FREETV wrote: » Those Halloween masks may come in handy on November 1 for the anti-water charge protests marches so don't bin them.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Why would people need to hide their identities?
Iwasfrozen wrote: » No thanks. I have a job.
arse..biscuits wrote: » I can't stand the inference that all protesters are unemployed, it's far from the truth.
SweetChaos wrote: » So they can partake in criminal activity and be anonymous I would presume
the groutch wrote: » Since when is a peaceful protest a criminal activity?
SaveOurLyric wrote: » For someone getting worked up about the water charge, you are either very ignorant of its details and so shouldn't be commenting, or, deliberately lying in order to mislead others. Which ?
Banjo String wrote: » Sorry, I meant reduce my pressure so as I won't be availing of their services. . (I've been preaching on about it long enough, I thought it'd be obvious)
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Not all but it's fair to say a higher proportion than would be statistically expected are unemployed.
Pinch Flat wrote: » When you're I'm breach of a high court order
Streetwalker wrote: » It's a convenient stereotyping for the establishment really nothing more. I attended two early morning protests this week before I started my shift and I know from talking to others at the protest that most had to squeeze the time for the protesting in between jobs and family commitments.
hju6 wrote: » And what statistics are you using to draw that conclusion?
MouseTail wrote: » Purely anecdotal I would imagine, same as myself. Going on my newsfeed and social interaction, the most active (only) cohort agitating on this are those who are economically inactive. I don't know any employed person who is protesting. Maybe I'm wierd though, with an oddly stratified social network.
Banjo String wrote: » I think it's reasonable to assume at least some, if not most of the 100,000 people protesting This day last week in Dublin city centre were "economically active" tbh.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » I still doubt that 100k number. I've yet to see any proof of it.
Banjo String wrote: » Still doubt it myself. I'd say (having been there) the numbers were more likely to be 150-200k. What proof would satisfy you though, seeing as the Garda press office refuse to estimate. Quite telling though that Miriam (and other RTE presenters) have been using that figure in various interviews.
Nodster wrote: » Not official, but a good estimate From the Irish Times website [11th October] - The marchers took one hour and twenty minutes to pass the Spire in O’Connell Street as they made their way from Parnell Square, around the city finishing at the GPO in O’Connell Street. While the Garda press office could not give a figure for the numbers in attendance, one garda observing the march estimated they could be as high as 100,000.
Wurly wrote: » Who really gives a f*ck if the protestors are employed or not? I don't get this argument. Surely it would be better to focus our energies on standing united regardless of employment status? You do realise that this is exactly what these cronies want, don't you? Us fighting amongst each other. All the while, the fat cats live it up at our expense. Oh and the last big protest was on a Saturday. Which means a lot of people with average full time jobs would have been able to attend the protest. For f*ck sake - wake up!
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Because if they were occupied actually contributing to the country, and by extension human society, they may have less time to pre-occupy themselves with wasteful and potentially harmful protests. It's obvious that the opinion of a person who contributes is to be taken more seriously than a person who doesn't. I don't have much sympathy for the protesters, I'm happy to pay for water, it's more efficient to charge people for a commodity as they use it than to charge for it indirectly through taxation. Since I'm happy to pay for water I don't have much sympathy for people who seem to want it for free.
FREETV wrote: » So you are happy to pay for water unfit for human consumption laced with harmful accumulative chemicals? Most people are ignorant of the evidence in this Country.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » All the chemicals in the world baby. The fact that no one takes conspiracy theories seriously makes my chemicals taste even sweeter.
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Because if they were occupied actually contributing to the country, and by extension human society, they may have less time to pre-occupy themselves with wasteful and potentially harmful protests. It's obvious that the opinion of a person who contributes is to be taken more seriously than a person who doesn't.
I don't have much sympathy for the protesters, I'm happy to pay for water, it's more efficient to charge people for a commodity as they use it than to charge for it indirectly through taxation. Since I'm happy to pay for water I don't have much sympathy for people who seem to want it for free.
Wurly wrote: » Right, so taking back our power from the elite is not contributing to human society, is it not?
What's harmful about these protests? Should we just shut up and take every single tax thrown at us? Please do not fool yourself thinking that this money is going towards the quality of our water. It is AGAIN going into the pockets of the rich. How can you not see this? Have you done your research on the conditions of the bailout and how the IMF (owned by the Rothschilds) have bullied our government into bringing these charges in?
What good is turning on each other going to do? Everyone that protests are not just defending their rights, they are defending YOUR rights also.
You are already paying for your water. Why do you want to pay twice?
Again it is not about being charged for water per se, it is about the manner in which they are doing it. A PRIVATE company digging up the outside of your house without your consent. Making you enter a contract that you never asked for. It's utterly ridiculous. It's wrong.
I don't think the protestors asked for your sympathy by the way. We have a human right to speak up for ourselves. Why should that ever incur 'sympathy' from anyone?
Iwasfrozen wrote: » Not really no. IMF "owned" by a rich Jewish family? Please don't bring conspiracy theories into After Hours, keep them where they belong. Most European countries have water charges, Ireland has been an anomaly in that regard for decades and our water infrastructure has suffered as a result. Indirect taxation does not provide sufficient funds to maintain our infrastructure nevermind upgrade it and the haphazard unco-ordinated management by local authorities has done more harm than good. Our infrastructure needs more funds and to be placed under a single authority. I don't agree with everything IW does but water charges and a single body to collect them are a necessity. They are defending made up rights. You do not have the right to treated water. No, I'm paying general taxation. Previously an insufficient amount of money was taken from that pool of money and our infrastructure suffered as a result. Now that money that was previously siphoned off can go towards closing our deficit. Irish water is not a private company. It is a subsidiary of Bord Gáis. Whether the protesters asked for my sympathy is irrelevant to the fact they don't have it...
