Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Water charges revisited?

1…3132343637…39

Comments

  • #992
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I was in his back garden more than once discussing it.


    A man with substantially more than two pints on his mind!


  • #993
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    dense wrote: »
    A man with substantially more than two pints on his mind!

    And pints of water, during a drought the blaggard.


  • #994
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,917 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Fair enough.

    I believe Paul Murphy to have had his profile heightened by FG/Lab in order to give them a scapegoat/whipping boy status as criticising the general public over IW wouldn't fly.
    When Paul Murphy appeared at the Jobstown protest the protesters are quoted in the trial as not wanting him there.



    I assumed the trail had been closely followed, especially by those with a keen interest in all things Paul Murphy.
    As regards misogyny, I don't know the sex of the people in the car played a roll. It's not like he drunkenly pulled one of them onto his lap in the Dail. However, feel free to have your own ideas. They are as relevant as the inclusion of Paul Murphy in ever discussion about the failed IW con.


    I wasn't alleging that Paul Murphy had committed a criminal offence so why would the trial be of reference? I saw a video of his actions and that was sufficient to form an opinion about his behaviour during those five minutes.

    What went on before or after that segment, whether it was criminal or not, is irrelevant to the opinion I formed. IF there is footage showing him pleading with the crowd to disperse and leave the women alone, then I would revise my opinion. The best you could argue is that he stood idly by while the women were treated badly. Still behaviour I could not stomach.


  • #995
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    View wrote: »
    It is utterly naive to suggest that water charges would have no effect on the current crisis.

    The simple fact is that if 50% of the water in the system is being wasted due to leakages, anyone directly receiving a bill for such wasted water, would have a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved.


    Do you not think that having 50% leaking is in itself "a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved"?



    Also can you find any instances of water utilities citing their charges as being the reason they haven't had to introduce a hosepipe ban in the UK?


    I haven't.


  • #996
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,917 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    dense wrote: »
    Do you not think that having 50% leaking is in itself "a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved"?



    Also can you find any instances of water utilities citing their charges as being the reason they haven't had to introduce a hosepipe ban in the UK?


    I haven't.

    No, but they had a more severe drought and took longer to introduce a hosepipe ban.

    Furthermore, they are privatised utilities, and therefore in promoting profit, would have been operating with tighter margins of supply making a hosepipe ban more likely.

    A public water utility with metered charges is likely to be in a better position to cope with a shortage.


  • Advertisement
  • #997
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I wasn't alleging that Paul Murphy had committed a criminal offence so why would the trial be of reference? I saw a video of his actions and that was sufficient to form an opinion about his behaviour during those five minutes.

    What went on before or after that segment, whether it was criminal or not, is irrelevant to the opinion I formed. IF there is footage showing him pleading with the crowd to disperse and leave the women alone, then I would revise my opinion. The best you could argue is that he stood idly by while the women were treated badly. Still behaviour I could not stomach.

    You said you never saw any evidence he was unwelcome. I gave you evidence.
    You are now making it about any perceived criminality for some reason. I don't care frankly. The case has come and gone.
    You accused him of misogyny and can only cite him not helping a TD he was actively there to protest from protesters, because she was female. Nonsense.

    Kudos on bringing the discussion to Paul Murphy. Being against water charges, water charges in a specific form or fearful of privatisation, does not automatically mean one has to defend Paul Murphy or whom ever else you'd like to introduce. This is a recurring tactic with you.


  • #998
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    View wrote: »
    It is utterly naive to suggest that water charges would have no effect on the current crisis.

    The simple fact is that if 50% of the water in the system is being wasted due to leakages, anyone directly receiving a bill for such wasted water, would have a very strong reason to demand that the system be improved. There would be enormous political pressure to improve the system since who in their right mind would want to pay for wasted water?

    By way to contrast, if the water is supplied to you “free”, then as we have seen over the past decades, no one cares that there is wasted water. Why should you care if something free is wasted since you’ll never get directly billed for it?

    There was no public pressure of note in 2011 to make improving the 50% leak rate in mains a priority above and beyond the harsh financial climate, but they did it anyway. Why this would now require the public to be put between a rock and a hard place to 'understand' the importance, to force government to act, on something it has shown itself capable of attempting, DESPITE political and public pressure to the contrary, makes no sense.


  • #999
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    blanch152 wrote: »
    A public water utility with metered charges is likely to be in a better position to cope with a shortage.




    Like in Scotland?
    Scottish Water has seen an increase of 30 percent in usage levels in parts of the country, as demand remains significantly higher than normal.

    30% higher!!


    Where they're delivering water in tankers and asking people not to use hosepipes amid the longest heatwave since 1976?


    Not really. Hasn't made a blind bit of difference.



    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/990319/Hose-pipe-ban-2018-Scotland-north-west-England-is-there-a-hosepipe-ban-in-my-area


  • #1000
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    This is false. I don't pay a street littering collection charge, but I don't litter. Never wasted water. Don't know anyone who does.

    What's your definition of reasonable water use?? You may consider that 'you don't waste water' but that depends on what you consider normal use. If that includes regularly watering your lawn & washing your car, filling paddling pools, extensive household use of power showers etc., then you are likely are wasting water.

    Reported today that Irish Water's appeal to Greater Dublin to conserve water has only resulted in a 1-2% reduction in use. That is simply pathetic and it's clear that most don't give a toss what they use.

    What will bring the matter home is when public water has to be rationed from tankers in Greater Dublin. Only then will the message start to sink in. Wait till you are hauling buckets of water to flush your jacks and then you'll know all about it.


  • #1001
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,570 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    What's your definition of reasonable water use?? You may consider that 'you don't waste water' but that depends on what you consider normal use. If that includes regularly watering your lawn & washing your car, filling paddling pools, extensive household use of power showers etc., then you are likely are wasting water.

    Reported today that Irish Water's appeal to Greater Dublin to conserve water has only resulted in a 1-2% reduction in use. That is simply pathetic and it's clear that most don't give a toss what they use.

    What will bring the matter home is when public water has to be rationed from tankers in Greater Dublin. Only then will the message start to sink in. Wait till you are hauling buckets of water to flush your jacks and then you'll know all about it.
    If the 1-2% is true. It’s a joke. This is an issue when you don’t pay per litre, You don’t pay for what you use.most People don’t give a toss for the most part ...


  • Advertisement
  • #1002
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,570 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    This is false. I don't pay a street littering collection charge, but I don't litter. Never wasted water. Don't know anyone who does.
    FYI: we pay for water. Always have, continue to do so. It's a service our taxes cover, which hasn't been privatised, unlike household rubbish collection, telecommunications. But water ever being privatised is fantasy ;)
    Matt. My neighbors hose in the garden has a slow leak. Why give a toss if you aren’t paying for it? People would sort issues like that very quickly if they were paying per liter! Just psychologically, if u were paying by liter, most people would change their behavior.


  • #1003
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    If the 1-2% is true. It’s a joke. This is an issue when you don’t pay per litre, You don’t pay for what you use.most People don’t give a toss for the most part ...


    Funny how Scottish Water's paying customers are using 30% more water than usual in a sustained drought.



    They obviously don't give a toss about conserving it.



    Charges are quite obviously not making people use less water, in fact they seem to be causing people to use more water than we do wherever you look at where they are in place.


  • #1004
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    We’re adding an extra 450 million litres of treated water to our network each day to keep up with the huge rise in demand


    Thames Water. Today.



    So enough of the codology about water charges having some mythical impact on water conservation.



    https://mobile.twitter.com/thameswater/status/1022458677431885824


  • #1005
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    BarryD2 wrote: »

    Reported today that Irish Water's appeal to Greater Dublin to conserve water has only resulted in a 1-2% reduction in use. That is simply pathetic and it's clear that most don't give a toss what they use.


    It's a helluva lot less pathetic than Thames Water reporting a huge increase in demand.


  • #1006
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,917 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    You said you never saw any evidence he was unwelcome. I gave you evidence.
    You are now making it about any perceived criminality for some reason. I don't care frankly. The case has come and gone.
    You accused him of misogyny and can only cite him not helping a TD he was actively there to protest from protesters, because she was female. Nonsense.

    Kudos on bringing the discussion to Paul Murphy. Being against water charges, water charges in a specific form or fearful of privatisation, does not automatically mean one has to defend Paul Murphy or whom ever else you'd like to introduce. This is a recurring tactic with you.


    Then why are you defending Paul Murphy?


  • #1007
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,570 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    dense wrote: »
    Funny how Scottish Water's paying customers are using 30% more water than usual in a sustained drought.



    They obviously don't give a toss about conserving it.



    Charges are quite obviously not making people use less water, in fact they seem to be causing people to use more water than we do wherever you look at where they are in place.
    How much more would they be using if they weren’t charged for it? Also are they being charged per extra litre?


  • #1008
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    How much more would they be using if they weren’t charged for it? Also are they being charged per extra litre?


    We have to consider that they just might be using "more" water just because they're paying for it and feel entitled to use as much as they want.


    I put more in parenthesis there because I'm not really sure what amount they should be using, and I doubt anyone can dictate what that figure is, or define for them what an "extra litre" on top of that is.

    The only thing I can tell you is that having water charges, just like Scottish Water and Thames Water and other water companies in the UK, does not solve the problems that some people (who don't seem to have looked into this at all) think.

    In fact, they appear to be responsible for making it worse, or better of course, if you're a company charging for water by metered consumption.


  • #1009
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    dense wrote: »
    We have to consider that they just might be using "more" water just because they're paying for it and feel entitled to use as much as they want.

    If some of the people of Greater London are using more water than normal AND paying an economic price for it, then let them at it. As long as the system can supply them.

    The issue facing Greater Dublin is that demand increases year on year whilst the basic production capacity is much the same since the 1940s, when the last of the three reservoir schemes was completed.

    People need to use water more reasonably and treat it as a precious commodity. Metered water charges are the obvious mechanism for this.


  • #1010
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    If some of the people of Greater London are using more water than normal AND paying an economic price for it, then let them at it. As long as the system can supply them.

    The issue facing Greater Dublin is that demand increases year on year whilst the basic production capacity is much the same since the 1940s, when the last of the three reservoir schemes was completed.

    People need to use water more reasonably and treat it as a precious commodity. Metered water charges are the obvious mechanism for this.

    Metered charges are obviously not working.


    Each of the utilities you've read about here are pleading with their customers, as if they weren't being charged for water, to use less.


    No mention anywhere about how their well designed water charges are keeping demand in check, because they don't.



    That theory simply rests in the imagination of people who think charges make people use less water.



    Nor do they automatically mean leaks are fixed to plan.


    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-44395763



    And, here, we do not even have any figures for what water is supplied or used in an average day, month or year or who's using it.



    So its a little previous to formulate theories about the need for people to use less whilst we do know that almost half of what is produced leaks before it gets to any end user, be it the local car wash or pensioner.


  • #1011
    2018 style
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 26 ✭2018 style


    Hard to believe some posters are still here, after all these years and the proven failure of their water quango's charges, pushing their water tax agenda....
    But, sure there ya go, what else would retired public servants be doing with their spare time....only protecting their pensions...


  • Advertisement
  • #1012
    2018 style
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 26 ✭2018 style


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    If some of the people of Greater London are using more water than normal AND paying an economic price for it, then let them at it. As long as the system can supply them.

    The issue facing Greater Dublin is that demand increases year on year whilst the basic production capacity is much the same since the 1940s, when the last of the three reservoir schemes was completed.

    People need to use water more reasonably and treat it as a precious commodity. Metered water charges are the obvious mechanism for this.

    Irish Water's answer isn't to fix their leaks in the greater Dublin area though, their answer is to run a pipeline from the Shannon to supply more water...
    Utter madness.
    Over 300,000,000 litres a day washes into the ground in Dublin....
    Go figure.


  • #1013
    2018 style
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 26 ✭2018 style


    Just to be absolutely clear here, Paul Murphy, and everyone else charged with the most serious of crimes (false imprisonment), were found not guilty by a jury of their peers after a lengthy and expensive criminal trial.
    That people here are trying to re-try these people and instill a sense of guilt on social media is an utter disgrace and should be slapped down hard by the moderators on this and other sites...

    N.B, I'm no fan of Murphy.


  • #1014
    Charles Babbage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    dense wrote: »
    No mention anywhere about how their well designed water charges are keeping demand in check, because they don't.


    They might, if charges were doubled during the drought.


  • #1015
    2018 style
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 26 ✭2018 style


    Charles Babbage wrote: »
    They might, if charges were doubled during the drought.

    How would that work?


  • #1016
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    2018 style wrote: »
    Irish Water's answer isn't to fix their leaks in the greater Dublin area though, their answer is to run a pipeline from the Shannon to supply more water...
    Utter madness.
    Over 300,000,000 litres a day washes into the ground in Dublin....
    Go figure.

    But this is a circular argument. Of course, the leaks in the public water supply should be fixed. That's easy said but it's a significant costly and time consuming undertaking. All public water users were asked to do, was to make an extra contribution towards improving THEIR services. Above what they pay in general taxes. And metered charges make the most sense as it's proportional - those who live in the leafy suburbs and use more water, pay more. It was and remains an eminently sensible solution.


  • #1017
    2018 style
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 26 ✭2018 style


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    But this is a circular argument. Of course, the leaks in the public water supply should be fixed. That's easy said but it's a significant costly and time consuming undertaking. All public water users were asked to do, was to make an extra contribution towards improving THEIR services. Above what they pay in general taxes. And metered charges make the most sense as it's proportional - those who live in the leafy suburbs and use more water, pay more. It was and remains an eminently sensible solution.

    Problem was, it soon became apparent that the money being paid was being squandered on laughing yoga and consultants etc etc.....
    800,000+ people refused to fund that crap.
    IW is a costly failure.
    LA staff, wearing shiny new hi-vis jackets, doing the same work they always did, only with another expensive layer of pen pushing, PS pension chasers on top.


  • #1018
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    2018 style wrote: »
    Problem was, it soon became apparent that the money being paid was being squandered on laughing yoga and consultants etc etc.....
    800,000+ people refused to fund that crap.
    IW is a costly failure.
    LA staff, wearing shiny new hi-vis jackets, doing the same work they always did, only with another expensive layer of pen pushing, PS pension chasers on top.

    That was the perception that was allowed to be created alright. But a large portion of that 'consultancy' money was spent on new systems to administer a nationwide service in a modern digital way. The public service unions also get away lightly in this - they were/ are at the root of protecting and enhancing their members interests as they moved from LA to IW employment.

    At end of the day, these sort of objections are just excuses to beat IW with. And little to do with actually fixing the problems for the publics own best interest.


  • #1019
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,849 ✭ [Deleted User]


    2018 style wrote: »
    Just to be absolutely clear here, Paul Murphy, and everyone else charged with the most serious of crimes (false imprisonment), were found not guilty by a jury of their peers after a lengthy and expensive criminal trial.
    That people here are trying to re-try these people and instill a sense of guilt on social media is an utter disgrace and should be slapped down hard by the moderators on this and other sites...

    N.B, I'm no fan of Murphy.

    The verdict was the right one. It doesn’t mean that their behavior that day was right or acceptable. It was deplorable, disgraceful and totally unacceptable to those of us who believe in and accept protest as our democratic right.


  • #1020
    2018 style
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 26 ✭2018 style


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The verdict was the right one. It doesn’t mean that their behavior that day was right or acceptable. It was deplorable, disgraceful and totally unacceptable to those of us who believe in and accept protest as our democratic right.

    Yep, a bit of bad behaviour ok.
    It didn't warrant 12 people being tried for 'false imprisonment'.
    Then again, FG/Lab needed a show trial to 'put the plebs in their place'.
    Pity it backfired on them, eh?


  • Advertisement
  • #1021
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,549 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    2018 style wrote: »
    Irish Water's answer isn't to fix their leaks in the greater Dublin area though, their answer is to run a pipeline from the Shannon to supply more water...
    Utter madness.
    Over 300,000,000 litres a day washes into the ground in Dublin....
    Go figure.

    No one going to pay for it though are they? :D

    It might be far easier & cheaper to run a massive pipe cross country than dig up nearly every pipe on every road in the city with associated disruption. ;)


    Besides water is only 50% of the problem, I wonder what sort of state the sewage system is in. It cant be much better than the water really.


Advertisement