nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER RELATED Part 2 - MOD WARNING IN OP

tayto lover

MOD

12/11/14 - 23.46

People need to reign it in a bit. I'm not far from locking the thread and leaving it closed, the amount of mod actions on this thread and the other is far too much and it's not even one or two posters, going by the last 5 pages I could pick out 5 or 6+ for personal abuse, uncivil and acting the d!ck in general.

Please stay on topic, IW/Water charges, not the 1916 rising or whatever else.

/MOD

I wonder if many people will sell their PPS numbers for 100 euro?

Find more posts tagged with

dissidents joe dissidents

uisce ui brian

Comments

geeksauce

Tony EH wrote: »

I thought you might have had something interesting to say.

But it's just plain old, tiresome, pathetic, bitterness.

As the yanks say...my bad.

:pac:

Seriously though why are you still responding. It seems to me that anyone who is happy for the taxpayer to pay for people to spend their lives on social welfare is more than likely someone who is intent on spending their life on social welfare.

seamus

Daith wrote: »

Outside of IW, it needs to be similar to the LPT. Affects everyone with a dwelling regardless of tax. Council people are still doing their jobs with the water infrastructure. Revenue could be brought in and there's no issues (if ever there was) with PPS numbers.

Seamus, do you think IW is needed as a separate entity or would the above do?

No, I don't think it would be adequate. Why do you think so many people are so often on boil notices? Why do you think so much of our water infrastructure leaks?

Payment directly to the councils may sort the finance issue, but I'm pretty sure it would work out far more wasteful than Irish Water in the long run. With no PSO and no regulator, the councils would be free to increase the rates as they see fit without being required to improve the infrastructure in any way. Any capital expenditure or shortfalls would fall directly back to local government and back to us - you would in fact end up paying twice, once for your water charge and again through your tax to cover deficits.

IW by comparison (when fully set up) will have a PSO to improve its infrastructure, has regulatory oversight and will raise its own finance for capex without having to look for government subsidies.

As much of a shambles as it has been, IW still seems like the lesser of two evils.

shinzon wrote: »

Way to ignore the obvious 3 things

1) The man told him he didn't want a meter was told to **** off

2) the man told him he did not get the pack was told to **** right off

and

3) If the guards had of been there they would have arrested the man instead of the worker whose abusing him

1 & 2 - Irrelevant.
3 - Complete nonsense. Any Garda would have told everyone to calm down before arresting anyone.

The video is clearly staged. I'd put good money down that they spend the previous ten minutes hurling abuse at the guy, insulting his mother and calling him every name under the sun. Then when he tells them to fnck off and get out of his face, they get the camera out.

Why aren't they filming everything? Why do we only seem to get snippets of videos mid-exchange?

Tony EH

geeksauce wrote: »

Seriously though why are you still responding. It seems to me that anyone who is happy for the taxpayer to pay for people to spend their lives on social welfare is more than likely someone who is intent on spending their life on social welfare.

I'm responding to counter bitter shite like this. :rolleyes:

The amount of people who "spend their lives on social welfare" is MINISCULE. :pac:

The vast, vast majority of people who find themselves on social welfare do so, a) through no fault of their own and b) under extreme duress.

Daith

seamus wrote: »

No, I don't think it would be adequate. Why do you think so many people are so often on boil notices? Why do you think so much of our water infrastructure leaks?

The same people from the councils are the same people running Irish Water.

Are you suggesting the lack of money is the only reason we've a terrible infrastructure?

No reason why there couldn't be more oversight into councils and their ability to function.

seamus wrote: »

IW by comparison (when fully set up) will have a PSO to improve its infrastructure, has regulatory oversight and will raise its own finance for capex without having to look for government subsidies.

Are IW not fully setup?

shinzon

seamus wrote: »

1 & 2 - Irrelevant.
3 - Complete nonsense. Any Garda would have told everyone to calm down before arresting anyone.

The video is clearly staged. I'd put good money down that they spend the previous ten minutes hurling abuse at the guy, insulting his mother and calling him every name under the sun. Then when he tells them to fnck off and get out of his face, they get the camera out.

Why aren't they filming everything? Why do we only seem to get snippets of videos mid-exchange?

that's fine you must like to be told to **** off then on a regular basis, and as for it being staged that's an extremely cynical view there wasn't a crowd one man one IW worker if youd bothered to look at the video in full, cant believe the suppositions your making about people.

Shin

geeksauce

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm responding to counter bitter shite like this. :rolleyes:

The amount of people who "spend their lives on social welfare" is MINISCULE. :pac:

The vast, vast majority of people who find themselves on social welfare do so, a) through no fault of their own and b) under extreme duress.

Why do you feel the need to counter it though, do you support people that choose to spend their whole life on social welfare?

geeksauce

shinzon wrote: »

that's fine you must like to be told to **** off then on a regular basis, and as for it being staged that's an extremely cynical view there wasn't a crowd one man one IW worker if youd bothered to look at the video in full, cant believe the suppositions your making about people.

Shin

To be fair I also assume that the majority of these videos are staged and that we only see one side of the story in pretty much all of them. You just need to look at the video of the girl claiming to have been knocked down by the IW installers van and you will get an understanding of the two sides to every story argument.

Someone that uploads a video showing an IW worker behaving in an untoward manner is doing so to make a point, and that point could be undermined if they uploaded events leading up to the incident.

tayto lover

geeksauce wrote: »

This would be the greatest thing in the world, absolute comedy gold.

Is it not that way already?

shinzon

geeksauce wrote: »

To be fair I also assume that the majority of these videos are staged and that we only see one side of the story in pretty much all of them. You just need to look at the video of the girl claiming to have been knocked down by the IW installers van and you will get an understanding of the two sides to every story argument.

Someone that uploads a video showing an IW worker behaving in an untoward manner is doing so to make a point, and that point could be undermined if they uploaded events leading up to the incident.

You know sometimes when I read things like these I wish Irish water in its original form had of succeeded, that all there charges were levied as they were originally intended and that in January the bill would drop and then the full consequences of what everyone pro water rates have been going on about would be realised only then would you not be spouting such ****e and you might actually open your eyes and see what the end game truly is.

Which is the privatisation of our water and for it to be bought and sold as a commodity which means continually rising price hikes, at least with the protests we have chipped away at the government there scared and are making concessions, I don't see you up in arms about taking those or contacting IW saying you don't want them

Funny that

Shin

[Deleted User]

3 pm news said the Garda Inspectorate report is due this afternoon and it isn't good reading for the Gardai, especially the Senior Management

twowheelsgood

Can any objectors to water charges outline a scenario where successful protest might realistically leave Ireland in a better place in the future?

I emphasize Ireland because I can see other desirable (for some) outcomes (downfall of the government, the continuation of our failed water provision model, the rise of SF etc.) that might result from a successful protest. But a good result for Ireland?

And I emphasize realistically because while it is tempting for some to believe that if we got shut of the blue shirts and all the smoked salmon “socialists” then what will replace them will be a generation of idealists who will magically find a painless way to resolve our financial crisis, reform the public sector, cure cancer and whatever you’re having yourself, anyone who is not a complete gull will know that this is not going to happen

Personally I cannot. And I haven’t read anything here that would suggest anyone else can.

Some of what the objectors want is realistic. Some is in the best interest of Ireland. But both? Nada.

Peist2007

Red Pepper wrote: »

I thought you were in your ebola bunker?

Ebola bunker? Didnt know there were ebola bunkers being set up, may be useful.

Now, anything to say on my point or were you just being a knob?

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

3 pm news said the Garda Inspectorate report is due this afternoon and it isn't good reading for the Gardai, especially the Senior Management

From speaking to the garda members who live near me it seems that senior management are more concerned with getting up the next rung of the promotion ladder than sorting out crime or actually managing the force.

The fact that the promotions are basically political appointments is the problem. Whatever party is in power promote the senior gardai who back the party regardless of ability.

Until this stops we will get nowhere and the actual gardai who want to do their jobs to the best of their ability will be held back and lose interest.

flutered

geeksauce wrote: »

Yes bitterness that some sections of society are being heavily subsidised by others for far too long now and something needs to be done to change this. Metered charges would be a good starting point couple that with reductions in income taxes for the employed or reduction in the VAT rates.

The hole left by these reductions can be filled by the employed paying for water directly through metered charges and the repairs to the system can be funded directly from those on SW paying directly for the water they use.

there are very few on the dole by choice, if as you point out some sections of society are being funded for two long, are you happy to accept payments from their budget to fund your iw costs, why has the gov taken payments to iw customers from the welfare budget.

Barely There

flutered wrote: »

, if as you point out some sections of society are being funded for two long, are you happy to accept payments from their budget to fund your iw costs, why has the gov taken payments to iw customers from the welfare budget.

There will be a special prize, of a year's free water, for the first poster who can decipher this cryptic message.

end of the road

geeksauce wrote: »

Yes bitterness that some sections of society are being heavily subsidised by others for far too long now and something needs to be done to change this.

some people are subsidized in society for various reasons, its not going to change dispite the rabel rabel, get over it. the bitterness isn't over "subsidizing" people, its to do with the "oh i can't get/have it so nobody else can" mentality.

geeksauce wrote: »

Metered charges would be a good starting point couple that with reductions in income taxes for the employed or reduction in the VAT rates.

where is the money going to come from for these reductions. these reductions would mean a huge loss in revenue that water charges will never cover.

geeksauce wrote: »

The hole left by these reductions can be filled by the employed paying for water directly through metered charges

no it can't. water charges would never cover it.

geeksauce wrote: »

the repairs to the system can be funded directly from those on SW paying directly for the water they use.

meaning those on SW pay more. they will have to if they are being expected to fund the repairs to the water system. after all the employed can't be expected to pay toards the repairs as they are being expected to make up the shortfall in revenue lost due to vat and tax reductions.

end of the road

geeksauce wrote: »

Yep and not afraid to say it either, and certainly not alone in thinking it. It's high time certain people in our society begin to contribute to society or gtfo.

GTFO to where

Knight who says Meh

Barely There wrote: »

Would love to see every water charge protester post up their alternative solution.

Guaranteed you'd have a different proposal from everyone of them and most of them pie-in-the-sky 'solutions'.

All very well campaigning against something lads - that's easy. The hard part is agreeing an alternative.

I'd actually love to see the Dail stocked full of Shinners, PBP, AAA's and various single issue independents - see how long they'd last - personally I'd give them 2 months maximum.

Hmmm. I havent been here in a while but one thing that obvious is that the pro IW lot cannot grasp that this is a complicated issue, multi fauceted if you will (tah boom tish). Of course there will be different levels and reason for objection to IW BUT:
The most common one in this thread so far as i can see is an ethical objection for reasons related to the make up of IW and its connections to nepotism, cronyism, bonus culture an so on. Its certainly my objection. Im sick of being taken for a mug and viewed as a walking ATM.

And yet what the pro IW lot desperately keep trying to convey is the barely present (in this thread) objection to paying for water at all.
Im not against it in principle. i cannot afford it as of now but if I werent being taken for a ride by the Irish Class System I may become more inclined to dig deeper..not sure to where but thats for another day.

seamus

Daith wrote: »

The same people from the councils are the same people running Irish Water.

That's actually a good idea, it's the implementation that's been poor. Or maybe it's just the marketing that's poor. Who knows the infrastructure in place best? The councils. Therefore it makes sense to take their staff on into a national body.

A private company, unlike the councils, have more control over compensation, organisational structures and hiring such that they can allow their workforce to shed naturally (or unnaturally) and introduce operational improvements without union meddling, that councils can't.
Now, why Irish water have basically duplicated the public service crap is a question that needs answering. Maybe council staff had to be enticed into the job (redundancies would lead to massive union hassle), so they put guaranteed bonuses and the like in place to encourage PS staff out of the councils and into IW. In return you get an employee that's no longer a member of a public sector union and can be shed in the medium-term.
If that's what they were doing, they've managed the communication of it very poorly.

Operationally, it would make no sense to set up a completely new company and hire people from scratch to run the water system. We've never done it for any other similar exercise.
You ramp-up time would be far longer and in the end a lot more costly because you'll end up outsourcing everything on expensive contracts for the first two years - on top of paying for the staff you're bringing in.

Are you suggesting the lack of money is the only reason we've a terrible infrastructure?

No reason why there couldn't be more oversight into councils and their ability to function.

Money isn't the reason our infrastructure is crap, it's the fact that we have never had money ringfenced for water infrastructure. If one of the Healy-Raes decides one year that a newly-paved road between Ballygobackwards and Tralee is what will keep his council seat, then the good people of Annascaul will just have to stay on boil notices for the foreseeable because there's no money for water.

For as long as the councils remain in charge of water, our infrastructure cannot be improved. Who can they be accountable to? If they don't deliver improvements, who's going to do anything about it? What can a regulator do if a local council doesn't mean a service obligation? Fine them? Just more tax out of the pot, higher water charges for the citizens of Kerry next year to pay for those potholes that didn't need fixing.

It's the same reason that where the councils are in charge of the roads, the quality varies from good to atrocious, but where the NRA are in charge and the councils are not, the roads are 99% excellent quality.

Are IW not fully setup?

Sorry, I mean fully operational, as in operating without government assistance and issuing bills and taking in cash.

twowheelsgood

Knight who says Meh wrote: »

And yet what the pro IW lot desperately keep trying to convey is the barely present (in this thread) objection to paying for water.

The poll on the first thread suggested that almost 70% of people do object to paying for water. And that is certainly the impression you get from the public protests.

Peist2007

Knight who says Meh wrote: »

Hmmm. I havent been here in a while but one thing that obvious is that the pro IW lot cannot grasp that this is a complicated issue, multi fauceted if you will (tah boom tish). Of course there will be different levels and reason for objection to IW BUT:
The most common one in this thread so far as i can see is an ethical objection for reasons related to the make up of IW and its connections to nepotism, cronyism, bonus culture an so on. Its certainly mine

And yet what the pro IW lot desperately keep trying to convey is the barely present (in this thread) objection to paying for water.
Im not against it in principle. i cannot afford it as of not but if I werent being taken for a ride by the Irish Class System I may become more inclined to dig deeper..not sure to where but that for another day.

Do you genuinely think that the people out attacking water meter installers or creating public disturbances give a crap about the makeup of Irish Water? I agree with your reservations about Irish Water but the momentum of the current protests is being driven by people who simply do not want to pay the charge itself. If the burden of paying were taken off them i think they wouldnt protest and those protesting about the fact that another crony-infested quango was being set up would suddenly look a lot fewer. Just my opinion.

Knight who says Meh

seamus wrote: »

That's actually a good idea, it's the implementation that's been poor. Or maybe it's just the marketing that's poor. Who knows the infrastructure in place best? The councils. Therefore it makes sense to take their staff on into a national body.

A private company, unlike the councils, have more control over compensation, organisational structures and hiring such that they can allow their workforce to shed naturally (or unnaturally) and introduce operational improvements without union meddling, that councils can't.
Now, why Irish water have basically duplicated the public service crap is a question that needs answering. Maybe council staff had to be enticed into the job (redundancies would lead to massive union hassle), so they put guaranteed bonuses and the like in place to encourage PS staff out of the councils and into IW. In return you get an employee that's no longer a member of a public sector union and can be shed in the medium-term.
If that's what they were doing, they've managed the communication of it very poorly.

Operationally, it would make no sense to set up a completely new company and hire people from scratch to run the water system. We've never done it for any other similar exercise.
You ramp-up time would be far longer and in the end a lot more costly because you'll end up outsourcing everything on expensive contracts for the first two years - on top of paying for the staff you're bringing in.

Money isn't the reason our infrastructure is crap, it's the fact that we have never had money ringfenced for water infrastructure. If one of the Healy-Raes decides one year that a newly-paved road between Ballygobackwards and Tralee is what will keep his council seat, then the good people of Annascaul will just have to stay on boil notices for the foreseeable because there's no money for water.

For as long as the councils remain in charge of water, our infrastructure cannot be improved. Who can they be accountable to? If they don't deliver improvements, who's going to do anything about it? What can a regulator do if a local council doesn't mean a service obligation? Fine them? Just more tax out of the pot, higher water charges for the citizens of Kerry next year to pay for those potholes that didn't need fixing.

It's the same reason that where the councils are in charge of the roads, the quality varies from good to atrocious, but where the NRA are in charge and the councils are not, the roads are 99% excellent quality.

Sorry, I mean fully operational, as in operating without government assistance and issuing bills and taking in cash.

twowheelsgood wrote: »

The poll on the first thread suggested that almost 70% of people do object to paying for water. And that is certainly the impression you get from the public protests.

I cannot view the original poll but from what i remember the choices were limited.
That not with standing shouldnt the pro IW lot be addressing posts here not straw manning all over the shop about events outside of boards?
Anyway.
Heres another angle

listermint

seamus wrote: »

That's actually a good idea, it's the implementation that's been poor. Or maybe it's just the marketing that's poor. Who knows the infrastructure in place best? The councils. Therefore it makes sense to take their staff on into a national body.

A private company, unlike the councils, have more control over compensation, organisational structures and hiring such that they can allow their workforce to shed naturally (or unnaturally) and introduce operational improvements without union meddling, that councils can't.
Now, why Irish water have basically duplicated the public service crap is a question that needs answering. Maybe council staff had to be enticed into the job (redundancies would lead to massive union hassle), so they put guaranteed bonuses and the like in place to encourage PS staff out of the councils and into IW. In return you get an employee that's no longer a member of a public sector union and can be shed in the medium-term.
If that's what they were doing, they've managed the communication of it very poorly.

Operationally, it would make no sense to set up a completely new company and hire people from scratch to run the water system. We've never done it for any other similar exercise.
You ramp-up time would be far longer and in the end a lot more costly because you'll end up outsourcing everything on expensive contracts for the first two years - on top of paying for the staff you're bringing in.

Money isn't the reason our infrastructure is crap, it's the fact that we have never had money ringfenced for water infrastructure. If one of the Healy-Raes decides one year that a newly-paved road between Ballygobackwards and Tralee is what will keep his council seat, then the good people of Annascaul will just have to stay on boil notices for the foreseeable because there's no money for water.

For as long as the councils remain in charge of water, our infrastructure cannot be improved. Who can they be accountable to? If they don't deliver improvements, who's going to do anything about it? What can a regulator do if a local council doesn't mean a service obligation? Fine them? Just more tax out of the pot, higher water charges for the citizens of Kerry next year to pay for those potholes that didn't need fixing.

It's the same reason that where the councils are in charge of the roads, the quality varies from good to atrocious, but where the NRA are in charge and the councils are not, the roads are 99% excellent quality.

Sorry, I mean fully operational, as in operating without government assistance and issuing bills and taking in cash.

Seamus, you are at pains to tell everyone how this is the better of too evils. When it is plain as day that it is not. We have quite literally pissed hundreds of millions against a wall of an organisation that was un-needed , ill conceived and poorly implemented.

Its not bad marketing, Its plain as day if this was a real company without the tax payer money holding it up that it would have folded already. Its a joke on the taxpayer, its a joke of inception. And a more stream lined smaller central decision and planning entity should have been the option No1. with funds issued and direction issued to existing local authorities.

It is not the lesser of two evils.

it is the evil.

You cannot legitimately advocate IW and not be advocating bad business practice

Barely There

Knight who says Meh wrote: »

Im not against it in principle. i cannot afford it as of not but

Ah yes.

Amazing the amount of posters who aren't really against the idea of water charges but

I don't like IW
They want my PPS number
It might be privatised in future
It's against my religion.
I'll do it when the world is full of lollipops and rainbows.

Personally I always read these type of homilies as 'I am against it in principle'.

Knight who says Meh

Barely There wrote: »

Ah yes.

Amazing the amount of posters who aren't really against the idea of water charges but
I don't like IW
They want my PPS number
It might be privatised in future
It's against my religion.
I'll do it when the world is full of lollipops and rainbows.

Personally I always read these type of homilies as 'I am against it in principle'.

I have a local property tax to pay, IW looking for money in the near future and i cant afford them just yet. Is that difficult to understand?
The fact that many people are in this position coupled with the bonus system, the private gym, the unqualified disasterous county managers mismanaging this company in the same manner they mismanaged their previous posts and receiving 6 figure salaries is infuriating.
You dont get that do you?

listermint

Barely There wrote: »

Ah yes.

Amazing the amount of posters who aren't really against the idea of water charges but
I don't like IW
They want my PPS number
It might be privatised in future
It's against my religion.
I'll do it when the world is full of lollipops and rainbows.

Personally I always read these type of homilies as 'I am against it in principle'.

lol.

Just.

Lol

darkpagandeath

Why do these people in IW need stress training ? Surely going into public office/civil service you know exactly what you are in for ? If your a poor shrinking violet how did they get a job dealing with the public ? They do know they are employed by the company for a specific roll yes ? I don't remember the last job I had saying to my boss I cant answer the phones it stresses me out. I would be in the dole cue very fast.

thebaz

does it ever stop raining on our fair isle ?

p.s. water related / fed up/ cabin feverd

Curly Judge

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why do these people in IW need stress training ? Surely going into public office/civil service you know exactly what you are in for ? If your a poor shrinking violet how did they get a job dealing with the public ? They do know they are employed by the company for a specific roll yes ? I don't remember the last job I had saying to my boss I cant answer the phones it stresses me out. I would be in the dole cue very fast.

Perhaps your ability with spelling and sentence construction would have something to do with it?:)

darkpagandeath

Curly Judge wrote: »

Perhaps your ability with spelling and sentence construction would have something to do with it?:)

Ah yis i forgetting . unpropper speeling makes point invalid. :pac: Do you go around correcting random foreign people on their use of English on the street to ?