IW/Anything Water Related-Warning in OP

keithclancy · 02-12-2014 4:08pm

shinzon wrote: »

From that self same article by the way

The party’s Public Expenditure and Reform Spokesperson Seán Fleming said he had found a loophole in the guidelines

“The essential difference between [my] legislation and the Government’s proposal is that Fianna Fáil believes the matter must be dealt with on a statutory basis, not by way of guidelines that have been drawn up to assist Ministers,” Fleming said

You say he has a vested interest in votes are you saying the reverse isn't the case, and again saying the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform denied this was the case is not the same as showing the proof, nowhere in that article does it have any proof, just because a spokesperson from the department says it isn't the case doesn't mean it is.

As far as im concerned unless they have the relevant legislation in black and white printed in that article then it simply isn't the case, I have to see the relevant section with my own eyes before I believe anything this government says anymore to be honest

Shin

Good man... then don't read or quote The Mirror then.

shinzon wrote: »

im not demanding anyone take anything I link as gospel, but if you come onto a forum and blindly say somethings not true then im going to ask you or anyone for proof not assumption not assertion or a hunch or anything else just proof to back up the claims anyone on here makes, and just an an aside I have linked a total of one red top article on here and that's the mirror.

if you have proof show it otherwise dont expect not to be pulled up on it, that's all im saying

Shin

I think you are the one with this problem.

gladrags · 02-12-2014 4:18pm

denhaagenite wrote: »

The protests exposed absolutely nothing, except a savage element in some of the protestors. Someone who wished to educate themselves and others decided to look into IW and told others about it, I don't think any of it was ever hidden- this was an individual act, the protestors only achieved to make a clear system of payment more convoluted and unfair.

I don't agree with the way IW is run, but feel free to wail about me anyway. Is it any wonder I don't want "peaceful protestors" speaking for me? You can't even string a sentence together. Hysterical.

"Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said the government has “listened to and addressed” the “main issues” raised by anti-water charge protests.

“I stress again that the main issues that were brought to our attention by the people over the last number of weeks and months have been listened to and have been addressed by the government,” he said."

Irish Examiner.

The property tax and the housing crisis,could well follow,after IW is disbanded.

Tinkersbell · 02-12-2014 4:25pm

Highflyer13 wrote: »

Thats a spectacular own goal if true which I have no reason to doubt.

It's true ok.
It was on radio1 around 7.45am.
It may be on the RTE player.

denhaagenite · 02-12-2014 4:29pm

gladrags wrote: »

"Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said the government has “listened to and addressed” the “main issues” raised by anti-water charge protests.

“I stress again that the main issues that were brought to our attention by the people over the last number of weeks and months have been listened to and have been addressed by the government,” he said."

Irish Examiner.

Here is where I would exercise caution in trusting the word of someone in government

. Plus the setup of Irish Water remains the same, they just came up with a new, rubbish billing system which charges a flat rate regardless of how many times a day someone jumps into their Jacuzzi... What an accomplishment, well done protestors!!

Tinkersbell · 02-12-2014 4:29pm

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

There are a hell of a lot of satellite dishes attached to houses of so-called protesters. Priorities, eh?

Yes Phil, that's right.

Tinkersbell · 02-12-2014 4:30pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Who cancelled it then,

An anonymous poster trying to interfere with peoples right to protest by announcing on thread that the 10th is cancelled, that's who.

shinzon · 02-12-2014 4:33pm

keithclancy wrote: »

Good man... then don't read or quote The Mirror then.

I think you are the one with this problem.

The journal article disproves absolutely nothing in the mirror article zero nada zip all it says is some nameless government spokesman says something sean fleming says isnt true, that is not proof its he said/he said schoolboy stuff

On the other hand if he simply said heres the relevant documentation and subsection to you know actually prove the fact 100% then we wouldn't be having this conversation

And again how is it a problem to ask questions to get at the truth

That is simply ridiculous in the extreme.

Shin

Tinkersbell · 02-12-2014 4:34pm

yipeeeee wrote: »

Note it could be 15 or 30 BILLION.

Huge amount of research done to come up with such an accurate estimate.

Maybe it was the same lads who came up with the €20 billion needed to improve our water infrastructure.

denhaagenite · 02-12-2014 4:35pm

Tinkersbell wrote: »

An anonymous poster trying to interfere with peoples right to protest by announcing on thread that the 10th is cancelled, that's who.

Ah cmere, a sense of humour never killed anyone.

Tinkersbell · 02-12-2014 4:37pm

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

The poster is right, you've got to face reality. 56% is a majority.

By the way, why are some people opposed to the installation of water meters?

The last figures from the quango had 870,000 forms returned.
They neglected to tell us how many had consented to enter a contract.
Either way, there's over 2 million homes liable for their water tax and 870,000 isn't 56% of that.

Why do we need meters if there is a flat rate charge?
The only one who needs water meters is FG's sugar daddy, Denis O'Brien.

Barely There · 02-12-2014 4:38pm

Tinkersbell wrote: »

An anonymous poster trying to interfere with peoples right to protest by announcing on thread that the 10th is cancelled, that's who.

The Cad!

keithclancy · 02-12-2014 4:45pm

shinzon wrote: »

The journal article disproves absolutely nothing in the mirror article zero nada zip all it says is some nameless government spokesman says something sean fleming says isnt true, that is not proof its he said/he said schoolboy stuff

On the other hand if he simply said heres the relevant documentation and subsection to you know actually prove the fact 100% then we wouldn't be having this conversation

And again how is it a problem to ask questions to get at the truth

That is simply ridiculous in the extreme.

Shin

The Journal printed both sides.

The Facebook link you posted was a picture of an article (not even the article itself) in The Mirror that only printed one side.

This is fueling mob mentality, simple as.

You used this as a source of information.

Then when confronted with a direct link to an article that printed both sides you shrugged it off as rubbish and went with the invented scenario in your head based on an article from the Mirror.

Now the only resolution for your self invented scenario is providing a link to a document that is not in the public domain.

Strawman argument.

I'll go with Occam's razor, the most likely thing is that he made a mistake, because we haven't heard anything about it since.

Barely There · 02-12-2014 4:53pm

Tinkersbell wrote: »

It's true ok.
It was on radio1 around 7.45am.
It may be on the RTE player.

My God!

Someone said the word 'tax' instead of 'charge'?

I predict the Government to fall over this, IW to be abolished and Gerry Adams to be carried into the Dail on the shoulders of jubilant supporters to be anointed the new High King of All Ireland.

Why couldn't he have just said 'charge'?

WHY??

shinzon · 02-12-2014 4:54pm

keithclancy wrote: »

The Journal printed both sides.

The Facebook link you posted was a picture of an article (not even the article itself) in The Mirror that only printed one side.

This is fueling mob mentality, simple as.

You used this as a source of information.

Then when confronted with a direct link to an article that printed both sides you shrugged it off as rubbish and went with the invented scenario in your head based on an article from the Mirror.

Now the only resolution for your self invented scenario is providing a link to a document that is not in the public domain.

Strawman argument.

I'll go with Occam's razor, the most likely thing is that he made a mistake, because we haven't heard anything about it since.

Ive already linked the stuff in the journal article, where and I quote again

The party’s Public Expenditure and Reform Spokesperson Seán Fleming said he had found a loophole in the guidelines, but the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform denied this was the case.

“The essential difference between [my] legislation and the Government’s proposal is that Fianna Fáil believes the matter must be dealt with on a statutory basis, not by way of guidelines that have been drawn up to assist Ministers,” Fleming said.

Not a lick of proof to say anywhere that what the department said is the truth, commensurately it disproves nothing in the mirror article and has feck all to do with mob mentality and rabble rousing

whose in fantasy land now, oh and because you seem so precious about the link I posted because it was a photocopy from facebook heres the original article just for completeness

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/irish-water-exempt-state-rules-4703102

Shin

ROCKMAN · 02-12-2014 5:04pm

Barely There wrote: »

My God!

Someone said the word 'tax' instead of 'charge'?

I predict the Government to fall over this, IW to be abolished and Gerry Adams to be carried into the Dail on the shoulders of jubilant supporters to be anointed the new High King of All Ireland.

Why couldn't he have just said 'charge'?

WHY??

Finally the penny has dropped
Welcome.
With your quality of posts and your post history ,You will be a fantastic addition.

keithclancy · 02-12-2014 5:06pm

shinzon wrote: »

Ive already linked the stuff in the journal article, where and I quote again

The party’s Public Expenditure and Reform Spokesperson Seán Fleming said he had found a loophole in the guidelines, but the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform denied this was the case.

“The essential difference between [my] legislation and the Government’s proposal is that Fianna Fáil believes the matter must be dealt with on a statutory basis, not by way of guidelines that have been drawn up to assist Ministers,” Fleming said.

Not a lick of proof to say anywhere that what the department said is the truth, commensurately it disproves nothing in the mirror article and has feck all to do with mob mentality and rabble rousing

whose in fantasy land now, oh and because you seem so precious about the link I posted because it was a photocopy from facebook heres the original article just for completeness

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/irish-water-exempt-state-rules-4703102

Shin

Not sure if it went over your head now or if you are just angry.

But I think everyone else gets it.

Don't start a point with a link to a Tabloid and you won't have problems in the future

Highflyer13 · 02-12-2014 5:08pm

Barely There wrote: »

So basically you're bemoaning having a crap Health Service and having to pay more taxes.

What's your solution, get the money fairies to deliver a big bag of gold that we can invest in the HSE?

Cut the waste, inefficiencies, obscene levels of pay, bureaucratic management structures within the likes of the HSE and abolish some of the unnecessary quangos then I will happily pay more taxes. As it stands we get little or nothing for obscene levels of tax. Government spending must be cut.

Stop being so snide and trying to belittle every poster whose opinion differs to yours.

donvito99 · 02-12-2014 5:21pm

denhaagenite wrote: »

I'd like to see a breakdown.

Certainly there is a huge amount of waste, but I think it probably has more to do with an abundance of civil servants than anything else. TDs and IW management pay is salt in the wound but I think money will only be saved from getting rid of people who are useless and unnecessary. Redundancy will cost short term but it's better in the long run.

Phoebas wrote: »

Could you narrow it down to the nearest €10 billion? :P

yipeeeee wrote: »

Note it could be 15 or 30 BILLION.

Huge amount of research done to come up with such an accurate estimate.

keithclancy wrote: »

So somewhere between the GDP of Senegal and Latvia.

:cool:

Are you sure you didn't mean Roubles?

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

Safe to say maths isn't a strong point of yours?

Barely There wrote: »

It's certainly impressive given we spend €35bn on SW and Health combined, which are our two biggest outlays.

That's a hell of a lot of cronyism he's identified.

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

From
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/tdssenators/salariesallowances/
Current Salary Rates for Oireachtas Members
The annual salary rates for Members of the Oireachtas are:

TD: €87,258
Senator: €65,000

In fairness, Enda Kenny tried to scrap the Seanad and lost so, in a democratic country, we must abide by the result, we cannot, therefore, complain about its cost.

We have 166 TDs. If we average their salaries at €100k (being generous), that would make the entire sum of their salaries (which is what the poster identified as a cost saving measure) you have the sum of €16,600,000 per year. Iwe paid them nothing we'd save €15 billion in about 900 years!

Ah, lads. Is my posting history not in any way memorable enough?!

StarshipPooper wrote: »

It's obvious from DonVito's posting history that he was being sarcastic.

Banjo String wrote: »

I thought it was quite obvious too.

Obviously, some people see some things more clearly than others.

Have a biccy, the both of ye:p

denhaagenite · 02-12-2014 5:24pm

Highflyer13 wrote: »

Cut the waste, inefficiencies, obscene levels of pay, bureaucratic management structures within the likes of the HSE and abolish some of the unnecessary quangos then I will happily pay more taxes. As it stands we get little or nothing for obscene levels of tax. Government spending must be cut.

Stop being so snide and trying to belittle every poster whose opinion differs to yours.

Agree it's a bit snide but it's just pointing out that all of the issues are mixed up. I can almost guarantee that 80% of the protestors are upset about austerity and the government, 15% are troublemakers and 5% are anti water charges. Yet they are "water protests". Doesn't make any sense and doesn't help the cause if those involved can't articulate themselves and can't offer any solutions other than "I DON'T CARE WHAT IT IS AS LONG AS I AM BETTER OFF FOR IT". That's really the bottom line.

denhaagenite · 02-12-2014 5:26pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Ah, lads. Is my posting history not in any way memorable enough?!

Have a biccy, the both of ye:p

Sorry Don, not in the habit of perusing your page. BTW, do you have €15/€30 billion you could loan me? I have a health service and water quango I'd like to fund :P

Tony EH · 02-12-2014 5:38pm

denhaagenite wrote: »

Agree it's a bit snide but it's just pointing out that all of the issues are mixed up. I can almost guarantee that 80% of the protestors are upset about austerity and the government, 15% are troublemakers and 5% are anti water charges.

And I can bet you 100% are pissed off at Irish Water.

shinzon · 02-12-2014 5:40pm

keithclancy wrote: »

Not sure if it went over your head now or if you are just angry.

But I think everyone else gets it.

Don't start a point with a link to a Tabloid and you won't have problems in the future

Ah I see your back to your usual tricks of deflection and mirrors good was wondering when that would turn up as shows you have no real argument at all

I repeat again saying something is false doesnt make it true, its an assumption an assertion nothing more

If the department wanted to bury Sean Flemings argument all they had to do is give the section of the legislation where it specifically states where hes wrong bobs your uncle marys your aunt case closed they didn't do that so how has that in anyway refuted the mirror article, it hasn't simple as

and as for your patronising last point same to you don't try and link articles that proves nothing and you wont have any problems either

Shin

yipeeeee · 02-12-2014 5:43pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Ah, lads. Is my posting history not in any way memorable enough?!

Have a biccy, the both of ye:p

Meh.

denhaagenite · 02-12-2014 5:49pm

Tony EH wrote: »

And I can bet you 100% are pissed off at Irish Water.

Then they need to make a separation. Are people so inarticulate that they don't know that there are differences between issues? Should we just call the protests "The straw that broke the camels back", creating a sufficient amount of ambiguity so that you can protest about anything you want?

ROCKMAN · 02-12-2014 6:07pm

denhaagenite wrote: »

Then they need to make a separation. Are people so inarticulate that they don't know that there are differences between issues? Should we just call the protests "The straw that broke the camels back", creating a sufficient amount of ambiguity so that you can protest about anything you want?

But that's the point ,"Water" has become the banger that everyone no matter their views or goals can and has united behind and are showing true people power ,Getting the Government to sit up and take notice. Sure the government would love to see all the different groups disperse and go their separate ways ,

denhaagenite · 02-12-2014 6:12pm

ROCKMAN wrote: »

But that's the point ,"Water" has become the banger that everyone no matter their views or goals can and has united behind and are showing true people power ,Getting the Government to sit up and take notice. Sure the government would love to see all the different groups disperse and go their separate ways ,

But I'm not united on it. I would happily protest against cronyism, but I am in favour of water charges. As are quite a few people here.

Highflyer13 · 02-12-2014 6:23pm

denhaagenite wrote: »

But I'm not united on it. I would happily protest against cronyism, but I am in favour of water charges. As are quite a few people here.

Given what we know about IW, Isn't paying the water charge effectively surrendering to and accepting cronyism?

gladrags · 02-12-2014 6:27pm

denhaagenite wrote: »

Here is where I would exercise caution in trusting the word of someone in government . Plus the setup of Irish Water remains the same, they just came up with a new, rubbish billing system which charges a flat rate regardless of how many times a day someone jumps into their Jacuzzi... What an accomplishment, well done protestors!!

In financial terms you are much better off,in spite of Kenny and IW...

As a direct result of the protests.

So a big THANK YOU is in order.

ROCKMAN · 02-12-2014 6:28pm

denhaagenite wrote: »

But I'm not united on it. I would happily protest against cronyism, but I am in favour of water charges. As are quite a few people here.

And that's your right ,However I would argue that we are united in away ,We are both unhappy with the way things are at the moment and I'll hazard a guess your protest like mind will come in the from of a vote at the next general election .
Water issues have taken myself and my family to the streets ,and after seen how it has had an effect on the government I fully intend to continue.
Now I'm been completely delusional and ****all will change but maybe just maybe these protests could be the start of something very real and I am willing to give it time and effort.

Tinkersbell · 02-12-2014 6:34pm

Barely There wrote: »

My God!

Someone said the word 'tax' instead of 'charge'?

I predict the Government to fall over this, IW to be abolished and Gerry Adams to be carried into the Dail on the shoulders of jubilant supporters to be anointed the new High King of All Ireland.

Why couldn't he have just said 'charge'?

WHY??

Hmmm, mentioning that a minister in this fake government let slip what's most lightly to happen when people refuse to fund IW brings out the usual howls of Adams this and SF that....

Shows a certain sadly obsessed mindset alright.......

IW/Anything Water Related-Warning in OP

Comments