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
Why do the Green party seem to have it in for country people?
Options
Comments
-
I think you misunderstood me. Did you think I was suggesting that the inspecting should be funded by the exchequer?Doesn't it cut both ways, though? If its not paid for by the people it effects, then its partly paid for by people who neither need nor use the service.
Imagine if the rural population of Ireland were told that they were facing a tax increase to pay for urban public transport. I would imagine there would be outrage...that rural Ireland would be subsidising urban services.
So when we look at the issue of septic tanks, who should pay for it? If everyone pays for it, then urban Ireland are subsidising rural services....which should presumably entitle them to the same outrage mentioned above.
Instead, the notion has been put forward that those who have septic tanks are the ones who should fund (at least, in part) the inspection of septic tanks. Its a bit like suggesting people who use a bus service should pay (at least in part) for their bus ticket....but somehow its different?
I'd readily agree that anyone being provided with a service such as water-supply or waste-management should have to pay for it.
I think that there should be no inspections full stop, or not on the scale that would cost more to any taxpayer. No one should have to pay more. Even putting aside the principle, charging an economically useless licence on people at this time is crazy. Short term clear problems should be tackled ahead of esoteric long term vaguely identified ones.
As far as water pollution goes, I am convinced it is the farmers who are the real problem. I've heard from several different ones by now, of how they had to release their slurry into a ditch at the bottom of a field. This was on the odd occasion where they weren't able to legally release due to weather etc. but they were unable to store anymore slurry. Also with septic tanks, the leakage is smaller, more likely to be diluted and will not (hopefully) be directly "running off" into a stream etc but will seep through topsoil and subsoil.0 -
Why fine and imprison people
why not make them instead buy a proper sewage treatment plant to replace the septic tank?
the cost is about 4-5K
seems the greens want to send people to prison instead of helping the environment
as i said before green environmentalism taken to its conclusion is remarkably similar to communism and fascism0 -
To_be_confirmed wrote: »Specifically on topic, why the heck are the greens concerned with groundwater when most of them wouldn't have to worry about the consequences of its pollution?? Possibly the majority/significant minority of people with septic tanks would also use wellwater, so it's in their interest to be concerned about septic tanks. If the water quality tests from that are fine, why the hell should they be concerned about groundwater unless their property adjoins a stream/river??
I don't really understand this part, why wouldn't the Greens be interested in a green issue, just because it doesn't impact them directly right now? Also, your point about wellwater is pretty suspect imo, I know far more houses at home in sligo that are on the mains rather than wells.NewDubliner wrote: »Rural isolation is a self-imposed problem.
Not completely true, in fact pretty much false.0 -
Why fine and imprison people
why not make them instead buy a proper sewage treatment plant to replace the septic tank?
the cost is about 4-5K
seems the greens want to send people to prison instead of helping the environment
The problem is that one-off houses are so scattered that it becomes impossible to provide such a treatment plant as you propose. Ideally one-off houses should be outlawed - then you could concentrate houses in villages and you would be able to build up enough critical mass that you could have village shops and post offices and decent transport links, as well as your treatment plant. Unfortunately, people don't seem to make the connection that one-off houses are responsible for a great many of our infrastructural deficits and poor services.0 -
The problem is that one-off houses are so scattered that it becomes impossible to provide such a treatment plant as you propose. Ideally one-off houses should be outlawed - then you could concentrate houses in villages and you would be able to build up enough critical mass that you could have village shops and post offices and decent transport links, as well as your treatment plant. Unfortunately, people don't seem to make the connection that one-off houses are responsible for a great many of our infrastructural deficits and poor services.
theres a treatment plant for me house in the front lawn, one in the neighbors back
they are about 4-5 times more expensive than septic tanks but are designed for average house use
im not talking about a community treatment scheme im talking about these things > http://www.biotechireland.net/system-design.php or http://www.biocycle.ie/home/septic-tank-replacement/
they dont need to be emptied like septic tanks, and has technology in it like UV lamps to kill bacteria0 -
Advertisement
-
theres a treatment plant for me house in the front lawn, one in the neighbors back
they are about 4-5 times more expensive than septic tanks but are designed for average house use
My reading of the last paragraph in the independant piece is that septic tanks and treatment plants will both be taxed :mad:.
I have a treatment plant... I had to get an engineer to come and design a system for me in order to satisify planning requirements.
Roll on the next election and i hope the greens are destroyed.0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »People should live near where they work. If you want public transport, go live near a town with enough people liveing there to make it economical, or where you're close enough to walk or cycle.
It's time we stopped subsidising other people's lifestyle choices.
:rolleyes: What about this scenario : someone IS doing just that, and thanks to this crap Government and their policies, they lose their job, and the only job they can get is miles away from where their previous job was......what do you want them to do ? Move house ? Are you in this "protect the developers and bankers" circle, too ?
And it's precisely BECAUSE of said policies that many people are living miles away from the towns and cities and workplaces, because houses there weren't worth half a million, even if they were already built in areas where you'd have to walk 2 miles from the centre of the estate in order to catch the "local" bus.
"Lifestyle choices" my arse! :rolleyes:
P.S. There are some lifestyle choices that I WOULD like to stop subsidising; e.g. the M50, The Luas, Gormley & Co's ride-a-bike-while-followed-by-a-state-car bull****, etc.
And if you could convince your Gods to actually link the cities in this country by rail, we might actually leave the car at home.
Y'see this is the problem with Government in this country; they tax people more and more for "wrong choices" despite the fact that they don't provide the "right" one.
It's like speeding and smoking; they don't actually WANT people to change, because they'd lose the cash. All they want to do is keep hitting people for extra cash that they don't have (while spending it carelessly and criminally).
Will there be a septic tank charge for each of the Green ministers' mouths ? Because that's where I hear most of the **** coming from.0 -
So when we look at the issue of septic tanks, who should pay for it? If everyone pays for it, then urban Ireland are subsidising rural services....which should presumably entitle them to the same outrage mentioned above.
They HAVE paid for it; they paid to install the bloody thing, and they pay to empty it!!! Do city dwellers have to do this ? NO!!!
If people are responsible and have it maintained and emptied, then they're being charged EXTRA for being responsible.
If, on the other hand, they were inspected and those with dodgy ones were fined heavily, THAT would pay for the inspections.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »:rolleyes: What about this scenario : someone IS doing just that, and thanks to this crap Government and their policies, they lose their job, and the only job they can get is miles away from where their previous job was......what do you want them to do ? Move house ? Are you in this "protect the developers and bankers" circle, too ?
And it's precisely BECAUSE of said policies that many people are living miles away from the towns and cities and workplaces, because houses there weren't worth half a million, even if they were already built in areas where you'd have to walk 2 miles from the centre of the estate in order to catch the "local" bus.
"Lifestyle choices" my arse! :rolleyes:
P.S. There are some lifestyle choices that I WOULD like to stop subsidising; e.g. the M50, The Luas, Gormley & Co's ride-a-bike-while-followed-by-a-state-car bull****, etc.
And if you could convince your Gods to actually link the cities in this country by rail, we might actually leave the car at home.
Y'see this is the problem with Government in this country; they tax people more and more for "wrong choices" despite the fact that they don't provide the "right" one.
It's like speeding and smoking; they don't actually WANT people to change, because they'd lose the cash. All they want to do is keep hitting people for extra cash that they don't have (while spending it carelessly and criminally).
Will there be a septic tank charge for each of the Green ministers' mouths ? Because that's where I hear most of the **** coming from.
If I could thanks this post more than once, I would. In fact I would never stop thanking it.0 -
IF Gormless introduces the licence that's one thing, a nice little earner for the incompetent Government, but most of the tanks will probably fail, that will be the more money for the incompetents. It is important that the tanks are working properly I will agree that but there then should be a grant scheme introduced to help householders to upgrade their tanks just like the current SEI scheme for home insulation and water pumps etc.0
-
Advertisement
-
No, I don't care about bankers or property developers. I do care about what rural dwellers are doing to our countryside.Liam Byrne wrote: »:rolleyes: What about this scenario : someone IS doing just that, and thanks to this crap Government and their policies, they lose their job, and the only job they can get is miles away from where their previous job was......what do you want them to do ? Move house ? Are you in this "protect the developers and bankers" circle, too ?
People who live near centres of employment or who can easily move residence to be be near one will be at an advantage in the new economy.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Sorry but this is just nonsense. The problem of urban sprawl and huge commuting distances existed before the recession. Your attempt to link the two reveals the extreme populist angle you're trying for.Liam Byrne wrote: »:rolleyes: What about this scenario : someone IS doing just that, and thanks to this crap Government and their policies, they lose their job, and the only job they can get is miles away from where their previous job was......what do you want them to do ? Move house ? Are you in this "protect the developers and bankers" circle, too ?
I'd also point out that the damage was done long before the Greens got into power.
Again, this was implemented long before the Greens got into power. Nevertheless, the housing bubble and the TYPE of housing that was built are two separate issues. It could have been equally possible for the housing bubble to exist and most of those houses be higher density accommodation.Liam Byrne wrote: »And it's precisely BECAUSE of said policies that many people are living miles away from the towns and cities and workplaces, because houses there weren't worth half a million, even if they were already built in areas where you'd have to walk 2 miles from the centre of the estate in order to catch the "local" bus.
I'm afraid this is most definitely a factor. Too many people wanted to live in their house with a postage stamp back garden and now we are known as the land of the semi-d.Liam Byrne wrote: »"Lifestyle choices" my arse! :rolleyes:
What exactly is your problem with the M50 and the Luas?Liam Byrne wrote: »P.S. There are some lifestyle choices that I WOULD like to stop subsidising; e.g. the M50, The Luas, Gormley & Co's ride-a-bike-while-followed-by-a-state-car bull****, etc.
And, you don't think public transport MIGHT be a policy of the Greens?Liam Byrne wrote: »And if you could convince your Gods to actually link the cities in this country by rail, we might actually leave the car at home.
I agree that there is too much stick and not enough carrot. Unfortunately we have literally built ourselves into too many cul-de-sacs and unless we start ripping down sprawling housing estates and putting up apartment blocks instead, it is going to be very, very difficult to remedy.Liam Byrne wrote: »Y'see this is the problem with Government in this country; they tax people more and more for "wrong choices" despite the fact that they don't provide the "right" one.
Hah - you really think that the tax earned on smoking covers the strain and cost on our health system? You're having a laugh.Liam Byrne wrote: »It's like speeding and smoking; they don't actually WANT people to change, because they'd lose the cash. All they want to do is keep hitting people for extra cash that they don't have (while spending it carelessly and criminally).
Looks like you might be in the market for one as well, judging from the above post.Liam Byrne wrote: »Will there be a septic tank charge for each of the Green ministers' mouths ? Because that's where I hear most of the **** coming from.0 -
how many urban dwellers pay for their water, also the household waste, i have to pay for water, 2 bins are required by all waste collection services in my area, i do not complain about not having a bus service, etc, my family has lived in my dwelling house since at least 1880, if it was in an urban area i would be getting state aid to preserve it, the pot holes in our road requires filling by the residents, the local co. council area offices were replaced at a cost of 6m, no there are no grants advailable to the elderly or disabled cannot get a grant to improve their houses, or make necessary improvements, my area has 1 ONE windpowered generator, no thanks to the co.council planners no more can be erected, one thing the CHIEF SNOT has forgotten, all septic thanks built before 1960 are exempt from council control, i will say no more for the moment,0
-
This is 2009. Just because a house was justified at a particular location in 1880, does not mean it needs to be there now.my family has lived in my dwelling house since at least 1880,
Instead of bailing out people who live in economically nonviable locations & lifestyles, we should support people who make choices that are aligned with economic strategy.0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »This is 2009. Just because a house was justified at a particular location in 1880, does not mean it needs to be there now.
Instead of bailing out people who live in economically nonviable locations & lifestyles, we should support people who make choices that are aligned with economic strategy.
i have asked no one to support me, i do not need a train station, a bus shelter, a luas stop, all of which i help pay for,i pay for water, i pay for rubbish collection, i live a very eco green life, my electric bill is roughly 36 euro every two months, it is you sir / madam that live in an economically non viable location, i would love to erect a wind turbine, to become energy sufficent, and give the rest to neighbours, we have our own chickens the most of our veg, apples fruit etc. my car usage is under 4,000 miles annualy, i do not use bus or trains, as they are not advailable, why does my house not need to be where it is, what would it cost the country and the envoirnment to replace it, you sir/madam cannot see beyond the m50 roundabout, or the end of your nose, which you give the impression has a VERY GREEN SNOT on the end of it0 -
And, you don't think public transport MIGHT be a policy of the Greens?
It MIGHT be a good thing if it was a policy of the greens.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dublin-bus-cuts-290-and-slashes-services-1605207.html0 -
i have asked no one to support me, i do not need a train station, a bus shelter, a luas stop, all of which i help pay for,i pay for water, i pay for rubbish collection, i live a very eco green life, my electric bill is roughly 36 euro every two months, it is you sir / madam that live in an economically non viable location, i would love to erect a wind turbine, to become energy sufficent, and give the rest to neighbours, we have our own chickens the most of our veg, apples fruit etc. my car usage is under 4,000 miles annualy, i do not use bus or trains, as they are not advailable, why does my house not need to be where it is, what would it cost the country and the envoirnment to replace it, you sir/madam cannot see beyond the m50 roundabout, or the end of your nose, which you give the impression has a VERY GREEN SNOT on the end of it
spot on
no one is looking for a bailout, this thread is about the septic tank charge
if this also applies to expensive treatment plants some homes have then i would be very very pissed off
im already pissed of at the greens and the current shower of **** who wouldnt allow to put up a windmill
and no i dont commute anywhere far, me going to work involves going from one room to another0 -
-
NewDubliner wrote: »No, I don't care about bankers or property developers. I do care about what rural dwellers are doing to our countryside.
People who live near centres of employment or who can easily move residence to be be near one will be at an advantage in the new economy.
And what will these city dwellers do? What will all you hemp wearing cycling green party voting bumpkins produce of value? **** all.
We have resources in the countryside, which occasionally we are allowed exploit. Until you and all your ilk realise that, then we are going to be stuck in this recession.0 -
Entering into the sprit of your rather amusing & humourous robust rural abuse - Dole and bailouts for lazy countryfolk. 'Decentralised' jobs moved at a cost of over 300 million euro. Subsidies. Money for speaking Irish. Health and welfare services for non-taxpaying farmers.And what will these city dwellers do? What will all you hemp wearing cycling green party voting bumpkins produce of value? **** all.
All of you, you're all farmers/farm workers? That's great news. Last time I was speaking to a farmer friend of mine, he couldn't get any locals to work on his farm, 'too hard' they said.We have resources in the countryside, which occasionally we are allowed exploit. Until you and all your ilk realise that, then we are going to be stuck in this recession.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry but this is just nonsense. The problem of urban sprawl and huge commuting distances existed before the recession. Your attempt to link the two reveals the extreme populist angle you're trying for.
Sorry ? I'm not aiming for any "populist angle" - I'm not a politician. And I'm telling it like I see it - people can agree or disagree - but there's no agenda, so I'd appreciate if you would avoid implying that I'm "trying for" one.I'd also point out that the damage was done long before the Greens got into power.
Fair point. Yes, nothing was done about it so it got worse and worse, and you'd have to admit that closures of previously-existing post offices, Garda stations and bus services have made it worse. That is my point; that in addition to forcing people to live further and further away, they even removed EXISTING services.I'm afraid this is most definitely a factor. Too many people wanted to live in their house with a postage stamp back garden and now we are known as the land of the semi-d.
Possibly a factor in some people's decisions, yes. But the patronising posts earlier dismissing everyone living outside a city via a "lifestyle choice" is way off the mark.What exactly is your problem with the M50 and the Luas?
Again, I don't (per se) have a problem with it; the reason I brought it up is that they are urban-only facility in a miles-away city that are of no use to me, despite my taxes contributed. And if the logic that some people apply to rural living were applied to those, it would be "tough **** - you chose to live in Dublin so put up with the traffic".
It should work both ways.And, you don't think public transport MIGHT be a policy of the Greens?
As I said, no trains from Limerick to Galway. Additional taxes and charges at airports. A quadrupling of the bus charge for my sister's kids to get to school.
So frankly, it doesn't seem like it, no.I agree that there is too much stick and not enough carrot. Unfortunately we have literally built ourselves into too many cul-de-sacs and unless we start ripping down sprawling housing estates and putting up apartment blocks instead, it is going to be very, very difficult to remedy.
The house I'm in was built in 1958, and there were 6 houses on the road then. There are now about 150. If anything, this means that public services should be MORE feasible.Looks like you might be in the market for one as well, judging from the above post.
If you want to throw away or ignore the valid points made in order to get in a cheap dismissive dig, fire away. But I stand 100% over everything I said; some totally, some in the context of being patronised and insulted about lifestyle "choices" because of where I live and somehow being "subsidised" by those amazingly thoughtful and responsible people who chose to live in cities.0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »All of you, you're all farmers/farm workers? That's great news. Last time I was speaking to a farmer friend of mine, he couldn't get any locals to work on his farm, 'too hard' they said.
Well, I'd assume that one should be the local shopkeeper (saving the farmers all those polluting drives to the shopping centres) one should be the local Garda, one should be the local publican (likewise re the polluting driving), etc....?
EDIT : Nearly forgot : Fifty of them are in the process of constructing the local wind-farm so that the city lights don't go out all the way over there in Dublin......apparently they looked for planning permission for it over there, in the middle of the city, but they couldn't get it......not sure how far they have to commute, though, because they're obviously scientists and not thick spongers like the rest of us, so they couldn't possibly be intelligent and contributing to society.....
I presume everyone on your utopian Dublin street is working within a mile or two of their home ? :rolleyes:0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »This is 2009. Just because a house was justified at a particular location in 1880, does not mean it needs to be there now.
Instead of bailing out people who live in economically nonviable locations & lifestyles, we should support people who make choices that are aligned with economic strategy.
This is utter rubbish. If no-one is allowed live in that house, he can't sell it. Even if he wanted to move, how do you propose that he buy a house in Dublin ?
Oh I know - we'll get grants from the Government; then we'd REALLY hear you complain about subsidies........:rolleyes:
P.S. At least you've given us some notion of the thinking behind the Green's u-turn on Tara; so what if it was there years ago.....we don't need it now......!
Anyway, the bottom line (and originaly topic of the thread) is that those who are not polluting should not have to pay even more taxes. They've incurred enough costs putting in the things and getting them cleaned (something urban dwellers don't incur) and so it's just yet another sneaky way of extorting cash from already hard-strapped people.
Next thing you know they'll be charging us parking fees for parking our own cars on our own driveways that we paid for stones/tarmac for by ourselves!!!!!0 -
I can see the confusion my post caused. My point was really about their ignorance, not their interest. They have decided that all septic tanks must be licenced, inspected and charged for money accordingly. Ostensibly in the name of "environmental protection". The lack of consideration of the rural people's point of view is appaling. To set up a quango to "regulate" septic tanks, paid for by all septic tank owners is utter madness and no more effective than simply just making the people who do not have compliant tanks pay.brianthebard wrote: »I don't really understand this part, why wouldn't the Greens be interested in a green issue, just because it doesn't impact them directly right now? Also, your point about wellwater is pretty suspect imo, I know far more houses at home in sligo that are on the mains rather than wells.
As for wells, there is no mains water available to about 95 or so % of the houses in my parish. A couple of thousand people live in it. My own experiences from areas I know in Tipperary, Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan reflect this. (Though group water schemes were considerably expanded during the boom, so other areas often aren't on well water now.) The point is that your experiences are yours and mine are mine. I don't think aspersions should be cast because you see your bit of the story differently.
Finally, it's very unfair to label it as a "green issue". It's political naievity and most of their campaigning is based upon common sense. E.g. of course pollution is bad. The environment is everyone's problem. Just because the Green Party proposes something, doesn't mean it's the best option for our environment.0 -
Hah, your ignorance of this defies belief. I can't believe you ever spoke with a farmer in your life. I'm not going to drag this into a Dublin vs everyone else debate, which is what you're trying to do. Pretty obviously, considering all the proposed decentralisation locations (now scrapped anyway) were in towns (>1500 population). Which therefore has nothing to do with a rural/urban debate.NewDubliner wrote: »Entering into the sprit of your rather amusing & humourous robust rural abuse - Dole and bailouts for lazy countryfolk. 'Decentralised' jobs moved at a cost of over 300 million euro. Subsidies. Money for speaking Irish. Health and welfare services for non-taxpaying farmers.
All of you, you're all farmers/farm workers? That's great news. Last time I was speaking to a farmer friend of mine, he couldn't get any locals to work on his farm, 'too hard' they said.
So, tell us what's in the "economic stragey" that you referred to earlier, that supports the €80 quid charge for owning something 100% paid for by yourself?? The €80 which will be used to set up a Quango to inspect said tanks??0 -
Let's not personalise this to individual cases. The self-sufficient guy who grows his own food and only has a 36 euro ESB bill every two months is a special case.Liam Byrne wrote: »This is utter rubbish. If no-one is allowed live in that house, he can't sell it. Even if he wanted to move, how do you propose that he buy a house in Dublin ?
The government controls the property market, plenty of bargains to be had in urban areas.
Instead of subsidising people to live in the countryside, when they don't need to, let's make it easier for them to move near places of work where the costs of public services are more efficient due to economies of scale?Liam Byrne wrote: »Oh I know - we'll get grants from the Government; then we'd REALLY hear you complain about subsidies........:rolleyes:
Abolishing the Department of Gaeltacht and Rural affairs is a step in the direction of sustainable economic polices.0 -
I think what people seem to have forgotten is that its an EU directive which we have to implement. Wouldn't matter which party is in power or who Minister for the Environment is, it would have to be implemented anyway.
Certainly don't agree people ought to be charged for an inspection, €80 is hypothetical, it could be anything, €100 or more. Agree with an earlier poster who said offenders should pay the fine and the inspections should be funded from this, septic tanks in the country were always an obligation, never an option, its very unfair to tax people on something like this.0 -
Well the problem there is you said that the majority of rural people get their water from local wells/private group schemes, but you've nothing more than your experience to back it up. My experience contradicts yours, so this shows that neither could be said to be accurately representative. I'm not casting aspersions I'm questioning your story.To_be_confirmed wrote: »I can see the confusion my post caused. My point was really about their ignorance, not their interest. They have decided that all septic tanks must be licenced, inspected and charged for money accordingly. Ostensibly in the name of "environmental protection". The lack of consideration of the rural people's point of view is appaling. To set up a quango to "regulate" septic tanks, paid for by all septic tank owners is utter madness and no more effective than simply just making the people who do not have compliant tanks pay.
As for wells, there is no mains water available to about 95 or so % of the houses in my parish. A couple of thousand people live in it. My own experiences from areas I know in Tipperary, Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan reflect this. (Though group water schemes were considerably expanded during the boom, so other areas often aren't on well water now.) The point is that your experiences are yours and mine are mine. I don't think aspersions should be cast because you see your bit of the story differently.Finally, it's very unfair to label it as a "green issue". It's political naievity and most of their campaigning is based upon common sense. E.g. of course pollution is bad. The environment is everyone's problem. Just because the Green Party proposes something, doesn't mean it's the best option for our environment.
Protecting the water table isn't good for the environment? Its a green issue in the sense that that term is short hand for an environmental issue.0 -
NewDubliner wrote: »All of you, you're all farmers/farm workers? That's great news. Last time I was speaking to a farmer friend of mine, he couldn't get any locals to work on his farm, 'too hard' they said.
If the farmers are anything to go by around here they will pay you with anything but money. Offer a meal, sort you out some time or if money is offered its way below or short of the agreed amount. No wonder the locals would shy away.
We will have to hide the septic tanks then. Its a bit rich charging someone for a basic facility that is owned, paid for and maintained by the householder and used on his/her property. This very same Government aided and abetted by the Gormless Greens promoted build , build and build on every square metre of land no matter where not one bit worried about the environmental impact, now its all concern for the environment. What hypocrisy.0 -
Advertisement
-
The decentralisation project is ongoing, but at a slower pace & it was justified as a means of supporting rural towns that no longer have an economic reason to exist.To_be_confirmed wrote: »Pretty obviously, considering all the proposed decentralisation locations (now scrapped anyway) were in towns (>1500 population). Which therefore has nothing to do with a rural/urban debate.
Well, if you have a car, you have to have it NCT'd? Same principle.To_be_confirmed wrote: »that supports the €80 quid charge for owning something 100% paid for by yourself??
If you don't have a car (or septic tank) because you live in a well-served town, you don't have those costs. Lifestyle choice.0
Advertisement