Water charges revisited?

Idbatterim

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is false. I don't pay a street littering collection charge, but I don't litter. Never wasted water. Don't know anyone who does.
FYI: we pay for water. Always have, continue to do so. It's a service our taxes cover, which hasn't been privatised, unlike household rubbish collection, telecommunications. But water ever being privatised is fantasy

Matt. My neighbors hose in the garden has a slow leak. Why give a toss if you aren’t paying for it? People would sort issues like that very quickly if they were paying per liter! Just psychologically, if u were paying by liter, most people would change their behavior.

dense

Idbatterim wrote: »

If the 1-2% is true. It’s a joke. This is an issue when you don’t pay per litre, You don’t pay for what you use.most People don’t give a toss for the most part ...

Funny how Scottish Water's paying customers are using 30% more water than usual in a sustained drought.



They obviously don't give a toss about conserving it.



Charges are quite obviously not making people use less water, in fact they seem to be causing people to use more water than we do wherever you look at where they are in place.

dense

We’re adding an extra 450 million litres of treated water to our network each day to keep up with the huge rise in demand

Thames Water. Today.



So enough of the codology about water charges having some mythical impact on water conservation.



https://mobile.twitter.com/thameswater/status/1022458677431885824

dense

BarryD2 wrote: »

Reported today that Irish Water's appeal to Greater Dublin to conserve water has only resulted in a 1-2% reduction in use. That is simply pathetic and it's clear that most don't give a toss what they use.

It's a helluva lot less pathetic than Thames Water reporting a huge increase in demand.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You said you never saw any evidence he was unwelcome. I gave you evidence.
You are now making it about any perceived criminality for some reason. I don't care frankly. The case has come and gone.
You accused him of misogyny and can only cite him not helping a TD he was actively there to protest from protesters, because she was female. Nonsense.

Kudos on bringing the discussion to Paul Murphy. Being against water charges, water charges in a specific form or fearful of privatisation, does not automatically mean one has to defend Paul Murphy or whom ever else you'd like to introduce. This is a recurring tactic with you.

Then why are you defending Paul Murphy?

Idbatterim

dense wrote: »

Funny how Scottish Water's paying customers are using 30% more water than usual in a sustained drought.



They obviously don't give a toss about conserving it.



Charges are quite obviously not making people use less water, in fact they seem to be causing people to use more water than we do wherever you look at where they are in place.

How much more would they be using if they weren’t charged for it? Also are they being charged per extra litre?

dense

Idbatterim wrote: »

How much more would they be using if they weren’t charged for it? Also are they being charged per extra litre?

We have to consider that they just might be using "more" water just because they're paying for it and feel entitled to use as much as they want.


I put more in parenthesis there because I'm not really sure what amount they should be using, and I doubt anyone can dictate what that figure is, or define for them what an "extra litre" on top of that is.

The only thing I can tell you is that having water charges, just like Scottish Water and Thames Water and other water companies in the UK, does not solve the problems that some people (who don't seem to have looked into this at all) think.

In fact, they appear to be responsible for making it worse, or better of course, if you're a company charging for water by metered consumption.

BarryD2

dense wrote: »

We have to consider that they just might be using "more" water just because they're paying for it and feel entitled to use as much as they want.

If some of the people of Greater London are using more water than normal AND paying an economic price for it, then let them at it. As long as the system can supply them.

The issue facing Greater Dublin is that demand increases year on year whilst the basic production capacity is much the same since the 1940s, when the last of the three reservoir schemes was completed.

People need to use water more reasonably and treat it as a precious commodity. Metered water charges are the obvious mechanism for this.

dense

BarryD2 wrote: »

If some of the people of Greater London are using more water than normal AND paying an economic price for it, then let them at it. As long as the system can supply them.

The issue facing Greater Dublin is that demand increases year on year whilst the basic production capacity is much the same since the 1940s, when the last of the three reservoir schemes was completed.

People need to use water more reasonably and treat it as a precious commodity. Metered water charges are the obvious mechanism for this.

Metered charges are obviously not working.


Each of the utilities you've read about here are pleading with their customers, as if they weren't being charged for water, to use less.


No mention anywhere about how their well designed water charges are keeping demand in check, because they don't.



That theory simply rests in the imagination of people who think charges make people use less water.



Nor do they automatically mean leaks are fixed to plan.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-44395763



And, here, we do not even have any figures for what water is supplied or used in an average day, month or year or who's using it.



So its a little previous to formulate theories about the need for people to use less whilst we do know that almost half of what is produced leaks before it gets to any end user, be it the local car wash or pensioner.

2018 style

Hard to believe some posters are still here, after all these years and the proven failure of their water quango's charges, pushing their water tax agenda....
But, sure there ya go, what else would retired public servants be doing with their spare time....only protecting their pensions...

2018 style

BarryD2 wrote: »

If some of the people of Greater London are using more water than normal AND paying an economic price for it, then let them at it. As long as the system can supply them.

The issue facing Greater Dublin is that demand increases year on year whilst the basic production capacity is much the same since the 1940s, when the last of the three reservoir schemes was completed.

People need to use water more reasonably and treat it as a precious commodity. Metered water charges are the obvious mechanism for this.

Irish Water's answer isn't to fix their leaks in the greater Dublin area though, their answer is to run a pipeline from the Shannon to supply more water...
Utter madness.
Over 300,000,000 litres a day washes into the ground in Dublin....
Go figure.

2018 style

Just to be absolutely clear here, Paul Murphy, and everyone else charged with the most serious of crimes (false imprisonment), were found not guilty by a jury of their peers after a lengthy and expensive criminal trial.
That people here are trying to re-try these people and instill a sense of guilt on social media is an utter disgrace and should be slapped down hard by the moderators on this and other sites...

N.B, I'm no fan of Murphy.

Charles Babbage

dense wrote: »

No mention anywhere about how their well designed water charges are keeping demand in check, because they don't.

They might, if charges were doubled during the drought.

2018 style

Charles Babbage wrote: »

They might, if charges were doubled during the drought.

How would that work?

BarryD2

2018 style wrote: »

Irish Water's answer isn't to fix their leaks in the greater Dublin area though, their answer is to run a pipeline from the Shannon to supply more water...
Utter madness.
Over 300,000,000 litres a day washes into the ground in Dublin....
Go figure.

But this is a circular argument. Of course, the leaks in the public water supply should be fixed. That's easy said but it's a significant costly and time consuming undertaking. All public water users were asked to do, was to make an extra contribution towards improving THEIR services. Above what they pay in general taxes. And metered charges make the most sense as it's proportional - those who live in the leafy suburbs and use more water, pay more. It was and remains an eminently sensible solution.

2018 style

BarryD2 wrote: »

But this is a circular argument. Of course, the leaks in the public water supply should be fixed. That's easy said but it's a significant costly and time consuming undertaking. All public water users were asked to do, was to make an extra contribution towards improving THEIR services. Above what they pay in general taxes. And metered charges make the most sense as it's proportional - those who live in the leafy suburbs and use more water, pay more. It was and remains an eminently sensible solution.

Problem was, it soon became apparent that the money being paid was being squandered on laughing yoga and consultants etc etc.....
800,000+ people refused to fund that crap.
IW is a costly failure.
LA staff, wearing shiny new hi-vis jackets, doing the same work they always did, only with another expensive layer of pen pushing, PS pension chasers on top.

BarryD2

2018 style wrote: »

Problem was, it soon became apparent that the money being paid was being squandered on laughing yoga and consultants etc etc.....
800,000+ people refused to fund that crap.
IW is a costly failure.
LA staff, wearing shiny new hi-vis jackets, doing the same work they always did, only with another expensive layer of pen pushing, PS pension chasers on top.

That was the perception that was allowed to be created alright. But a large portion of that 'consultancy' money was spent on new systems to administer a nationwide service in a modern digital way. The public service unions also get away lightly in this - they were/ are at the root of protecting and enhancing their members interests as they moved from LA to IW employment.

At end of the day, these sort of objections are just excuses to beat IW with. And little to do with actually fixing the problems for the publics own best interest.

2018 style

2018 style wrote: »

Just to be absolutely clear here, Paul Murphy, and everyone else charged with the most serious of crimes (false imprisonment), were found not guilty by a jury of their peers after a lengthy and expensive criminal trial.
That people here are trying to re-try these people and instill a sense of guilt on social media is an utter disgrace and should be slapped down hard by the moderators on this and other sites...

N.B, I'm no fan of Murphy.

The verdict was the right one. It doesn’t mean that their behavior that day was right or acceptable. It was deplorable, disgraceful and totally unacceptable to those of us who believe in and accept protest as our democratic right.

2018 style

Deleted User wrote: »

The verdict was the right one. It doesn’t mean that their behavior that day was right or acceptable. It was deplorable, disgraceful and totally unacceptable to those of us who believe in and accept protest as our democratic right.

Yep, a bit of bad behaviour ok.
It didn't warrant 12 people being tried for 'false imprisonment'.
Then again, FG/Lab needed a show trial to 'put the plebs in their place'.
Pity it backfired on them, eh?

2018 style

2018 style wrote: »

Irish Water's answer isn't to fix their leaks in the greater Dublin area though, their answer is to run a pipeline from the Shannon to supply more water...
Utter madness.
Over 300,000,000 litres a day washes into the ground in Dublin....
Go figure.

No one going to pay for it though are they?

It might be far easier & cheaper to run a massive pipe cross country than dig up nearly every pipe on every road in the city with associated disruption.


Besides water is only 50% of the problem, I wonder what sort of state the sewage system is in. It cant be much better than the water really.

Jolly Red Giant

dense wrote: »

I don't really care. I wasn't there so can only go on what his solicitor said.

But you are not going on what his solicitor said - you are taking a quote from a Garda witness who claimed the solicitor said something.

dense wrote: »

His own solicitor used the protest (which you say he had nothing to do with) as his defence.

Can you quote where his solicitor claimed that he was at the protest ?

dense wrote: »

The defendant, if had he had nothing to do with this protest should have used some other stupid excuse for making him throw the brick.

The defendant also stated when he was arrested that he threw the rock 'because everyone else was' - yet the evidence from the Jobstown trial proved that no rocks or stones were thrown during the Jobstown protest. So are you to believe his claim that 'everyone else was' despite the evidence that proved this was not the case.

Jolly Red Giant

BarryD2 wrote: »

The same old crap!

Metered water charges would most certainly assist in the current water shortages. It is a fact that when these were first mooted and partially installed that they had an effect - water usage dropped.

Evidence that water usage dropped because of meters.

BarryD2 wrote: »

Of course, the infrastructure needs to be repaired and that's what your charge was intended to fund.

The charge was designed to make water a commodity Futhermore, the charge was designed to shift the burden of repairing the water infrastructure from the wealthy to the mass of the population. If you want to fix the infrastructure then impose a wealth tax.

BarryD2 wrote: »

But the priority in these matters should be the mantra : REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE.

And the bin charges are a perfect example - charge for refuse collection - when the charge is imposed privatise bin collection. We were promised that waivers would protect those who could not afford to pay - the waivers are now gone. privatisation has led to a significant deterioration of wages and working conditions for bin workers, local councils are having to pay out €millions to clean up illegal dumps (and there are a lot more of them that haven't been found yet) - and the private companies are now abandoning all the notions of recycling and now want to charge to take away recycled rubbish.

BarryD2 wrote: »

Both public reduction and reuse would be encouraged by metered water charges.

If you want to reduce water usage then you do the following in this order -

1. change building regulations to make it mandatory that all new builds most have dual-flush toilets, rainwater collection systems and greywater recycling
2. repair the mains infrastructure - that is where 50% of the water is being lost.
3. retro-fit existing homes with rainwater and greywater collection systems

Water charges do not reduce usage - ample evidence from other countries proves this - implementation of these measures would reduce the amount of water needed by 75%+

Jolly Red Giant

blanch152 wrote: »

Even if only a 5% saving in domestic water, that would have meant no issue in Dublin this summer.

Fixing the leaks in the infrastructure would save 50% of the water wastage.

blanch152 wrote: »

As for council regulations, the parties of the left have controlled DCC for the last half-decade. Apart from arguing about what Bob Geldof said about them, what have they actually done for housing? Zero.

The Left have 8 seats on DCC - 4 PBP, 1 Solidarity, 1 Workers Party and 2 Independents.

View wrote: »

It is utterly naive to suggest that water charges would have no effect on the current crisis.

The simple fact is that if 50% of the water in the system is being wasted due to leakages, anyone directly receiving a bill for such wasted water, would have a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved. There would be enormous political pressure to improve the system since who in their right mind would want to pay for wasted water?

The government pay upwards of €600million a year on water treatment and supply (not talking about infrastructure repair and development) - half of this goes straight into the ground through leaks in the main water system. The government wasted upwards of €1billion on Iris Water and installing water meters. The government (through Irish Water) is now planning on spending upwards of €1.2billion in laying a pipeline from the Shannon to Dublin. Given the cost of the provision of water to the exchequer you would think that the Dept of Public Expenditure would be kicking up a riot demanding something be done to stop the leaks - yet you think that an individual household is going to change the policies being implemented by this government (and that is ignoring the fact that water charges were/are not designed to conserve water)

View wrote: »

By way to contrast, if the water is supplied to you “free”, then as we have seen over the past decades, no one cares that there is wasted water. Why should you care if something free is wasted since you’ll never get directly billed for it?

Evidence ?

blanch152 wrote: »

My neighbour had a leak on his property for over six months. I was in his back garden more than once discussing it. Until I pointed out that it was so bad it might be damaging the foundations of his house he was going to do nothing to get it fixed. If he was paying €1,000 a month for wasted water, he would have fixed it straightaway.

I have a rainwater barrel in my back garden that I use to water plants and when I bought my house I retrofitted dual flush toilets in my house.

Anyone can throw out an anecdote - it still does not resolve the issue of half the water leaking out of the mains pipes.

Jolly Red Giant

There are some things about the Jobstown protest that need to be nailed

Matt Barrett wrote: »

When Paul Murphy appeared at the Jobstown protest the protesters are quoted in the trial as not wanting him there.

This is false -

Paul Murphy arrived at the protest shortly after it started. He was not the first elected public representative there. There were also three Solidarity councillors in attendance (and incidentally - the one Solidarity councillor who was at the protest from the start was the only one not charged with an offence).

The activities of Paul Murphy and the other Solidarity public representatives were tracked from the very beginning by CCTV. Paul Murphy and the other solidarity councillors (and the other members of Solidarity in attendance) engaged in discussion with the protesters about what should happen and how it should happen.

Throughout the trial the Gardai attempted to portray (using false testimony) that the Socialist Party had initiated, planned, implemented and orchestrated the protest from start to finish and that Paul Murphy was the ringleader. This was false and proven false in court.

The incident that you refer to occurred near the end of the protest. The Gardai approached Paul Murphy with a view to ending the protest. Paul Murphy went to have a discussion with the Gardai and then reported back to those on the protest what was discussed. What a small number of people (out of upwards of 500) objected to was Paul Murphy engaging in discussions with the Gardai - telling him he had no right to negotiate with the cops - that it wasn't his protest and that if he continued to talk to the cops he wasn't wanted there - like I said, a small number of people).

blanch152 wrote: »

I wasn't alleging that Paul Murphy had committed a criminal offence so why would the trial be of reference? I saw a video of his actions and that was sufficient to form an opinion about his behaviour during those five minutes.

What actions and what behaviour ?

blanch152 wrote: »

What went on before or after that segment, whether it was criminal or not, is irrelevant to the opinion I formed. IF there is footage showing him pleading with the crowd to disperse and leave the women alone, then I would revise my opinion. The best you could argue is that he stood idly by while the women were treated badly. Still behaviour I could not stomach.

From the very start of the protest Paul Murphy and the other Solidarity representatives argued that the protest need to be disciplined, peaceful and operate within a specific timeframe (i.e. that the protest should not be open ended - but should end after s specified time).

Solidarity representatives (including Paul Murphy) encouraged people to chant political slogans not personal abuse. At one point Cllr Mick Murphy got protesters on a megaphone to stop chanting 'you can stick your water meters up your a*se' - a chant that Joan Burton claimed during the trial was offensive. Some people did direct personal abuse at Joan Burton and Karen O'Connell - Solidarity representatives stopped it (it only happened in the early stages of the protest).

Whenever tensions rose Solidarity representatives stepped in to diffuse the situation. At one stage Paul Murphy stood between a Garda and a woman who the Garda had attempted to assault (this occurred just before Paul Murphy had his clothes pulled off him by Gardai). In a second incident Cllr Mick Murphy stood between two Gardai and two protesters while they were shouting and threatening one another and diffused the situation. On several occasions Cllr Mick Murphy advised the Gardai to move Joan Burton and Karen O'Connell back to the church in order to diffuse tensions (the cops were to claim during this trial that this was Mick Murphy threatening Joan Burton). In one other incident Cllr Kieran Mahon literally pulled a protester away from a confrontation with a Garda, pushed him away and told him to leave the protest until he calmed down.

It should be also noted that Joan Burton stated during her testimony, that at one point she saw Paul Murphy 'walking away' (he was going for discussions with the Gardai) and she thought he was leaving the protest. She claimed that the prospect of Paul Murphy leaving 'terrified' her. Why would the prospect of Paul Murphy walking away (which many claim he should have done) have 'terrified' Joan Burton so much if he was responsible for what had been happening?

Last point - during the protest three votes were taken at different stages in the protest. On each occasion Solidarity representatives and members argued for bringing the protest to an end (the second one of these is the 'infamous' video of Paul Murphy stating 'will we let her go'). On each occasion Solidarity representatives and members voted to bring the protest to an end - on the first two occasions their proposal to bring the protest to an end was defeated. On the third occasion (after negotiations with the Gardai) Paul Murphy proposed the 'slow walk' out of Jobstown and bringing the protest to an end within 30 minutes. This was accepted - although the cops tried to mess things up at one point by sending in the riot police which nearly resulted in a further confrontation that was diffused by Paul Murphy and Kieran Mahon.

So I would argue that your assessment of the actions of Paul Murphy and the other Solidarity representatives on the day is inaccurate and the evidence produced during the Jobstown trial does not support your assertion.

Edward M

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Evidence that water usage dropped because of meters.


The charge was designed to make water a commodity Futhermore, the charge was designed to shift the burden of repairing the water infrastructure from the wealthy to the mass of the population. If you want to fix the infrastructure then impose a wealth tax.


And the bin charges are a perfect example - charge for refuse collection - when the charge is imposed privatise bin collection. We were promised that waivers would protect those who could not afford to pay - the waivers are now gone. privatisation has led to a significant deterioration of wages and working conditions for bin workers, local councils are having to pay out €millions to clean up illegal dumps (and there are a lot more of them that haven't been found yet) - and the private companies are now abandoning all the notions of recycling and now want to charge to take away recycled rubbish.


If you want to reduce water usage then you do the following in this order -

1. change building regulations to make it mandatory that all new builds most have dual-flush toilets, rainwater collection systems and greywater recycling
2. repair the mains infrastructure - that is where 50% of the water is being lost.
3. retro-fit existing homes with rainwater and greywater collection systems

Water charges do not reduce usage - ample evidence from other countries proves this - implementation of these measures would reduce the amount of water needed by 75%+

Do you think charges might help with the cost of fixing the leaks perhaps?
Maybe if IW was able to show it was collecting a quarter of a billion a year + it could help it to borrow separate from the national borrowing, it might help with fixing the leaks you mention!
Else how do you expect the fix to be financed, without affecting other vital services financially?

2018 style

Edward M wrote: »

Do you think charges might help with the cost of fixing the leaks perhaps?
Maybe if IW was able to show it was collecting a quarter of a billion a year + it could help it to borrow separate from the national borrowing, it might help with fixing the leaks you mention!
Else how do you expect the fix to be financed, without affecting other vital services financially?

Problem is, the failed quango's admin costs were more than the amount of charges they could bring in....

Edward M

2018 style wrote: »

Problem is, the failed quango's admin costs were more than the amount of charges they could bring in....

Time to move on, IW is going to be here in some form or other, vast majority of politicians agree on that. A single utility is probably the best.
If you want to bash away at FG over the mess they made, feel free, I agree absolutely.
No matter how much we talk, reality is that as long as water problems remain on govt books it is always going to affect other services, be it health, housing, education, whatever you care to mention.
Looking as to how you fix the water infrastructure, make new improvements, like the pipeline from the Shannon for instance.
As long as this and all else is being funded by the state then the money used and needed is going to be causing shortfalls elsewhere.

2018 style

2018 style wrote: »

Problem is, the failed quango's admin costs were more than the amount of charges they could bring in....

Rubbish. This has been spouted by those against water charges and shown to be total nonsense.

Fact is that Irish water are upgrading the infrastructure but this is going to take years longer than anticipated due to lack of funds.

2018 style

Deleted User wrote: »

Rubbish.

Fact.
Look it up.

Your water tax is gone, deal with it.

Paul Murphy something something I suppose.....:rolleyes:

2018 style

Edward M wrote: »

Time to move on, IW is going to be here in some form or other, vast majority of politicians agree on that. A single utility is probably the best.
If you want to bash away at FG over the mess they made, feel free, I agree absolutely.
No matter how much we talk, reality is that as long as water problems remain on govt books it is always going to affect other services, be it health, housing, education, whatever you care to mention.
Looking as to how you fix the water infrastructure, make new improvements, like the pipeline from the Shannon for instance.
As long as this and all else is being funded by the state then the money used and needed is going to be causing shortfalls elsewhere.

Building a pipeline from the Shannon instead of fixing the leaks (300 million litres a day) in the greater Dublin area is just another example of the failure the water quango is.
Utter madness.

The state can borrow at a far better interest rate than any semi-state quango to fix the problems.
It's time they got on with it and stopped the whinging about it like we see here.

Water tax is dead, time to move on.

2018 style

Some people took their water tax refund and also pocketed the 'conservation grant'.
How dishonest is that? And then they attempt to lecture others for not paying the quango in the first place!!
The neck of some of that lot.

Edward M

2018 style wrote: »

Building a pipeline from the Shannon instead of fixing the leaks (300 million litres a day) in the greater Dublin area is just another example of the failure the water quango is.
Utter madness.

The state can borrow at a far better interest rate than any semi-state quango to fix the problems.
It's time they got on with it and stopped the whinging about it like we see here.

Water tax is dead, time to move on.

You know, its ironic how some of it works out, DOB is a tax exile, and here we are paying for any water he uses here with our taxes!

BarryD2

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

And the bin charges are a perfect example - charge for refuse collection - when the charge is imposed privatise bin collection.

When bin charges were brought in, we actually got a service where we live. Before that the local authority provided NO service at all and we were obliged to collect and drive our rubbish to a collection point at some distance. That was a good result, we now have a service where formerly the state provided none.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

If you want to reduce water usage then you do the following in this order -

1. change building regulations to make it mandatory that all new builds most have dual-flush toilets, rainwater collection systems and greywater recycling
2. repair the mains infrastructure - that is where 50% of the water is being lost.
3. retro-fit existing homes with rainwater and greywater collection systems

Agree completely with you. Householders should be obliged to meet point 1. Not sure if point 3 is practical, wrt greywater collection. Rainwater harvesting for garden use etc. should be mandatory for ALL.

Also agree re point 2 of course. With the people who benefit from public water & sewage systems paying an additional charge (call it water tax or whatever you want) to pay for the upgrading of their services. Is that not fair and equitable??

blanch152

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The defendant also stated when he was arrested that he threw the rock 'because everyone else was' - yet the evidence from the Jobstown trial proved that no rocks or stones were thrown during the Jobstown protest. So are you to believe his claim that 'everyone else was' despite the evidence that proved this was not the case.

This is a common misconception about the rules of evidence. The Jobstown trial did not prove there were no stones thrown during the Jobstown protest. What was found was that there was no evidence to suggest that any of the defendants were guilty of throwing stones.

The Jobstown protest itself wasn't on trial, so no evidence was presented against it.

2018 style

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a common misconception about the rules of evidence. The Jobstown trial did not prove there were no stones thrown during the Jobstown protest. What was found was that there was no evidence to suggest that any of the defendants were guilty of throwing stones.

The Jobstown protest itself wasn't on trial, so no evidence was presented against it.

If only the defendants were charged with such a small offence.
Instead, a gang of lying Garda, after the DPP brought forward the most ridiculous of charges, attempted to frame them for 'false imprisonment'!!

People like you are attempting, on this site and others, to retry them and to put your own false narrative on the facts.
Disgusting behaviour by a pro water tax gang who cannot, or will not, deal with reality.

dense

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

But you are not going on what his solicitor said - you are taking a quote from a Garda witness who claimed the solicitor said something.


Can you quote where his solicitor claimed that he was at the protest ?


The defendant also stated when he was arrested that he threw the rock 'because everyone else was' - yet the evidence from the Jobstown trial proved that no rocks or stones were thrown during the Jobstown protest. So are you to believe his claim that 'everyone else was' despite the evidence that proved this was not the case.

Are you suggesting he lied in court then?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Posts deleted. No more sniping please.

blanch152

2018 style wrote: »

If only the defendants were charged with such a small offence.
Instead, a gang of lying Garda, after the DPP brought forward the most ridiculous of charges, attempted to frame them for 'false imprisonment'!!

People like you are attempting, on this site and others, to retry them and to put your own false narrative on the facts.
Disgusting behaviour by a pro water tax gang who cannot, or will not, deal with reality.

I have not laid any criminal charges against anyone and am not attempting to retry anyone.

All I said was that in my opinion Paul Murhy's actions were unbecoming misogynist behaviour. That isn't illegal, but again, in my opinion, that makes him unfit to be a TD.

I will leave it there, and agree to disagree.

2018 style

blanch152 wrote: »

I have not laid any criminal charges against anyone and am not attempting to retry anyone.

All I said was that in my opinion Paul Murhy's actions were unbecoming misogynist behaviour. That isn't illegal, but again, in my opinion, that makes him unfit to be a TD.

I will leave it there, and agree to disagree.

I presume then if it was 2 men who were delayed you would be claiming the behaviour that day was misandristic?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Murphy may be a lot of things ok, but what went on around that 'trial', and the lies told/evidence changed by members of AGS, was a farce and a disgrace.
It's something this country should be ashamed of, but but but Paul Murphy........

Jolly Red Giant

Edward M wrote: »

Do you think charges might help with the cost of fixing the leaks perhaps?
Maybe if IW was able to show it was collecting a quarter of a billion a year + it could help it to borrow separate from the national borrowing, it might help with fixing the leaks you mention!
Else how do you expect the fix to be financed, without affecting other vital services financially?

I believe that water and water infrastructure should be funded from a progressive taxation system - water charges are a regressive tax.

Deleted User wrote: »

Rubbish. This has been spouted by those against water charges and shown to be total nonsense.

Fact is that Irish water are upgrading the infrastructure but this is going to take years longer than anticipated due to lack of funds.

Fact is that Irish Water is not spending any less on infrastructure than it would be if water charges existed. The financial plan has not changed since water charges were abolished. Irish Water are planning to spend €512million fixing leaks up to 2021 - as always public services infrastructure is being grossly under-invested.

2018 style wrote: »

Some people took their water tax refund and also pocketed the 'conservation grant'.
How dishonest is that? And then they attempt to lecture others for not paying the quango in the first place!!
The neck of some of that lot.

How dishonest was it for the government to attempt to bribe people into registering with Irish Water by giving them a 'grant' with no strings attached.

2018 style

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I believe that water and water infrastructure should be funded from a progressive taxation system - water charges are a regressive tax.


Fact is that Irish Water is not spending any less on infrastructure than it would be if water charges existed. The financial plan has not changed since water charges were abolished. Irish Water are planning to spend €512million fixing leaks up to 2021 - as always public services infrastructure is being grossly under-invested.


How dishonest was it for the government to attempt to bribe people into registering with Irish Water by giving them a 'grant' with no strings attached.

Some people accept bribes.
Personally, I had no dealings with IW, nor did I avail of the 'grant'.

Jolly Red Giant

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a common misconception about the rules of evidence. The Jobstown trial did not prove there were no stones thrown during the Jobstown protest. What was found was that there was no evidence to suggest that any of the defendants were guilty of throwing stones.

The Jobstown protest itself wasn't on trial, so no evidence was presented against it.

Not true - two garda witnesses gave testimony that rocks were thrown. They outlined when and where they claimed to see the rocks being thrown. Video evidence proved that in both instances the cops gave false testimony. In fact the entire protest was caught on a major CCTV pylon on the Fortunestown Roundabout - the entire protest using several cameras. Hundreds of hours of video footage from this CCTV network and others, as well as cellphones, did not produce one incident of rocks being thrown.

One water balloon was thrown at Joan Burton at the very start of the protest. Several eggs were thrown by kids during the protest and they were ran off by the protesters - and there is video evidence for this as well.

Jolly Red Giant

dense wrote: »

Are you suggesting he lied in court then?

I have not seen the transcript of this trial - so I cannot say what testimony the Garda gave or how accurate it was. All that exists is a newspaper report.

What I can state is that during the Jobstown trial every single Garda witness who was at the protest and gave testimony at the Jobstown trial (with the exception of one Garda) was proven to have given false testimony. The single Garda who did not give false testimony was the head of the public order unit on the day and retired before the Jobstown trial. His testimony was consistent with the video evidence, it contradicted the evidence of three other senior Gardai and confirmed evidence that was provided by the defence.

But there is one example of different testimony from both trials. This most recent one stated that the protest in Jobstown ended at 4pm. The transcript from the Jobstown trial showed that Burton and o'Connell left at 3.30pm and that the police operation was officially ended at 3.45pm (and this is confirmed by CCTV video evidence). So the testimony that stated the protest ended at 4pm is inconsistent with the proven evidence from the Jobstown trial.

blanch152 wrote: »

All I said was that in my opinion Paul Murhy's actions were unbecoming misogynist behaviour.

What actions by Paul Murphy do you assert was misogynist behaviour?

Jolly Red Giant

2018 style wrote: »

Some people accept bribes.
Personally, I had no dealings with IW, nor did I avail of the 'grant'.

Neither did I - and I campaigned for non-registration.

Edward M

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I believe that water and water infrastructure should be funded from a progressive taxation system - water charges are a regressive tax.


Fact is that Irish Water is not spending any less on infrastructure than it would be if water charges existed. The financial plan has not changed since water charges were abolished. Irish Water are planning to spend €512million fixing leaks up to 2021 - as always public services infrastructure is being grossly under-invested.


How dishonest was it for the government to attempt to bribe people into registering with Irish Water by giving them a 'grant' with no strings attached.

On your first two paragraphs, every other service is under financial pressure too, which is why I believe water charges would help not just water services, but all services.

I agree with your last point.

2018 style

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I have not seen the transcript of this trial - so I cannot say what testimony the Garda gave or how accurate it was. All that exists is a newspaper report.

What I can state is that during the Jobstown trial every single Garda witness who was at the protest and gave testimony at the Jobstown trial (with the exception of one Garda) was proven to have given false testimony. The single Garda who did not give false testimony was the head of the public order unit on the day and retired before the Jobstown trial. His testimony was consistent with the video evidence, it contradicted the evidence of three other senior Gardai and confirmed evidence that was provided by the defence.

But there is one example of different testimony from both trials. This most recent one stated that the protest in Jobstown ended at 4pm. The transcript from the Jobstown trial showed that Burton and o'Connell left at 3.30pm and that the police operation was officially ended at 3.45pm (and this is confirmed by CCTV video evidence). So the testimony that stated the protest ended at 4pm is inconsistent with the proven evidence from the Jobstown trial.


What actions by Paul Murphy do you assert was misogynist behaviour?

Is there an investigation into the behaviour of AGS at the trial?
Will any charges be brought against members of AGS?

Surely, in the grand scheme of things, Murphy is an irrelevance and the behaviour of members of AGS, under oath, should be more of a concern for 'law abiding citizens'???

One day, it could be them.....

blanch152

The protest in Jobstown was a particularly low moment in Irish politics. It is not something that anyone decent could condone or defend. Those who participated should be ashamed of themselves.

Even so, they were far from the most hypocritical of all the protests. Those who prevented ordinary decent workers from doing their jobs installing water meters but proclaimed at the same time to be representing the ordinary decent workers of the country were the saddest protestors of the lot as few of them even considered the double standards of their behaviour.

That being said, it is all in the past. Looking forward, we have to build a country based on decency and respect. The principle that people should pay for what they use, so that the tax exile with a swimming pool in his holiday home in Ireland, should pay more in water charges than the ordinary decent working class family in a two-up, two-down in the inner city, is a good principle and our water charging system should be based on that. As a start, the current arrangement whereby those who waste water will pay more from 2019, is a good beginning on the road back to full water charges.

It should be remembered that those who say that water should be paid for through progressive income taxation are protecting those who are tax exiles, those who own property and those who waste water.

dense

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I have not seen the transcript of this trial - so I cannot say what testimony the Garda gave or how accurate it was. All that exists is a newspaper report.

But do you think he's credible?



Here's another report, the first one was from the IT, this is the Irish Independent

Dublin Circuit Criminal Court heard that Collins told gardaí on arrest that he threw the rock “because everyone else was” but that he accepted that his actions were “not on”.

https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fatheroftwo-22-who-threw-rock-through-garda-car-window-during-jobstown-water-protest-avoids-jail-36505022.html



That is the defendant being quoted.
Do you still not believe him?

2018 style

blanch152 wrote: »

The protest in Jobstown was a particularly low moment in Irish politics. It is not something that anyone decent could condone or defend. Those who participated should be ashamed of themselves.

Even so, they were far from the most hypocritical of all the protests. Those who prevented ordinary decent workers from doing their jobs installing water meters but proclaimed at the same time to be representing the ordinary decent workers of the country were the saddest protestors of the lot as few of them even considered the double standards of their behaviour.

That being said, it is all in the past. Looking forward, we have to build a country based on decency and respect. The principle that people should pay for what they use, so that the tax exile with a swimming pool in his holiday home in Ireland, should pay more in water charges than the ordinary decent working class family in a two-up, two-down in the inner city, is a good principle and our water charging system should be based on that. As a start, the current arrangement whereby those who waste water will pay more from 2019, is a good beginning on the road back to full water charges.

It should be remembered that those who say that water should be paid for through progressive income taxation are protecting those who are tax exiles, those who own property and those who waste water.

How many tax exiles have swimming pools in their Irish holiday homes?

You think FG/Lab, and Fianna Fail before that, treated Irish people with 'dignity and respect' by forcing bankers debts on them, by stealing from their private pensions etc etc?
Give me a break, the water tax is dead, deal with it.

2018 style

dense wrote: »

But do you think he's credible?



Here's another report, the first one was from the IT, this is the Irish Independent







https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fatheroftwo-22-who-threw-rock-through-garda-car-window-during-jobstown-water-protest-avoids-jail-36505022.html



That is the defendant being quoted.
Do you still not believe him?

Why does it matter?