Water charges revisited?

blanch152 · 23-07-2018 06:34PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

With all due respect, all this has been covered and I can't tell if you are simply not knowledgeable or acting the mess.

We've money for everything I listed, but the cost of LA's actively upgrading and maintaining over the decades, at a fraction, requires magic money? That's just childishness.
Simply pointing out both IW and myself disagree with you. Not sure where you are getting your anecdotal facts from.

We don't have money for everything.

Choices have to be made. When it comes to capital investment, roads, schools and hospitals win out over water.

It has been explained on here many times that if you spend money on one thing, then you don't have the money for something else. If we don't have water charges and use tax money to invest in water infrastructure, we end up with no DART Underground or social housing or something else.

James Brown · 23-07-2018 06:57PM

blanch152 wrote: »

We don't have money for everything.

Choices have to be made. When it comes to capital investment, roads, schools and hospitals win out over water.

It has been explained on here many times that if you spend money on one thing, then you don't have the money for something else. If we don't have water charges and use tax money to invest in water infrastructure, we end up with no DART Underground or social housing or something else.

You are out of context and off the mark.
It needs be repeated only because of people changing the course of the argument, like this for instance.
Again, to clarify for you;
It was put forward that we didn't have money for the LA's to upkeep, refit the water mains as needed over the many decades. Because we didn't have magic money for that.
We did however have money for jobs for our own, consultants, billing fees, laughing yoga, sweet deals and so on in the throws of a fiscal meltdown/borrow.

All derived from the premise put forward that if previous governments had a genuine concern for water infrastructure they could have been servicing it, at a far lower rate, over a longer period, rather than patching it and rather than the national emergency in 2011 allegedly requiring the quango. Do you disagree?

crossman47 · 23-07-2018 07:30PM

The government handled the establishment of IW outrageously badly . But, IMO, the basic idea was the correct one because (a) it would allow IW as a commercial entity to borrow without affecting the states balance sheet and (b) paying for water would undoubtedly result in less wastage (accepting that leaks are a major problem also).

I can understand oppostion to IW as it was set up but I cannot understand the opposition to the basic idea by anyone with a brain in their head. We need major investment (which we never got because current priorities will always trump long term investment when budgets are being drawn up) and this is the only way. I accept it won't happen because of lousy implementation but we will all suffer for it in the long term.

dense · 23-07-2018 08:58PM

blanch152 wrote: »

We don't have money for everything.

Choices have to be made. When it comes to capital investment, roads, schools and hospitals win out over water.

It has been explained on here many times that if you spend money on one thing, then you don't have the money for something else. If we don't have water charges and use tax money to invest in water infrastructure, we end up with no DART Underground or social housing or something else.

Just had another look at IW financial statements.

It's not really plausible that €270m from domestic charges was going to substantially affect those major projects or spends.

Or magically make it a substantially self funded utility either.

blanch152 · 23-07-2018 09:59PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are out of context and off the mark.
It needs be repeated only because of people changing the course of the argument, like this for instance.
Again, to clarify for you;
It was put forward that we didn't have money for the LA's to upkeep, refit the water mains as needed over the many decades. Because we didn't have magic money for that.
We did however have money for jobs for our own, consultants, billing fees, laughing yoga, sweet deals and so on in the throws of a fiscal meltdown/borrow.

All derived from the premise put forward that if previous governments had a genuine concern for water infrastructure they could have been servicing it, at a far lower rate, over a longer period, rather than patching it and rather than the national emergency in 2011 allegedly requiring the quango. Do you disagree?

The answers to this are quite simple and appear to have been ignored in your argument:

(1) Local authority incompetence
(2) Limited capital funding in Ireland with other priorities
(3) Requirement to borrow off-books

These cannot be explained away as easily as your post suggests. Finally, you are correct that previous governments didn't have a genuine concern for water infrastructure and to be honest, they never will because who wants to open a sewage treatment plant, when a road, a school or a hospital makes for a better photo opportunity. That is why Irish Water and water charges are such an excellent idea. An independent income source that allows the commercial State body to borrow off its own back. We could have solved the water infrastructure issue for years to come but the protesters and the populist politicians of the left were too short-sighted and selfish to realise that.

dense · 23-07-2018 10:03PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The answers to this are quite simple and appear to have been ignored in your argument:

(1) Local authority incompetence
(2) Limited capital funding in Ireland with other priorities
(3) Requirement to borrow off-books

These cannot be explained away as easily as your post suggests. Finally, you are correct that previous governments didn't have a genuine concern for water infrastructure and to be honest, they never will because who wants to open a sewage treatment plant, when a road, a school or a hospital makes for a better photo opportunity. That is why Irish Water and water charges are such an excellent idea. An independent income source that allows the commercial State body to borrow off its own back. We could have solved the water infrastructure issue for years to come but the protesters and the populist politicians of the left were too short-sighted and selfish to realise that.

Surely the populist politicians who were in power who have abolished the idea of charges have some responsibility in this fiasco?

No point blaming fringe elements for the actions of tje government.

crossman47 · 23-07-2018 10:13PM

dense wrote: »

Surely the populist politicians who were in power who have abolished the idea of charges have some responsibility in this fiasco?

No point blaming fringe elements for the actions of tje government.

Indeed they do. FG bent to the opposition and FF saw what way the wind was blowing. Both typical of parties whose idea of leadership is (I am the leader. There go the mob. I must follow). Phil Hogan was absolutely useless in making the case for Irish Water and it is now dead for decades.

blanch152 · 23-07-2018 10:51PM

dense wrote: »

Surely the populist politicians who were in power who have abolished the idea of charges have some responsibility in this fiasco?

No point blaming fringe elements for the actions of tje government.

FG gave up water charges as it was the price FF demanded to support the government.

FF could have asked for a second Metro line, reforming the health service, or the building of social housing. Instead, at their insistence, most of the agreement for government was taken up with water charges.

dense · 23-07-2018 10:58PM

crossman47 wrote: »

Indeed they do. FG bent to the opposition and FF saw what way the wind was blowing. Both typical of parties whose idea of leadership is (I am the leader. There go the mob. I must follow). Phil Hogan was absolutely useless in making the case for Irish Water and it is now dead for decades.

Yes, wasn't it FF who with the greens had the idea in the first place.

And then FG and Labour u turned and U Turned on their own decisions leading to where we are today.

All mainstream parties.

In fairness to FF though, they were the only ones who published their legal advice outlining how they saw fit to abolish them. For all the talk I don't think FG published anything to say how they believed we were being forced to have them .

https://www.fiannafail.ie/ff-legal-advice/

dense · 23-07-2018 11:01PM

blanch152 wrote: »

FG gave up water charges as it was the price FF demanded to support the government.

FF could have asked for a second Metro line, reforming the health service, or the building of social housing. Instead, at their insistence, most of the agreement for government was taken up with water charges.

And for what? All of €270m. Minus the Water Conservation grant after that.

One was as bad as the other pretending it was make or break with everything pivoting on water charges.

By the time FF got within an asses roar of power FG and Labour by themselved had already done the damage to water charges.

marno21 · 24-07-2018 02:31AM

blanch152 wrote: »

FG gave up water charges as it was the price FF demanded to support the government.

FF could have asked for a second Metro line, reforming the health service, or the building of social housing. Instead, at their insistence, most of the agreement for government was taken up with water charges.

Second Metro line? We don't have any

Any word on when there could be a possible repeal of the hosepipe ban (outside Dublin)? I have some power washing to do.

NinetyTwoTeam · 24-07-2018 03:16AM

dense wrote: »

Just had another look at IW financial statements.

It's not really plausible that €270m from domestic charges was going to substantially affect those major projects or spends.

Or magically make it a substantially self funded utility either.

it was never meant to be self funded, the whole plan was get people to sign up with a low charge, sell the company off and let a private company jack the price up to make profits.

all this 'we need to pay for water so we can have other stuff' is nonsense. we would not have social housing being built because we paid the water charge and that freed up money to build houses. anyone who thinks that is hilariously naive or just totally disingenuous and grasping at any straw to support the charge.

James Brown · 24-07-2018 02:26PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The answers to this are quite simple and appear to have been ignored in your argument:

(1) Local authority incompetence
(2) Limited capital funding in Ireland with other priorities
(3) Requirement to borrow off-books

These cannot be explained away as easily as your post suggests. Finally, you are correct that previous governments didn't have a genuine concern for water infrastructure and to be honest, they never will because who wants to open a sewage treatment plant, when a road, a school or a hospital makes for a better photo opportunity. That is why Irish Water and water charges are such an excellent idea. An independent income source that allows the commercial State body to borrow off its own back. We could have solved the water infrastructure issue for years to come but the protesters and the populist politicians of the left were too short-sighted and selfish to realise that.

Explained away like you just did but with your bias.
IW said the LA's did a great job despite decades of under funding. Now you are of course free to disagree with IW.
Water infrastructure was under funded. You say we didn't have the money. I say there was little interest. You concede that much. They find money when it's important to them.
Now you revert back to the PR and spin. If the plan was flawed and mistakes made, were people, the general public, wrong to protest? Do you think these 'mistakes' would have been addressed if there weren't people out protesting? Be honest, imagine the cronyism and waste there would have been if Fine Gael were left to it's own devices on this?

blanch152 · 24-07-2018 03:12PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Explained away like you just did but with your bias.
IW said the LA's did a great job despite decades of under funding. Now you are of course free to disagree with IW.

Irish Water needed the LA workers and support in the short term. They had no option in that one instance (and it was only once that they said it) to say that the LAs did a great job. The reality, and this is obvious to any neutral observer, is that the LAs were horribly incompetent in dealing with water infrastructure just like roads, motor tax, driver licensing etc. before that.

Your reference to the one instance is like the reference to the one letter from Eurostat about privatisation. You focus on the tiniest piece of available evidence and ignore the mountain of evidence that says the opposite.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Water infrastructure was under funded. You say we didn't have the money. I say there was little interest. You concede that much. They find money when it's important to them.

This is a case of simple mathematics. If we have €50bn and we are spending it every year, then if we want to spend €1bn on water infrastructure, we have to spend €1bn less on something else or raise taxes. It is as simple as that.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Now you revert back to the PR and spin. If the plan was flawed and mistakes made, were people, the general public, wrong to protest? Do you think these 'mistakes' would have been addressed if there weren't people out protesting? Be honest, imagine the cronyism and waste there would have been if Fine Gael were left to it's own devices on this?

Yes, the people were wrong to protest, and they did not reflect the general public. 61% paid all of their bills and a greater number paid at least some of their bills. The protests were undemocratic and echoed the mob rule of medieval times.

James Brown · 24-07-2018 03:43PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Irish Water needed the LA workers and support in the short term. They had no option in that one instance (and it was only once that they said it) to say that the LAs did a great job. The reality, and this is obvious to any neutral observer, is that the LAs were horribly incompetent in dealing with water infrastructure just like roads, motor tax, driver licensing etc. before that.

So we are not to believe IW on this. Fair enough, but everything else they say is gold? More like comedy gold.

blanch152 wrote: »

Your reference to the one instance is like the reference to the one letter from Eurostat about privatisation. You focus on the tiniest piece of available evidence and ignore the mountain of evidence that says the opposite.

I can only go with what's supplied. It's unfortunate it doesn't suit you. If you can find were IW officially retracted their claim about the LA's I'll accept it.

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a case of simple mathematics. If we have €50bn and we are spending it every year, then if we want to spend €1bn on water infrastructure, we have to spend €1bn less on something else or raise taxes. It is as simple as that.

That's true, unless we borrow. You keep raising this like it's something the rest of us aren't aware of or are ignoring. Not having the money is not an absolute, we could get it, and would have needed a hell of a lot less if water was funded over the decades. A point I made earlier. The national water crisis of 2011 was of Fine Gael/Lab's making. They chose that time to make setting up the quango and metering as a priority, they shook the magic money tree because it was in their interest. They used people like your good self with a genuine belief in the importance of the water infrastructure as a mere vehicle for crony tactics and gouging.

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, the people were wrong to protest, and they did not reflect the general public. 61% paid all of their bills and a greater number paid at least some of their bills. The protests were undemocratic and echoed the mob rule of medieval times.

Protest is the height of democracy. I pay my TV licence, but I do not support it, but the law says I have to pay. You are sensationalising people protesting, like the members of the Labour government of that time had done themselves. The public have a civic duty to protest things they believe to be wrong.

James Brown · 24-07-2018 03:48PM

blanch152 wrote: »

FG gave up water charges as it was the price FF demanded to support the government.

FF could have asked for a second Metro line, reforming the health service, or the building of social housing. Instead, at their insistence, most of the agreement for government was taken up with water charges.

That's the quality of populist Fine Gael. You make it sound like they'd a gun to their head. Getting into bed with FF after everything Kenny said about them just shows we need the public to protest and keep such people in check.

crossman47 · 24-07-2018 03:52PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's true, unless we borrow. You keep raising this like it's something the rest of us aren't aware of or are ignoring. Not having the money is not an absolute, we could get it, and would have needed a hell of a lot less if water was funded over the decades.

Thats true. We could borrow. But our capacity to borrow is constrained by EU rules. That was the fundamental reason for trying to set up IW as a commercial entity. It could then, like the ESB, borrow off the books. Taat point was lost early on and never explained properly - one of the many fundamental mistakes made by the government.

dense · 24-07-2018 05:05PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, the people were wrong to protest, and they did not reflect the general public. 61% paid all of their bills and a greater number paid at least some of their bills. The protests were undemocratic and echoed the mob rule of medieval times.

Would you accept that people have a democratic right to protest?

A suitable system fit for purpose would have ensured that bills were paid. No money=no water.

This is what happens with real utility companies.

When the government asked the public and Eurostat to imagine that IW is something other than a government vehicle, susceptible to government interference and dependant on government funding, as adults we cannot but acknowledge that there is a pretence afoot when assurances about privatisation were discussed during the rating proceedings.

Something like this venture must at least act like it's a private sector business.

The only hope for anyone desperate to pay water charges is for the EU introducing legislation compelling them.

Or they could always reregister their property with IW as a business premises.

blanch152 · 24-07-2018 05:12PM

dense wrote: »

Would you accept that people have a democratic right to protest?

Of course people have a democratic right to protest, but the people also have the democratic right not to be subject to mob rule. There is a balance between the two.

In my opinion, the line was crossed by the water protestors from democratic protest into mob rule.

dense wrote: »

A suitable system fit for purpose would have ensured that bills were paid. No money=no water.

This is what happens with real utility companies.

When the government asked the public and Eurostat to imagine that IW is something other than a government vehicle, susceptible to government interference and dependant on government funding, as adults we cannot but acknowledge that there is a pretence afoot when assurances about privatisation were discussed during the rating proceedings.

Something like this venture must at least act like it's a private sector business.

The only hope for anyone desperate to pay water charges is for the EU introducing legislation compelling them.

Or they could always reregister their property with IW as a business premises.

Out of several hundred documents, only once in one letter was privatisation mentioned. The same type of political mentality that saw Brexit happen and Trump get elected was responsible for the belief that Irish Water was going to be privatised.

Opposing water charges was our Brexit and Trump moment - the triumph of irrationality over reality and pragmatism.

dense · 24-07-2018 05:22PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course people have a democratic right to protest, but the people also have the democratic right not to be subject to mob rule.

The people, as in the people of the country were not subjected to mob rule.

Any mobbish behaviour only occurred in what I would describe as disadvantaged areas.

As for privatisation, no, it wasn't going to be widely advertised, yet it did manage to poke it's head into the official communications.

We can't expect people to un-remember these things which have nailed the lid on water charges for a generation. And even after a generation the media will be making hay with all the reminiscing about the last time.

blanch152 · 24-07-2018 05:58PM

dense wrote: »

The people, as in the people of the country were not subjected to mob rule.

Any mobbish behaviour only occurred in what I would describe as disadvantaged areas.

Can you expand on those you accuse of mobbish behaviour? I see the whole protest movement and the involvement of people like Paul Murphy as examples of the mob in action. However, I would be interested in your more limited view.

dense wrote: »

As for privatisation, no, it wasn't going to be widely advertised, yet it did manage to poke it's head into the official communications.

We can't expect people to un-remember these things which have nailed the lid on water charges for a generation. And even after a generation the media will be making hay with all the reminiscing about the last time.

Oh dear, one official communication mentioning privatisation means a secret hidden agenda of privatisation. We have been over this before many times. It is close to conspiracy theory territory.

James Brown · 24-07-2018 06:05PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Can you expand on those you accuse of mobbish behaviour? I see the whole protest movement and the involvement of people like Paul Murphy as examples of the mob in action. However, I would be interested in your more limited view.

Oh dear, one official communication mentioning privatisation means a secret hidden agenda of privatisation. We have been over this before many times. It is close to conspiracy theory territory.

Paul Murphy wasn't even welcome at jobstown. You have been made aware of this numerous times but you chose to ignore it because it doesn't suit.
Oh dear, someone formed an opinion you don't like? It happens. What do you call it when people spend a lot of time trying to close down any discussion that goes against their agenda instead of letting people discuss their opinions in a public forum? I mean if it's all sown up and there's nothing to see here, job done? As regards jobstown the only people with questions to answer were the Garda and the false statements.
I believe IW would have been privatised down the road. That, IMO, is a key obstacle to charges returning in any form. It's the government of the day, should that day come, problem to build confidence. Not the duty of the public to blindly believe political parties with less than clean records in the regard of honesty and doing what's right for the public. How did telling people to 'toddle along' the arrogance, work out?

dense · 24-07-2018 08:37PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Can you expand on those you accuse of mobbish behaviour? I see the whole protest movement and the involvement of people like Paul Murphy as examples of the mob in action. However, I would be interested in your more limited view.

The young man with the brick comes to my mind. The rude behaviour to meter installers wasn't nice either and I often wonder if people regret how they behaved towards people doing a job.

I'm not personally a fan of jostling or pushing and shoving, be it at a protest or a pop concert, I like a bit of space. But many don't seem to mind that.

The large, organised demonstrations seem to have went off very well though?

I think you know my views on Murphy and the lefties from the climate change thread.

unit 1 · 24-07-2018 09:18PM

blanch152 wrote: »

FG gave up water charges as it was the price FF demanded to support the government.

FF could have asked for a second Metro line, reforming the health service, or the building of social housing. Instead, at their insistence, most of the agreement for government was taken up with water charges.

The reason ff picked this issue was to give fg a bloody nose, and look strong for its yahoo supporters who had to swallow (it must be killing them) the idea of putting fg into government.
Fg being pragmatic and the only ones fit to govern at the time took it on the chin, but it was the most cowardly, self serving, idiotic, and frankly appaling stroke of about-turnery from ff who origionally proposed water charges at €500 pa.
No doubt about it IW was winning the war, with increasing bill compliance and greatly reduced "mega anti water marches", to such and extent that if ff ignored it and picked any other topic most people today would be paying their bill just like every other utility and be getting on with their lives.

To this day I cannot fathom the inability of the media to comment on the decline of the anti water campaign at the time, given it laughable attempts to reinvent itself from "right to water" to "right to change" or whatever daft lefty slogan they had which no one can remember, just like their pointless, and declining mini marches.
As a coco worker who may be adversly affected by the move from la's to iw, the simple unvarnished truth is that it is needed and prudent to keep going. IW was never the "disaster" that people, mostly uninformed, make it out to be, its just fashionable to say it is without most people actually knowing what they are talking about. Third level colleges-disaster, hospitals-disaster, gardai-disaster, and on and on fuelled by sensationalist media and scare mongering self serving politicians. In Irealand it was ever thus with our clientelist political system.

blanch152 · 24-07-2018 09:20PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Paul Murphy wasn't even welcome at jobstown. You have been made aware of this numerous times but you chose to ignore it because it doesn't suit.
Oh dear, someone formed an opinion you don't like? It happens. What do you call it when people spend a lot of time trying to close down any discussion that goes against their agenda instead of letting people discuss their opinions in a public forum? I mean if it's all sown up and there's nothing to see here, job done? As regards jobstown the only people with questions to answer were the Garda and the false statements.
I believe IW would have been privatised down the road. That, IMO, is a key obstacle to charges returning in any form. It's the government of the day, should that day come, problem to build confidence. Not the duty of the public to blindly believe political parties with less than clean records in the regard of honesty and doing what's right for the public. How did telling people to 'toddle along' the arrogance, work out?

Your belief that IW would have been privatised is misguided and misfounded in my opinion. There is a complete absence of evidence that this would have happened bar one enquiry in one communication from Eurostat.

In my opinion, those who believe in the privatisation agenda are blindly following the likes of Paul Murphy and the PBP who claimed that to be the case.

I haven't seen any hard evidence that Paul Murphy wasn't welcome at Jobstown. He was there, and while he may not have committed a criminal offence, his misogynist behaviour towards the Minister and her adviser were not becoming.

blanch152 · 24-07-2018 09:26PM

unit 1 wrote: »

The reason ff picked this issue was to give fg a bloody nose, and look strong for its yahoo supporters who had to swallow (it must be killing them) the idea of putting fg into government.
Fg being pragmatic and the only ones fit to govern at the time took it on the chin, but it was the most cowardly, self serving, idiotic, and frankly appaling stroke of about-turnery from ff who origionally proposed water charges at €500 pa.
No doubt about it IW was winning the war, with increasing bill compliance and greatly reduced "mega anti water marches", to such and extent that if ff ignored it and picked any other topic most people today would be paying their bill just like every other utility and be getting on with their lives.

To this day I cannot fathom the inability of the media to comment on the decline of the anti water campaign at the time, given it laughable attempts to reinvent itself from "right to water" to "right to change" or whatever daft lefty slogan they had which no one can remember, just like their pointless, and declining mini marches.
As a coco worker who may be adversly affected by the move from la's to iw, the simple unvarnished truth is that it is needed and prudent to keep going. IW was never the "disaster" that people, mostly uninformed, make it out to be, its just fashionable to say it is without most people actually knowing what they are talking about. Third level colleges-disaster, hospitals-disaster, gardai-disaster, and on and on fuelled by sensationalist media and scare mongering self serving politicians. In Irealand it was ever thus with our clientelist political system.

It was a succession of self-serving politicians from Paul Murphy to Mary-Lou McDonald to Micheal Martin who behaved appallingly on the issue.

It is just amazing that we still have people on here talking about the privatisation agenda. It just wasn't true - it was made up by the self-serving politicians of the left who then got lucky with a single document. How people believed it and continue to cling to it, I don't know. They remind me of the Brexiteers who despite all the evidence still believe they have saved the NHS.

dense · 24-07-2018 09:32PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, one official communication mentioning privatisation means a secret hidden agenda of privatisation. We have been over this before many times. It is close to conspiracy theory territory.

Can't see why its seen as such a big deal.

The Paul Murphy's would probably want it kept in public ownership indefinitely, the communist vibe alright, but definitely not the entrepreneurially spirited FG types who adore the market.

Best little country to do business etc.

unit 1 · 24-07-2018 09:35PM

Paul Murphy spooked sf, sf spooked ff, ff desperation to get back in spooked rhyme and reason, and now we are where we are.
The next strong government will introduce charges in some form or shape, and I feel this in inevitable. Its even possible, and terrifying that it might be ff, who brought us from prosperity in 1997 to bankruptcy in 2007, a mere 10 years to create the greatest financial disaster in the history of the state. Their answer to water charges, MORE FREE STUFF. Its like 1977 all over again.

blanch152 · 24-07-2018 09:47PM

dense wrote: »

Can't see why its seen as such a big deal.

The Paul Murphy's would probably want it kept in public ownership indefinitely, the communist vibe alright, but definitely not the entrepreneurially spirited FG types who adore the market.

Best little country to do business etc.

That is just a nonsense post.

If Paul Murphy had been in power for the last thirty years, Aer Lingus would still be in state ownership, it would be losing hundreds of millions every year, and it would cost €1,000 to fly to London return on one of the three flights a day to the UK.

State ownership or not shouldn't be an ideological hang-up the way that people like Paul Murphy treat it. What is best for the country should be the agenda.

dense · 24-07-2018 09:51PM

blanch152 wrote: »

In my opinion, those who believe in the privatisation agenda are blindly following the likes of Paul Murphy and the PBP who claimed that to be the case.

I haven't seen any hard evidence that Paul Murphy wasn't welcome at Jobstown. He was there, and while he may not have committed a criminal offence, his misogynist behaviour towards the Minister and her adviser were not becoming.

Hard evidence was in short supply all round!

Water charges revisited?

Comments