Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Brian Hayes to leave politics

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    I'm not trying to argue or contradict you. Was a genuine question. But the link that you said also seems to apply to those on a group scheme. I read it that the group can get an annual grant for each house etc. in the group.


    First bullet point seems to be those where the water somehow comes from an Irish Water supply and the second one where a group get together and take water from a private well or a lake etc. Maybe that's being pedantic, but I would imagine there are houses that are not part of group schemes


    A group scheme would make sense on an economy scale so I could see why the government would want to encourage people to pool together.

    It's actually quite clear if you read what's written down D.


    It's up to 70e if you're connected to Irish Water supply system in some way, and (I assume) happen to have a sceptic tank, or are connected to Irish Water waste system, but not their drinking water. So that's an in or out scenario.

    The other subsistence grant states that it is
    for • up to 140 euro for each house supplied from a private source (well, lake, borehole etc.)
    so, private source, and examples given.


  • Options
    #33
    votecounts
    Registered Users Posts: 2,617 ✭✭✭votecounts


    A tosser and a waste of space, won't be missed, the complete fine Gael politician.
    I bet he wears a poppy as he always came across as a west brit.


  • Options
    #34
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,025 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    It's actually quite clear if you read what's written down D.


    It's up to 70e if you're connected to Irish Water supply system in some way, and (I assume) happen to have a sceptic tank, or are connected to Irish Water waste system, but not their drinking water. So that's an in or out scenario.

    The other subsistence grant states that it is so, private source, and examples given.


    No. that 140 is for a Group Scheme where the initial source of water is from a private source.


    There are three main scenarios
    1) Connected to Irish water network
    2) Connected to a group scheme
    3) Have your own well/source. On your own.



    (2) has two subgroups.
    (A) Water originates from Irish water. Perhaps the local group scheme owns the infrastructure or something. They might have put it in into an area that the council neglected and later on connected it somehow. But the council/IW never took control or responsibility for maintenance.

    (B) The group take the water from a private well/source and do everything from filtering/cleaning to pumping.





    Your 140 link is for 2B. Not 3. I think you think it is for 3 and you are arguing that people in 3 get 140. But there is nothing in your links to say they get annual subsidies. That might be the source of your confusion when arguing with people who say they don't get or qualify for annual subsidies.





    Read the bit I quoted which talks about the 10-year grant begin available to those "not connected to either a public or a group scheme" .


    Anyway, I won't post any more on the topic here. Was just asking a question and had to follow up.


  • Options
    #35
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Your 140 link is for 2B. Not 3. I think you think it is for 3 and you are arguing that people in 3 get 140. But there is nothing in your links to say they get annual subsidies. That might be the source of your confusion when arguing with people who say they don't get or qualify for annual subsidies.
    Sigh.....

    This is fairly basic stuff, and I'm not sure if you're on a wind up at this point.
    An annual subsidy per house is available to group schemes for the operational cost of providing domestic water:

    Do you think even think you know what you're referring to? Do you think this hasn't been discussed umpteen times before now?


  • Options
    #36
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,025 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Sigh.....

    This is fairly basic stuff, and I'm not sure if you're on a wind up at this point.



    Do you think even think you know what you're referring to? Do you think this hasn't been discussed umpteen times before now?


    Sigh all you want there pal. It doesn't change facts.



    Nobody disputed that group schemes get subsidies.


    The question was whether and individual, not part of a group scheme gets subsidies?


    If you don't understand or appreciate the difference between (2) and (3) that I described above then there is not much point trying to continue.



    Feel free to provide a link where an individual, not part of a group scheme, who has their own private water supply get an annual subsidy.


    Again, I repeat not part of a group scheme.


    And in case you didn't appreciate the distinction, I'll repeat it again - not part of a group scheme.



    That means that a rule that is specifically for people who are part of a group scheme is not relevant. I'm not asking about those people. We know they get money. Nobody is arguing otherwise.


    I'm not even arguing whether they do or not. It appeared from your posts that this was something that you've discussed and proven many times in the past. So it astonishes me why you'd produce "proof" that isn't proof to back up your statements



    Again, to repeat. your link shows that people on group schemes can get those annual payments. It says nothing about those not on group schemes other than the 10-year grant I quoted originally.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Mod note:

    Lets not get into Irish Water. Unless its specifically to do with Hayes' involvement/views, I dont think it is on topic.


  • Options
    #38
    Good loser
    Registered Users Posts: 3,167 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    Yawn..

    We've been here before you and I.



    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/environment/water_services/water_supply.html



    https://www.housing.gov.ie/water/water-services/rural-water-programme/group-water-schemes-and-rural-water-issues

    Implying it's a "lie" is pretty uncivil, considering you're well aware of the fact for reasons stated above.


    Do you even remember what you wrote?


    'People who have their own private wells avail of (are eligible) for annual state subsistence for the running and upkeep of same - - -'


    That was - and is - a lie.


    I should know.


    [If water charges were introduced the annual subsidy to group schemes would obviously be withdrawn]


Advertisement