Water charges revisited?

2018 style wrote: »

So, three swimming pools that you could find.
Very good, probably as much water as IW leak into the ground in 3 seconds.
Private pensions were raided by Noonan, being an ex PS it wouldn't affect you personally.
If water charges haven't been abolished, how come private homes aren't being billed?

Water charges have been suspended, with an amended scheme being reintroduced from 2019.

Private pensions were rescued by Lenihan when he guaranteed the banks. The small tax that Noonan put on them was only a tiny repayment to the taxpayers of Ireland.

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.

I haven't seen anyone attempting to retry Paul Murphy or anyone else on criminal charges. I think everyone accepts the courts' verdict.

However, unacceptable behaviour from politicians doesn't have to be criminal.

blanch152 wrote: »

The protest in Jobstown was a particularly low moment in Irish politics. It is not something that anyone decent could condone or defend. Those who participated should be ashamed of themselves.

Why ?

Do you not think that Joan Burton should be ashamed of implementing policies that cause widespread poverty and homelessness ?

Do you not think that Joan Burton should be ashamed of turning up to a graduation when the local graduates stated that they did not want her there ?

Do you not think that Joan Burton should be ashamed of using the opening of a food bank as a photo op?

Do you not think that Joan Burton should be ashamed of lying in court in an attempt to get six innocent people jailed ?

Do you not think the Gardai should be ashamed for engaging in a political witch hunt against anti-water charges campaigners?

Do you not think the Gardai should be ashamed for giving false testimony in court in an attempt to stitch up six innocent men for a very serious crime?

Do you not think that Leo Varadkar should be ashamed for using Dail privilege to tell lies about the Jobstown defendants AFTER they were acquitted ?

blanch152 wrote: »

Even so, they were far from the most hypocritical of all the protests. Those who prevented ordinary decent workers from doing their jobs installing water meters but proclaimed at the same time to be representing the ordinary decent workers of the country were the saddest protestors of the lot as few of them even considered the double standards of their behaviour.

Communities have a right to protest against the imposition of unwanted and unnecessary water meters. The Gardai were used as private security for a private company that was making €millions out of the attempt to foist water charges on working class people. This was the same private company that got a write off of debts by state owned banks. The community protests were peaceful and were subjected to violence from the Gardai and indiscriminate arrest of protesters.

As for the workers involved in installing the water meters. They have to make a decision for themselves as to whether they want to be part of a private company engaged in state sponsored suppression of local communities because they dare to oppose and unjust tax.

blanch152 wrote: »

The principle that people should pay for what they use, so that the tax exile with a swimming pool in his holiday home in Ireland, should pay more in water charges than the ordinary decent working class family in a two-up, two-down in the inner city, is a good principle and our water charging system should be based on that.

A start would be making those who have the money pay the tax that they owe - like Google, Apple, Starbucks etc. Then it would be an idea to make the richest 300 people in the country (the people who have seen their wealth double from €50billion to €100billion since the crash) pay their fair share of tax. Water charges are a regressive tax - it hits the poorest sections of the community hardest. If you want to make the tax exile with a holiday home and a swimming pool pay - then impose a wealth tax.

blanch152 wrote: »

As a start, the current arrangement whereby those who waste water will pay more from 2019, is a good beginning on the road back to full water charges.

Any attempt to impose water charges will be met with mass opposition - just as it was in the 1980s, the 1990s and during the most recent attempt.

blanch152 wrote: »

It should be remembered that those who say that water should be paid for through progressive income taxation are protecting those who are tax exiles, those who own property and those who waste water.

Do you actually believe this ?

Those who oppose water charges call for progressive taxation - which means taxing the tax exiles and those with the ability to pay more.

2018 style wrote: »

Is there an investigation into the behaviour of AGS at the trial?
Will any charges be brought against members of AGS?

Surely, in the grand scheme of things, Murphy is an irrelevance and the behaviour of members of AGS, under oath, should be more of a concern for 'law abiding citizens'???

One day, it could be them.....

You are absolutely correct - the behaviour of AGS during the investigation and the trial was reprehensible.

To have every single prosecution witness (with the exception of one Garda) giving proven false testimony demonstrates an utter contempt for the law. Furthermore, when the judge had to openly declare to the jury that they must consider whether three senior Gardai were engaged in an agenda against Paul Murphy to get him convicted and that they must ignore the Garda testimony that conflicted with video evidence - then you know the scale of the stitch-up that was attempted.

The alarming thing is that if there hadn't been video footage (and if the defendants themselves hadn't put a massive effort into finding video footage) - then these six men could have been convicted of a very serious criminal charge on the basis of what is now proven false testimony during the trial. That should be of concern to every single citizen in the country. And remember - a 14 year-old boy (at the time of the protest) was convicted on the exact same false Garda testimony by a judge in the judge-only Children's Court - a judge who ignored the evidence that the Gardai were providing false testimony in a case where the conviction was overturned and thrown out after the Jobstown defendants were acquitted. Furthermore, there is also a serious matter over the fact that Gardai doctored their written statements under instruction after viewing CCTV footage of the protest.

As for an inquiry - Solidarity and the JobstownNotGuilty campaign repreatedly called for a public inquiry into the actions of the Gardai during the trial - this has been consistently blocked by the government (a government that started the political witch hunt against the Jobstown defendants and has continued to lie about them after they were found innocent of the charges they faced).

The initial Garda review called the policing of the protest a 'qualified success'. On 7 July 2017 Varadkar (under enormous public pressure) called for an investigation into the Garda testimony at the trial - but - again - ruled out a public inquiry. At the end of July the Policing Authority gave out about the lack of urgency and interest in reviewing the Jobstown case. The authority’s statement said that they were “reassured to note that the review would encompass the incident on the day, the investigation and the evidence.” Nóirín O’Sullivan then stated that the conduct of Garda witnesses who testified at the trial will not form part of a review - and this created another sh*t-storm.

In March 2018 an internal Garda review stated in relation to the Garda operation during the protest that there was “little indication of any strategic control or direction into how this event was managed”. In relation to the investigation and trial the review found that, “from an objective perspective” this investigation was brought to a successful conclusion, with a significant number of files submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions “in an efficient and expeditious manner”. It acknowledged that “not all of the existing policies and procedures were followed to the letter”, but found there was “more than sufficient compliance” and in cases where non-compliance was encountered, this did not affect the overall outcome of the investigation. The review noted that, when set against the benchmark of court outcomes, “it is questionable as to how successful this investigation actually was”.

In other words there was a complete whitewash of the antics of the cops during the protest, during the subsequent investigation and during the trial. The process was not designed to investigate how and why the Garda investigation clearly breached their own regulations that they should seek evidence as to the innocence as well as the guilt of defendants (they consciously excluded any investigation into evidence that would demonstrate innocence of the defendants) and why the Gardai gave false testimony in the witness box - the entire process was into how they made a f*ck-up of the attempt to stitch-up the defendants and why they didn't get away with it.

The 'Review' clearly demonstrates that the Gardai did not learn any lessons from the investigation and the trial in terms of conducting the investigation in a balanced and fair manner (which they are legally obliged to do) or from the fact that they were caught, repeatedly, giving false testimony during the trial.

That is something that every citizen in the state needs to be clearly concerned about - it is not just a few rotten apples - all the scandals over the past few years demonstrate that the who barrel is rotten to the core.

dense wrote: »

I've offered two separate reports of the defendant saying under oath or his solicitor agreeing that there were rocks thrown at the protest.



He had at the time 39 previous convictions.


The other possibility is that maybe he was mistaken about others throwing rocks (I dont think any others were charged with throwing rocks) and his mistake is all that is perpetuating the story that rocks were thrown at the protest?

I will repeat this one last time -

1. The video evidence (the CCTV footage from multiple cameras) demonstrated that no rocks were thrown at any stage during the Jobstown protest. If rocks had been thrown it would have been a central part of the evidence from the prosecution during the Jobstown trial,

2. The police operation where this action of this individual throwing a brick through the window of the cop car occurred AFTER the ending of the Jobstown protest, in a different location and during a Garda operation to serve an arrest warrant - it had no connection what so ever with the Jobstown protest (and no effort was made by the prosecution during the trial to claim that it was - it was never discussed).

Now - there are two choices - you can believe Garda Rooney who claims that the defendant's solicitor said it occurred during the Jobstown protest - we don't know if the solicitor actually made this assertion - (and remember Garda Rooney was one of the Gardai who was proven to have given false testimony during the Jobstown trial) - and you can believe an individual with 39 previous convictions - OR - you can believe the proven evidence given at the Jobstown trial.

dense wrote: »

Something's not quite right about the quality of reporting on both the Independent and the Irish Times.

If only some others would understand what is very clear to see.

Deleted User wrote: »

He accepted his guilt and was spared prison for throwing the brick shortly after Joan Burton left the area.

The fact that Joan Burton had even been in Jobstown is utterly irrelevant.