Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I actually let 2 of them use my bathroom when they where putting meters in my street, they didn't need tea as they have a kinda mobile canteen they bring along. Nothing wrong with manners and showing a bit of humanity to a man doing a job.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I actually let 2 of them use my bathroom when they where putting meters in my street
hju6 wrote: » Humanity you say, where's your humanity when it comes to charging cash strapped struggling families for water.?
Kivaro wrote: » Before or after they put in your meter?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Is the guy digging the hole to feed his family not entitled to a bit of humanity? Or would you rather he didn't do the work and therefore be one of those "cash strapped struggling families" that you seem to be the champion of? You want to punch a politician in the face then go right ahead but no way will i condone looking down on a man doing a days work.
hju6 wrote: » The "guy digging the hole" is entitled to do his work for his pay, your interference in his days work is not humanity, it's interferance. As we are paying his wages I for one would be expecting a full day's work for our money, and not humanitarian aid from you.
Satriale wrote: » Ye might be better off not using the "just doing their job" argument. Give a quick google, it doesnt have a great rep.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » How did i "interfere" with his days work? Is this the future of the country if you and your ilk get into power? Jobs, free water and houses for all but **** off if you wish to use the bathroom :rolleyes:
hju6 wrote: » Me and my ilk? What power? FYI There are no real jobs Water is already paid for, via motor tax and VAT And there is a housing shortage So you and your ilk are doing a cracking job,
Little CuChulainn wrote: » It's not already paid for. The country is running at a deficit.
20Cent wrote: » Anyone know why they can't just delete the ppsn's once the allowances have been verifued? Don't think I trust them its been a shambles so far. How long before millions of peoples data gets leaked or hacked.
hju6 wrote: » Yawn, Feck the deficit, it's the ever increasing DEBT that's the problem
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Which is caused by the deficit.
lacco wrote: » Couple of questions about the water charges. Why do they need pps numbers if they are a state or semi state company why couldn't they have gotten that info from dept of social welfare or from revenue or would that be a breach of data protection? Why do they need pps numbers anyway I don't really buy this water allowance stuff. Why should I give my kids pps I have concerns about this. Is that application pack a contract? I ask because no signature is required and I thought signing up required a signature? Also if it is a contract can you enter into one if you don't have a price for water charges? Also will they be able to tell us the percentage of water leaking in the area in which we live? Can they test our water to ensure it is up to spec? And can they tell us about flouride levels in it. I am very confused about so many aspects of these water charges.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Water conservation is an environmental necessity and water charges are the best way to encourage conservation.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » All answered in the previous pages.
animaal wrote: » This is stated quite a lot as a reason to move to "pay-per-use" billing for water. I'm genuinely interested, have the benefits quantified, in the context of this country? Let's imagine that households reduced their consumption by an average of 20%. That's a significant reduction. What would be the benefit to the state financially, or to the environment? We know that roughly half of all water produced is leaked before it gets to any households. So the 20% reduction in household consumption might mean a potential 10% reduction in the amount of water needing to be processed. But of the water that isn't leaked, some proportion is used by businesses. I don't know how much, but let's assume businesses use half as much as households. Businesses already pay for water. They aren't going to be affected by household water charges. The potential 10% reduction in water needing to be procesed might actually be more like 6 or 7% when you factor in existing business use. Possily less. If anything, business use will increase. More people will shower at gyms. People will appreciate the opportunity to use bathroom facilities at work, or "free" table water when they're out socialising. So, if the state needs to process 6% less water as a result of a 20% reduction by households, what will that mean financially? Will there be an opportunity to downsize the workforce at Irish water? Or to remove sections of water pipes? Most of these costs are fixed, and won't change. The variable costs are likely to be small in comparison. How about the benefit to the environment? There may be some benefit, but again, I haven't seen it quantified. How much less carbon dioxide will be produced? I've no idea, and I'm not aware of any effort to quantify it. If we flush toilets less often, it won't decrease the amount of human waste entering the environment. and surely more clean, drinkable water being flushed won't harm the environment in itself?
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Water charges should never have been abolished. They should have been offset by lower taxes. It's likely they will in this budget or the next. Water conservation is an environmental necessity and water charges are the best way to encourage conservation...........
Deleted User wrote: » A few thugs stopping honest hard workers from doing their legal job is hardly "thousands of people protesting against the charges" now is it? One of the most vocal "protesters" a failed hunger striker and a candidate in upcoming by election, "protests" about the quality of the meters! Other "protesters" when challenged, complain about the possibility of radiation emitting from meters. NOT about the charges!
micosoft wrote: » As you are plainly on the internet you can find all the information and sign up on the Irish Water website.LMGTFY That wasn't so hard now, was it?
arse..biscuits wrote: » Talking through your hole there. I was just at a march today and I can promise you the numbers are getting bigger by the day. I didn't hear anyone mention radiation till you did. And if there is a "failed hunger striker" involved in a protest so what? Does that mean everyone there has something to do with that? The government must love the blind obedience shown by people like you.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Water charges should never have been abolished. They should have been offset by lower taxes. It's likely they will in this budget or the next. Water conservation is an environmental necessity and water charges are the best way to encourage conservation. I think you are trying to use the "just following orders" argument. If so it's a pretty ridiculous one to make.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
