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

tonyroc · 29-08-2016 08:38PM #1

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 · 29-08-2016 08:40PM

This post has been deleted.

tonyroc · 29-08-2016 09:41PM

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 · 29-08-2016 10:34PM

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 · 29-08-2016 10:34PM

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 · 29-08-2016 11:18PM

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 · 29-08-2016 11:34PM

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 · 30-08-2016 10:02PM

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 · 30-08-2016 10:50PM

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 · 30-08-2016 11:06PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

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

Under regulation 6

Pro Hoc Vice · 30-08-2016 11:14PM

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 · 30-08-2016 11:24PM

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 · 30-08-2016 11:32PM

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 · 30-08-2016 11:40PM

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 · 30-08-2016 11:44PM

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 · 30-08-2016 11:59PM

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 · 31-08-2016 12:15AM

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 · 31-08-2016 12:48AM

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 · 31-08-2016 12:53AM

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 · 31-08-2016 07:35AM

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

Losty Dublin · 31-08-2016 11:02AM

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 · 31-08-2016 11:33AM

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 · 31-08-2016 02:41PM

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 · 31-08-2016 02:45PM

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 · 31-08-2016 03:11PM

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

What are you trying to say?

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

Indricotherium · 31-08-2016 04:39PM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

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

rameire · 31-08-2016 04:49PM

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 · 01-09-2016 01:14AM

MOD:

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

tonyroc · 01-09-2016 08:38AM

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 · 03-09-2016 03:38AM

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 · 03-09-2016 09:03AM

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 .

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

Comments