Water charges revisited?

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

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

That, as Eurostat said, sounds much like the system it was replacing.



By the time the €270m was going to be collected minus the water conservation grant and admim, there wasn't going to be much left to spend.

If you want charges, at least want proper ones.

blanch152

2018 style wrote: »

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

Smurfit, McManus and O'Brien for a start. Are you happy that not only do they not pay tax in this country, the taxpayers of this country pay for the water to fill their swimming-pools, for their fountains on their estates, and for their horses to drink?

2018 style wrote: »

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?

A very strange post. The bondholders who were guaranteed by the FF government were mostly pension schemes. So how could they have stolen from private pensions by rescuing the bondholders?

2018 style wrote: »

Give me a break, the water tax is dead, deal with it.

Water charges haven't been abolished, the form of them has changed. The legislation was never repealed, only amended.

2018 style

blanch152 wrote: »

Smurfit, McManus and O'Brien for a start. Are you happy that not only do they not pay tax in this country, the taxpayers of this country pay for the water to fill their swimming-pools, for their fountains on their estates, and for their horses to drink?







A very strange post. The bondholders who were guaranteed by the FF government were mostly pension schemes. So how could they have stolen from private pensions by rescuing the bondholders?




Water charges haven't been abolished, the form of them has changed. The legislation was never repealed, only amended.

So, three swimming pools that you could find.
Very good, probably as much water as IW leak into the ground in 3 seconds.
Private pensions were raided by Noonan, being an ex PS it wouldn't affect you personally.
If water charges haven't been abolished, how come private homes aren't being billed?

2018 style

2018 style wrote: »

So, three swimming pools that you could find.
Very good, probably as much water as IW leak into the ground in 3 seconds.
Private pensions were raided by Noonan, being an ex PS it wouldn't affect you personally.
If water charges haven't been abolished, how come private homes aren't being billed?

Water charges for excessive use will be enforced from January next.

blanch152

2018 style wrote: »

So, three swimming pools that you could find.
Very good, probably as much water as IW leak into the ground in 3 seconds.
Private pensions were raided by Noonan, being an ex PS it wouldn't affect you personally.
If water charges haven't been abolished, how come private homes aren't being billed?

Water charges have been suspended, with an amended scheme being reintroduced from 2019.

Private pensions were rescued by Lenihan when he guaranteed the banks. The small tax that Noonan put on them was only a tiny repayment to the taxpayers of Ireland.

2018 style

As we can see, there's a lot of straw clutching and spinning by the pro IW quango people here.
It's all there's left now...that and slagging Murphy the bogeyman...

blanch152

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.

I haven't seen anyone attempting to retry Paul Murphy or anyone else on criminal charges. I think everyone accepts the courts' verdict.

However, unacceptable behaviour from politicians doesn't have to be criminal.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Smurfit, McManus and O'Brien for a start. Are you happy that not only do they not pay tax in this country, the taxpayers of this country pay for the water to fill their swimming-pools, for their fountains on their estates, and for their horses to drink?

Suggesting that each are non tax compliant as well as each having the neck to have a swimming pool is a bit risky.


Any evidence to back any of this up?
Or is it man with two pints/leaky pipe time again?

2018 style

dense wrote: »

Suggesting that each are non tax compliant as well as each having the neck to have a swimming pool is a bit risky.


Any evidence to back any of this up?
Or is it man with two pints/leaky pipe time again?

With these pro water tax lads it's all whispering and innuendo.
Throw as much mud as possible and hope some of it sticks.
That's what you're dealing with, ex PS trying to protect the pension...

Jolly Red Giant

dense wrote: »

But do you think he's credible?

The Garda ? - I don't know - like I said I haven't seen the transcript of the trial. There is no indication that this Garda was on duty at the Jobstown protest. He did give evidence at the Jobstown trial as the Det Garda that arrested Scott Masterson in a dawn raid on his home and handcuffed him in front of his four year-old who he was making school lunch for. Rooney denied that he handcuffed Masterson in front of his young child, but another Garda gave evidence that this in fact did happen.

dense wrote: »

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?

Do I believe the defendant ?

If he is suggesting that he was part of the protest and threw the rock because 'everyone else was' - then I absolutely do not believe him - because the evidence is clear that it never happened. The rock throwing by this individual occurred after the end of the Jobstown protest, after the Garda had withdrawn, in a different location and while the Gardai were serving an arrest warrant - it had absolutely nothing to do with the Jobstown protest, despite the best efforts of the national media to portray it as such.

Jolly Red Giant

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.

Why ?

Do you not think that Joan Burton should be ashamed of implementing policies that cause widespread poverty and homelessness ?

Do you not think that Joan Burton should be ashamed of turning up to a graduation when the local graduates stated that they did not want her there ?

Do you not think that Joan Burton should be ashamed of using the opening of a food bank as a photo op?

Do you not think that Joan Burton should be ashamed of lying in court in an attempt to get six innocent people jailed ?

Do you not think the Gardai should be ashamed for engaging in a political witch hunt against anti-water charges campaigners?

Do you not think the Gardai should be ashamed for giving false testimony in court in an attempt to stitch up six innocent men for a very serious crime?

Do you not think that Leo Varadkar should be ashamed for using Dail privilege to tell lies about the Jobstown defendants AFTER they were acquitted ?

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Communities have a right to protest against the imposition of unwanted and unnecessary water meters. The Gardai were used as private security for a private company that was making €millions out of the attempt to foist water charges on working class people. This was the same private company that got a write off of debts by state owned banks. The community protests were peaceful and were subjected to violence from the Gardai and indiscriminate arrest of protesters.

As for the workers involved in installing the water meters. They have to make a decision for themselves as to whether they want to be part of a private company engaged in state sponsored suppression of local communities because they dare to oppose and unjust tax.

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

A start would be making those who have the money pay the tax that they owe - like Google, Apple, Starbucks etc. Then it would be an idea to make the richest 300 people in the country (the people who have seen their wealth double from €50billion to €100billion since the crash) pay their fair share of tax. Water charges are a regressive tax - it hits the poorest sections of the community hardest. If you want to make the tax exile with a holiday home and a swimming pool pay - then impose a wealth tax.

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Any attempt to impose water charges will be met with mass opposition - just as it was in the 1980s, the 1990s and during the most recent attempt.

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Do you actually believe this ?

Those who oppose water charges call for progressive taxation - which means taxing the tax exiles and those with the ability to pay more.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Garda ? - I don't know - like I said I haven't seen the transcript of the trial. There is no indication that this Garda was on duty at the Jobstown protest. He did give evidence at the Jobstown trial as the Det Garda that arrested Scott Masterson in a dawn raid on his home and handcuffed him in front of his four year-old who he was making school lunch for. Rooney denied that he handcuffed Masterson in front of his young child, but another Garda gave evidence that this in fact did happen.


Do I believe the defendant ?

If he is suggesting that he was part of the protest and threw the rock because 'everyone else was' - then I absolutely do not believe him - because the evidence is clear that it never happened. The rock throwing by this individual occurred after the end of the Jobstown protest, after the Garda had withdrawn, in a different location and while the Gardai were serving an arrest warrant - it had absolutely nothing to do with the Jobstown protest, despite the best efforts of the national media to portray it as such.

Not according to the reports. The Gardai were still present. How else did he manage to smash the rear window of a marked Garda car carrying 3 Gardai?

Shur, he’s a decent lad with only 39 convictions subsequent to this one.

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

Jolly Red Giant

2018 style wrote: »

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.....

You are absolutely correct - the behaviour of AGS during the investigation and the trial was reprehensible.

To have every single prosecution witness (with the exception of one Garda) giving proven false testimony demonstrates an utter contempt for the law. Furthermore, when the judge had to openly declare to the jury that they must consider whether three senior Gardai were engaged in an agenda against Paul Murphy to get him convicted and that they must ignore the Garda testimony that conflicted with video evidence - then you know the scale of the stitch-up that was attempted.

The alarming thing is that if there hadn't been video footage (and if the defendants themselves hadn't put a massive effort into finding video footage) - then these six men could have been convicted of a very serious criminal charge on the basis of what is now proven false testimony during the trial. That should be of concern to every single citizen in the country. And remember - a 14 year-old boy (at the time of the protest) was convicted on the exact same false Garda testimony by a judge in the judge-only Children's Court - a judge who ignored the evidence that the Gardai were providing false testimony in a case where the conviction was overturned and thrown out after the Jobstown defendants were acquitted. Furthermore, there is also a serious matter over the fact that Gardai doctored their written statements under instruction after viewing CCTV footage of the protest.

As for an inquiry - Solidarity and the JobstownNotGuilty campaign repreatedly called for a public inquiry into the actions of the Gardai during the trial - this has been consistently blocked by the government (a government that started the political witch hunt against the Jobstown defendants and has continued to lie about them after they were found innocent of the charges they faced).

The initial Garda review called the policing of the protest a 'qualified success'. On 7 July 2017 Varadkar (under enormous public pressure) called for an investigation into the Garda testimony at the trial - but - again - ruled out a public inquiry. At the end of July the Policing Authority gave out about the lack of urgency and interest in reviewing the Jobstown case. The authority’s statement said that they were “reassured to note that the review would encompass the incident on the day, the investigation and the evidence.” Nóirín O’Sullivan then stated that the conduct of Garda witnesses who testified at the trial will not form part of a review - and this created another sh*t-storm.

In March 2018 an internal Garda review stated in relation to the Garda operation during the protest that there was “little indication of any strategic control or direction into how this event was managed”. In relation to the investigation and trial the review found that, “from an objective perspective” this investigation was brought to a successful conclusion, with a significant number of files submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions “in an efficient and expeditious manner”. It acknowledged that “not all of the existing policies and procedures were followed to the letter”, but found there was “more than sufficient compliance” and in cases where non-compliance was encountered, this did not affect the overall outcome of the investigation. The review noted that, when set against the benchmark of court outcomes, “it is questionable as to how successful this investigation actually was”.

In other words there was a complete whitewash of the antics of the cops during the protest, during the subsequent investigation and during the trial. The process was not designed to investigate how and why the Garda investigation clearly breached their own regulations that they should seek evidence as to the innocence as well as the guilt of defendants (they consciously excluded any investigation into evidence that would demonstrate innocence of the defendants) and why the Gardai gave false testimony in the witness box - the entire process was into how they made a f*ck-up of the attempt to stitch-up the defendants and why they didn't get away with it.

The 'Review' clearly demonstrates that the Gardai did not learn any lessons from the investigation and the trial in terms of conducting the investigation in a balanced and fair manner (which they are legally obliged to do) or from the fact that they were caught, repeatedly, giving false testimony during the trial.

That is something that every citizen in the state needs to be clearly concerned about - it is not just a few rotten apples - all the scandals over the past few years demonstrate that the who barrel is rotten to the core.

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

Not according to the reports. The Gardai were still present. How else did he manage to smash the rear window of a marked Garda car carrying 3 Gardai?

Shur, he’s a decent lad with only 39 convictions subsequent to this one.

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

From the Jobstown court transcript - the Garda operation at the Jobstown protest ended at 3.45pm and the Gardai were withdrawn. The incident with the brick occurred a couple of hours later (at least 90 minutes) - in a different location and after the Garda sent riot police in to serve an arrest warrant.

There is actually a serious question over whether the Gardai made a conscious decision to blanket the area with cops, using the arrest warrant as an excuse, in an attempt to provoke a reaction from the local community and then use it for the purposes of attacking the protest.

And of course he is a decent lad - sure Garda Rooney said so - the same Garda that led a dawn raid on Scott Masterson's home and, despite acknowledged complete cooperation from Masterson, handcuffed him in front of his clearly distressed child (for no other reason other than to terrorise the family and use it as a stunt to denigrate the Jobstown defendants).

dense

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The Garda ?

Do I believe the defendant ?

I've offered two separate reports of the defendant saying under oath or his solicitor agreeing that there were rocks thrown at the protest.



He had at the time 39 previous convictions.


The other possibility is that maybe he was mistaken about others throwing rocks (I dont think any others were charged with throwing rocks) and his mistake is all that is perpetuating the story that rocks were thrown at the protest?

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

Shur, he’s a decent lad with only 39 convictions subsequent to this one.

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

It seems as if you might not find his reports of others throwing rocks credible then.


He doesn't sound particularly trustworthy with all those previous convictions does he?


Likely to make errors of judgement I'd say.
Like the 39 previous errors.

Jolly Red Giant

dense wrote: »

I've offered two separate reports of the defendant saying under oath or his solicitor agreeing that there were rocks thrown at the protest.



He had at the time 39 previous convictions.


The other possibility is that maybe he was mistaken about others throwing rocks (I dont think any others were charged with throwing rocks) and his mistake is all that is perpetuating the story that rocks were thrown at the protest?

I will repeat this one last time -

1. The video evidence (the CCTV footage from multiple cameras) demonstrated that no rocks were thrown at any stage during the Jobstown protest. If rocks had been thrown it would have been a central part of the evidence from the prosecution during the Jobstown trial,

2. The police operation where this action of this individual throwing a brick through the window of the cop car occurred AFTER the ending of the Jobstown protest, in a different location and during a Garda operation to serve an arrest warrant - it had no connection what so ever with the Jobstown protest (and no effort was made by the prosecution during the trial to claim that it was - it was never discussed).

Now - there are two choices - you can believe Garda Rooney who claims that the defendant's solicitor said it occurred during the Jobstown protest - we don't know if the solicitor actually made this assertion - (and remember Garda Rooney was one of the Gardai who was proven to have given false testimony during the Jobstown trial) - and you can believe an individual with 39 previous convictions - OR - you can believe the proven evidence given at the Jobstown trial.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I will repeat this one last time -

1. The video evidence (the CCTV footage from multiple cameras) demonstrated that no rocks were thrown at any stage during the Jobstown protest. If rocks had been thrown it would have been a central part of the evidence from the prosecution during the Jobstown trial,

2. The police operation where this action of this individual throwing a brick through the window of the cop car occurred AFTER the ending of the Jobstown protest, in a different location and during a Garda operation to serve an arrest warrant - it had no connection what so ever with the Jobstown protest (and no effort was made by the prosecution during the trial to claim that it was - it was never discussed).

Now - there are two choices - you can believe Garda Rooney who claims that the defendant's solicitor said it occurred during the Jobstown protest - we don't know if the solicitor actually made this assertion - (and remember Garda Rooney was one of the Gardai who was proven to have given false testimony during the Jobstown trial) - and you can believe an individual with 39 previous convictions - OR - you can believe the proven evidence given at the Jobstown trial.

I think you need research your claims again. Joan Burton left the area at 3.45. This incident happened in the same area 15 minutes later. The defendent admitted the charge. The 39 other offenses were AFTER the Jobstown one but previous to the sentencing for the Jobstown one.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fatheroftwo-22-who-threw-rock-through-garda-car-window-during-jobstown-water-protest-avoids-jail-36505022.html

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

The 39 other offenses were AFTER the Jobstown one but previous to the sentencing for the Jobstown one.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fatheroftwo-22-who-threw-rock-through-garda-car-window-during-jobstown-water-protest-avoids-jail-36505022.html

That's a very interesting point you've raised.


How do you read it, an error?


Checking the IT it also quite remarkably claims that all his previous convictions occurred after this conviction too.


That's gibberish.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-who-smashed-garda-car-window-in-jobstown-protest-gets-suspended-sentence-1.3360716?mode=amp





Something's not quite right about the quality of reporting on both the Independent and the Irish Times.

Collins has 39 previous convictions, all for road traffic offences committed subsequent to this criminal damage offence.

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you need research your claims again. Joan Burton left the area at 3.45. This incident happened in the same area 15 minutes later. The defendent admitted the charge. The 39 other offenses were AFTER the Jobstown one but previous to the sentencing for the Jobstown one.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/fatheroftwo-22-who-threw-rock-through-garda-car-window-during-jobstown-water-protest-avoids-jail-36505022.html

This is inaccurate - the Jobstown trail transcripts show that Joan Burton and Karen O'Connell were driven from the area at 3.30 and that the Garda operation ended at 3.45.

This incident occurred in a different location - at least 90 minutes after the end of the protest - and as part of a different Garda operation to serve an arrest warrant.

It has nothing to do with the Jobstown protest.

What transpired in this trial and the conviction of this individual bears no relevance to the Jobstown protest - the guy admitted guilt and there was no challenge to any claims that were being made.

If this incident had been part of the Jobstown protest and if this brick had been thrown during the Jobstown protest then it would have been a central part of the prosecution case - hell - practically all the evidence presented by the prosecution during the Jobstown trial was proven to be false and fabricated, why would the prosecution have passed up the opportunity of using this incident if it had actually occurred during the protest.

The assertions you are making are nonsensical.

Jolly Red Giant

dense wrote: »

Something's not quite right about the quality of reporting on both the Independent and the Irish Times.

If only some others would understand what is very clear to see.

dense

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

If only some others would understand what is very clear to see.

Very ropey reporting, and curious how both papers emitted the same waffle.

dense

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

This is inaccurate - the Jobstown trail transcripts show that Joan Burton and Karen O'Connell were driven from the area at 3.30 and that the Garda operation ended at 3.45.

This incident occurred in a different location - at least 90 minutes after the end of the protest - and as part of a different Garda operation to serve an arrest warrant.

It has nothing to do with the Jobstown protest.

What transpired in this trial and the conviction of this individual bears no relevance to the Jobstown protest - the guy admitted guilt and there was no challenge to any claims that were being made.

If this incident had been part of the Jobstown protest and if this brick had been thrown during the Jobstown protest then it would have been a central part of the prosecution case - hell - practically all the evidence presented by the prosecution during the Jobstown trial was proven to be false and fabricated, why would the prosecution have passed up the opportunity of using this incident if it had actually occurred during the protest.

The assertions you are making are nonsensical.

The more one looks at it the more it appears that this guy decided to jump on the protest bandwagon in order to explain his thuggery.



It seems accurate to say that he had nothing to do with the protest, and was not protesting against anything.

2018 style

dense wrote: »

The more one looks at it the more it appears that this guy decided to jump on the protest bandwagon in order to explain his thuggery.



It seems accurate to say that he had nothing to do with the protest, and was not protesting against anything.

Yea, but he's probably Murphy's bessie mate etc etc...
You know the score around here...

James Brown

BarryD2 wrote: »

What's your definition of reasonable water use?? You may consider that 'you don't waste water' but that depends on what you consider normal use. If that includes regularly watering your lawn & washing your car, filling paddling pools, extensive household use of power showers etc., then you are likely are wasting water.

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.

What will bring the matter home is when public water has to be rationed from tankers in Greater Dublin. Only then will the message start to sink in. Wait till you are hauling buckets of water to flush your jacks and then you'll know all about it.

Where did I say there was no problem and everything was grand? It's not IW/metering or sticking your head in the sand. Everyone accepts there's issues need addressing.

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

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.

Some people are arseh*les. Some people litter, some break traffic lights. You could also argue, 'I'll use as much as I like, I'm paying for it'.
All I can say is the idea of charging for water had more to do with a new income to be likely squandered on some nonsense than saving water. If it was a genuine major concern to them like they pretended in 2011, it would have been given as much effort as bailing out private gamblers or financing developers and landlords with tax payer monies. All arguments aside, I heard no mention of magic money trees on that one, nor on Reilly's clinics. I do not believe Fine Gael give tuppence ha'penny about the water infrastructure. And now that metering is scuttled they'll no longer be arsed pretending.

dense

dense wrote: »

That's a very interesting point you've raised.


How do you read it, an error?


Checking the IT it also quite remarkably claims that all his previous convictions occurred after this conviction too.


That's gibberish.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-who-smashed-garda-car-window-in-jobstown-protest-gets-suspended-sentence-1.3360716?mode=amp





Something's not quite right about the quality of reporting on both the Independent and the Irish Times.

I read it that the lad went off the rails around that time. He accepted his guilt and was spared prison for throwing the brick shortly after Joan Burton left the area.

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

I read it that the lad went off the rails around that time.

You could be right there.

Jolly Red Giant

Deleted User wrote: »

He accepted his guilt and was spared prison for throwing the brick shortly after Joan Burton left the area.

The fact that Joan Burton had even been in Jobstown is utterly irrelevant.

Captain Obvious

We're going to be paying more for our water. The network needs massive overhaul. The only question is who will be paying for it and how will they be paying for it. The water charges gave a shot at sharing the burden among users and reducing the effect on the state finances. Now the money will likely come from general taxation at the expense of other things or at extra expense to tax payers. I'd like to see it taken from VAT rather than paye or usc. At least the same old working suckers won't be paying out for everyone else on their own

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The fact that Joan Burton had even been in Jobstown is utterly irrelevant.

It’s very relevant. Everything I’ve read about this particular case says that the brick throwing incident happened 15 minutes after she’d left the area. There was still a large Garda presence there.

James Brown

Captain Obvious wrote: »

We're going to be paying more for our water. The network needs massive overhaul. The only question is who will be paying for it and how will they be paying for it. The water charges gave a shot at sharing the burden among users and reducing the effect on the state finances. Now the money will likely come from general taxation at the expense of other things or at extra expense to tax payers. I'd like to see it taken from VAT rather than paye or usc. At least the same old working suckers won't be paying out for everyone else on their own

I think general taxation is the fairest way considering who the players are. It makes politicians less likely to engage in cronyism and sweet deals, not saying it'll stop them.
The big problem with any model is Fine Gael have been shown that they cannot be trusted to look after such a venture and I don't hold out any hope of FF doing any better. Even if one of them came out with a model all could agree on, I would still be against FG/FF overseeing any aspect of it.
The tax payer is paying either way. Those on welfare or low incomes will be subsidised either way. Whether it's charges or general taxation, the tax payer will be taking money from somewhere else to pay it too.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

There is a separate thread from last year about the Jobstown Trial. While there may be very specific and limited instances whereby an aspect of that trial may be relevant to the current position of water charges, this is not a thread for discussing the pros and cons of how that trial ran, how the gardai behaved, how it was reported and in particular it is not for casting aspersions on any of the persons who were acquitted during that trial or witnesses during the trial.

If anyone wants to discuss that trial, they can do so in this thread, obviously having regard to the mod warnings there and the charter:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103949304

2018 style wrote: »

Yea, but he's probably Murphy's bessie mate etc etc...
You know the score around here...

Mod note:

In your short period of time in this forum you have been backseat moderating, making vague allegations against other posters in general rather than debating points and ignoring the mod warning not to be sniping at other posters. Please read the charter and comply with same or you will not be permitted to post any further in the politics forum.

dense

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'd like to see it taken from VAT rather than paye or usc. At least the same old working suckers won't be paying out for everyone else on their own

The same old suckers will be paying.

VAT is what those on social welfare point to when they say everyone pays taxes.



One only pays VAT with money received on social welfare because money raised from the taxes of others provides that money to be spent to begin with.



The same as the taxes teachers pay, because their wages come from the general private sector workforce.


No private sector beavering away means no wages for the public sector.



What is needed is a simple appraisal.
The Shannon project is going to cost 1.5bn.


Cost the full overhaul of the system, say its €10bn.


Whatever it is, spread it out over 20 years, no major burden and if its as good work as the Victorians did, it should last another hundred years.


Instead they're farting around piecemeal with bits and pieces.



There is €315bn EU funding available for infrastructure and water but we're not applying for it.

Autochange

Can it not be taken from the USC. Remember the temporary tax.

dense

Autochange wrote: »

Can it not be taken from the USC. Remember the temporary tax.

It could be, except those who designed the utility system and who want to pay water charges don't ever want it called a tax for reasons best known to themselves.



Probably something to do with keeping options open for the future liberalisation of water supplies.



I suppose you couldn't really have Irish Water and its competitors collecting taxes.....


Heads do need to be knocked together to come up with a smart and acceptable plan.

dense

Some seem to think that water charges solve problems.
We saw that they certainly don't encourage conservation.
Now we see that they do little to protect the environment:

There are between 25,000 and 31,000 combined sewer overflows around the UK coast that discharge raw, untreated or lightly treated human sewage, particularly after periods of heavy rain or during breakdowns in the sewerage system.

Over 4,500 wet wipes were found on one 154m sq patch of foreshore at our latest Thames River Watch citizen science event, the biannual Big Count: the highest number ever found in one place.

https://www.thames21.org.uk/2017/04/17995/

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Some seem to think that water charges solve problems.
We saw that they certainly don't encourage conservation.
Now we see that they do little to protect the environment:


https://www.thames21.org.uk/2017/04/17995/

I don't know. Compared to the well-documented problems in Ireland -

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/epa-criticises-irish-water-for-sewage-treatment-failures-in-dublin-and-cork-1.3266134

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/raw-sewage-entering-water-in-44-places-around-ireland-1.3266141

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1024/914731-epa_-_irish_water/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sewage-plants-serving-rural-areas-primitive-34586463.html


- I would think that the issues in water charges UK are much smaller.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know. Compared to the well-documented problems in Ireland -

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/epa-criticises-irish-water-for-sewage-treatment-failures-in-dublin-and-cork-1.3266134

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/raw-sewage-entering-water-in-44-places-around-ireland-1.3266141

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1024/914731-epa_-_irish_water/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sewage-plants-serving-rural-areas-primitive-34586463.html


- I would think that the issues in water charges UK are much smaller.

Worse actually.



One third of the rivers in England and Wales have raw sewage discharged into them.


With 80% of rivers failing to meet "good ecological status".


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/raw-sewage-uk-rivers-pollution-england-wales-wwf-wildlife-a8006246.html

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Worse actually.



One third of the rivers in England and Wales have raw sewage discharged into them.


With 80% of rivers failing to meet "good ecological status".


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/raw-sewage-uk-rivers-pollution-england-wales-wwf-wildlife-a8006246.html

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/urban-waste-water-treatment/urban-waste-water-treatment-assessment-4

The problem when you rely on sensational news articles is that they don't tell the real story.

If you look at figure 3 in the attached - the official EU figures - and the two graphs for the UK and Ireland, you will see how much worse off we are in Ireland for waste water treatment.

James Brown

Would the UK not include other countries besides England?

Belgium not faring too well. Closer to the IW model.

Service provision
The 589 municipalities of Belgium (308 in the Flemish region with 6.2 million inhabitants, 262 in the Walloon region with 3.4 million inhabitants and 19 in Brussels with 1.1 million inhabitants) are responsible for providing drinking water and sanitation services. However, most municipalities have delegated this task to regional or inter-municipal water or sanitation companies. In total, according to one source there were 72 water supply companies in Belgium in 2005.[8] However, another source indicates that there were more than about 62 water supply companies, including 2 regional companies, 30 inter-municipal utilities and 30 municipal utilities. Another 100 mostly small municipalities provide services directly without having a legally of financially separate entity for water supply.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Belgium#Responsibility_for_service_provision

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Would the UK not include other countries besides England?

Belgium not faring too well. Closer to the IW model.

I am not going to repost my link with actual facts, but you can go back and check it.

73% of Belgium's population covered by tertiary treatment (the most advanced), compared to 18% of Ireland's. No context there, Belgium treats their water far better than Ireland.

What the newspaper articles do show is that countries like Belgium and the UK take their water treatment problems seriously at the public discussion level. Our coverage is reflective of the silly attitude to water charges and water supply.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not going to repost my link with actual facts, but you can go back and check it.

73% of Belgium's population covered by tertiary treatment (the most advanced), compared to 18% of Ireland's. No context there, Belgium treats their water far better than Ireland.

What the newspaper articles do show is that countries like Belgium and the UK take their water treatment problems seriously at the public discussion level. Our coverage is reflective of the silly attitude to water charges and water supply.

I know you don't put much stock in newspaper articles that disagree with you and ignore official figures blaming ill thought out metrics when they don't agree with you and...I forget where I was going.
here's a nice tit-bit. Just pointing out it's not all roses when companies come in either.

Water supply and sanitation in Belgium is provided by a large variety of organizations: Most of the 589 municipalities of Belgium have delegated the responsibility for water supply and sanitation to regional or inter-municipal utilities. There are more than 62 water supply utilities, including 2 regional, 30 inter-municipal and 30 municipal utilities. Another 100 mostly small municipalities provide services directly without having a legally of financially separate entity for water supply.[1] Water is not scarce in Belgium and water supply is generally continuous and of good quality. However, wastewater treatment has long lagged behind and Brussels only achieved full treatment of its wastewater in 2007. In 2004 the European Court of Justice ruled condemning Belgium's failure to comply with the EU wastewater directive, and the ruling has not been fully complied with so far. Wallonia satisfies 55% of the national needs in drinking water while it counts only 37% of the population. Flanders and Brussels are dependent on drinking water from Wallonia, at a level of 40% and 98% respectively.

An interesting aspect of the Belgian water and sanitation sector is the recognition of a basic right to water. The Walloon and Brussels Regions have set up Social Funds for Water, which provide financial support to people having difficulties to pay their water bill, while in Flanders everyone has the right to a minimal supply of 15 m³ (41 liter/capita/day) of free water per person per year.

The average water tariff in Belgium for large users in 2008 was Euro 8.92 per cubic meter, the second-highest among 14 industrial countries compared in a recent survey. Between 2003 and 2008 water tariffs in Belgium had increased by 80%, the highest increase in that period among all 14 countries.[2]

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I know you don't put much stock in newspaper articles that disagree with you and ignore official figures blaming ill thought out metrics when they don't agree with you and...I forget where I was going.
here's a nice tit-bit. Just pointing out it's not all roses when companies come in either.

The facts show that Ireland are right down at the bottom when it comes to waste water treatment. Belgium aren't as bad when it comes to the issue but are far from the best, probably in the group of countries above Ireland.

You say it is "not all roses when companies come in." I don't know where you draw that conclusion. The key issue when it comes to Belgium is the dispersed nature of the provision - 62 water supply utilities in a country not much different to Ireland. We have one.

100 Belgian local authorities involved in providing supply. Need I say more? That is where the problem is.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The facts show that Ireland are right down at the bottom when it comes to waste water treatment. Belgium aren't as bad when it comes to the issue but are far from the best, probably in the group of countries above Ireland.

You say it is "not all roses when companies come in." I don't know where you draw that conclusion. The key issue when it comes to Belgium is the dispersed nature of the provision - 62 water supply utilities in a country not much different to Ireland. We have one.

100 Belgian local authorities involved in providing supply. Need I say more? That is where the problem is.

I draw the conclusion from the excerpt I quoted in my post you quoted. Did you miss it?
But there is a similar model, areas, local government handing over responsibility to a water company. You seem to think LA's are some completely separate organisation. They are merely local government.
If the argument is IW is great because one body can oversee everything, why have LA's at all in any regard? Also, why have IW when we've the DoE?

Idbatterim

the water quality in my family home in Roscommon, is so bad with limescale, I am now buying 5L bottles for the kettle and drinking water. This bull**** we used to hear about the water charges and it just falling from the sky! LOL! It costs serious money to provide a fit for purpose water system! On the meters front, unless they charged per litre, they seem pretty poor value to me...

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

the water quality in my family home in Roscommon, is so bad with limescale, I am now buying 5L bottles for the kettle and drinking water. This bull**** we used to hear about the water charges and it just falling from the sky! LOL! It costs serious money to provide a fit for purpose water system! On the meters front, unless they charged per litre, they seem pretty poor value to me...

I think everyone agrees the system is in need of overhaul.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/urban-waste-water-treatment/urban-waste-water-treatment-assessment-4

The problem when you rely on sensational news articles is that they don't tell the real story.

If you look at figure 3 in the attached - the official EU figures - and the two graphs for the UK and Ireland, you will see how much worse off we are in Ireland for waste water treatment.

It doesn't help that Irish Water is mismanaging some of the treatment plants either and making reporting errors to the EPA.


https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/wastewater/Urban%2520waste%2520water%2520report%2520for%25202016%2520Final%2520Version.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjlib2Z2NHcAhWkI8AKHX2EAqQQFggNMAE&usg=AOvVaw1qEAzmV3-OvRC94lHpU1lB

Three areas, which Irish Water previously misreported as receiving primary treatment, were
found to be discharging raw sewage in 2016. These are Glin and Foynes in Limerick and
Newport in Mayo.





7 Operation and maintenance
Some waste water treatment problems can be solved without capital investment. Operating
and maintaining the existing treatment systems, to make the best use of them, can improve
performance and effluent quality. The following are some of the operational issues identified
by the EPA during 2016.





At year end, 74 environmental incidents which were unresolved and likely to recur,
were caused by operation and management issues at treatment plants 5
.
 EPA inspections at 24 treatment plants found there was no maintenance programme
in place. Maintenance is key to minimising breakdowns and ensuring the correct
operation of equipment.
 Discharges from 12 large urban areas failed the Directive’s quality standards, despite
these areas having sufficient treatment capacity. These include Portarlington, where
the EPA took legal action to resolve operational problems.
Maintenance should take a preventative or predictive approach, so that risks are identified
and addressed before they can become a problem. This helps to keep equipment in the
best condition. Treatment plant performance will also benefit from greater source control, for
example through Irish Water’s regulation of discharges into sewers.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

It doesn't help that Irish Water is mismanaging some of the treatment plants either and making reporting errors to the EPA.


https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/wastewater/Urban%2520waste%2520water%2520report%2520for%25202016%2520Final%2520Version.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjlib2Z2NHcAhWkI8AKHX2EAqQQFggNMAE&usg=AOvVaw1qEAzmV3-OvRC94lHpU1lB

I read somewhere else on this site that the plural of anecdote is not data. Similarly, the plural of news story is not data either.

I have produced the data which shows that only countries like Malta and some of the East Europeans are worse than us in terms of waste water treatment, thanks to a century of incompetence from local authorities and the lack of a stable financial arrangement like water charges.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

I read somewhere else on this site that the plural of anecdote is not data. Similarly, the plural of news story is not data either.

I have produced the data which shows that only countries like Malta and some of the East Europeans are worse than us in terms of waste water treatment, thanks to a century of incompetence from local authorities and the lack of a stable financial arrangement like water charges.

Your interpretation of the data is faulty, or skewed by bias.



Ireland's bathing water quality has worsened as a direct result of Irish Water appearing on the scene.


The quality was higher before water charges were introduced here.



Ireland had the joint sixth worst level of bathing water quality in the EU in 2016 with 92.9% of bathing water sites classified as being of sufficient water quality, compared with an EU average of 96.3%.



The results for the 2011 bathing season show that overall, the quality of bathing water in Ireland improved in comparison with the 2010 equivalent. Overall, 98.5 per cent (133 out of 135) of bathing areas complied with the EU mandatory standard, equating to ‘sufficient’ water quality. This is the highest number complying with the EU mandatory standard since 2000.



https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii18/mainfindings/



http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-bathing-water-quality-improved-in-2011-438680-May2012/