**ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER RELATED** Part 2 - MOD WARNING IN OP

listermint

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Gintonious wrote: »

So please, explain how.

How is it any different as to what the man in the video did?

I am all for protesting this, my parents are back home. But the way this person went about getting them off his property was totally gung ho. Why didnt he just ask them to get off his property instead of beginning to push them and struggle with them? Why didn't he calmly explain to them that they are trespassing?

He went straight out to incite an argument, and he instigated it himself. Just because they were in his garden does not give anyone the right to attack or assault them. And what are the workers to do? They aren't robots, so this type of action against them would clearly get some sort of action from them.

Both are in the wrong, but the way the situation panned out was mainly due to the actions of the home owner.

You are wrong. You know all the reasons for your wrongness. It doesn't need to be pointed out.

You are attempting to use some ridiculous analogy to prove how right you are but it only proves the ridiculous nature of your argument

KevIRL

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

The guy is a hypocrite and showed no regard for property when entering the pitch at croke park in 2010 to try attack the referee

tayto lover

Gintonious wrote: »

So please, explain how.

How is it any different as to what the man in the video did?

I am all for protesting this, my parents are back home. But the way this person went about getting them off his property was totally gung ho. Why didnt he just ask them to get off his property instead of beginning to push them and struggle with them? Why didn't he calmly explain to them that they are trespassing?

He went straight out to incite an argument, and he instigated it himself. Just because they were in his garden does not give anyone the right to attack or assault them. And what are the workers to do? They aren't robots, so this type of action against them would clearly get some sort of action from them.

Both are in the wrong, but the way the situation panned out was mainly due to the actions of the home owner.

Your post made no sense.
The postman is delivering the post to you. Post that is addressed to you and the stamp is paid for by someone else.
The water crowd are not welcome as can be seen and as such have no right to be on his property. He probably told them that already before the video starts because he certainly tell them on it.

listermint

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

They had both lawful authority and reasonable excuse to be there.

Edit: Also, nowhere in that section does it give permission to attack someone who is in breach of it. You just made that bit up and inserted in between the name of the legislation and the section you quoted.



His property wasn't under attack and neither was he. his driveway was blocked and part of the barrier was on his property. That does not require defending nor would a court accept it as a reasonable excuse to attack someone.

They didn't have lawful authority to be there. Stop backing yourself into a hole. Its just plain silly. You cant claim lawful authority to perform works in someone's property when the works were not agreed to be the property owner. There is nothing you can say that will prove their authority because they had / have none.

Frank Bullitt

listermint wrote: »

You are wrong. You know all the reasons for your wrongness. It doesn't need to be pointed out.

You are attempting to use some ridiculous analogy to prove how right you are but it only proves the ridiculous nature of your argument

By all means point out whats wrong with it, please do. You seem to have a better grasp of the video then me so I am open to your interpretation on that.

I am using the barefaced facts from the video to put forward an argument. I have no reason to support either in the video, I am telling it as I see it.

So by all means, show me the "ridiculous nature" of my argument.

shinzon

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

They had both lawful authority and reasonable excuse to be there.

They were blocking the man from exiting his property and from getting his car from the road into his driveway (separate video showing this)how is that not wilfully blocking someone from public right of way access. The barriers were across his gate.

And he was using reasonable force to get them off his property by pushing the gates closed dunno why your only seeing what you want to see and disregarding everything else

Shin

keithclancy

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

listermint wrote: »

What does this have to do with ESB?

Struggling to find the connection Keith

Eirgrid is the Electricity Infrastructure provider the same as Irish Water is responsible for the infrastructure supplying water to peoples homes.

They are both setup the same way.

So why is Eirgrid seen as so different to Irish Water ?

Would the same thing happen if Eirgrid came out to replace an underground cable ?

listermint

I do not want to pay for water in any way

KevIRL wrote: »

The guy is a hypocrite and showed no regard for property when entering the pitch at croke park in 2010 to try attack the referee

Still not seeing what that had to do with Irish Water and this man's property rights.

Can you draw me a chart

listermint

I do not want to pay for water in any way

keithclancy wrote: »

Eirgrid is the Electricity Infrastructure provider the same as Irish Water is responsible for the infrastructure supplying water to peoples homes.

They are both setup the same way.

So why is Eirgrid seen as so different to Irish Water ?

Would the same thing happen if Eirgrid came out to replace an underground cable ?

They are both setup the same way... Is that the extent of your similarities Keith.

I expected more factual approach. I was disappointed.





Still am.

listermint

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Gintonious wrote: »

By all means point out whats wrong with it, please do. You seem to have a better grasp of the video then me so I am open to your interpretation on that.

I am using the barefaced facts from the video to put forward an argument. I have no reason to support either in the video, I am telling it as I see it.

So by all means, show me the "ridiculous nature" of my argument.

Was it me who used an analogy of hitting the postman.


Try harder next time

tayto lover

Gintonious wrote: »

By all means point out whats wrong with it, please do. You seem to have a better grasp of the video then me so I am open to your interpretation on that.

I am using the barefaced facts from the video to put forward an argument. I have no reason to support either in the video, I am telling it as I see it.

So by all means, show me the "ridiculous nature" of my argument.

You were trying to be a smart arse.

hynesie08

listermint wrote: »

Still not seeing what that had to do with Irish Water and this man's property rights.

Can you draw me a chart

There's history of him being a hot tempered thug

This video makes him look like a hot tempered thug.

No chart required.

tayto lover

keithclancy wrote: »

Eirgrid is the Electricity Infrastructure provider the same as Irish Water is responsible for the infrastructure supplying water to peoples homes.

They are both setup the same way.

So why is Eirgrid seen as so different to Irish Water ?

Would the same thing happen if Eirgrid came out to replace an underground cable ?

He has entered a contract with one and not with the other surely.

listermint

I do not want to pay for water in any way

hynesie08 wrote: »

There's history of him being a hot tempered thug

This video makes him look like a hot tempered thug.

No chart required.

Man pushes gate to remove trespasser from property.


Man clearly off the scale. Is that the extent of it. Yeah?

keithclancy

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

listermint wrote: »

They are both setup the same way... Is that the extent of your similarities Keith.

I expected more factual approach. I was disappointed.





Still am.

Do you think that if it was the ESB trying to replace an underground cable his actions would be warranted ?

hynesie08

listermint wrote: »

Man pushes gate to remove trespasser from property.


Man clearly off the scale. Is that the extent of it. Yeah?

They were only on his property cause he pulled the gates open and then he began physically assaulting them

Little CuChulainn

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

shinzon wrote: »

They were blocking the man from exiting his property and from getting his car from the road into his driveway (separate video showing this)how is that not wilfully blocking someone from public right of way access. The barriers were across his gate.

And he was using reasonable force to get them off his property by pushing the gates closed dunno why your only seeing what you want to see and disregarding everything else

Shin

They were blocking his driveway in order to work on the pipes which they are authorised to do under Irish Water legislation. In the same way if the council want to redo your foot path they can block your driveway. This does not give you permission to attack them nor does it constitute a criminal act on their part.

He does not have the right to use force to remove them from his property as they present no threat to him or his property. He is a violent man, as evidenced by his previous actions, and is acting completely outside of the law. The only reason you are supporting him is because it is IW employees he is attacking. If these were council workers resurfacing the road and pavement would you be so happy with his actions?

tayto lover

keithclancy wrote: »

Do you think that if it was the ESB trying to replace an underground cable his actions would be warranted ?

Again, He has a contract with the ESB, none with IW. One he wants, one he doesn't want.

Little CuChulainn

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

tayto lover wrote: »

He has entered a contract with one and not with the other surely.

The ESB can enter your property even if you aren't a customer in order to maintain their lines.

keithclancy

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

tayto lover wrote: »

He has entered a contract with one and not with the other surely.

Even if you have no contract with ESB Networks they have right of access to your land.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/sec0053.html

53.—(1) The Board and also any authorised undertaker may, subject to the provisions of this section, and of regulations made by the Board under this Act place any electric line above or below ground across any land not being a street, road, railway, or tramway.

(2) The Board and also any authorised undertaker may attach to any wall, house, or other building any bracket or other fixture required for the carrying or support of an electric line or any electrical apparatus.

tayto lover

keithclancy wrote: »

Even if you have no contract with ESB Networks they have right of access to your land.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1927/en/act/pub/0027/sec0053.html

Didn't know that.
Maybe they also call and inform the householder unlike IW.

Frank Bullitt

listermint wrote: »

Was it me who used an analogy of hitting the postman.


Try harder next time

So you'll use my analogy as the basis for not responding to my points made directly about the incident?

Your post made no sense.
The postman is delivering the post to you. Post that is addressed to you and the stamp is paid for by someone else.
The water crowd are not welcome as can be seen and as such have no right to be on his property. He probably told them that already before the video starts because he certainly tell them on it.

My comparison was that if someone was on your property then you have the right to do what you want to them, because in your eyes, they are trespassing. So are you seeing the logic now? You don't have the right to assault people purely because they are on your property, not like this. Granted they were on his property, but that still doesn't give him free reign to grab the barriers and threaten the workers in the manner he did.

Little CuChulainn

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

tayto lover wrote: »

Didn't know that.
Maybe they also call and inform the householder unlike IW.

Irish Water leaflet an area before arriving. I got one myself a week before they were due to start work. It's not like they spend the whole day outside one driveway and if they can they will let you go through.

shinzon

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

They were blocking his driveway in order to work on the pipes which they are authorised to do under Irish Water legislation. In the same way if the council want to redo your foot path they can block your driveway. This does not give you permission to attack them nor does it constitute a criminal act on their part.

He does not have the right to use force to remove them from his property as they present no threat to him or his property. He is a violent man, as evidenced by his previous actions, and is acting completely outside of the law. The only reason you are supporting him is because it is IW employees he is attacking. If these were council workers resurfacing the road and pavement would you be so happy with his actions?

Ok if barriers were across my gate and they wouldn't move it could be anyone and id do the same thing they were blocking his access from his property to the road irregardless of what there were doing lawfully or otherwise they were still blocking his gate and causing an obstruction. This is the part you don't seem to get or want to understand

Shin

listermint

I do not want to pay for water in any way

keithclancy wrote: »

Do you think that if it was the ESB trying to replace an underground cable his actions would be warranted ?

This isn't the ESB. Your attempting to legitimise something that didn't take place to an organisation that have different authority.

And its getting ridiculous. You are better than this

tayto lover

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Irish Water leaflet an area before arriving. I got one myself a week before they were due to start work. It's not like they spend the whole day outside one driveway and if they can they will let you go through.

I didn't get one before they put the meter outside my door on the street. Maybe they didn't have to inform me as it wasn't put on my property.
Got cement all over the bottom of my door though which I had to clean.

I think it is foolish protesting over the meters and instead people could just fail to register if they are anti-meters.

listermint

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Irish Water leaflet an area before arriving. I got one myself a week before they were due to start work. It's not like they spend the whole day outside one driveway and if they can they will let you go through.

You realise leafleting isn't obtaining permission to enter property.

Please tell me you realise this

Banjo String

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Deleted User wrote: »

I would imagine the job was well under way before the camera started rolling. I feel for those poor workers having to put up with this type of intimidation.

Deleted User wrote: »

Admittedly the barriers were slightly inside the mans gate, for His protection as much as theirs. Still doesn't excuse his behaviour. They are only doing their jobs and this agression from the householder is uncalled for and totally over the top. Mind you, he DID know he was being filmed!

I've watched you evolve from a FG/GOVT cheerleader / shill to just being a blatant troll tbh.

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL they don't get commission they are paid by the hour

I think I heard Pat Kenny discuss with some Govt minister some kind of bonus structure in place for GMC Sierra based on the amount of meters that they install in designated time slots. I.E that's commission based work.

I could be mistaken, but I'm 99% certain on it.

Little CuChulainn

I would like to see IW to cease trading and water to remain controlled by government/local auth

shinzon wrote: »

Ok if barriers were across my gate and they wouldn't move it could be anyone and id do the same thing they were blocking his access from his property to the road irregardless of what there were doing lawfully or otherwise they were still blocking his gate and causing an obstruction. This is the part you don't seem to get or want to understand

Shin

I get it, it's annoying and potentially, though very unlikely, he has a civil case against them. But it doesn't give him the right to attack them nor are they breaking the law. This is the part you are ignoring.

listermint

I do not want to pay for water in any way

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I get it, it's annoying and potentially, though very unlikely, he has a civil case against them. But it doesn't give him the right to attack them nor are they breaking the law. This is the part you are ignoring.

Attack.

You mean remove.