Messages

[inclination]

For the record I don't believe homosexuality is wrong. I believe homosexual acts are wrong.

That doesn't even begin to make a bit of sense, thats like saying i don't believe christianity is wrong, I believe acts of christian worship are wrong 

How does it not make sense? Maybe think about it before you comment.
If I stated that homosexuality was wrong I would be stating that the very existence of homosexuals was wrong and this is certainly not the case. I believe for the most part that homosexuals are born. They can choose whether or not to act on this inclination.

Therefore my statement makes every sense.

Think about it whats to think about, its the old tried and tested refuge of the religious homophobe, 'hate the sin, not the sinner' regurgitated and past off as some sort of words of wisdom from yourself.

Inclination what a very strange word to use about ones sexuality, so they are born homosexual but its only an inclination or a tendency that they choose to act upon I was born heterosexual i and can honestly say my sexuality goes beyond a mere 'inclination' or tendency to choose a partner of the opposite sex its an absolute requirement, no choice, none needed, thats the way i was put together.
I  can only infer from your statement that as you see sexuality as an inclination and choice that you perhaps had to think about it and ponder your inclinations before deciding upon your own sexual preference and whether to act upon them, im not sure thats how most people myself included see it though, but im not here to judge anyone, how you reached your desicions and made your choices is your own business.

[clarity as to whether any of the rates at present goes to water]

Delboy,

If you dont want a private water supplier, whats your alternative and how would you fund it?

Well i would like to see it retained as a government owned company instead of being used by a few to generate enormous profits, i would want some clarity as to whether any of the rates at present goes to water (it still isn't 100 % clear) if any does go to water i'd like to see them stripped out of the normal rates so that we don't end up paying twice so to speak. We should then set an additional but seperate water rates levy, i wouldn't bother to meter as the costs associated with metering add greatly to the overall bill.

I would tell the EU to get stuffed and make the changes as we saw fit (cost/benefit analysis) and at our pace and not at the dictate of brussels. And if we needed to make any major investments i'd recommened we do what governments have been doing for years when it comes to infrastructure investments, borrow the money!

Metering has to be introduced to make it a fair system. Otherwise you will have the current sitation continue with people leaving taps running and leaks unrepared as it costs them nothing.

None of the current rates we pay go to NIW, they havent for at least 20 years or so since the days when it stated water rates on your bill. NIW funding comes from the common pot.

I could have swore the rates was made up of the district rates which is the council basically and the regional rates which amongst other things pays towards water and sewage.

Heres a quote from a local council website

"Regional Rate - what is it used for?

The Regional Rate is set by Central Government and local Councils HAVE NO control over this. It is the same for all 26 Councils and is used to contribute to the cost of providing a range of services such as: - Education, Housing, Social Services, Roads, Water and Sewerage."

It would at least seem that there might still be some confusion on the matter.

As for metering im not sure it passes the cost/benefit analysis it will only add to the overall burden off costs and for less than 10 % reduction in domestic usage (most of our water usage comes from commercial), much better spend to spend the money tackling the leaks in the system which represent more overall water.
Also metering strikes me as highly regressive, despite being a small family that would probably not suffer from it my natural sense of fair play would be irked by seeing a struggling large but low income family paying a large proportion of their income to pay for a fundamental commidity and human right (i don't think thats fair).

For the record I don't believe homosexuality is wrong. I believe homosexual acts are wrong.

That doesn't even begin to make a bit of sense, thats like saying i don't believe christianity is wrong, I believe acts of christian worship are wrong 

Delboy,

If you dont want a private water supplier, whats your alternative and how would you fund it?

Well i would like to see it retained as a government owned company instead of being used by a few to generate enormous profits, i would want some clarity as to whether any of the rates at present goes to water (it still isn't 100 % clear) if any does go to water i'd like to see them stripped out of the normal rates so that we don't end up paying twice so to speak. We should then set an additional but seperate water rates levy, i wouldn't bother to meter as the costs associated with metering add greatly to the overall bill.

I would tell the EU to get stuffed and make the changes as we saw fit (cost/benefit analysis) and at our pace and not at the dictate of brussels. And if we needed to make any major investments i'd recommened we do what governments have been doing for years when it comes to infrastructure investments, borrow the money!

Two simple solutions:

1. Gradually introduce water charges via meters rather than rates, make people think about consumption and disposal.  All non-domestic customers have to pay for the water they consume and the sewage they dispose through the system.

2. Privatise NI Water and use the proceeds to fund other capital work.

Will this happen, not under the current marxist-socialist minister?

Any pray tell how would any of that have solved the problems at hand, once you starting charging for water do the pipes suddenly become immune to bursting in a freeze 
That has to be the most harebrained reason for privitasing a utility/fundamental human right  i've ever heard.

Do realise how money and the economy work?
If not, you should think about a career in poltics in NI.

Oakleafgael a sensible post.
Fundamental problems with NIW exist which can only be rectified with political will.
Don't be holding your breath.
If this happened 5 years ago as the old water board. You would hear all our politicians blaming the DOE and te direct rule minister.
Now even though it's a GoCo they now feel free to finger point

Yeah i have a modicum of understanding and thats why im not keen to see a key utility like water (in a closed market that exists in NI) handed over to the money men to generate profits for themselves on the basis of a few pipes bursting (mostly in private properties) during a highly unusal spell of weather, talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water (pardon the pun).
Do you think when profitablity becomes the primary concern that we would see more or less of the sort of staffing problems (overheads in the balance sheet) that we seen over the xams, my money is on more problems from understaffing not less.

Two simple solutions:

1. Gradually introduce water charges via meters rather than rates, make people think about consumption and disposal.  All non-domestic customers have to pay for the water they consume and the sewage they dispose through the system.

2. Privatise NI Water and use the proceeds to fund other capital work.

Will this happen, not under the current marxist-socialist minister?

Any pray tell how would any of that have solved the problems at hand, once you starting charging for water do the pipes suddenly become immune to bursting in a freeze 
That has to be the most harebrained reason for privitasing a utility/fundamental human right  i've ever heard.

Its quite simple, the capital used is spent on network improvements.

Im sick over the last week listening to human rights bullshit speak.

A big chunk of the capital raised and profits squeezed for hardup households will be used to pay dividends year after year to whoever gets awarded this golden goose, im sorry but i don't see privitisation as the panacea that some do.

Not a sniff on any of: Nick Carraway, Cliff Thorburn or The Selfish Giant.
Rubbish.

He got cliff thorburn easily, are you sure you were answering the questions right?

that's because I added the grinder - complete with uncapitalized t.
He shoots for cliff way too early now, with nothing to weed out Kirk.

Yes but that rather the point isn't it adding people to the list that it hasn't already encountered, i've added a few scientific bods and local historical characters myself.

Two simple solutions:

1. Gradually introduce water charges via meters rather than rates, make people think about consumption and disposal.  All non-domestic customers have to pay for the water they consume and the sewage they dispose through the system.

2. Privatise NI Water and use the proceeds to fund other capital work.

Will this happen, not under the current marxist-socialist minister?

Any pray tell how would any of that have solved the problems at hand, once you starting charging for water do the pipes suddenly become immune to bursting in a freeze 
That has to be the most harebrained reason for privitasing a utility/fundamental human right  i've ever heard.

[1.]

Why is that Puck? 1.Why do gay people deserve whatever hetrosexual people have?
2.There is such a thing as positive discrimination.

Definitely don't agree with your live and let live mentality.  Surely you draw the line somewhere???

1. Why do they not deserve the same things as heterosexual people?
2. In what way can discrimination ever be positive? Example?

2. Women are not allowed in Men's changing rooms. Positive discrimination. Easy example. Hope you understand.

1. I don't believe Gay people should be "married".  For one it weakens the meaning of marriage. Which in turn will lead to further divorce or broken marriage, which in turn leads to the suffering of children and society in general.
Divorce and broken home definitely affects children. This in turn affects society in general. The Divorce rate sky rocketed when divorce was legalized. This legalization caused a weakening of the meaning of marriage. Allowing gay people to marry will further weaken the term and therefore lead to more broken homes.
Looking at different studies it might be safe to say that gay men especially are less likely to be faithful. In fact 5% of gay men in "unions" claim to be faithful to their "partners" surely this does not bode well for any children being brought up in this environment.
Of course there are exceptions on both sides. There are bad hetrosexual parents and people who don't deserve to be parents but that isn't the discussion. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Puck you talk about criminals not being allowed to father children or raise children. Homosexuality is still illegal in over 70 countries on the planet - that's over a 3rd of the world. Please don't consider this my sole argument and run with it - I am only responding to one of your points.

Yes this is all very controversial, yes these are real people we are talking about and yes emotions get involved. But we're talking about right and wrong here. For me that can't be diluted.

If if we accept your plucked from the air 5 % gay men faithful argument and thats its all about the childrens and not just out and out homophobia, i presume then that you'd be completely onboard for lesbian civil partnerships which as far as i know tend to be as faithful as heterosexual relationships* to adopt children?

*Being a female homosexual is like being a female generally, both sexually and socially. There is a tendency towards greater conformity, stability of relationships, and an absence of indiscriminate sexual involvements. There is also a general emphasis on relationships, romantic involvements, and faithfulness in relationships (Saghir and Robins, 1980:290 Clinical aspects of female homosexuality (in Homosexual behaviour 1980).       

What kind of a nonsense post is that? Who are you and what did you do with Zap?

I am against gay couples being eligible for adoption for many reason most that have already been covered. I'm all for Gay marrige though.

I think gay people wanting to adopt should take some responibility for themseleves. It's an unfortunate consequence of their sexuality every bit as much as someone who is celibate.

Being celibate is choice being gay is not, end off.

How do you know? Surely it can be both? There are many different types of sexuality and it's not to hard to fathom someone not being interested in sex.

You really need to read up on your use of terminolgy zap before you start spouting about them, celibacy is abstinence from sexual activity by choice by it for religious or other reasons ie its behavioural, if you are talking about asexuality where the person has no sexual desire then you should use the correct term.
Now that the lesson has ended, i'll presume you meant asexuality, would you deny people with no sexual desire the right to adopt also?

Just like being celibate means you can't have children being Gay equally means you can't have children. That's how it is.

Being celibate is choice being gay is not, end off.

Not a sniff on any of: Nick Carraway, Cliff Thorburn or The Selfish Giant.
Rubbish.

He got cliff thorburn easily, are you sure you were answering the questions right?

If NI Water staff do not want to work in extenuating circumstances then its time NI Water employed the staff who will so that they can provide the service they are contracted to do.
NI Water also have a lot of sub-contractors they can use if their own staff are unwilling anyway....so why werent they called in over Xmas?

Have we any evidence to suggest that the staff turned down work offered to them? As you say they have sub-contractors which could have been called in if this was the case but they weren't, leads me to say that management must have made the descision not to pay people to work over the xmas peroid.
Lets get it straight and point the finger at the guys getting paid the big money to make the big desicions ie management and not try to shift the blame onto the workers who will almost certainly have had no say in the matter.

never seen it but i can imagine wht it was like, i noticed how their touring the birtish isles surely the republic isnt officially know as part of the british isles, seen this done a whole pile of times on the bbc and i know tht the royal lifeboat service serves the whole of the south and while im at it sickens my pish how loyal protestants describe themseles as IRISH!!!!!!!!

Oz is very proud of his irish roots and seems to make a foray into the south at any opportunity to help the small independent alcoholic beverage sector in the country, I doubt very much thats he's doing it to rub your nose in anything, you're talking potshots at the wrong target all together.
Also like to further sicken you pish by also being a prod thats proud of their irish heritage 

[Anyway, the point is, if they had more than a skeleton staff on over Xmas and had fixed the isolated issues when they first started to appear, it would have taken the pressure off when the rest of the outages appeared due to a thaw. The only reason for them not doing this is money. They would have had to pay the engineers more over xmas. So they were happy to let people go without so they could save a quid. Now everyone is suffereing for this ineptitude]

One of the major problems was that they wouldnt pay staff to work over xmas. I was told a number of times on the phone that they only had skeleton staff working. Now our water went off the day before xmas eve. When I reported it they said that our was actually they only outage they had reported which was due to a burst water main and the rest were private issues so it should get fixed soon. They had some problem finding the source of the burst, which I dont understand as we are in a town and the houses before and after our estate all had water. So our water wasnt fixed on Xmas eve. I was told that the ground was too hard for them to excavate! There must be some crappy diggers in NI Water.
Anyway, the point is, if they had more than a skeleton staff on over Xmas and had fixed the isolated issues when they first started to appear, it would have taken the pressure off when the rest of the outages appeared due to a thaw. The only reason for them not doing this is money. They would have had to pay the engineers more over xmas. So they were happy to let people go without so they could save a quid. Now everyone is suffereing for this ineptitude.

Not everyone wants to work over christmas, especially people with young families. What would you say if they had offered the double/triple time to their engineers and they turned it down? Are their staff not entitled to Christmas off too?

I doubt the workers were ever offered double/triple time to work over xmas (i'd take your arm off for triple time), i'd bet my bottom dollar management decided this was an expensive no no and hence the problems.