European Union (Drinking Water) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 122/2014)

tonyroc

Any Ideas guy or whats your thinking on it ?? http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/si/122/made/en/print



MOD:

This discussion has been moved from the Freeman Megamerge thread into its own thread, here

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

tonyroc

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think its one of the best things i've read in a very long time. It makes a certain brand of negligence finally accountable. All County Council employees and any who work in the drinking water supply business can now face 3 years prison for turning a blind eye, or so i am led to believe by An EPA inspector whom i won't NAME here. I think Phil Hogan actually did some good after all by signing this in . I REALLY hope he forgives me for all that abuse i hurled in his direction over the last 4 years , Sorry Phil me bad

whippet

tonyroc wrote: »

I think its one of the best things i've read in a very long time. It makes a certain brand of negligence finally accountable. All County Council employees and any who work in the drinking water supply business can now face 3 years prison for turning a blind eye, or so i am led to believe by An EPA inspector whom i won't NAME here. I think Phil Hogan actually did some good after all by signing this in . I REALLY hope he forgives me for all that abuse i hurled in his direction over the last 4 years , Sorry Phil me bad

What's the relevance to this thread?

ArmaniJeanss

Unfortunately Tony a lot of the time the groups you hang with get obsessed with one or two clauses in the law and give it their own interpretation, and share it so much amongst each other that they end up believing its the only possible interpretation.

And an EPA inspector may not be the person best placed to decide what a new law actually means.

tonyroc

whippet wrote: »

What's the relevance to this thread?

My name has been brought us several times on this thread so i would have presumed a discussion on what my accessions are might be of interest .At the very least some of you might finally understand why i act the way i do .

tonyroc

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Unfortunately Tony a lot of the time the groups you hang with get obsessed with one or two clauses in the law and give it their own interpretation, and share it so much amongst each other that they end up believing its the only possible interpretation.

And an EPA inspector may not be the person best placed to decide what a new law actually means.

the last time i got an obsession i went into the high court and walked out with an injunction discussing this very topic of an unregulated plumbing sector. Since that i have had an Oireachtas Committee PSOP, Dept of Environment and NSAI on 7th October 2015 confirm eventually that i had uncovered a "serious public health concern" right before they covered it up again. I had to seek legal counsel the last time because Irish Water brought on board GoodBodys . I had already got the injunction myself but unfortunately it never got back into court because Irish water were allowed to settle. Everyone seemed to be lucky after that the solicitor soon after acquired a BIG OFFICE right across from the CCJ and would you believe My Senior Counsel went into semi retirement in Switzerland. The only one out of pocket was me the Gobs##t who listened to his Legal Counsel. I am in no group i never was .I am in no political party i never was . I did associate with plenty of those named in this thread for a very short time in 2013 . Because i refused to support any group i have been ostracised by most since early 2014 .

tonyroc

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Unfortunately Tony a lot of the time the groups you hang with get obsessed with one or two clauses in the law and give it their own interpretation, and share it so much amongst each other that they end up believing its the only possible interpretation.

And an EPA inspector may not be the person best placed to decide what a new law actually means.

I may have understated the significance of the "chat" I was having with the EPA inspector he is speaking on behalf of the EPA his latest response says that only county council and other public buildings are protected by EU drinking water regulation 2014 . Private houses are not protected. A company or a person doing a plumbing job in a private residence does not have to abide by the European Union drinking water regulation 2014 . They commit no Offence under the REGULATIONS if they put in a dangerous plumbing system in a private residence but could get 3 yrs in Prison if they worked for council and installed the very same dangerous system in council and state buildings

Pro Hoc Vice

tonyroc wrote: »

I may have understated the significance of the "chat" I was having with the EPA inspector he is speaking on behalf of the EPA his latest response says that only county council and other public buildings are protected by EU drinking water regulation 2014 . Private houses are not protected. A company or a person doing a plumbing job in a private residence does not have to abide by the European Union drinking water regulation 2014 . They commit no Offence under the REGULATIONS if they put in a dangerous plumbing system in a private residence but could get 3 yrs in Prison if they worked for council and installed the very same dangerous system in council and state buildings

Can you point out the part of the regulations that says that?

tonyroc

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Can you point out the part of the regulations that says that?

Under regulation 6

Pro Hoc Vice

tonyroc wrote: »

Under regulation 6

My reading of that regulation it is the owner of the building not the plumber who commits the offence. It excludes private houses otherwise the owner of the house would be guilty of an offence.

whippet

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

My reading of that regulation it is the owner of the building not the plumber who commits the offence. It excludes private houses otherwise the owner of the house would be guilty of an offence.

Isn't it amazing how two people can come up with two different meanings for the same thing ... Depending on what you want it to mean

Pro Hoc Vice

whippet wrote: »

Isn't it amazing how two people can come up with two different meanings for the same thing ... Depending on what you want it to mean

Ya and one of those people is a barrister for almost 20 years.

whippet

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Ya and one of those people is a barrister for almost 20 years.

20 years experience is nothing compared to a couple of days googling .. As we all know the interweb is always correct

Pro Hoc Vice

whippet wrote: »

20 years experience is nothing compared to a couple of days googling .. As we all know the interweb is always correct

So true.

tonyroc

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Ya and one of those people is a barrister for almost 20 years.

It can be strange how people interpret things alright this what the EPA say Dear Mr Rochford,
My apologies I missed your call as I was in a meeting and have just got back to my desk.

The position of the EPA is that while Irish Water has no responsibility for the necessary repair works required of the internal contamination they do have the authority to require remedial action to be taken under Regulation 6. However, this only applies where the building is a public building. Where the investigation identifies that the pipework within a private dwelling is the cause of a non-compliance or at risk of a non-compliance they are required to advise the property owner of the remedial action they should take. They do not have the powers to issue Directions under Regulation 6 in respect of private dwellings. If they were to issue a Direction in respect of a public building they can only do so to the owner of the building and not a person or company that carried out such works

Possible Conclusion if the plumber worked directly for the council the owner of the council building he is liable .

Pro Hoc Vice

tonyroc wrote: »

It can be strange how people interpret things alright this what the EPA say Dear Mr Rochford,
My apologies I missed your call as I was in a meeting and have just got back to my desk.

The position of the EPA is that while Irish Water has no responsibility for the necessary repair works required of the internal contamination they do have the authority to require remedial action to be taken under Regulation 6. However, this only applies where the building is a public building. Where the investigation identifies that the pipework within a private dwelling is the cause of a non-compliance or at risk of a non-compliance they are required to advise the property owner of the remedial action they should take. They do not have the powers to issue Directions under Regulation 6 in respect of private dwellings. If they were to issue a Direction in respect of a public building they can only do so to the owner of the building and not a person or company that carried out such works

Conclusion if the plumber worked directly for the council the owner of the council building he is liable .

Reread the letter it does not say the plumber is guilty under the regs. It's says he is liable, which any tradesman would be under negligence.

If he is saying a person doing work on a public building including a Restaraunt is guilty of an offence under Regulation 6, I would respectfully disagree with him.

What reg 6 (6) says

6) A person commits an offence if that person—

(a) contravenes paragraph (2), or

(b) fails to comply with a direction under paragraph (3).

Paragraph 6 (2)

(2) The owner of a premises where water is supplied for human consumption as part of a commercial or public activity (including but not limited to schools, hospitals and restaurants) shall maintain the domestic distribution system of the premises in such condition that it does not cause, contribute to, or give rise to a risk of non-compliance of that water with a parametric value specified in Table A or Table B of Part 1 of the Schedule or in Table C where there is a risk to public health.

And Paragraph 6 (3)

(3) Without prejudice to paragraph (4), where a non-compliance referred to in paragraph (1), or a risk of such non-compliance, is in a premises where water is supplied for human consumption as part of a commercial or public activity (including, but not limited to, schools, hospitals and restaurants) Irish Water or the relevant local authority shall ensure that appropriate action is taken promptly (whether by the owner of the premises or the water supplier, or both, as Irish Water or the relevant local authority may consider appropriate) to—

tonyroc

Sorry that conclusion was mine not EPA I should have made that clearer on the comment. So to clarify the plumber and the company can only be charged with negligence for breaking the EU Drinking water 2014 regulation that talks about 3 years indictable offence for breaking the regulations

Pro Hoc Vice

tonyroc wrote: »

Sorry that conclusion was mine not EPA I should have made that clearer on the comment. So to clarify the plumber and the company can only be charged with negligence for breaking the EU Drinking water 2014 regulation that talks about 3 years indictable offence for breaking the regulations

No that's not what I said. Re-read what I said did I say any person could be "charged with negiglagance" If you want to fully understand the regulations and can not figure it out yourself ask a solicitor or barrister to do an opinion on them. It's is very bad law to look at any legislation in isolation.

In my opinion your conclusion is not a conclusion any person could read from the EPA communication. I can not figure out how in gods name you concluded that from the EPA communication.

From the EPA "If they were to issue a Direction in respect of a public building they can only do so to the owner of the building and not a person or company that carried out such works"


Did you miss the "not" it is only if you take out the not between and a person that you can possibly get the conclusion you got.

whippet

I'm still confused as to what this has to do with this thread?

Losty Dublin

whippet wrote: »

I'm still confused as to what this has to do with this thread?

Ah but he had a hat on when he posted it up. That changes things.

Little CuChulainn

whippet wrote: »

I'm still confused as to what this has to do with this thread?

Deflection. Freemen are like Jedi. They are motivated by an unknown force and unrelated waffle is their light sabre which they use to deflect the onslaught of logic. They even use mind tricks on the weak minded.

tonyroc

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

No that's not what I said. Re-read what I said did I say any person could be "charged with negiglagance" If you want to fully understand the regulations and can not figure it out yourself ask a solicitor or barrister to do an opinion on them. It's is very bad law to look at any legislation in isolation.

In my opinion your conclusion is not a conclusion any person could read from the EPA communication. I can not figure out how in gods name you concluded that from the EPA communication.

From the EPA "If they were to issue a Direction in respect of a public building they can only do so to the owner of the building and not a person or company that carried out such works"


Did you miss the "not" it is only if you take out the not between and a person that you can possibly get the conclusion you got.

The EU drinking water regulation 2014 was put in place to act as a deterrent to stop someone from putting in a dangerous plumbing system that puts Ireland's PUBLIC DRINKING WATER MAINS at risk of contamination OR for contaminating same .
My confusion stems from the FACT that if the person or company who get caught putting in a system that risks contaminating the same Drinking Water can NOT be charged with breaking the regulation itself and facing the 3 year indictable offence mentioned in the regulation .

They as you say they could be liable for negligence but that would have to be proved in a court .

That some piece of legislation it basically lets off anyone who puts the public mains at risk by installing a dangerous water system in a building .

So unless someone is willing to risk financial lose in a court case or the state takes a case the deterrent is toothless for the person or company that puts in a "serious public Health concern" Chairman Oireachtas committee PSOP 7oct 2015
By the way THE regulation needs to be viewed in isolation because it's the nearest thing we have to a plumbing regulation in Ireland at present.
STUPID ME you were correct of course.











"AND WHEREAS, I consider that it is necessary, having further regard to section 3(3) of the Act of 1972, and for the purpose of ensuring that penalties in respect of an offence prosecuted in that manner under the following regulations are effective, proportionate and have a deterrent effect, having regard to the acts or omissions of which the offence consists, to make such provision in the following regulations: "

Pro Hoc Vice

tonyroc wrote: »

The EU drinking water regulation 2014 was put in place to act as a deterrent to stop someone from putting in a dangerous plumbing system that puts Ireland's PUBLIC DRINKING WATER MAINS at risk of contamination OR for contaminating same .
My confusion stems from the FACT that if the person or company who get caught putting in a system that risks contaminating the same Drinking Water can NOT be charged with breaking the regulation itself and facing the 3 year indictable offence mentioned in the regulation .

They as you say they could be liable for negligence but that would have to be proved in a court .

That some piece of legislation it basically lets off anyone who puts the public mains at risk by installing a dangerous water system in a building .

So unless someone is willing to risk financial lose in a court case or the state takes a case the deterrent is toothless for the person or company that puts in a "serious public Health concern" Chairman Oireachtas committee PSOP 7oct 2015
By the way THE regulation needs to be viewed in isolation because it's the nearest thing we have to a plumbing regulation in Ireland at present.
STUPID ME you were correct of course.











"AND WHEREAS, I consider that it is necessary, having further regard to section 3(3) of the Act of 1972, and for the purpose of ensuring that penalties in respect of an offence prosecuted in that manner under the following regulations are effective, proportionate and have a deterrent effect, having regard to the acts or omissions of which the offence consists, to make such provision in the following regulations: "

What are you trying to say?

Losty Dublin

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

What are you trying to say?

MMod, Post deleted. Pls don.t stir it up

Indricotherium

Losty Dublin wrote: »

<<Mod; post deleted -taunting
http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056300738/1/#post72800328

rameire

Losty Dublin wrote: »

P<<Mod post deleted>>
he is busy with the act on his facemuck page, giving the woo.
he is easy to find.

Pat Mustard

MOD:

This discussion has been moved from the Freeman Megamerge thread into its own thread, here

tonyroc

Pat Mustard wrote: »

MOD:

This discussion has been moved from the Freeman Megamerge thread into its own thread, here

I don't know whether to feel honoured or disappointed to have kicked off the Freeman thread was it something i said MOD??? :rolleyes::(:o:p:D I have always found that thread very interesting and insightful having watched it over the last few years . It's one of the reasons why i distanced myself from so many of the individuals out there . It always brought clarity by putting up the court reports of cases before the courts . But just like every other thread it has its rotten apples who think they are Judge & Jury no matter what evidence or defence you put before them they have already decided you are guilty of some perceived crime. They talked about me and a lot of others in activism and painted us all with the same brush. Does this mean i am no longer considered a FREEMAN or a conspiracy theorist by the legal profession anymore??? Or is it a way to push a sensible discussion away from some of the loon JUDGES that reside on FREEMAN MEGAMERGE and dictate the rights and wrongs of campaigns ? They have been correct about some of chancers and con men that disguise themselves as activists and pick the bones of the disillusioned. They can also be WRONG. Some of them are also egotists that SOMETIMES like to brainwash anyone in their path .

The private homeowner is given little protection by the (regulation) they can be liable to civil suit if the public main gets contaminated . Tks anyway MOD because i do think that a regulation put in place to DETER people from putting the PUBLIC WATER MAIN at risk from contamination and the person or company whose actions have caused the risk in the first place goes unpunished under the regulation is ludicrous to say the least .The regulations only saving grace is that employees of Council and State (the owners) of public buildings and water supply companies employees have to abide by it and CAN face punishment if they are found to be in breach of it from my reading of it as a lay person.

iLL_Behavior

I just got the whole thread closed down Tony, I didn't have to quote a facebook loon, paste a hyperlink or even mention anyone by name.
If I were a paranoid sort I'd swear the Mod was just looking for an excuse, considering anything I may have said that crossed a line could have been edited as is usual the case.
Wonders.
I'll take this opportunity to apologise to the contributors, hope a few of the super-mods may over ride the upset mods over-reaction.
I'll respect the request not to post there again should it be re-opened for the public.

tonyroc

iLL_Behavior wrote: »

I just got the whole thread closed down Tony, I didn't have to quote a facebook loon, paste a hyperlink or even mention anyone by name.
If I were a paranoid sort I'd swear the Mod was just looking for an excuse, considering anything I may have said that crossed a line could have been edited as is usual the case.
Wonders.
I'll take this opportunity to apologise to the contributors, hope a few of the super-mods may over ride the upset mods over-reaction.
I'll respect the request not to post there again should it be re-opened for the public.

That's a bit over the top as i said they provided a lot of useful information. I got some stick on it but i got a lot worse elsewhere. The only ones delighted will be the con men and chancers who will no longer be exposed on the thread. Maybe the contributors can take a case!!!!! :rolleyes::(:P:D .

iLL_Behavior

tonyroc wrote: »

they provided a lot of useful information.

for sure, that thread is a treasure chest of information & should be mandatory reading for anyone who's considering joining one of the f/book sheep dens.

I'm delighted to see it's being re-opened, obviously I believed the mod over reacted, maybe due to not knowing what I parodied was actual published and in the public domain or maybe with ongoing insanity of the e-sylum inmates & their planned operations, mentioning what's up & coming could be deemed as advertising potential crimes.
Understandable. [my bad if so]

It's all good though, Im happy it's back, I'll honor my word that I won't engage in there again.
Unless I'm given the all clear by a mod.

So you broke away from the fb-click T, dead right, I remember your personal campaign regarding the battle with the valves in private housing, have you tried to post up on the legal threads and throw it out to get peer reviewed by some of the cats in here?
You'd get honest answers and maybe the help/advice you'd need to take your case on a different route.
Lay out what you've got so far, throw it out there and see what qualified & experienced minds have to offer, you might find a gem you missed in the dig.

Thanks to the mod/mods who re-opened the Freeman thread, be a shame to lose it & I apologise for my role in that brief shut-down.

tonyroc

tonyroc wrote: »

It can be strange how people interpret things alright this what the EPA say Dear Mr Rochford,
My apologies I missed your call as I was in a meeting and have just got back to my desk.

The position of the EPA is that while Irish Water has no responsibility for the necessary repair works required of the internal contamination they do have the authority to require remedial action to be taken under Regulation 6. However, this only applies where the building is a public building. Where the investigation identifies that the pipework within a private dwelling is the cause of a non-compliance or at risk of a non-compliance they are required to advise the property owner of the remedial action they should take. They do not have the powers to issue Directions under Regulation 6 in respect of private dwellings. If they were to issue a Direction in respect of a public building they can only do so to the owner of the building and not a person or company that carried out such works

Possible Conclusion if the plumber worked directly for the council the owner of the council building he is liable .

I have got a response from irish water showing Meath C Co now seem to be telling Irish water to keep their nose out of the issue . My problem is that they rely on old water services act 2007 im open to correction but i would have presumed EU drinking water regulation 2014 would be the new reference point. They keep saying its the owners responsibility but they own the properties . Whatever about the risk of contamination there is now a major problem because plumbers don't want to get involved and none of the boilers have been serviced in over 2 years which will increase risks of explosion and carbon dioxide poisoning they should be serviced every 12 month for comply with best practise . The buildup in bacteria and contamination will also be increasing.
Dear Mr Rochford,

I am emailing you in relation to your correspondence with Irish Water.

We have received an update from the relevant local water department. They have provided us with the following update; Irish Water is not responsible for private-side pipework and plumbing. Under Section 54(1) of the Water Services Act 2007:
"The owner of a premises shall ensure that the internal distribution system of the premises is sufficient for, and maintained in such condition, as to ensure that water intended for human consumption meets prescribed quality requirements at the tap or taps used for such purposes." Where there are faults within the private plumbing, then it is the responsibility of the property owner to remedy them. The nature of any plumbing fault may also contravene the Building Regulations. In such a case, it is still the responsibility of the property owner to remedy them. Regardless of whether Irish Water advise property owners or not regarding the Water Services Act provisions, and regardless of whether the Local Authority (as Building Regulatory Authority) advise property owners or not regarding the Building Regulations provisions, the responsibility is still entirely with the property owner to remedy all faults on the private-side system.

In the event that you are not happy with our response to a complaint or the way it was handled, you may request the decision to be escalated and reviewed.

In order to do this, your complaint must be put it in writing to Irish Water by contacting:

Customer Service Manager
Irish Water
PO Box 860
South City Delivery Office
Cork City
or
Email: customerservice@water.ie

The decision will be reviewed and a response provided within 10 working days. Following this review (which must be in writing as set out above), if you are not satisfied, we will refer you to this 'Code of Practice on Complaint Handling' and provide you notice in writing that your complaint has been closed with Irish Water.

If you have any further queries you can visit our Questions and Answers at http://www.water.ie/help-centre/questions-and-answers/. Alternatively, you can reach us by using any of the contact details below.

Tell us what you thought of our service today by completing this short survey - redc.livesurveys.net/Operations

Pro Hoc Vice

tonyroc wrote: »

I have got a response from irish water showing Meath C Co now seem to be telling Irish water to keep their nose out of the issue . My problem is that they rely on old water services act 2007 im open to correction but i would have presumed EU drinking water regulation 2014 would be the new reference point. They keep saying its the owners responsibility but they own the properties . Whatever about the risk of contamination there is now a major problem because plumbers don't want to get involved and none of the boilers have been serviced in over 2 years which will increase risks of explosion and carbon dioxide poisoning they should be serviced every 12 month for comply with best practise . The buildup in bacteria and contamination will also be increasing.
Dear Mr Rochford,

I am emailing you in relation to your correspondence with Irish Water.

We have received an update from the relevant local water department. They have provided us with the following update; Irish Water is not responsible for private-side pipework and plumbing. Under Section 54(1) of the Water Services Act 2007:
"The owner of a premises shall ensure that the internal distribution system of the premises is sufficient for, and maintained in such condition, as to ensure that water intended for human consumption meets prescribed quality requirements at the tap or taps used for such purposes." Where there are faults within the private plumbing, then it is the responsibility of the property owner to remedy them. The nature of any plumbing fault may also contravene the Building Regulations. In such a case, it is still the responsibility of the property owner to remedy them. Regardless of whether Irish Water advise property owners or not regarding the Water Services Act provisions, and regardless of whether the Local Authority (as Building Regulatory Authority) advise property owners or not regarding the Building Regulations provisions, the responsibility is still entirely with the property owner to remedy all faults on the private-side system.

In the event that you are not happy with our response to a complaint or the way it was handled, you may request the decision to be escalated and reviewed.

In order to do this, your complaint must be put it in writing to Irish Water by contacting:

Customer Service Manager
Irish Water
PO Box 860
South City Delivery Office
Cork City
or
Email: customerservice@water.ie

The decision will be reviewed and a response provided within 10 working days. Following this review (which must be in writing as set out above), if you are not satisfied, we will refer you to this 'Code of Practice on Complaint Handling' and provide you notice in writing that your complaint has been closed with Irish Water.

If you have any further queries you can visit our Questions and Answers at http://www.water.ie/help-centre/questions-and-answers/. Alternatively, you can reach us by using any of the contact details below.

Tell us what you thought of our service today by completing this short survey - redc.livesurveys.net/Operations

Your assumption is more than likely incorrect. As an example there are many Road Traffic Acts and many other Acts that deal with Road Traffic also add a whole number of SI's the main Act is the 1961 Road Traffic Act there is a more recent for example 2010 Act while that did repeal some of the 1961 Act it also left many bits. So depending on what you are looking up it may be necessary to start at the earlier Act or any Amending act. It gets more confusing in that a amending Act may not be called the Road Traffic Act or on its title seem to have any connection to cars or Traffic or even Road.

As I said to you a while back you can not look at legislation in isolation. They are simply saying that the plumbing in a premises is nothing to do with them. You it seems to me have got the ass end of idea and no matter what anyone tells you you don't seem to get that your view of what the law does is just wrong.

BYW section 54(1) Water Services Act 2007: is still valid law and has not Tony knowledge been repealed or amended.

"54.— (1) The owner of a premises shall ensure that the internal distribution system of the premises is sufficient for, and maintained in such condition, as to ensure that water intended for human consumption meets prescribed quality requirements at the tap or taps used for such purposes."

tonyroc

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Your assumption is more than likely incorrect. As an example there are many Road Traffic Acts and many other Acts that deal with Road Traffic also add a whole number of SI's the main Act is the 1961 Road Traffic Act there is a more recent for example 2010 Act while that did repeal some of the 1961 Act it also left many bits. So depending on what you are looking up it may be necessary to start at the earlier Act or any Amending act. It gets more confusing in that a amending Act may not be called the Road Traffic Act or on its title seem to have any connection to cars or Traffic or even Road.

As I said to you a while back you can not look at legislation in isolation. They are simply saying that the plumbing in a premises is nothing to do with them. You it seems to me have got the ass end of idea and no matter what anyone tells you you don't seem to get that your view of what the law does is just wrong.

BYW section 54(1) Water Services Act 2007: is still valid law and has not Tony knowledge been repealed or amended.

"54.— (1) The owner of a premises shall ensure that the internal distribution system of the premises is sufficient for, and maintained in such condition, as to ensure that water intended for human consumption meets prescribed quality requirements at the tap or taps used for such purposes."

Most of what you say makes sense and thanks for putting me straight i have never had the arrogance to think i know more than professionals in any profession . Having said that i proved that my research on the engineering and plumbing risks were correct . Dept of Environment Dept Jobs and enterprise senior advisers and engineers had labeled me a nut job for over three years claiming these connection could NEVER even leak because of design. I had the manufacturers admitting they are designed with a leak tolerance with metal fatigue are going to leak more year by year . I intercepted email from senior county engineers sending emails all over to councilers and TD claiming i was misguided because they followed all guidelines i have proof that almost every house in Trim have dangerous systems signed by Meath Co Co. So when they gave false information about the connections they were using to microbiologists it was kinda understandable when they denied bacteria could build up . I paid for test and proved council lied and all the others at Oireachtas committee suddenly said i was right . The debate in now snowballed. No doubt you have forgotten more than i will ever know about law, i'd love to leave this to professionals but my pockets are not deep not to mention the stitch up by the last chancers i employed in the legal profession . I don't tar all with the same brush and accept that like every other profession there are probably a lot more good ones than bad. 7 companies all claimed conflict of interest when i needed work on a right to reply RTE .
Research i have presented 2012 first published in 2009 about viral meningitis being definitely transmitted by the water because virus used bacteria as host . TCD denied the possibility last year one of our leading research labs . WRAS UK water have published finding 2014 i presented 3 years before that indicated 90% legionnaires disease misdiagnosed .and that our 1300 deaths last year from Pneumonia need to be tested. I show diseases rates increasing 1900% in meningitis alone .........2004 cases 23 2014 cases 435 and a 16 fold increase in vtec blamed on private wells despite it not being mathematically possible with only 30% having a well as a risk factor ,

But apart from all that when a simple house inspection first asked for 2 yrs ago by TDs can not be got in a property OWNED by the council who last March said its Irish Water problem now have backtracked and told IW is none of their business but the householder should complete the work they are the owners but can't be forced . Are there any good guys left in any profession

Pro Hoc Vice

tonyroc wrote: »

Most of what you say makes sense and thanks for putting me straight i have never had the arrogance to think i know more than professionals in any profession . Having said that i proved that my research on the engineering and plumbing risks were correct . Dept of Environment Dept Jobs and enterprise senior advisers and engineers had labeled me a nut job for over three years claiming these connection could NEVER even leak because of design. I had the manufacturers admitting they are designed with a leak tolerance with metal fatigue are going to leak more year by year . I intercepted email from senior county engineers sending emails all over to councilers and TD claiming i was misguided because they followed all guidelines i have proof that almost every house in Trim have dangerous systems signed by Meath Co Co. So when they gave false information about the connections they were using to microbiologists it was kinda understandable when they denied bacteria could build up . I paid for test and proved council lied and all the others at Oireachtas committee suddenly said i was right . The debate in now snowballed. No doubt you have forgotten more than i will ever know about law, i'd love to leave this to professionals but my pockets are not deep not to mention the stitch up by the last chancers i employed in the legal profession . I don't tar all with the same brush and accept that like every other profession there are probably a lot more good ones than bad. 7 companies all claimed conflict of interest when i needed work on a right to reply RTE .
Research i have presented 2012 first published in 2009 about viral meningitis being definitely transmitted by the water because virus used bacteria as host . TCD denied the possibility last year one of our leading research labs . WRAS UK water have published finding 2014 i presented 3 years before that indicated 90% legionnaires disease misdiagnosed .and that our 1300 deaths last year from Pneumonia need to be tested. I show diseases rates increasing 1900% in meningitis alone .........2004 cases 23 2014 cases 435 and a 16 fold increase in vtec blamed on private wells despite it not being mathematically possible with only 30% having a well as a risk factor ,

But apart from all that when a simple house inspection first asked for 2 yrs ago by TDs can not be got in a property OWNED by the council who last March said its Irish Water problem now have backtracked and told IW is none of their business but the householder should complete the work they are the owners but can't be forced . Are there any good guys left in any profession

I have no idea about your comments on plumbing or leaking into the public system. All I do think is your view of the law does not in my opinion reflect the reality at the moment, the problem then is if I can see that when you say with authority the law says X, when I know the law does not say X, you can understand then why I may not accept your views on issues I know nothing about, which may be a bad thing as on issues you may be correct about people, will more than likely ignore you.

gctest50

tonyroc wrote: »

Most of what you say makes sense and thanks for putting me straight i have never had the arrogance to think i know more than professionals in any profession . Having said that i proved that my research on the engineering and plumbing risks were correct . Dept of Environment Dept Jobs and enterprise senior advisers and engineers had labeled me a nut job for over three years claiming these connection could NEVER even leak because of design. I had the manufacturers admitting they are designed with a leak tolerance with metal fatigue are going to leak more year by year . I intercepted email from senior county engineers sending emails all over to councilers and TD claiming i was misguided because they followed all guidelines i have proof that almost every house in Trim have dangerous systems signed by Meath Co Co. So when they gave false information about the connections they were using to microbiologists it was kinda understandable when they denied bacteria could build up . I paid for test and proved council lied and all the others at Oireachtas committee suddenly said i was right . The debate in now snowballed. No doubt you have forgotten more than i will ever know about law, i'd love to leave this to professionals but my pockets are not deep not to mention the stitch up by the last chancers i employed in the legal profession . I don't tar all with the same brush and accept that like every other profession there are probably a lot more good ones than bad. 7 companies all claimed conflict of interest when i needed work on a right to reply RTE .
Research i have presented 2012 first published in 2009 about viral meningitis being definitely transmitted by the water because virus used bacteria as host . TCD denied the possibility last year one of our leading research labs . WRAS UK water have published finding 2014 i presented 3 years before that indicated 90% legionnaires disease misdiagnosed .and that our 1300 deaths last year from Pneumonia need to be tested. I show diseases rates increasing 1900% in meningitis alone .........2004 cases 23 2014 cases 435 and a 16 fold increase in vtec blamed on private wells despite it not being mathematically possible with only 30% having a well as a risk factor ,

But apart from all that when a simple house inspection first asked for 2 yrs ago by TDs can not be got in a property OWNED by the council who last March said its Irish Water problem now have backtracked and told IW is none of their business but the householder should complete the work they are the owners but can't be forced . Are there any good guys left in any profession

tonyroc wrote: »

.....I intercepted email from senior county engineers sending emails all over to councilers and TD......

You intercepted email ?

tonyroc

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I have no idea about your comments on plumbing or leaking into the public system. All I do think is your view of the law does not in my opinion reflect the reality at the moment, the problem then is if I can see that when you say with authority the law says X, when I know the law does not say X, you can understand then why I may not accept your views on issues I know nothing about, which may be a bad thing as on issues you may be correct about people, will more than likely ignore you.

I think you are being slightly mislead by my bad vocabulary my standard of education is mainly self taught because I was a wayward child after being forced to watch Toni fonolli gang torture my mother over 6 hours while robbing our post office when I was 8 At 11 I was grabbed hostage again gun in my ear .i ran away and traveled the world . I self educated 2 brothers 1 PhD clongowes 2 doing PhD maynooth roscrea . I self taught all trades but my grammar is poor but passable. When I say I presume I am simply asking not stating . Not many can beat the best in NSAI ,Enviroment.jobs enterprise and oireachtas committee I beat all . I am self employed over 25 years as employer . Mortgage up to date but the most important point I have been nominated twice so I'm told as the most hated person in Ireland by both Dail members and civil servants not because I protest which i haven't in over 2 years but because I have them caught. I took on Irishwater just to prove a point so considering all that are you not curious why the dept environment councils and Irish water would not use the Test on the homes even if it just to bury me . Offered €150,000 last year I suspect new paper

tonyroc

gctest50 wrote: »

You intercepted email ?

don't get to excited I was sent a few copies I am struggling with phone tired heading

gctest50

tonyroc wrote: »

don't get to excited I was sent a few copies I am struggling with phone tired heading

just concerned

tonyroc

gctest50 wrote: »

just concerned

Collins knows I have I made sure he knew I have published all evidence and also made sure that they get any of my research by emails they don't respond much but the papet trail is open epa inspectors Irish water and council council engineers and building inspectors all by name . If we ever get law and order working properly in Ireland they will have no hiding place .

Indricotherium

tonyroc wrote: »

don't get to excited I was sent a few copies I am struggling with phone tired heading

For someone so fond of deliberately misinterpreting someone else's writing you are fairly loose with your own.

tonyroc

Indricotherium wrote: »

For someone so fond of deliberately misinterpreting someone else's writing you are fairly loose with your own.

Can you show me where I am deliberately misinterpreting someone else writing pls ? If you read my posts it's quite clear that I post my interpretation and if anyone proves that I am wrong I accept and acknowledge it . There would be no need for debates if everyone interpreted things the same . You yourself don't seem to have a problem with your loose statements "deliberately " At least I have somewhat of an excuse for being loose in my statements which I have explained on this thread . You on the other hand don't seem to have anything constructive to contribute but take anonymous cheap shots at people's characters.