Water charges for excessive usage

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hmmm strange that nobody other than Murphy and his fellow travelers ended up in court.

I doubt if there too many ‘general public’ punters roaring and shouting around Mobstown on that day.

Had better things, like working and paying their way I guess.

No, proves the point. Murphy wasn't invited. The people told him they didn't want him there. The authorities raided his house at dawn for publicity and to send a message and three or more Garda lied gave false testimony in the case. That pretty much supports my post, nothing strangely there Brenner.

Brendan Bendar

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, proves the point. Murphy wasn't invited. The people told him they didn't want him there. The authorities raided his house at dawn for publicity and to send a message and three or more Garda lied gave false testimony in the case. That pretty much supports my post, nothing strangely there Brenner.

You were hardly there yourself, Mattser, were you ?

Is Boy Blue with the bullhorn still in the movement I often wonder.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hmmm strange that nobody other than Murphy and his fellow travelers ended up in court.

I doubt if there too many ‘general public’ punters roaring and shouting around Mobstown on that day.

Had better things, like working and paying their way I guess.

Strange alright when you recall how pro Irish Water posters back then were so confident telling the rest of us for not "engaging" we were all heading for the courts jail and visits from the bailiffs.
Actually Brendan, did it ever cross your mind just how many votes Murphy gain to get him re-elected from the authorities attempting to stitch him up in court. Karma really can be a bitch.:)


There may not have been many "general public" punters around Jobstown that day, but there were enough "general public" Fine Gael and Labour supporters on the protest marches to scare the living daylights out of their T.D.s

Benedict

Link to > https://www.water.ie/docs/IW-Water-Charges-Plan-1-April-2019.pdf

"The rules and processes underpinning excess use charges will be determined by the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government,the CRU and Irish Water in 2019 and will be included in a future version of the water charges plan"

So what with the "future version" look like?

The quotas and fines which will apply to metered homes is only guaranteed to remain static for a few short years - and then how much water will metered homes be allowed to use and what will the fines be for those who step out of line?

(Not that anyone will take a blind bit of notice)

Brendan Bendar

Little bit off topic I know, but now the Gardai are being blamed by the farmers for the chaos in Dublin today.

Same as out in Jobbo..... just sayin like.

Like the riot out in Jobstown, there was complete mayhem but a lot of people blamed the guards.

Complete chaos in Dublin City, blocked by farmers with hundreds of vehicles....blame the Guards.

Easy targets.

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

Link to > https://www.water.ie/docs/IW-Water-Charges-Plan-1-April-2019.pdf

"The rules and processes underpinning excess use charges will be determined by the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government,the CRU and Irish Water in 2019 and will be included in a future version of the water charges plan"

So what with the "future version" look like?

The quotas and fines which will apply to metered homes is only guaranteed to remain static for a few short years - and then how much water will metered homes be allowed to use and what will the fines be for those who step out of line?

(Not that anyone will take a blind bit of notice)

There isn`t a present process underpinning excess use charges so unless they intend to meter all the remaining households plus all the apartments then there is no possible "future version".


The political party that even dreams of doing that wouldn`t have a future version.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Little bit off topic I know, but now the Gardai are being blamed by the farmers for the chaos in Dublin today.

Same as out in Jobbo..... just sayin like.

Like the riot out in Jobstown, there was complete mayhem but a lot of people blamed the guards.

Complete chaos in Dublin City, blocked by farmers with hundreds of vehicles....blame the Guards.

Easy targets.

I'll bring it back on topic. You raised Paul Murphy, (ooh matron).
The Garda tried to frame him and failed. If it wasn't for some footage he'd likely have gone down.
And again, getting back to your original mistake, water protesters, especially those at Jobstown were not his 'shower'. He wasn't invited and as told to go away.
When Reilly was egged in Bluebell, Dublin it was in a predominantly Fine Gael generational voter area. I am from up the road. I know it well. The water protesters were the general public, made up of all sorts from all walks.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Little bit off topic I know, but now the Gardai are being blamed by the farmers for the chaos in Dublin today.

Same as out in Jobbo..... just sayin like.

Like the riot out in Jobstown, there was complete mayhem but a lot of people blamed the guards.

Complete chaos in Dublin City, blocked by farmers with hundreds of vehicles....blame the Guards.

Easy targets.

We had climate activists causing chaos in Dublin worried about the future of the planet where it seemed acceptable, so is it really that much removed from farmers doing the same because their livelihood is threatened by a cartel

Brendan Bendar

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll bring it back on topic. You raised Paul Murphy, (ooh matron).
The Garda tried to frame him and failed. If it wasn't for some footage he'd likely have gone down.
And again, getting back to your original mistake, water protesters, especially those at Jobstown were not his 'shower'. He wasn't invited and as told to go away.
When Reilly was egged in Bluebell, Dublin it was in a predominantly Fine Gael generational voter area. I am from up the road. I know it well. The water protesters were the general public, made up of all sorts from all walks.

Charges were brought, he was found not guilty by a jury.

That’s a long way from trying to ‘ frame’ him, I would suggest.

Very dangerous allegations I would suggest as well.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Charges were brought, he was found not guilty by a jury.

That’s a long way from trying to ‘ frame’ him, I would suggest.

Very dangerous allegations I would suggest as well.

How would you go about it, by not bringing charges? Odd.

My opinion boss. Three or more Garda made the exact same sworn err word for word

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Charges were brought, he was found not guilty by a jury.

That’s a long way from trying to ‘ frame’ him, I would suggest.

Very dangerous allegations I would suggest as well.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck......



I am no supporter of Paul Murphy, but in that court case a number of Gardai were very very fortunate not to be charged with committing perjury.
If they had then I cannot see where the would have had a leg to stand on.

Brendan Bendar

We are straying into the matter of ‘ifs,buts,and maybes’ here.

Mr Murphy and his co-defendants were found not guilty by a jury...

No member of the Gardai was charged with anything.

Those are the only outcomes which in my opinion are actual fact.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

We are straying into the matter of ‘ifs,buts,and maybes’ here.

Mr Murphy and his co-defendants were found not guilty by a jury...

No member of the Gardai was charged with anything.

Those are the only outcomes which in my opinion are actual fact.

Other facts exist too B which I suspect you find too inconvenient to acknowledge. Such is life.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

We are straying into the matter of ‘ifs,buts,and maybes’ here.

Mr Murphy and his co-defendants were found not guilty by a jury...

No member of the Gardai was charged with anything.

Those are the only outcomes which in my opinion are actual fact.

We know it wasn't 'Murphy's shower'.
We know his house was raided at dawn.
We know numerous Garda gave the same word for word incorrect statement.
We know he wasn't guilty.

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We know it wasn't 'Murphy's shower'.
We know his house was raided at dawn.
We know numerous Garda gave the same word for word incorrect statement.
We know he wasn't guilty.

None of that makes what the protesters did that day right. Murphy and his baying mob were totally in the wrong.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

None of that makes what the protesters did that day right. Murphy and his baying mob were totally in the wrong.

None of that is relevant to the discussion.
On your point, the protesters were right. Some went over board and went too far. It wasn't 'Murphy's mob'. They didn't invite him and he wasn't welcomed. In fact he wasn't found guilty of anything. Have you been following the IW thing at all or is it selective posting you're at?
The protesters were right. Some people went too far. Thanks to the public who protested we saved some tax monies. We should be looking at laying fraud charges on Noonan, but we'll wait and see what the Siteserv deal investigations conclude. I'd be more annoyed about millions of tax payer money being swindled or in the least misused than a few blaggards at a peaceful and just protest delaying a car from leaving.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

None of that makes what the protesters did that day right. Murphy and his baying mob were totally in the wrong.

Not according to a jury, and a summing up by a judge that made it very questionable as to exactly why a case was ever brought to court.

Or come to that, why the very heavy handed early Garda morning raid accompanied by journalists.
Smelled somewhat of politically motivated policing. Never a pleasant aroma.



Anyway, just a side-show from the thread topic.
Any sign of an explanation as to how all those unmetwred household are going to be accessed for exceeding their allowance, or a post number where you supposedly explained ?
If not then I believe safe to assume you are either bluffing or you haven`t a clue.

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Not according to a jury, and a summing up by a judge that made it very questionable as to exactly why a case was ever brought to court.

Or come to that, why the very heavy handed early Garda morning raid accompanied by journalists.
Smelled somewhat of politically motivated policing. Never a pleasant aroma.



Anyway, just a side-show from the thread topic.
Any sign of an explanation as to how all those unmetwred household are going to be accessed for exceeding their allowance, or a post number where you supposedly explained ?
If not then I believe safe to assume you are either bluffing or you haven`t a clue.

The jury rightly found them not guilty of the offence they were changed with. That doesn’t make their actions right!

I would have imagined that you were reading all posts, so no need for me to search for relevant ones for you! Or, try asking any plumber! Not that you’ll believe any answer that doesn’t suit!

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

The jury rightly found them not guilty of the offence they were changed with. That doesn’t make their actions right!

I would have imagined that you were reading all posts, so no need for me to search for relevant ones for you! Or, try asking any plumber! Not that you’ll believe any answer that doesn’t suit!

You are talking in generalisations. Some protesters went to far. Protesting was right and just. We should thank the protesters.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

None of that makes what the protesters did that day right. Murphy and his baying mob were totally in the wrong.

Is this the two wrongs don't make a right argument, but in reverse?

The guards are the states supposedly impartial police force, they shouldn't be trying to frame anyone regardless of their behaviour, or suspected misdemeanours.

If Murphy's antics were as bad as you seem to think, then the DPP should have charged him accordingly, and the impartial guards should have investigated those charges thoroughly, and got their evidence together.

Not conspire and connive together in an attempt to frame someone for more serious charges.

Whatever it is you feel Paul Murphy was actually guilty of at Johnstown, he definitely committed the lesser of the two evils in those comparisons, all day every day.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The jury rightly found them not guilty of the offence they were changed with. That doesn’t make their actions right!

I would have imagined that you were reading all posts, so no need for me to search for relevant ones for you! Or, try asking any plumber! Not that you’ll believe any answer that doesn’t suit!

Without the aid of a meter , what exactly can a plumber tell you?

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

The jury rightly found them not guilty of the offence they were changed with. That doesn’t make their actions right!

I would have imagined that you were reading all posts, so no need for me to search for relevant ones for you! Or, try asking any plumber! Not that you’ll believe any answer that doesn’t suit!

A jury had no problem with their actions, so it is a legitimate question as to why charges were even brought. When it comes to what actions were right, then it is also a legitimate question, in light of the verdict, was there political motivation behind the very heavy handed arrest of Murphy, the media being tipped off and the evidence of three Garda that the judge certainly didn`t think anyway right.


I have read all posts as far as I know and have yet to find this mysterious post of yours that explains how unmetered households, or indeed apartments, will be accessed as exceeding their allocation.


I am a qualified civil engineer, but it being a long time since I have been engaged in that field I thought that perhaps there may nowadays be an economically feasible way of doing so. So I consulted my brother in law.
He owns and operates a plumbing business.

He kinda looked at me as if I had lost it, but after explaining to him that you had a way of doing it, he could see why you are keeping it so secret.
Reckoned you as the only person that knows how to do it in an economically feasible manner may be looking to patent the idea and make a few bob.

Other than that he reckoned you were just telling (not his exact words) porkies

charlie14

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Without the aid of a meter , what exactly can a plumber tell you?

If he is a mystical plumber, your future perhaps ?

Benedict

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Without the aid of a meter , what exactly can a plumber tell you?

Wasting your time P. She won't tell you because she doesn't know the answer - you'll just be accused of not reading the posts properly and if you did read them, you'd know the answers.


(You might even be told to go and ask the famous "plumber" who has the answer apparently)



In the absence of hard evidence to the contrary, I consider it to be a fact that realistically IW cannot assess water usage of an un-metered home and this fact is pivotal to the entire argument because it means that unmetered homes are free to use as much as they like free of charge.

This fact alone is sufficiently serious to collapse the entire current water charges plan.

McMurphy

I think Maryanne is going to take her secret to the grave with her.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We know it wasn't 'Murphy's shower'.
We know his house was raided at dawn.
We know numerous Garda gave the same word for word incorrect statement.
We know he wasn't guilty.

If Paul Murphy wasn’t guilty because he wasn’t convicted, and is some kind of hero, then Maria Bailey must be really innocent because charges weren’t even brought.

The hypocrisy oozing from your post is nauseating.

Everyone saw what Paul Murphy did that day. Anyone with the smallest amount of decency knows that he was wrong and behaved completely inappropriately. He mixed with lowlife and reached their level.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

If Paul Murphy wasn’t guilty because he wasn’t convicted, and is some kind of hero, then Maria Bailey must be really innocent because charges weren’t even brought.

The hypocrisy oozing from your post is nauseating.

Everyone saw what Paul Murphy did that day. Anyone with the smallest amount of decency knows that he was wrong and behaved completely inappropriately. He mixed with lowlife and reached their level.

Ha.

Maria Bailey, based on her radio interview, exaggerated her injuries story to get some compo. These are facts.
Murphy was charged with something and found innocent.
What on earth has one to do with the other aside from you being desperate to score points and defend Fine Gael, even when body is talking about, The Green Party?

You hound me on these boards unmolested by any enforcement of conduct.
You try start quarrels or upsets to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking me into displaying emotional responses and normalising tangential discussion, whether for either your amusement or a specific gain, defending Fine Gael.

FYI: I'm spoken for, but I am flattered, maybe even a little curious

McMurphy

then Maria Bailey must be really innocent because charges weren’t even brought.

Problem is, her party colleagues in her local area obviously don't see her as innocent, nor do the higher ups, hence her being dropped like a hot potato from the ticket.

Following her disastrous interview, the public obviously don't view her as innocent, and the report Leo sanctioned said she overstated her injuries, that's just carefully crafted double talk roughly translated means "she lied through her hoop".

Maria could have given a big eff you to all her doubters by going the full good with her claim, but she chose not to, and in fact apologised for chancing her arm - something I don't think Murphy did.

It is nice that you have finally found your voice to air your opinion, seeing as you had none about her on the actual thread about her, even if it's in a thread about water charges.

Benedict

IW in their site (https://www.water.ie/conservation/household-conservation) have now said on a Q & A piece:

"Q. When did you start to measure customer usage?

A. We are continuously monitoring water usage to allow us identify leaks. Data is collected from metered households quarterly and district meters are used to identify excess usage in unmetered areas."

This is very strange. Why not put meters in "unmetered areas"? And what happens to unmetered homes in metered areas?
What percentage of homes need to be unmetered before it can be deemed and "unmetered area"?

And what use is it measuring usage in unmetered areas? Is this just for statistics?

James Brown

Benedict wrote: »

IW in their site (https://www.water.ie/conservation/household-conservation) have now said on a Q & A piece:

"Q. When did you start to measure customer usage?

A. We are continuously monitoring water usage to allow us identify leaks. Data is collected from metered households quarterly and district meters are used to identify excess usage in unmetered areas."

This is very strange. Why not put meters in "unmetered areas"? And what happens to unmetered homes in metered areas?
What percentage of homes need to be unmetered before it can be deemed and "unmetered area"?

And what use is it measuring usage in unmetered areas? Is this just for statistics?

One of my first jobs was working in a warehouse, ("during the war...").
The lad I was assisting had a storage system that made no sense and only he knew. That way if they tried fire him, they'd not be able to find certain items without his knowledge. Job security people call it.
This is IW trying to make itself needed, when it has no use at all when you think about it.

Contractors tell the LAs what work needs doing, the LA's tell IW, IW informs the Dept. of the Environment. The Dept. of the environment gives the nod/funding, IW tell the LA's to do what ever, the LA's tell the contractor.
Exactly as it use to be, sans IW but with more funding, to save face.