Bin 'tax' protesters - Jail'em or Fine'em?

PH01

When the bin tax protestor refuse to abide by a court ruling and they continue to blockade the bin lorries, would it be better to jail them or fine them?

I would be in favour of fining them rather than having them bask in the glory of going to jail.

What do you think?

IgnatiusJRiley

Jail them AND fine them... and jail them for a decent length of time too

Imposter

Burn them!

PH01

Originally posted by Imposter
Burn them!

Like to, but don't you know that incineration is a no-no in this country?

ReefBreak

Jail them. Their actions are directly affecting thousands in the Dublin area, from an environmental and health point of view.

But I would like to take this oppurtunity to thank the Far-Left for providing one of the most entertaining political campaigns of the last few years. How I've laughed as I've watched a group of Socialist/SWP people badly run, badly represent and badly debate a ridiculous "struggle" that nobody wants. Everyone knows they're simply doing it to try and gain seats in next years local elections - but they may have achieved the complete opposite. Their campaign is about to implode (probably with the usual Left-Wing in-fighting and bickering), and the only thing they've gained is the comtempt of the vast majority of Dublin householders. Expect repercussions in the next Local and General elections. No wonder the Labour Party have kept relatively quiet on the issue over the last few weeks.

AngelofFire

I consider myself to have left of centre political views but i am totally opposed to any form of double taxation which includes bin charges. There was a time when i came home from work everyweek knowing that all the public services that i have availed off had been payed for by the deductions made in my weekly wage.

But no longer. they are asking us to pay more money for the service just so they can maintain a system of taxation that favours the super rich. i mean fair is fair if the authorities are short of money they can go after the people who are earning upwards of 100,000 euro per year. An increase in taxation of 0.5% on their part will surely pay for the new santiation service without having to alter their lifestyles one bit. fair is fair they wont even notice this deduction from their income. it makes more sense then making the people who earn below 30,000 pay a weekly fee.

I dont agree with the concept of blocking lorries as the lorry drivers are workers trying to earn a living from themselves. i think the anti bin tax protesters should go after the big shots in the service. jailing them is completly ludicris considering that the likes of lawlor, burke etc can get away with millions of euro worth of tax evasion at a time when the country was short of funding for essential public services.

mike65

Anyone seen "A Life of Grime" on BBC1 thats what I'd have em doing!

Mike.

Sparks

Why is everyone so enthuaistic about seeing the bin tax protestors taken to court and jailed or fined for protesting - but noone wants to see the council take one to court for nonpayment???.
Were someone to take a bin tax protest representative (and I mean a real representative, not a SWP bandwagon passanger) to court on the basis of nonpayment, then the "is it an unfair double tax or not" argument could be heard in court.

Mind you, the last time that the bin tax protestors went to court, the court ruled in their favour.
I wonder if that could be influencing those who make these decisions?

Originally posted by mike65
Anyone seen "A Life of Grime" on BBC1 thats what I'd have em doing!

Mike.

Oh God Mike, I'd thought I'd put the one time I watched that programme out of my head for good :eek:

The filth , the dirt and the rats... :eek:

Originally posted by Sparks:
Mind you, the last time that the bin tax protestors went to court, the court ruled in their favour.
I wonder if that could be influencing those who make these decisions?

They've no decision to make on the matter really, those that don't or won't pay have had their grace, now they just won't be collected.
My oil lorry driver told me that they don't deliver oil to bad payers either surprisingly enough...
If he doesn't deliver the oil, they don't owe him any money.
If the rubbish ain't collected, then theres no money owed, so no case to persue... unless perhaps theres a case for Some compliant Bin charge payers to sue the protestors on account of the protesters freeloading during their Grace period.
I'd be willing to let that go though, by gones being by gones...

I'm sure you could write to the local council in the meantime, if a Bin tax protestor puts out their Rubbish and it causes a mess and ask the council to prosecute under some anti liter bye law or other...

mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
They've no decision to make on the matter really, those that don't or won't pay have had their grace, now they just won't be collected.

Ah, but as I said, the last time in the courts, they were told that they could not withhold removals for nonpayment.
In the context of that case, the court couldn't rule on the fairness of the tax - but if they took someone to court for nonpayment, then the court could rule on it.
Hence the reason I don't think much of the government's actions. In pushing the 2003 environment bill through the Dail, they effectively side-stepped a public court and dictated policy. Which isn't their job.

My oil lorry driver told me that they don't deliver oil to bad payers either surprisingly enough...

Yes, but they take the nonpayers to court to reclaim bad debts.

I'm sure you could write to the local council in the meantime, if a Bin tax protestor puts out their Rubbish and it causes a mess and ask the council to prosecute under some anti liter bye law or other...

Ah, back to 2001 cork city again.
You know Man, if I didn't know better, I'd swear you just wanted to see the Garda riot squad let loose on the protestors so you could see a skull cracked open on the 6.01 news, rather than actually wanting to see a better system put in place to deal with waste and to restrain government in the process.

Hence the reason I don't think much of the government's actions. In pushing the 2003 environment bill through the Dail, they effectively side-stepped a public court and dictated policy. Which isn't their job.

How do you make that out??
finance ministers effectively do an equivalent action to close loopholes in Tax law.
They shouldn't is that it??
Same principal.
Politicians are there to govern you know, thats their job
If enough people disagree with their actions, they tend to lose their job.

In fairness to you on this issue, Sparks, you were sort of dragged into being a devils advocate on the side of the Bin Tax protestors( in all the various threads, starting with the "one month in jail" thread and over in humanities ) when your true position from the outset is that you agree in principal with the charges as long as they are implimented fairly,theres no privatisation and the tax relief situation is tweeked a little bit.
The tweeking being for example, making sure that the Customer ie the house holder can claim the relief on a number of tags suffecient for their needs.

Now privatisation works in many areas more especially where theres competition and choice, but I would agree here that regulation is required in an area as essential as waste management when it has been privatised.
I'd imagine though that if the price got too high, either competition would enter the market or the politicians would step in to regulate the situation as more and more costly waivers would be issued, and thats something , they wouldn't like mushrooming
I've made my own position clear I hope as have others of the same persuasion on the "double taxation" issue, the slight quirks that have been discussed notwithstanding.

mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
How do you make that out??

Because dictators dictate, while governments are supposed to govern according to the will of the people. The people in this case weren't asked - in fact they'd made it rather clear through years of protesting and legal actions that they expressly did not want this measure - and the government did it anyway. That's not governing according to the will of the people, that's dictating. And we didn't appoint a dictatorship last time I checked...

finance ministers effectively do an equivalent action to close loopholes in Tax law.
They shouldn't is that it??
Same principal.

It's not the same thing, nor is it the same principle Man.

Politicians are there to govern you know, thats their job

Hmmm. Not quite - unless you know something Pat Rabbitte doesn't

If enough people disagree with their actions, they tend to lose their job.

Assuming that those people don't think that the problem is solved. After the court case in 2001, the councils dropped the bin tax actions until after the elections ended. And in the meantime, as we all know, much spending on publicly visible projects took place and many lies were told.
That does (unfortunately) seem to influence election outcomes
Besides which - what if you object strongly to a party's policy on issue A, and really agree with their policy on issue B - and judge those issues equally important?
That's why I don't agree with representative democracy - you'll rarely find you can choose a party whose political policy profile matches yours.

In fairness to you on this issue, Sparks, you were sort of dragged into being a devils advocate on the side of the Bin Tax protestors( in all the various threads, starting with the "one month in jail" thread and over in humanities ) when your true position from the outset is that you agree in principal with the charges as long as they are implimented fairly,theres no privatisation and the tax relief situation is tweeked a little bit.

Yes, to an extent - I'm also not a fan of the manner in which the government has handled this whole mess, I find it .... amateurish.

I'd imagine though that if the price got too high, either competition would enter the market or the politicians would step in to regulate the situation as more and more costly waivers would be issued, and thats something , they wouldn't like mushrooming

You'd imagine that, but only if you hadn't looked at your car insurance bill recently, or house prices, or your telephone bill, or any of the privatised industries in the UK...

PH01

Originally posted by AngelofFire

I dont agree with the concept of blocking lorries as the lorry drivers are workers trying to earn a living from themselves. i think the anti bin tax protesters should go after the big shots in the service. jailing them is completly ludicris considering that the likes of lawlor, burke etc can get away with millions of euro worth of tax evasion at a time when the country was short of funding for essential public services.

OK, so you're saying that they should be fined?

Originally posted by Sparks
Because dictators dictate, while governments are supposed to govern

We employ our governments we can sack them if we disagree with them , thats not dictatorship.

It's not the same thing, nor is it the same principle Man.

It is sparks, it's called government.
With suffecient mandate, a change in government can change the law in that area too, out you go and campaign for it so...

Hmmm. Not quite - unless you know something Pat Rabbitte doesn't

Well even Pat Rabbitte, however unlikely could have a private members bill brought all the way through to being law, technically

That's why I don't agree with representative democracy - you'll rarely find you can choose a party whose political policy profile matches yours.

But fundamentally according to your own principals, you would have to find a majority to change that.
Untill you do, it's little more than an academic idea in this country.
Look at this way, the governments customer is the electorate and they are always right, if direct democracy can be sold to them, then it will.
But I doubt it, as much as I doubt, FF will ever suceed in introducing a first past the post voting system... and they have advocated it in the past...

But that doesn't change the fact that there are options within the current system to vote for parties or individuals who are against bin charges.
If the public doesn't vote in suffecient numbers for them we should respect their opinions.

You'd imagine that, but only if you hadn't looked at your car insurance bill recently, or house prices, or your telephone bill, or any of the privatised industries in the UK...

My phone bill has come down considerably actually since Eircom was privatised, but then thats because they operate in a competitive market.
They are regulated albeit not as much as I'd like.
The sale of Private Houses is and always has been open to competition.
There is a supply problem created by a booming Economy though.
Ten or fifteen years ago, you could have a house on the market and not sell it, the market was so poor, but so was the Economy.

Oh and my car insurance bill also actually fell this year too, would you like the name and details of the company?? I've been insured with them since I learned to drive many moons ago.

mm

IgnatiusJRiley

Originally posted by Sparks
Why is everyone so enthuaistic about seeing the bin tax protestors taken to court and jailed or fined for protesting - but noone wants to see the council take one to court for nonpayment???.

Is non-payment actually a crime? Does it not just result in your bin not being collected?

tbh

I think its fair to say that no-one will ever vote to introduce a bin-charge. But the SWP will soon discover that, no matter how much people resent paying a bin charge, its far more preferable than having Claire Daly in office.

I hope so anyway. I've said it before, I am pissed off that they are using this issue to further themselves. I still have not heard a good reason why this charge should not be implemented, all they do is shout people down.

I used to admire someone whos principles blinded them to the logic of an argument, but I think you can tell from that last sentence that I don't anymore

Reminds me of the ep of the Simpsons where Sideshow Bob is running for office. Homer is voting thinking "I don't agree with his Bart-killing policy, but I do agree with his Selma-killing policy".

Or maybe not

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
We employ our governments we can sack them if we disagree with them , thats not dictatorship.

Actually, we can't sack them. We can choose not to reelect them in five years. Not sack them. There is an exceptionally important difference, namely the fact that they can do enormous damage in their remaining years which may take decades to fix, if it can be fixed.

It is sparks, it's called government.
With suffecient mandate, a change in government can change the law in that area too, out you go and campaign for it so...

Man, are you saying that protests for two years, legal actions won by the protestors, and 80% of the people not paying the bin tax is an insufficent mandate?
Who makes a sufficent mandate, Santa???

Well even Pat Rabbitte, however unlikely could have a private members bill brought all the way through to being law, technically

Yes, but technically the FF backbenchers could decide that Ahern is not in the country's best interests and bring a no-confidence motion I think either is equally likely

But fundamentally according to your own principals, you would have to find a majority to change that.
Untill you do, it's little more than an academic idea in this country.

Yes, but to find a majority, you'd need a referendum. And to get a referendum, you need the government to agree with the idea. And to do that, you (realistically) need to bribe every TD in the Dail and Seanad. And you'd need to be Bill Gates' accountant to do that

Look at this way, the governments customer is the electorate and they are always right, if direct democracy can be sold to them, then it will.

*lol*
Two words Man - "Nice Treaty"...

But that doesn't change the fact that there are options within the current system to vote for parties or individuals who are against bin charges.

Yes - but as I said, what if your choice is a FF candidate who's for the bin tax or a SF candidate who's against the bin tax?
This is the problem - you get one choice every few years and that one, single decision is supposed to reflect your views on hundreds of different issues?
No thanks. I want a vote on specific issues, not who's the most popular candidate.

My phone bill has come down considerably actually since Eircom was privatised, but then thats because they operate in a competitive market.

Oddly, mine's gone up. And we all know that the mobile market in Ireland charges the most of any country in europe.
(Not to mention the loss of a taxpayer-paid-for fixed line network)

Oh and my car insurance bill also actually fell this year too, would you like the name and details of the company?? I've been insured with them since I learned to drive many moons ago.

Why did it fall? Because you moved into a new age bracket?
And are you paying an amount comparable to what you'd be paying in, for instance, Germany?

Sparks

Originally posted by IgnatiusJRiley
Is non-payment actually a crime? Does it not just result in your bin not being collected?

Non-payment isn't a criminal matter, so it goes to civil court. Or at least it used to - but the law was changed in 2003 to allow the local authority to act as their own judge and jury on the matter.
(Prior to the 2003 bill, L.A.'s were obliged to collect bins as a public health matter. Happily, the 2003 bill changed the laws of biology so that uncollected waste no longer attracts vermin that spread disease...)

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, we can't sack them. We can choose not to reelect them in five years. Not sack them. There is an exceptionally important difference, namely the fact that they can do enormous damage in their remaining years which may take decades to fix, if it can be fixed.

Well I think you'll find that in order to go your way you'll have a hard time convincing a majority of Joe and josephine publics to agree with you on the way we sack governments.

Man, are you saying that protests for two years, legal actions won by the protestors, and 80% of the people not paying the bin tax is an insufficent mandate?
Who makes a sufficent mandate, Santa???

Now , Now, theres no need to be facetious Sparks This 80% of yours has been nailed already as you well know.

As regards six months or a year ago, of course a lot more people weren't paying, as they saw that they could get the service for free.
It was incumbent on our Government to change that, and change it they did.
That doesn't alter the morals of non payment.
Heck most business'es can be waiting over 90 days for some of their customers to pay up, the Irish are peculiar that way
The fact of the matter is that in the here in now a majority either are paying in installments, have paid in full or qualify for waivers. That puts those in the "protester" bracket firmly in the minority.

Having said that, the Indo article today was good wasn't it?
It will take some change in mindset to get everyone operating like the Goulding Family

Two words Man - "Nice Treaty"...

A whole different subject there Sparks on peoples right to change their mind, we've had it before, I profoundly agreed with their right to change their mind, if you want to discuss that further , start another thread and I will discuss it.

No thanks. I want a vote on specific issues, not who's the most popular candidate.

Again Start a thread on that so

Oddly, mine's gone up. And we all know that the mobile market in Ireland charges the most of any country in europe.

pm me if you want details of who I filled out on my CPS form.
I've also got Broadband which means, no expensive dial up internet charges

Why did it fall? Because you moved into a new age bracket?

Yes

mm

star gazer

bin'em

take them away with the rest of the rubbish but only when they've paid their charges

mike65

After reading Sparks I'm moved to recall the words of Winston Churchill "Democracy is the least worst option"

Another observation - how long have the Socialist Party been so interested in waste managment and the environment? I may not have been paying attention but until this lastest outbreak of "anarchy-lite" I had'nt heard them mention it at all. The Greens better watch out in North and West Dublin.

Mike.

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Well I think you'll find that in order to go your way you'll have a hard time convincing a majority of Joe and josephine publics to agree with you on the way we sack governments.

Thing is Man, what I want isn't so much a new way to sack governments, as a means by which we can override them when they make decision which a majority of people disagree with their decision.

Now , Now, theres no need to be facetious Sparks This 80% of yours has been nailed already as you well know.

Actually it hasn't. The only figures that you're going on come from a press release. The ones I'm going on are required by law to be accurate.

As regards six months or a year ago, of course a lot more people weren't paying, as they saw that they could get the service for free.

Except that they weren't getting it for free, they'd paid for it in their PAYE taxes.

It was incumbent on our Government to change that, and change it they did.
That doesn't alter the morals of non payment.

It was not incumbent on them - an avenue already existed to pursue nonpayers for payment perfectly legally. The government instead changed the law to give another avenue, which amounted to proclaiming themselves judge and jury on the matter.

Heck most business'es can be waiting over 90 days for some of their customers to pay up, the Irish are peculiar that way

That's not an irish phenonomen, it's normal business practise. However, should that agreed period be exceeded, they then take bad debts to court.

The fact of the matter is that in the here in now a majority either are paying in installments, have paid in full or qualify for waivers. That puts those in the "protester" bracket firmly in the minority.

Show me the figures - and I don't mean from a press release from people with an agenda to push.

Having said that, the Indo article today was good wasn't it?

No, it was misleading and wrong on several points, as I pointed out earlier.

A whole different subject there Sparks on peoples right to change their mind, we've had it before, I profoundly agreed with their right to change their mind, if you want to discuss that further , start another thread and I will discuss it.

The thing is Man, while people do have the right to change their mind, they didn't in this case. Where was the public demand for a second referendum? Where was the full and frank debate on the merits of the treaty and the implications of holding a second referendum? And it bears directly on this point because article 133 of the treaty gives the EU commission the right to sign us up to the WTO GATS agreement, thus privatising nearly 160 services, including waste management.

Again Start a thread on that so

Did so in the past, but everyone here seems to forget that and tells me "just pick a candidate you agree with", while ignoring the fact that I've never seen a candidate I wholly agreed with, ever.

pm me if you want details of who I filled out on my CPS form.
I've also got Broadband which means, no expensive dial up internet charges

Thanks Man, but the point was that privatising the service meant that the price went up and that we have no means by which we can bring it down again.

Yes

Then it hardly counts, does it?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually, we can't sack them. We can choose not to reelect them in five years. Not sack them. There is an exceptionally important difference, namely the fact that they can do enormous damage in their remaining years which may take decades to fix, if it can be fixed.

The objection was to you calling them dictators.

For you to be picking straws in the difference between "sacking" and "choosing not to re-elect" after deliberately blurring the line between "dictator" and "democratically elected by the will of the people to serve in a democratically-run government" would seem a bit rich.

If the people choose to elect an entire Dail from a single party, and that party backed a single leader unequivocally, it still wouldn't be anywhere near a dictatorship.

Or do you think your inaccuracy is somehow more reasonable than Man's? If so, could you elaborate?

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by caimin
I think its fair to say that no-one will ever vote to introduce a bin-charge.

Why not?

The Swiss have voted for higher taxes, so-called "double-taxation" in the form of bin-charges, and innumberable other things which cost them money and restrict what many would argue are freedoms or rights.

So don't be so hasty before saying no-one would ever do it. Don't even assume the Irish would never do it.

Times, needs, and people change.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by mike65
After reading Sparks I'm moved to recall the words of Winston Churchill "Democracy is the least worst option"

But what kind of democracy? There's more than one y'know...

Another observation - how long have the Socialist Party been so interested in waste managment and the environment? I may not have been paying attention but until this lastest outbreak of "anarchy-lite" I had'nt heard them mention it at all. The Greens better watch out in North and West Dublin.

Pah. They're all politicians.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Thing is Man, what I want isn't so much a new way to sack governments, as a means by which we can override them when they make decision which a majority of people disagree with their decision.

And you have two ways of achieving that :

1) From within the system
2) By opposing and overthrowing the system.

You seem to be stating that the only hope is the latter. Funnily, that says to me that the only reason you could say that is because the majority would never agree with you. If they did, you could do it via option 1.

For you to talk about a better form of democracy, whilst acknowledging that it will never happen if its left to the people to make their own democratic choice would seem a bit hypocritical.

Actually it hasn't. The only figures that you're going on come from a press release. The ones I'm going on are required by law to be accurate.

This would be the same law, implemented by the same people that you have been shouting/typiing yourself blue in the face/fingers for god-knows-how-long telling us all they can't be trusted?

Now you're telling us that the figures they provide are accurate because tehse untrustworthy people have said that they are?????

Not only that, but the base figures are both accurate and out of date. The calculations based on those figures were not supplied by any legally-manded need for accuracy and have already been pointed out to be at least challengeable.

Except that they weren't getting it for free, they'd paid for it in their PAYE taxes.

And you have the legally-mandated-to-be-correct figures to show this allocation from PAYE to expenditure that you're alleging? Or are alternate assumptions now all of a sudden acceptable?

Show me the figures - and I don't mean from a press release from people with an agenda to push.

Your 80% came from people with an agenda to push, albeit through interpretation of other figures. I haven't seen you rush to knock that as questionable on the same grounds.

Indeed, I've seen you claim people are calling you a liar for simply stating that there are other ways to interpret the figures, and that it would appear that the current situation no longer reflects the historical figures (which are a minimum of 6 months old?) that you have access to from that unimpeachable source - the government.

No, it was misleading and wrong on several points, as I pointed out earlier.

The same thing people have said about your 80%. It all boils down to interpretation of the figures, which is constantly being done by people with an agenda to serve.

Of course, you post your interpretation as legally accurate, and anyone who challenges it as a liar. I haven't seen anyone use such emotive language against your interpretations....and yet it is they who are misleading.....

jc

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
The objection was to you calling them dictators.

And yet by their actions, that's what they are.

For you to be picking straws in the difference between "sacking" and "choosing not to re-elect" after deliberately blurring the line between "dictator" and "democratically elected by the will of the people to serve in a democratically-run government" would seem a bit rich.

And yet it's not in reality. Sacking is an act where you decide to remove someone from their job. We can't do that to the government, there isn't a legal avenue for us to do that.

And "democratically elected by the will of the people to serve in a democratically-run government" is your phrase. Remember, FF had the support of approximately 25% of the electorate, not counting the 18,800+ spoiled votes. When that's a moral majority, then I'll be splitting hairs...

If the people choose to elect an entire Dail from a single party, and that party backed a single leader unequivocally, it still wouldn't be anywhere near a dictatorship.

I think "not for long" is the best answer to that - I mean, in the year they've been in power, FF have used their majority to amend the FOI act so we can't see what they're doing, they're elminating the limit on political donations to parties and they've already deployed Irish troops against Irish citizens to protect the US military in shannon.
And that's with a realtively small majority...

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
And yet by their actions, that's what they are.

Just as choosing not to re-elect someone is effectively sacking them, albeit with a slightly unusual period of notice.

I think "not for long" is the best answer to that - I mean, in the year they've been in power, FF have used their majority to amend the FOI act so we can't see what they're doing, they're elminating the limit on political donations to parties and they've already deployed Irish troops against Irish citizens to protect the US military in shannon.
And that's with a realtively small majority...

Yeah - all they need is a really big majority to start modifying the constitution and really remaking the laws the way they want them.

Oh - hang on - no government can change the constitution....or are you just so rabid with hatred for these untrustworthy souls (who provide your legally-mandated-to-be-unquestionably correct information against bin taxes, strangely enough) that you're going to tell us that they'd stage a military coup or something given the chance?

Oh - and the whole point that I was making...which you seemed to pass over was this :

Do you think your inaccuracy is somehow more reasonable than Man's?

You both used inaccurate terminology. You are trying to pedantically cut down his argument, by using the same type of inaccurate terminology.....I'm just asking why your verbal inaccuracy is so acceptable, and his isn't.

jc

Cork

Originally posted by Sparks
The government instead changed the law to give another avenue, which amounted to proclaiming themselves judge and jury on the matter.

The government are duly elected to make decisions.

Local Authoritys have power to impose charges. Local authorities don't have to collect refuse that has not the approprite payment.

The Courts in this country as seperate & independent from government.

As democrats - we must accept both due process + democratic principles.

how long have the Socialist Party been so interested in waste managment and the environment?

Who is their spokesperson on the environment?

What % of the national vote does this party get?

What would it be rounded up to zero decimal points?

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
And you have two ways of achieving that :
1) From within the system
2) By opposing and overthrowing the system.
You seem to be stating that the only hope is the latter. Funnily, that says to me that the only reason you could say that is because the majority would never agree with you. If they did, you could do it via option 1.

No, we couldn't, because it would require a majority of dail politicians to be willing to sacrifice their authority to call for a referendum to change the constitution to reflect the new structure of government.
Shy of bribing every TD in Dail Eireann with two lifetime's worth of cash, I can't think of a way to arrange that.

For you to talk about a better form of democracy, whilst acknowledging that it will never happen if its left to the people to make their own democratic choice would seem a bit hypocritical.

It's not the people - I personally think they'd support it, given an informed choice - but the TDs that would be the problem.

This would be the same law, implemented by the same people that you have been shouting/typiing yourself blue in the face/fingers for god-knows-how-long telling us all they can't be trusted?

Yes - at a time when they fully expected that the Opposition would be the ones bound by those rules. And the original FOI act was actually supposed to be the best in europe... which might explain the FOI amendment act...

Not only that, but the base figures are both accurate and out of date. The calculations based on those figures were not supplied by any legally-manded need for accuracy and have already been pointed out to be at least challengeable.

Have I not answered those challanges?

And you have the legally-mandated-to-be-correct figures to show this allocation from PAYE to expenditure that you're alleging? Or are alternate assumptions now all of a sudden acceptable?

Nope, I don't - if a free FOI requst was all that it took, I'd have done it for curiousity's sake, but at present, it'd require somewhere around 50 FOI requests at 20 euro a pop because each local council keeps it's own records...

Your 80% came from people with an agenda to push, albeit through interpretation of other figures. I haven't seen you rush to knock that as questionable on the same grounds.

Then you haven't read my last few posts.

Indeed, I've seen you claim people are calling you a liar for simply stating that there are other ways to interpret the figures, and that it would appear that the current situation no longer reflects the historical figures (which are a minimum of 6 months old?) that you have access to from that unimpeachable source - the government.

No, you haven't. You've seen me call Cork a liar because he simply stated that the press release figures were true and correct, with no proof and with other more trustworthy figures available, and after being corrected on the point more than once. By which time it was obvious he was debating in the Dail Eireann sense of the word.

The same thing people have said about your 80%. It all boils down to interpretation of the figures, which is constantly being done by people with an agenda to serve.

But we've been arguing about that - the figures show at best that the bin tax protestors are only 533 households in the majority. To get a majority for the council's side of things, you have to include partial payments and waivers - a move that you can't justify.

Of course, you post your interpretation as legally accurate, and anyone who challenges it as a liar. I haven't seen anyone use such emotive language against your interpretations....and yet it is they who are misleading.....

Then you're not reading the threads

Sparks

Well, we've heard what you think of the protestors - now what do you think of the councillers in Wicklow who took a 25,000 euro bribe and gave the keys to the council landfill to a developer for the purposes of illegal dumping?

Fine or jail?

And which is really more likely to happen?

They should get Jail Sparks
I presume this is the reference to the wicklow Times you made in the other thread.
I suggest you take that to a new thread and people can comment on it separately.

Bringing it into a discussion on Bin charges just clutters a thread up.

mm

Cork

Bin 'tax' protesters - Jail'em or Fine'em?

Well - If they don't pay thats their choice.

But, If they fail to gaurentee to abide with high court orders - it is a metter for the courts.

They deserve due process whether that is to be fined or to spend time in the "big house".

AngelofFire

If u read my previous post you would be aware that i am totally against bin charges but am also agaisnt blocking lorries as it creates a situation where workers are fighting workers. if u ask me i think some of the county council sanitation workers should stage a protest of their own over the fees. that will encourage the authorities to take the anit bin tax brigade more seriously.

krinpit

I think that the Irish government is correct to introduce a bin charge to Dublin residents. Waste collection and subsequent disposal is a blatantly expensive service.

So, why are tax-payers from outside the Dublin City/County forced to pay for Dublin waste collection? I have lived in Mayo and Limerick where the payment of waste charges isn't even questioned. You don't pay your bin charge, your bin doesn't get collected. You leave your uncollected bin outside your gate, you get prosecuted for being responsible for an environmental hazard. I live in Dublin now.

What makes Dublin Bin Protesters believe that they are so entitled to "free" waste disposal that they are willing to break the law by blocking collection trucks and face prison sentences?

I say let them protest. Nobody should ever be punished for something they truly believe in. But when freeloaders defy court injunctions to block these trucks I think that they should be punished in the appropriate manner. So, Jail them or Fine them? - Fine them - if they can't afford to pay the fine, allow them to do a period of community service eg: Collecting bins , and if they refuse to do the community service, then there'll no option but to jail them (an unfortunate scenario for the taxpayer)

Cork

Anti Charge Protesters think that Local Authorities are oblieged to collect refuse. They are not. In many parts of this country - commercial firms do.

These Anti Bin Protesters should realise that landfill is bad for the environment. It is an easy option that the council would cart ones trash away.

The double tax aruement put forward by the anti bin people is weak. The Council are perfectly entitled to charge for their services. They are no local taxes in Ireland and persononal tax rates have been cut.

People outside Dublin have generally no problem paying for a service. But, If people don't comply with the law - it is a metter for the courts to decide.

krinpit

In Limerick, there is Limerick County Council and Mr. Binman. Both of which charge a flat rate per wheely bin per annum.

Cork

Originally posted by krinpit
In Limerick, there is Limerick County Council and Mr. Binman. Both of which charge a flat rate per wheely bin per annum.

Having many friends down in Limerick _ i know that they are very happy with the service & in general don't object paying for such.

I read a pience this week that many landfills in this country are close to being full.

The state providing a free refuse service out of central taxation is crazy both from a financial and environmental point of view.

Moriarty

To the people that voted for them to be fined - do you honestly expect that any of them would pay? According to a member of the judicicary that was on radio1 around the time of the first jailings, the reason people were jailed and not fined is because quite often people never pay the fines so they get off with no punishment.

Éomer of Rohan

Well, certainly this little thread made interesting reading - though I don't think there is a place for me to add anything other than this thread displays what a lack of knowledge regarding politics (particularly socialist politics) some people really have and yet they feel capable of making comments all the same.

krinpit

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
this thread displays what a lack of knowledge regarding politics (particularly socialist politics) some people really have and yet they feel capable of making comments all the same.

I always wondered why socialist idealists will never have a large following. Your input has clarified this for me no end Éomer :rolleyes:

Cork

The bin charges debate is not about "left", "right" or "centre".

It is about - should an individual have to pay a third party to cart away their trash or should the government provide it out of central taxation?

I believe - everybody has a civic responsibility to dispose of trash properly. Landfill space is running out around the country.

Landfill is simply not sustainable. People will have to start bringing their rubbish to recycling centres and putting non-recyclables into their bins.

This goes for everybody - no metter what political party that the individual supports.

Polluters have to take responsibility for the rubbish they produce. This waste debate is not a political football. I think all the major partys are in agreement on the issue. It is about - moving on from landfill and torwards waste miminisationation and having a more pro environmental atitude to the rubbish we produce.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Krinpit
I always wondered why socialist idealists will never have a large following. Your input has clarified this for me no end Éomer

Socialists are not idealists - most of them are realists in the model of Morgenthau, so in effect your comment proves my point. As for a large following, socialism does not need a large following initially - and neither would there be such a following as Lenin laid out - further ignorance demonstrated.

Cork, I am not going to bother quoting your article since I would end up quoting all of it.

All I really want to say is that most landfill space is being filled by Irish business waste not domestic waste. This is, as Joe Higgins pointed out last saturday night (at the SP - anti-bin Tax campaign public meeting) laid out already in the Irish governments last major environmental survey (2001 I believe it was). Big business, in order to stimulate the Celtic tiger once more, has been allowed to escape any meaningful impositions that would involve them sorting waste, recycyling waste or otherwise not dumping it in landfill sites.

Cork

Éomer of Rohan - business's pay refuse and commercial rates.

Likewise, Joe Public has to pay for the disposal of his refuse as well.

Many Socialists across the EU have absoluely no problems with this, where charging for waste disposal is the practice for years.

I was not at the SP - anti-bin Tax campaign public meeting but I think business and private households need to be charged the same price per kilo - for the waste they produce.

I think that this is the case with West Cork. Payment by Wieght operates for business and domestic householder.

AngelofFire

we wouldnt have such a problem with waste if the government put more investment into recylcing. think abt it if the government provided a free recycling service with the possibilty of extra tax credits for those who recycle a certain percentage of their household waste we`d have less garbage to worry about. then there wouldnt be a need for bin charges.

Cork

Originally posted by AngelofFire
a free recycling service with the possibilty of extra tax credits for those who recycle a certain percentage of their household waste we`d have less garbage to worry about. then there wouldnt be a need for bin charges.

Exactly - bin charges based on wieght is the way to go. If you don't recycle and fill your bins with trash - you will be charged.

You are not going to bring everything to the bring centre - so waste charges will still need to be applied.

AngelofFire

no that is not what i implied in my thread. i stated that the government should reward people for recycling instead of cynically punishing them for producing to much waste.

bonkey

Folks, this is a discussion on what should be done to protestors, not a general discussion on what you think the solution to the entire waste issue is.

Back on topic please.

jc

Cork

Bonkey - Protestors need to be shown that landfills in 6 out of 10 regions will run out of space in 3 years. (last Thursdays Irish Farmers Journal).

Every public representative should go down to the Ameinity Site in Macroom.

But, It is totally up to the courts to impose sanction.

I

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Bonkey - Protestors need to be shown that landfills in 6 out of 10 regions will run out of space in 3 years. (last Thursdays Irish Farmers Journal).

Why protestors? Don't you think this is something that everyone should be informed about, not something that should be seen as a "punishment" ???


You think they're protesting because they just don't know about these forthcoming problems?
jc

Cork

bonkey, I completely agree that everybody should be made more aware of our complete over reliance on landfill.