Paul Murphy TD answers questions on boycott of the Irish Water

Original article Paul Murphy

Based on the responses to the last post I put up about the water charges, I want to try to answer some of the most common questions and fears that are out there about the boycott. In all of this, we have to remember that the government and Irish Water want us to be scared. They particularly want those who aren’t connected to anti-water charges groups on social media to be scared. So we need to have the accurate and true information and spread that as far as possible. That is what will give people confidence.

1. Was there legislation passed (in the last days according to some stories) to allow An Post or some other body to take water charges from your wages / social welfare / pension?

This is an example of a little bit of truth creating a lot of confusion. Last July, the Civil Debt Procedures Act 2015 was passed. We campaigned and voted against it. However, it’s a lot more bark than bite though when it comes to breaking the boycott and we shouldn’t scare ourselves over it

Under the new law, the authorities are not able to simply take people’s water charges off them. What has to happen is this – whenever someone owes €500 or more (which won’t be until the end of 2017), Irish Water could start the process of applying for an attachment order. In order to do so, they would have to take two court cases against each individual. Each person’s case must be individually heard and their finances assessed before any attachment. It would likely be the middle of 2018 before even person could have their water charges taken from them. We shouldn’t be scared of this for two key reasons.

Firstly, because if we stick together we can have the water charges beaten before the end of 2017, so before this comes into play.

Secondly, because even if we get to the end of 2017 and the water charges are still in place, this is not a workable mechanism to force people to pay if the water charges keep up. The court services have themselves admitted that the courts would be completely clogged as a result and would not be able to cope.
So this is no reason to be scared. Incidentally, An Post doesn’t come into it at all – I’m not sure where that info came from.

2. Do you have to pay the water charges before you sell your home?

No. The government said it would introduce legislation to make people pay the water charges before selling their home, but it hasn’t done so yet. Some solicitors tell people that they have to – if yours does, ask them to double-check. While legally people have to have paid their property tax to sell their home, they don’t have to have paid their water charges. I know this from personal experience as well as analysing the legislation!

3. What about tenants – can landlords force you to pay?

The Irish Water bill is a bill for you the occupier and tenant, not the owner. Irish Water can request your name from the landlord, and if they don’t give it, they can send the bill to the landlord. But if your landlord just sends them your name, then Irish Water will write to you and from then on you’re in a similar position to everybody else. Simply refuse to pay, they can’t charge the landlord for it, once Irish Water knows you are the occupier.

Last year, the government changed the law so that all new tenancy agreements includes an implied contract to pay water charges. So if you have a new lease, in theory, part of that lease is a commitment to pay the water charges. But unless the landlord is a massive Fine Gael supporter, they have no reason to enforce that. As long as Irish Water knows that you live there, you not paying has no negative consequences for the landlord. Just explain that to them, if they come hassling you.

Politics rears it's ugly head once again, in anti Irish Water campaign

Article by buncranatogether.com

We are at it again both locally and nationally with quite a few unsavoury words being said on facebook pages of anti Irish Water groups.  In both instances the issues might seem trivial and easily overcome. But fundamentally they are not. Both issues are big, have been smouldering for some time and are a manifestation of an underlying problem within the anti Irish Water movement. They are political, involving personal and political agendas and the juxtaposition of these two is a recipe for disaster.

Nationally, there is a god awful row in Dublin over a 'Fine Gael Ard Fheis 'demonstration, organised by 'Tallagh Says No', on Jan 23 to coincide with Fine Gael Ard Fheis on that same day. See the event page HERE.   Right2Change have called for it's own demonstration in central Dublin on that particular day and now want the other organisers to change the starting time to accommodate both. Does this not seem strange? Why split the force?  Is the Ard Fheis not a great opportunity to show our opposition? It would be a great rallying point where we can present a unified front encouraged by all the different factions? The answer to both questions is a resounding 'Yes', especially where all the media attention will be focussed. So why would Right2Change insist on their own and separate demonstration away from such an obvious venue? It is a mystery.

Locally, a row in Donegal has cropped up on the facebook page of Liam Whyte, organiser of Can't Pay Won't Pay. Primarily the row is about the 'Boycott' campaign and why Right2Change and Sinn Fein do not back it. A Right2Change spokesperson says that Right2Change has called for and supports a boycott. Once again strong words are exchanged. It is a fact that officially Right2Change has not backed the boycott campaign despite a overwhelming majority of anti water charges supporters backing such a boycott. This is the same as Sinn Fein's stance on the boycott campaign and it could be argued that most of Sinn Fein supporters also back the boycott. So why is the leadership of both organisations not doing so? Surely for the success of the campaign this is an obvious and strong tactic. It is a mystery.

In Donegal there is dismay, dissension, frustration at Right2Change's unilateral decision to call for a demonstration in Letterkenny, 23rd January. Of course there should be a demonstration before the elections but shouldn't this be inclusive of all groups and political parties. Surely for the success of a demonstration and campaign generally this is obvious? It is a mystery.

Recently Right2Change spokespersons in Donegal are jumping the gun in the local media. They are pushing Right2Change's agenda insisting all sign up to their manifesto and if you don't or even have misgivings you will be ostracised.  Does this mean that even though a candidate is of the highest calibre, who is against water charges, Irish Water etc, and one who should be in office, that we will be told not to vote for them and instead vote for someone who is not capable?  What happens if this capable candidate supports the boycott, and 1Yi but does not sign up to the manifesto?
Anyone can sign up to anything to get elected. This has been demonstrated time and time again.  When elected all those election promises are forgotten, something similar to Fine Gael and Labour the last time out.  This is not a mystery. It is ridiculous and a fundamental flaw.

The Carlyle Connection

We are bringing you this story for two reasons, one is that it is so interesting in itself and two because of the Carlyle connection to Ireland in the shape of our Government, Irish Water and Abtran (see Carlyle press release). 

The full amazing connection can be read at http://fliuch.org/now-the-taxpayers-money-is-going-into-abtran-the-company-handling-irish-water-ltd-complaints/

 

Sources: 
ragingbullshit.com
fliuch.org

 

 

 

 

Article by Don Quijones 28/11/2015

The Bush family, the Saudi Royal family, Osama Bin Laden’s family, Donald Rumsfeld’s inner circle, former British premier John Major – these are just some of the high profile figures who have played a direct role in the rise of one of the most powerful, influential and secretive firms in Washington.

That company is called The Carlyle Group. And in the wake of the events of September 11th and the proliferation of war throughout the Middle East, its power and influence have grown significantly stronger.

The company operates within the so-called iron-triangle of industry, government and the military. Its list of former and current advisers and associates includes a vast array of some of the most powerful men — almost always men — in America and around the world. As Naomi Wolf writes, Carlyle is one of a select group of private investor clubs whose raison d’etre is to foment war wherever it’s most profitable:

 

We have to stop thinking that many events are driven by nation-states and national ideologies. That time is over. A small group of investors (see Aschcroft’s lobbying group, see Cheney’s oil company in the Golan Heights, see the Carlyle group, see Academi/Xi etc, see the Iron Dome contracts, see Delek, see American Noble Energy, the latter two wanting the Gaza 7 billion gas reserves) just plain profit from conflict.

They operate above the level of parliaments, congresses and nationstates. They fund violent leadership on both ‘sides’ of a conflict (see AIPAC, see Taliban) so they can have perpetual war, thus perpetual profit. They buy up media outlets so people’s worst fears and hatreds can be stoked and fewer and fewer reporters can check assertions.

Via the governments who are really their functionaries at this point, when they need to they spin or stage news events. There are global scripts now to scare the s– out of populations. This really has very little to do with “Arabs” or “Jews” or ethnic or religious hatreds — those are just the machinery they use to keep conflict going and keep the profits maximized.

 

The following VPRO documentary exposes the history of the Carlyle Group, from it’s inception as a private equity firm to it’s precent status as one of the largest defence contractors in the world.