Water charges for excessive usage

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Links were provided. The fact that they were ignoring or dismissed is not my problem.

You did not provide any link to what you claimed in regards a plumber.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Links were provided. The fact that they were ignoring or dismissed is not my problem.

Can you please post a link to where your link is on this thread?

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Irish Water didn’t handle the conservation grant.

It wasn`t a grant to conserve water. There was no stipulation to conserve water.

It was an attempted bribe for no other reason than to keep Irish Water alive.


The Dept. of Social Protection acted as the fence, but the money stolen from the taxpayer was carried out by Fine Gael on behalf of Irish Water.

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

It wasn`t a grant to conserve water. There was no stipulation to conserve water.

It was an attempted bribe for no other reason than to keep Irish Water alive.


The Dept. of Social Protection acted as the fence, but the money stolen from the taxpayer was carried out by Fine Gael on behalf of Irish Water.

Interesting use of ‘criminal’ terminology there, such as ‘fence’ and ‘stolen’?

I don’t think there was criminality involved other than installing staff being threatened, it’s reported.

Apparently there were over 60 reports of such ‘events’ reported in the news media.

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Interesting use of ‘criminal’ terminology there, such as ‘fence’ and ‘stolen’?

I don’t think there was criminality involved other than installing staff being threatened, it’s reported.

Apparently there were over 60 reports of such ‘events’ reported in the news media.

Are you including the FG TD that stabbed the lad with a broken glass in the pub in your statistics bren?

Don't recall anything being reported that came close to that one lad.


Former TD SeConlan (FG) guilty of assault with broken glass

Former Fine Gael TD SeConlan has been found guilty of assaulting a customer with a broken glass last year in his family’s pub in Ballybay, Co Monaghan.

Following a full-day hearing in Monaghan District Court, Judge Conal Gibbons said it was clear that Conlan had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol and head-butted Enda Duffy, Annahia, Ballbay, and “used a glass to assault him thereafter”.

Court told of alleged pub arguments over water charges and Heather Humphreys

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Interesting use of ‘criminal’ terminology there, such as ‘fence’ and ‘stolen’?

I don’t think there was criminality involved other than installing staff being threatened, it’s reported.

Apparently there were over 60 reports of such ‘events’ reported in the news media.

The definition of a criminal offence is a public wrong, an act harmful to not just an individual but also to a community, society or the state.


The complete waste of taxpayers money on a political ideology for me was criminal in that it deprived the state and thus society of revenue that should have been put to better use.

Especially during a period of austerity during the worst recession in our history.

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

The definition of a criminal offence is a public wrong, an act harmful to not just an individual but also to a community, society or the state.


The complete waste of taxpayers money on a political ideology for me was criminal in that it deprived the state and thus society of revenue that should have been put to better use.

Especially during a period of austerity during the worst recession in our history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence_(criminal)

Like I said, interesting choice of terminology.

Brendan Bendar

McMurphy wrote: »

Are you including the FG TD that stabbed the lad with a broken glass in the pub in your statistics bren?

Don't recall anything being reported that came close to that one lad.


Former TD SeConlan (FG) guilty of assault with broken glass

No, didn’t realise it had anything to do with the cost of the installation of water meters.

Was there a connection with cost of meter installation?

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence_(criminal)

Like I said, interesting choice of terminology.

The fact that it cost the taxpayer even more with the Dept. of Social Protection facilitating the offence doesn`t excuse the Dept. of acting as a fence.

Fences like any enterprise can lose money.
Admittedly rarely I imagine on the scale of the Dept of Social Protection in this instance.

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

The fact that it cost the taxpayer even more with the Dept. of Social Protection facilitating the offence doesn`t excuse the Dept. of acting as a fence.

Fences like any enterprise can lose money.
Admittedly rarely I imagine on the scale of the Dept of Social Protection in this instance.

Like I said interesting choice of terminology......

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

No, didn’t realise it had anything to do with the cost of the installation of water meters.

Was there a connection with cost of meter installation?

I'll enlarge your own text that you seem to have forgotten that you posted.

Brenner wrote:

I don’t think there was criminality involved other than installing staff being threatened, it’s reported.

Lol, you're parody at this stage, both yourself and a few other busted flushes like to gloss over uncomfortable truths and soft the markers.

Brendan Bendar

McMurphy wrote: »

I'll enlarge your own text that you seem to have forgotten that you posted.




Lol, you're parody at this stage, both yourself and a few other busted flushes like to gloss over uncomfortable truths and soft the markers.

What are you on about now?

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

The fact that it cost the taxpayer even more with the Dept. of Social Protection facilitating the offence doesn`t excuse the Dept. of acting as a fence.

Fences like any enterprise can lose money.
Admittedly rarely I imagine on the scale of the Dept of Social Protection in this instance.

Is there any point to nonsense like this?

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence_(criminal)

Like I said, interesting choice of terminology.

In both case the reckless was of taxpayers money on Irish Water and the Dept.of Social Protection`s involvement fulfill the definitions of a criminal offence and acting as a fence.
You asked, I have shown you how, so I do not know what else I can do for you.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any point to nonsense like this?

Some statement considering the amount of nonsense you have posted on the subject.

Unlike your nonsense on this mysterious link that shows how exceeding allowances can be detected without a meter, I have show how both the waste of taxpayers money on water metering and the involvement of the Dept. fulfill the definitions.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any point to nonsense like this?

Welcome back to the thread Maryanne, any chance you might adhere to your own fairly high standards and provide a link to your claims, as per yesterday?

You seemed to have set the bar yesterday and then scarpered when asked for your own sources, not the first time either I might add.:)

McMurphy

McMurphy wrote: »

Welcome back to the thread Maryanne, any chance you might adhere to your own fairly high standards and provide a link to your claims, as per yesterday?

You seemed to have set the bar yesterday and then scarpered when asked for your own sources, not the first time either I might add.:)

What source are you looking for that I’ve not already provided?

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

What source are you looking for that I’ve not already provided?

At a guess the mysterious one that nobody can seem to find.

How to detect exceeding the allowance without the use of a water meter.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What source are you looking for that I’ve not already provided?

You made a claim some time back that a competent plumber could say what usage of a dwelling was without the aid of a meter. You were asked by multiple posters myself included to provide evidence as to how this could be done. To date you have failed to do so. Claiming you posted links to back up your claim is dishonest. Just be honest enough to admit you made a ridiculous claim.

Bass Reeves

charlie14 wrote: »

The definition of a criminal offence is a public wrong, an act harmful to not just an individual but also to a community, society or the state.


The complete waste of taxpayers money on a political ideology for me was criminal in that it deprived the state and thus society of revenue that should have been put to better use.

Especially during a period of austerity during the worst recession in our history.

What political ideology. Water meters have been proposed by politicians of all ideologies. Mistake that was made was following the green agenda. A water charge should have been imposed just like the household charge and then put on water meters. Labour party was too busy looking over it shoulders at the Greens. If a water charge had been imposed and had used revenue to collect it just like household charge we all be paying today.

Government got the cart before the horse. Labour received it rightful thanks in the next election for it carry on during that government

Plumbthedepths

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What political ideology. Water meters have been proposed by politicians of all ideologies. Mistake that was made was following the green agenda. A water charge should have been imposed just like the household charge and then put on water meters. Labour party was too busy looking over it shoulders at the Greens. If a water charge had been imposed and had used revenue to collect it just like household charge we all be paying today.

Government got the cart before the horse. Labour received it rightful thanks in the next election for it carry on during that government

I was asked for my suggestion as to how to pay for water. I suggested similar to what you suggest. Simple method everyone pays no escaping Revenue.
Makes you wonder why FG took the route they did, although I strongly suspect it was a privatisation ideology that created the mess we have now.

charlie14

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What political ideology. Water meters have been proposed by politicians of all ideologies. Mistake that was made was following the green agenda. A water charge should have been imposed just like the household charge and then put on water meters. Labour party was too busy looking over it shoulders at the Greens. If a water charge had been imposed and had used revenue to collect it just like household charge we all be paying today.

Government got the cart before the horse. Labour received it rightful thanks in the next election for it carry on during that government

Others may have paid it lip-service but none were dumb enough to attempt it.
FG were not following the Green agenda in introducing metering.
The Greens did not even have a TD in the 31st. Dáil.

It was FG`s own brain fart. Labour had campaigned against water charges, but played ball to get their behinds on cabinet seats. Something they got their just rewards for in 2016, but FG didn`t go unscathed either.

They could have used revenue, but then there would have been no possibility of privatisation down the line, Something that FG ideologically are very favourable towards

McMurphy

Bringing in revenue would undoubtedly have brought compliance rates up towards 100%.

The problem with revenue is - saving private O'Brien wouldn't have been as well rewarded in some future deal.

Mobile phone - Water Meters - broadband all while fg had their well padded holes in govt chairs.

Coincidence?

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

At a guess the mysterious one that nobody can seem to find.

How to detect exceeding the allowance without the use of a water meter.

Actually, I think other posters gave details on how to detect excessive use too. I suggested asking any plumber, as I don’t think my plumbers word would be good enough for ye. The link I posted was from a newspaper article. I doubt that’d satisfy ye either.

Some of the ridiculous claims made include the one that an offence was committed by a DSP fence. Another was that our details could be accessed through the meters!

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, I think other posters gave details on how to detect excessive use too. I suggested asking any plumber, as I don’t think my plumbers word would be good enough for ye. The link I posted was from a newspaper article. I doubt that’d satisfy ye either.

Some of the ridiculous claims made include the one that an offence was committed by a DSP fence. Another was that our details could be accessed through the meters!

No link to your source so?

Fair enough.

Idbatterim

How is this thread still going? While water charges make sense in a non banana republic. Here you would have half the population paying for the fifty Percent “ vulneable “ the usual story in this kip. take it out of general taxation. Far “ fairer “

Nevin Parsnipp

Idbatterim wrote: »

How is this thread still going? While water charges make sense in a non banana republic. Here you would have half the population paying for the fifty Percent “ vulneable “ the usual story in this kip. take it out of general taxation. Far “ fairer “

Pat really does not do"fair" very well though....he prefers to leave things a bit vague...so TD'S can have the ability to do favours for their constituents.

Having Revenue involved means no grey areas.

Pat does not like that.....

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, I think other posters gave details on how to detect excessive use too. I suggested asking any plumber, as I don’t think my plumbers word would be good enough for ye. The link I posted was from a newspaper article. I doubt that’d satisfy ye either.

Some of the ridiculous claims made include the one that an offence was committed by a DSP fence. Another was that our details could be accessed through the meters!

None that was plausible, which fair play to them, recognised that in discussion.

You on the other hand have kept up the myth that it is possible with your referring to a link that doesn`t exist, and the opinion of one plumber.
A plumber that you happen to be married too by any chance ?

charlie14

Nevin Parsnipp wrote: »

Pat really does not do"fair" very well though....he prefers to leave things a bit vague...so TD'S can have the ability to do favours for their constituents.

Having Revenue involved means no grey areas.

Pat does not like that.....

Can you be regarded as any TD`s constituent if you are a tax exile registered in Malta.;)

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

None that was plausible, which fair play to them, recognised that in discussion.

You on the other hand have kept up the myth that it is possible with your referring to a link that doesn`t exist, and the opinion of one plumber.
A plumber that you happen to be married too by any chance ?

You believe that it’s not plausible. That’s your opinion, which you’re entitled to. The beauty of Boards is that discussion and differences are allowed and encouraged.

How do you know that it wouldn’t work?

And, no. I’m not Married “too” a plumber.