suicide_circus wrote: » My only issues with this fiasco are: 1. The gombeen manner in which IW was set up and is being run. 2. I really don't want to give my pps number to a company which will be privatised.
emo72 wrote: » I wonder how many of those 500000 returned are spoiled?
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Spoiled? It's not a vote system. If it's not readable or incomplete they'll just throw it out. If it contains false information then they'll hopefully be following up with prosecutions.
DamagedTrax wrote: » predictable side argument.. because how somebody words something is the important issue isnt it? :rolleyes: im pretty sure over 33% of thread participants knew what emo72 meant.
mikom wrote: » The indo.............. yes the indo. Let me tell you about the indo. You will love the story.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » I didn't.
DamagedTrax wrote: » it wasnt that complicated to be honest.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » It had a number of different possible meanings depending on where the poster stood on the argument. He could have meant spoiled as in writing "no contract no consent" or he could have defaced it or he could have put false information. As such I tried to address all possibilities. Sorry if that offended you in some way.
DamagedTrax wrote: » the passive aggression is boring. its transparent what your agenda is and your post sat right into it. nobody on the 'right to water' side is advocating what you suggested. no contract/no consent is all thats needed.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » No contract/No Consent is freeman nonsense. And people in this thread have advocated all the possibilities I covered.
DamagedTrax wrote: » no contract/no consent X 1 million households is a lot more than freeman nonsense. its the kind of nonsense that is going to bury the politics that have brought this country to where it currently is. if that bothers you then get used to it. when 66% of households dont sign up within the timeframe, you gotta wonder if you've been wrong about all this.. after all we do live in a majority led democracy, dont we?
Barely There wrote: » So what if they don't sign up for a free allowance - they'll still be getting a bill.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » We do. And if the democratic will of the electorate vote in a party that promises to abolish water charges then so be it. It doesn't change the fact that "no contract no consent" is complete nonsense fabricated by people who believe the law only applies to you if you want it to. It won't free you from the obligations placed upon you by legislation.
DamagedTrax wrote: » which will get equally ignored. the threats will come, the water will be turned down to a trickle, people will turn it back up, court proceedings will be issued which drag on and on... all the time the government and irish water create even more ill will towards themselves with an election in 18 months. i just dont see it playing out that way, sorry.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » Didn't work that way with the M50 though did it?
Banjo String wrote: » Please let mine be Murray or Cosby. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVzdSPhcMUo
DamagedTrax wrote: » unless i'm mistaken, the m50 isnt a natural resource. and you have a whole different buch of enviromental factors involved that was never going to gain the support of the majority. water on the other hand is very very different. you can argue all you want but the proof will be in the pudding and right now its starting to taste good.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » The right to travel seems to be as ingrained as the right to water and the lunatics who were calling no contract no consent for the m50 on that ground didn't get very far. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Don't eat too much pudding though, you may need to follow it up with some pie.
DamagedTrax wrote: » the right to travel is very much ingrained. the right to travel says nothing about motorways. i could still get where i want without the m50. im not so sure i'd do so well without water. m50 = small fry water = full irish with tea and toast on the side. and dont worry about me leaving room for pie.. from what i hear its all gone anyway, the lads at leinster house have been stuffing themselves with it all week.
Barely There wrote: » Why would they drag on and on? A District Court judge will rattle through a dozen non-payment of tv license cases in twenty minutes. Doesn't take very long at all - hand out a few €200 fines and everyone will be paying their modest water rates very quickly indeed.
Little CuChulainn wrote: » You are missing my point. Not engaging at all with Irish Water is one thing, writing "no contract no consent" is idiotic.