give some relief to taxpayers and I still think IW could announce that they can automatically give an allowance to each household without need for PPS number once an application is completed.

Help!!!!

listermint wrote: »

The CEO and much of the board members are Ex County Planners whom left their various constituencies in ruin and many failed projects left right and centre. But these are the same guys that 'retired' on massive 60K + pensions but are now fully employed by another so called semi state at salaries over 120K.

This is another reason why the country is in such a state. How can people retire on 60+ pensions ( paid by tax payer?? ) & get full time employment for 120k.
Cronyism at its best

delahuntv

Ludo wrote: »

Frankly, because it was always paid for seperately and is not being imposed as a DIRECT result of the banks collapse and under orders from the IMF. That to me is why this is such a big issue.

I have no issue with the principle of water charges...my issue is indeed that IF we didn't have to pay the bondholders under orders from Germany/EU/IMF then we would not have this extra charge now on top of everything else which has happened as a result of it. It has to stop at some point and say enough is enough.

I am probably over simplifying it a lot there and possibly have some "facts" wrong...but when this is a direct result of a order from the IMF as a condition of the bailout to pay off the banks debt then yeah...i object.

It was more a case of we had to change our tax model. People were paying up to 9% stamp duty on houses and commercial property and once this collapsed, so did the tax take. in 2006 over 8 BILLION of tax was from property - that dropped to a few hundred million in 2010!

Add to the drop in corporation tax due to losses by companies and the drop in paye/prsi due to higher unemployment and an increase in social welfare costs for the same reason and within 2 years, the tax take was Over 15 BILLION down in 2010 compared to 2007 and spending was still growing! In 2010 expenditure excluding anything whatsoever to do with bank bailouts, was 60 BILLION - tax revenue was 33 Billion, a difference of 27 billion!!! This is why we needed IMF money. Yes the banks didn;t help, but even if the banks were solvent, the IMF would have been needed.

So how tax was charged had to change and reliance on one off property taxes had to go. - hence you now have 1% duty.


The net cost of bank bailout looks likely to come in well under €40bn and possibly as low as €35bn - still a huge amount but WAY under the 64bn touted up til last year. Bank of Ireland have paid back their bailout (with interest) and AIB shares will give a nice fillup to the coffers and cut drastically the cost of that bailout. High property prices in London and USA have helped NAMA get a lot ore for property than expected too.

I'd prefer not to have to pay 50%+ on my income over 33k, I'd love to have bins collected for free and water for free, and cheaper fuel (90c of each litre is tax) but if I had a choice, I'd like to see more net inclome and then try and save on various charges

delahuntv

listermint wrote: »

The CEO and much of the board members are Ex County Planners whom left their various constituencies in ruin and many failed projects left right and centre. But these are the same guys that 'retired' on massive 60K + pensions but are now fully employed by another so called semi state at salaries over 120K.

Boards members and employees are quite different.

Employees are not retired council planners - any staff member that transferred over did not get any lump sum or retirement payment. They simply had their employment terms continued, but with a different name on the payslip.

Same system would be for any private company taking over any other private company.

But as usual the anti brigade will say things like this because they know most people won't check it. (happens with most anti groups from windfarms to pylons to fracking etc etc - they thrive on fear knowing most things won't be challenged by supporters who are hoodwinked)

Ludo

delahuntv wrote: »

....the anti brigade will ....

Oh dear...one excellent post above from you and then you resort to the favorite word on boards.ie..."brigade".

As soon as I see anyone use that word in an discussion...they have lost me. I immediately dismiss that persons opinion as irrelevant. It is a silly put down and condescending word used by people who think they are better than others.

You were doing so well with your excellent post above.