Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

No refund for families who have paid water charges

1…1415171920…27

Comments

  • #482
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,997 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    I think your figures on that are right, Going Forward. The usage in Ireland is high, especially compared with Germany and Denmark, I think.
    What is important also is that the truth is often disguised by averages.
    The spread in usage was dramatic in that survey.
    So some were using, very little, others much more.


  • #483
    df_h
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86 ✭✭df_h


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Yes it is the answer. Efficient, cost effective in the long run and clean reliable water. Protesters are not interested in the benefits, they just do not want to pay or be accountable,IMO.

    What benefits?

    How many millions were actually spent on Irish water salaries, expenses, billing vs you know actually fixing the water/waste network?

    Everyone is missing the point in this long thread, Irish Water was set up to make State debt and future expenditure appear smaller by shifting the water/waste infrastructure onto a private company, except the EU ended up rightly pointing out that its all smoke and mirrors. Thankfully the debt situation has since improved and the economy is doing well.

    So the question should be asked now, Why continue with this farce?


    aside: I paid my water bills up to now, despite getting undrinkable/hard water and having to spent money on own filtration, cleaning, softening for dirty water coming in and running own waste treatment plant.

    If Irish Water actually showed that there was an improvement in the water/waste situation around the country, I doubt there would have been such a backlash about what amounts to be a quango with billing facilities existing somewhere between private and public ownership.


  • #484
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Water John wrote: »
    I think your figures on that are right, Going Forward.

    The usage in Ireland is high, especially compared with Germany and Denmark, I think

    It isn't.
    Both countries use substantially more water per person:

    http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg757_500_350.jpg

    Irish Water has determined that Ireland's usage is somewhere between India and China....


    Water John wrote: »
    What is important also is that the truth is often disguised by averages.
    The spread in usage was dramatic in that survey.
    So some were using, very little, others much more.

    The 111 per person per day figure was arrived at by excluding outliers (extremely high users).


  • #485
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,997 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    The term 'outliers' in IW survey refers to households that almost certainly had leaks and were thus excluded from the calculations, rather than high users per se.
    From memory, I think about 50 + out of a sample of about 1,200.

    Neither were these outliers included in calculating cost of usage per house, which in some few cases hit 1,000 euro.


  • #486
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Water John wrote: »
    The term 'outliers' in IW survey refers to households that almost certainly had leaks and were thus excluded from the calculations, rather than high users per se.
    From memory, I think about 50 + out of a sample of about 1,200.

    Neither were these outliers included in calculating cost of usage per house, which in some few cases hit 1,000 euro.

    Nor should they have been•.

    The survey was undertaken to establish average usage, that's why off the scale usage figures were disregarded, plus, having been identified it is safe to assume that they have been repaired and should not be included

    There was nothing in relation to cost of usage per household in the survey because it was undertaken prior to any charges being set for supplying water.

    Any €1000 bills or costs to households would only have come to light after prices and allowances were announced.


    •There were a number of stories which claimed that metering was identifying millions of litres leaking under households.

    Those stories were true, but the figures must be read in some context.

    The context is that there is 1.7bn litres of water produced per day.

    Figures supplied by Irish Water confirm that at a point where over 50% of meters had been installed, just 1% of water being produced daily was leaking on private property, post meter.

    So much for claims that domestic meters are vital to detect leaks.

    But then, IW never claimed they'd be useful for detecting leaks anywhere other than under private property, politicians were the ones who started talking about domestic meters as if they'd pinpoint mains leaks.

    They don't nor do Irish Water claim that they do.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ... The implication being that it's possible to set up a national utility without hiring consultants; that a commercial company would offer water meters for free (it absolutely boggles my mind that any sane person could believe that); that you can set something up without setup costs; that an "off the shelf" billing system for millions of customers has no cost... I'm not twisting anything. If someone is bitching incessantly about the fact that there were setup costs for a water utility,

    There was no implication that was free, and yes, you are twisting things. My quote that you used was a reply to someone who said that Irish water was upgrading the water system, when in fact there is zero money left after the setup.


  • #488
    MileyReilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 103 ✭✭MileyReilly


    bmay529 wrote: »
    As someone who has paid their water charges I read this morning that FF say there will be No refund for families who have paid water charges. If true, as someone who felt they were meeting their civic duty, even though I did not like the charge, it would really **** me off if those who did not pay got off scot-free while those who did will face the hit. For sure I will remember it a) when deciding who to elect next time and b) I will remember this whenever any future charges our Government dream up are levied. SO FF find a way to recognise those who paid and don't pawn it off by saying someone else decided on the charge. Also am I right in saying every other country in Europe has water charges and that their removal will effect the country's balance sheet with many other negative implications

    That's what you get for paying water bills


  • #489
    ads20101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭ads20101


    It doesn't really matter what happens in the future.

    At the time, the law was the law (whether people agree with it or not) and any non payers will have to pay. If they refuse then I expect that it will be a condition of property resell just like the property tax.

    But this won't affect those in council accommodation. I have no idea how they can be made to pay (ever).


  • #490
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,717 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Going Forward wrote: »
    Irish Water and the CER would disagree with you there.

    Do you know how the new national consumption rate was arrived at?

    It's just 111 litres per person by the way.

    It was determined just by telling a group of householders who agreed to take part in a survey for IW that their usage of water was being analysed, before charges were ever decided upon.

    Their usage rate was then taken as being the new average personal consumption rate.

    Here's the interesting bit, the analysis was undertaken to determine allowances.

    So there IS clear evidence that metering alone does deliver considerably reduced consumption rates, in this case a drop of 26% from the previously published 150 litres a day to 111 litres a day.

    I genuinely don't foresee, having already reduced our consumption by 26%, any further significant usage drop if charging per use does ever kick in, do you?

    What that demonstrates is that when people are told that their water consumption is being monitored and measured, they take steps to conserve water and their consumption is reduced from 150 litres to 111 litres per person per day.

    The key question then is, how do you roll out this behaviour into the wider community? The answer is simple - metering with a charge based on usage.

    A free allowance should be set at a level - below 100 litres per person per day - that will incentivise conservation but still leave enough for a frugal person to live on.


  • #491
    Hannah Ripe Sailboat
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Hannah Ripe Sailboat


    Going Forward wrote: »
    Irish Water and the CER would disagree with you there.

    Do you know how the new national consumption rate was arrived at?

    It's just 111 litres per person by the way.

    It was determined just by telling a group of householders who agreed to take part in a survey for IW that their usage of water was being analysed, before charges were ever decided upon.

    Their usage rate was then taken as being the new average personal consumption rate.

    Here's the interesting bit, the analysis was undertaken to determine allowances.

    So there IS clear evidence that metering alone does deliver considerably reduced consumption rates, in this case a drop of 26% from the previously published 150 litres a day to 111 litres a day.

    I genuinely don't foresee, having already reduced our consumption by 26%, any further significant usage drop if charging per use does ever kick in, do you?

    It is fascinating that you reference this so often without ever seemingly having read the report, looked at the data, or understood what it shows.

    The raw figures do not show an average use of 111l per day. The report when outliers are excluded shows this.

    I have been through this more than once with you, and you appear to refuse to accept this, even though I've gone to the trouble of linking you to the raw data, displaying graphically that raw data in order to demonstrate the difference, and discuss it with you further. In fact, I've made this point more than once haven't I, yet you still persist in posting absolutely falsified figures.

    You referenced the Hawthorne effect once in discussion, recall that, which suggests that the simple effect of measuring a sample from a population can cause them to perform differently than when they are not. When I asked you to give us the logical conclusion of what that might tell us about the study, you baulked away, perhaps realising that what it suggests is that the figures reported in the study are considered a 'local minimum', and that the true population mean is almost certainly higher than what is shown in the study (sample mean).

    You have repeatedly taken issue with the study, yet avoid discussing the raw figures, the inferences available, the methodology aspects and the conclusions drawn apart from simply throwing mud.


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It is fascinating that you reference this so often without ever seemingly having read the report, looked at the data, or understood what it shows.

    The raw figures do not show an average use of 111l per day. The report when outliers are excluded shows this.

    I have been through this more than once with you, and you appear to refuse to accept this, even though I've gone to the trouble of linking you to the raw data, displaying graphically that raw data in order to demonstrate the difference, and discuss it with you further. In fact, I've made this point more than once haven't I, yet you still persist in posting absolutely falsified figures.

    You referenced the Hawthorne effect once in discussion, recall that, which suggests that the simple effect of measuring a sample from a population can cause them to perform differently than when they are not. When I asked you to give us the logical conclusion of what that might tell us about the study, you baulked away, perhaps realising that what it suggests is that the figures reported in the study are considered a 'local minimum', and that the true population mean is almost certainly higher than what is shown in the study (sample mean).

    You have repeatedly taken issue with the study, yet avoid discussing the raw figures, the inferences available, the methodology aspects and the conclusions drawn apart from simply throwing mud.

    I have already explained why outliers should not be included.

    You already know that had they been included, they actual end figure is still much lower than previously estimated.

    Please don't lie in this thread as you did in the IW one when yourself and an "accountant" friend tried to infer that contrary to facts, IW had, in a matter of months, managed to do as they'd predicted, and saved €300m of costs providing water to households.

    So now you're contradicting the survey results and claiming that the true usage is almost certainly higher.

    Odd that you can see this, but IW can't.
    And that Professor Morgenroth of the ESRI hinted at it too.

    Why do you think they'd (IW) like the lowest figure possible, in the context of allowances?

    Have you contacted Irish Water with your concerns about the accuracy of this figure that they want to use in determining "free allowances"?

    Why don't you, and come back here and tell us what IW say?

    Actually don't bother, it's what they say, and not what you say about it that matters.

    111 litres per day.

    But what you have done here is to remind people that this figure, like most others from IW, cannot be taken at face value.

    Don't dare to accuse me of falsifying the figures.


  • #493
    Hannah Ripe Sailboat
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Hannah Ripe Sailboat


    Going Forward wrote: »
    I have already explained why outliers should not be included.
    They should not be included when assessing the impact of metered charges on a population, they absolutely must be included when discussing the current usage of that population.
    Going Forward wrote: »
    You already know that had they been included, they actual end figure is still much lower than previously estimated.
    Dealt with many times. Innacurate estimate replaced with an actual study that provided better estimate. Nothing strange here whatsoever. Actual reading is better than guessing. No surprise.
    Going Forward wrote: »
    Please don't lie in this thread as you did in the IW one when yourself and an "accountant" friend tried to infer that contrary to facts, IW had, in a matter of months, managed to do as they'd predicted, and saved €300m of costs providing water to households.
    I'll ask you to point out a lie in any of my posts on this thread or retract this. I'd invite you to find that actual post and quote it in the relevant thread if it does indeed exist.
    Going Forward wrote: »
    So now you're contradicting the survey results and claiming that the true usage is almost certainly higher.
    No. Not contradicting the results in the slightest. The results are clear and available to be collated from the data that that study that you refused to analyze yourself. What we can infer from those results is a very different matter.
    Going Forward wrote: »
    Odd that you can see this, but IW can't.
    And that Professor Morgenroth of the ESRI hinted at it too.

    Why do you think they'd (IW) like the lowest figure possible, in the context of allowances?
    Good question, however what has it got to do with the study posted? Or anything that I've posted on the matter in this thread?

    There are raw figures there, I have analyzed them independently of IW and come to similar conclusions after finding the same results. Would you like to repeat the process and explain how your work with the raw figures gives us different answers?
    Going Forward wrote: »
    Have you contacted Irish Water with your concerns about the accuracy of this figure that they want to use in determining "free allowances"?
    No.
    Going Forward wrote: »
    Why don't you, and come back here and tell us what IW say?
    Because I was interested in the water survey, and independently analyzed the raw figures from it. I noticed that you repeatedly and often quoted that survey with some aplomb even though I had shown you how badly you are reading it. I am asking you to correct that by either improving your understanding of it, or else just simply desisting. It's really annoying seeing things posted repeatedly that you've taken time to dissect and find fault in. But I will do it, if you require it.
    Going Forward wrote: »
    Actually don't bother, it's what they say, and not what you say about it that matters.

    111 litres per day.
    Is the average figure that a "Normal Household" (a household with no leaks) is expected to use. As found in the study.

    The study also discovers the existence of quite a few examples of "Non-Normal Households" (households with leaks or bafflingly high usage). These households usage is so high that it manages to push the entire sample mean up over 10%, an enormous figure! You cannot simply exclude these figures from your conclusions about what Ireland's overall usage is.
    Going Forward wrote: »
    But what you have done here is to remind people that this figure, like most others from IW, cannot be taken at face value.
    No. I actually took the study that they got the figures from, and independently analyzed them. You know that this is true given that I went to the effort to graph the distributions and explain it.

    I am not a sheep, I am sceptical and so went to the effort to understand the raw figures myself. Have you?
    Going Forward wrote: »
    Don't dare to accuse me of falsifying the figures.
    I have falsified the figures (Proved them to be false) many times, yet you insist on posting them unabated. The figure of 111lpd is not a 'false figure' it is a figure that gives us a completely different metric from the one that you present it as. Either use it correctly, or not at all.

    As always, I offer you once again the opportunity to point out flaws with the study, issues with the figures, miscalculations that might have happened etc. If you take issue with the water survey, explain why. If you take issue with the inferences, you'll need to reference the survey to explain why too.


  • #494
    gladrags
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    They should not be included when assessing the impact of metered charges on a population, they absolutely must be included when discussing the current usage of that population.

    Dealt with many times. Innacurate estimate replaced with an actual study that provided better estimate. Nothing strange here whatsoever. Actual reading is better than guessing. No surprise.

    I'll ask you to point out a lie in any of my posts on this thread or retract this. I'd invite you to find that actual post and quote it in the relevant thread if it does indeed exist.

    No. Not contradicting the results in the slightest. The results are clear and available to be collated from the data that that study that you refused to analyze yourself. What we can infer from those results is a very different matter.

    Good question, however what has it got to do with the study posted? Or anything that I've posted on the matter in this thread?

    There are raw figures there, I have analyzed them independently of IW and come to similar conclusions after finding the same results. Would you like to repeat the process and explain how your work with the raw figures gives us different answers?


    No.

    Because I was interested in the water survey, and independently analyzed the raw figures from it. I noticed that you repeatedly and often quoted that survey with some aplomb even though I had shown you how badly you are reading it. I am asking you to correct that by either improving your understanding of it, or else just simply desisting. It's really annoying seeing things posted repeatedly that you've taken time to dissect and find fault in. But I will do it, if you require it.

    Is the average figure that a "Normal Household" (a household with no leaks) is expected to use. As found in the study.

    The study also discovers the existence of quite a few examples of "Non-Normal Households" (households with leaks or bafflingly high usage). These households usage is so high that it manages to push the entire sample mean up over 10%, an enormous figure! You cannot simply exclude these figures from your conclusions about what Ireland's overall usage is.

    No. I actually took the study that they got the figures from, and independently analyzed them. You know that this is true given that I went to the effort to graph the distributions and explain it.

    I am not a sheep, I am sceptical and so went to the effort to understand the raw figures myself. Have you?

    I have falsified the figures (Proved them to be false) many times, yet you insist on posting them unabated. The figure of 111lpd is not a 'false figure' it is a figure that gives us a completely different metric from the one that you present it as. Either use it correctly, or not at all.

    As always, I offer you once again the opportunity to point out flaws with the study, issues with the figures, miscalculations that might have happened etc. If you take issue with the water survey, explain why. If you take issue with the inferences, you'll need to reference the survey to explain why too.

    Talk about over the top and out of touch spiel,and here we have it.

    In the cold light of simple logic,your post is totally removed from any relevant discussion,of the whole water charge issue.

    Socially,morally and factually,you fail.

    Instead you come up with a pedantic and out of touch narrow self serving narrative.


  • #495
    Hannah Ripe Sailboat
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Hannah Ripe Sailboat


    gladrags wrote: »
    Talk about over the top and out of touch spiel,and here we have it.

    In the cold light of simple logic,your post is totally removed from any relevant discussion,of the whole water charge issue.

    Socially,morally and factually,you fail.

    Instead you come up with a pedantic and out of touch narrow self serving narrative.

    Is this an attempt at a Haiku?

    Any thoughts yourself on the Water Survey that myself and Going Forward were discussing?


  • #496
    gladrags
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,028 ✭✭✭gladrags


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Is this an attempt at a Haiku?

    Any thoughts yourself on the Water Survey that myself and Going Forward were discussing?

    Been there,done that.

    I like to think I have an understading of water conservation,and the simple envoirenmental reasons why.

    But your droning spiel is just that.

    Its out of touch,and irrelevant.


  • #497
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,717 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Going Forward wrote: »
    I have already explained why outliers should not be included.

    You already know that had they been included, they actual end figure is still much lower than previously estimated.

    Please don't lie in this thread as you did in the IW one when yourself and an "accountant" friend tried to infer that contrary to facts, IW had, in a matter of months, managed to do as they'd predicted, and saved €300m of costs providing water to households.

    So now you're contradicting the survey results and claiming that the true usage is almost certainly higher.

    Odd that you can see this, but IW can't.
    And that Professor Morgenroth of the ESRI hinted at it too.

    Why do you think they'd (IW) like the lowest figure possible, in the context of allowances?

    Have you contacted Irish Water with your concerns about the accuracy of this figure that they want to use in determining "free allowances"?

    Why don't you, and come back here and tell us what IW say?

    Actually don't bother, it's what they say, and not what you say about it that matters.

    111 litres per day.

    But what you have done here is to remind people that this figure, like most others from IW, cannot be taken at face value.

    Don't dare to accuse me of falsifying the figures.

    What is your point?

    You have been here over many threads and it seems you have never made a coherent point. There is certainly nothing in that post.


  • #498
    Mexcanelo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 60 ✭✭Mexcanelo


    To be fair. Nobody should have paid the water charge in the first place. Not a single person has ever been brought into a court room for not paying the water charge. Because it doesn't stand up. It's a completely unlawful.


  • #499
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    Mexcanelo wrote: »
    To be fair. Nobody should have paid the water charge in the first place. Not a single person has ever been brought into a court room for not paying the water charge. Because it doesn't stand up. It's a completely unlawful.

    I'm going to buck the stereotype here and point out that very few have been brought to court for banking scams and political corruption either. Just because something doesn't make it to court doesn't make it right.

    That said, IW is an unfit-for-purpose scam - no doubt in my head. A very decent idea bastardised for a political agenda and made worse by incompetence, cronyism and spin.


  • #500
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Mod note:

    Going Forward and Godge, please raise the standard. Accusing each other of lying or being incoherent does not advance the debate.


  • #501
    Mexcanelo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 60 ✭✭Mexcanelo


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    I'm going to buck the stereotype here and point out that very few have been brought to court for banking scams and political corruption either. Just because something doesn't make it to court doesn't make it right.

    That said, IW is an unfit-for-purpose scam - no doubt in my head. A very decent idea bastardised for a political agenda and made worse by incompetence, cronyism and spin.


    Hey, If people were stupid enough to pay it. If you as me, they don't deserve their money back.


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    Mexcanelo wrote: »
    Hey, If people were stupid enough to pay it. If you as me, they don't deserve their money back.

    I wouldn't actually criticise anyone for paying it; some were forced to by landlords, a pensioner I know was worried in case they'd hit his pension, and there were probably hundreds of other reasons.

    What I would say is that anyone who tries to claim it back without returning their "grant" is a hypocrite.


  • #503
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Mexcanelo wrote: »
    It's a completely unlawful.

    I'd ask what law has been broken by the introduction of water charges, but I'm guessing this is one of those cases where "unlawful", like "treason", is a word that's been co-opted to mean "something I personally dislike".


  • #504
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'd ask what law has been broken by the introduction of water charges, but I'm guessing this is one of those cases where "unlawful", like "treason", is a word that's been co-opted to mean "something I personally dislike".

    Yet again there's the inexplicable blurring of the lines between "water charges" per se and the fiasco that we were landed with.


  • #505
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    Yet again there's the inexplicable blurring of the lines between "water charges" per se and the fiasco that we were landed with.

    I replied to a post about water charges, which claimed they're unlawful. It didn't mention the "fiasco that we were landed with" - if anyone's blurring lines, it's not me.


  • #506
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    Deleted User wrote: »
    They should not be included when assessing the impact of metered charges on a population, they absolutely must be included when discussing the current usage of that population.

    Dealt with many times. Innacurate estimate replaced with an actual study that provided better estimate. Nothing strange here whatsoever. Actual reading is better than guessing. No surprise.

    I'll ask you to point out a lie in any of my posts on this thread or retract this. I'd invite you to find that actual post and quote it in the relevant thread if it does indeed exist.

    No. Not contradicting the results in the slightest. The results are clear and available to be collated from the data that that study that you refused to analyze yourself. What we can infer from those results is a very different matter.

    Good question, however what has it got to do with the study posted? Or anything that I've posted on the matter in this thread?

    There are raw figures there, I have analyzed them independently of IW and come to similar conclusions after finding the same results. Would you like to repeat the process and explain how your work with the raw figures gives us different answers?


    No.

    Because I was interested in the water survey, and independently analyzed the raw figures from it. I noticed that you repeatedly and often quoted that survey with some aplomb even though I had shown you how badly you are reading it. I am asking you to correct that by either improving your understanding of it, or else just simply desisting. It's really annoying seeing things posted repeatedly that you've taken time to dissect and find fault in. But I will do it, if you require it.

    Is the average figure that a "Normal Household" (a household with no leaks) is expected to use. As found in the study.

    The study also discovers the existence of quite a few examples of "Non-Normal Households" (households with leaks or bafflingly high usage). These households usage is so high that it manages to push the entire sample mean up over 10%, an enormous figure! You cannot simply exclude these figures from your conclusions about what Ireland's overall usage is.

    No. I actually took the study that they got the figures from, and independently analyzed them. You know that this is true given that I went to the effort to graph the distributions and explain it.

    I am not a sheep, I am sceptical and so went to the effort to understand the raw figures myself. Have you?

    I have falsified the figures (Proved them to be false) many times, yet you insist on posting them unabated. The figure of 111lpd is not a 'false figure' it is a figure that gives us a completely different metric from the one that you present it as. Either use it correctly, or not at all.

    As always, I offer you once again the opportunity to point out flaws with the study, issues with the figures, miscalculations that might have happened etc. If you take issue with the water survey, explain why. If you take issue with the inferences, you'll need to reference the survey to explain why too.

    First, I think I owe you an apology as it was another poster who spent days trying to claim that IW had actually saved €300m as per BG's biddding claims. You didn't step in to say he was incorrect but that still doesn't excuse me from saying you were the one doing it, so hands up from me when I'm in the wrong.

    I've been out of the loop for a few days and will respond to your post shortly.


  • #507
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I replied to a post about water charges, which claimed they're unlawful. It didn't mention the "fiasco that we were landed with" - if anyone's blurring lines, it's not me.

    Fair point. I guess my having bucked the trend re the other post and treating its seriousness with a suitable amount of grains of salt made me overlook that - mea culpa!


  • #508
    Mexcanelo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 60 ✭✭Mexcanelo


    Jack Killian wrote: »
    I wouldn't actually criticise anyone for paying it; some were forced to by landlords, a pensioner I know was worried in case they'd hit his pension, and there were probably hundreds of other reasons.

    I would. For those renting, I'll give you that, can't really criticise. It's the Landlord who is the idiot in that case.

    There was a dispicable fear campaign launch against pensioners. Saying the charge could be taken from their payments. Which IW never had any right to do.


  • #509
    Mexcanelo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 60 ✭✭Mexcanelo


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'd ask what law has been broken by the introduction of water charges, but I'm guessing this is one of those cases where "unlawful", like "treason", is a word that's been co-opted to mean "something I personally dislike".

    What makes IW unlawful is the fact that the state can't force a citizen to sign a contract with a private company. Which is essentially what people who paid it did.

    You can pay IW if you like but it's not mandatory. If you decide not to, there is nothing IW can do about it.

    They can't cut your suppy, they can't do a thing.

    You have essentially made donation to private company.

    A fool and his money are easily parted


  • #510
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    Mexcanelo wrote: »
    What makes IW unlawful is the fact that the state can't force a citizen to sign a contract with a private company. Which is essentially what people who paid it did.

    You can pay IW if you like but it's not mandatory. If you decide not to, there is nothing IW can do about it.

    They can't cut your suppy, they can't do a thing.

    You have essentially made donation to private company.

    A fool and his money are easily parted

    That is absolute rubbish.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Mexcanelo wrote: »
    What makes IW unlawful is the fact that the state can't force a citizen to sign a contract with a private company. Which is essentially what people who paid it did.

    This is incorrect. There's nothing unlawful about it and, given their unpopularity, if it were, someone would have doubtlessly challenged it by now.

    Nobody is being forced to become a customer of Irish Water. If you don't want to be a customer, you can opt to disconnect yourself from the public water and drainage system and make your own arrangements.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement