Lissadel House Shut down

jimmmy · 17-01-2009 1:45pm

shellyriver wrote: »

Re catalogue -- an estimate of the contents in Lissadell sold after the house was sold is 70%.

lol Anyone who was at that auction, who saw the house stuffed with antiques and memorabilia prior to the auction, who saw the bidding, and who has been to the house since , will tell you your claim of 70% is way off the mark. I challenge anyone to find 70% of the lots in Lissadell house now. Its a pity in a way hundreds of buyers from all over bought individual items from Lissadell, at the auction which went on all day and well in to the evening, instead of the new owner buying the contents and keeping everything together...still, thats what happened, and for those not at the large auction it was even reported with footage on the RTE TV news.

Macroom Man · 17-01-2009 3:44pm

shellyriver wrote: »

Re Right of Way -- do you need neon lighting to realise that court action has been undertaken by owners of Lissadell House to assert their contention there is no right of way.

It will be addressed by judiciary -- not misinformed local yokels, blow-in malcontents and self-serving parish pump gombeen politicos.

Funny how Co Council, executive and elected, all gone quite on matter in local media!

End of story -- for now.

Re catalogue -- an estimate of the contents in Lissadell sold after the house was sold is 70%. Eg gold-gilded chandeliers -- so you know how much these cost, along with Williams and Gibton Furniture.

Check Mealy's Auction sales where Sir Josslyn sold goods prior to house being sold.

Re the PRONI record -- the reason I mention this is that, facetious as this is, even if Lissadell House was blown to pieces to the IRA in the 1970s -- the history of the House is contained with archives in Belfast. Therefore, if anyone is interesting the history/culture of area -- in the absence of House -- can discover the history of the area 'warts and all' there as Irish Government financed National Library not prepared to catalogue Lissadell archives.

Re SligoHeritage site -- concerning the House. I'm afraid Macroom you've been sold a pup.

Just like the grandiose and deluded visions of 'dear olde Ireland' as outlined versions in the 'Wind that Blows the Barley' -- completely pro-Republican guff -- where Countess Markievicz has encounters with Clonakilty Wrassler, the veracity of stories on that site re the Gore-Booths are odious, false and actually ludicrious.

No respected, informed and balanced historian would subscribe to the hog-wash concerning the Pomana during the Famine -- being utter garbage, lies and falsehoods dragged up by Parish Priest in 1880s to assist in keeping peasantry as a cohesive unit during Land League campaigns.

There are many fine publications concerning Lissadell -- the one by penned those on SligoHeritage, certainly ain't fine or accurate, just more propaganda as in the 'Hot Air that Blows the Barley' fables that mypoic post-peasantry historical romantics seek to cling to warm the cockles of their black heart.:D

Are you a member of the Aubane Historical Society?

not misinformed local yokels, blow-in malcontents and self-serving parish pump gombeen politicos.
Are the Walshes not blow-ins too?

From the Sligo Champion 17 March 1888 (obituary of Fr Malachi Brennan, parish priest of Ahamlish and close friend of the Palmerston family)

"After many fruitless applications to Robert Gore-Booth for a graveyard Fr. Brennan secured one from a tenant who was fortunate enough to have a lease of his holding. After granting this favour to his pastor this same tenant was evicted from another holding which he held from year to year."
and
"Sir Robert Gore-Booth commenced to extend and beautify his demesne and for that purpose evicted over 200 families. Amongst the evicted was Fr. Brennan who was offered one pound compensation if he pulled down his own house"

dardevle · 17-01-2009 5:19pm

latest;

Sligo County Council have issued a statement clarifying their stance on the issue of Lissadell House which remains closed to the public since Monday last.

The statement concludes by stating that the local authority have received a statement from the owners of Lissadell House, through their solicitors, stating that the owners are more than willing to meet with the County Manager. The council are now hoping to be able to arrange a mutually convenient time in the near future.
Speaking to Ocean fm today, Cathaoirleach of Sligo County Council, Cllr Jude Devins said it is crucial that this meeting take place and a solution is found to the present impasse.

TequilaMockingBird · 17-01-2009 5:22pm

How has religion, famine, coffin ships, landlords of old or long dead parish priests got anything whatsoever to do with whether there is a right of way or not?

Its fairly black and white to me. There is either a right of way or not. Sort it and stop the moaning.

shellyriver · 17-01-2009 5:32pm

Lol one reference from article from Local Republican priest - 30 years a
after Famine, is this a good example of the basis and contention re preferring to known 'history of Gore-Booths' on Sligo Heritage.com.

Bit of stretch to claim PP Brennan a friend of the Palmerstons -- the latter benevolently gave him land for his home etc and Palmerston (like Eddie Walsh) attempted to improve the area (for all the thanks he got, like Mr Walsh). As I said Land Leaguers spiteful propaganda - re Famine. Ualanced and biased extremists.

Re 70% of contents remaining - are you a fixated rain-man!!

Asked you do you know the value of all contents sold? and/or the value of contents purchased by Walsh family? to estimate value.

Or do you prefer to compare for example Grand Piano to one tea-spoon equation?

As I said Sir Josslyn had sold many items long before Walshes on the scene -- so the estimate is based on the value of the goods sold, its not a perfect science, but its not constructed to satisfy your perverse demands re itemised itinerary break-down.

I suppose you're still polishing your cricket balls purchased.

Get Real..

Walshs et al are not local -- that's fine -- but they pay hard cash for something that the three categories I mentioned claim an illegal right to - however they don't finance it themselves they look for tax-payers to do this.

You don't seem to dispute re local yokels and parish pump gombeens. Curious.

This is a Lissadell Right of Way thread. Not a regurgitation of Lissadell history and various biased views thread.

It's apparent to anyone reading content from what I term the anti-Lissadell Brigade's argument was centred through this thread prism re the right of way issue -- but they prefer circuitous and spurious trips, like going on these alleged rights of way, they just keep on going round in circles, with nothing new, original to add or anything which bears relationship to truth -- barring their own misconceptions.:cool:

TequilaMockingBird · 17-01-2009 5:58pm

Shellyriver, with all due respect, I find your posts very difficult to read, and you don't clarify to whom your posts are directed to.

T runner · 18-01-2009 4:05am

shellyriver wrote: »

This is a Lissadell Right of Way thread. Not a regurgitation of Lissadell history and various biased views thread.

Yes, something youd do well to note yourself.

As I said Land Leaguers spiteful propaganda - re Famine. Ualanced and biased extremists.

I thought this was a Lissadell Right of Way thread?
Just to comment. The Land Leaguers did a quite unique job (anywhere in the world) of being the first popular group to legally press and finally end the feudal (effective) system in Ireland (or anywhere). In Ireland 95% of the Land was owned by 5% of the population.

I dont know exactly what you think this has to do with Lissadell Rights of Way but for the record I think you are the one being biased and your attitude and tone is most definately spiteful. Were you not taught manners properly growing up?

something that the three categories I mentioned claim an illegal right to -

And they are:

misinformed local yokels, blow-in malcontents and self-serving parish pump gombeen politicos.

And what type of character would call people names like these just because they disagreed with their view ?

Perhaps, self righteous? Spiteful? Malcontent? Not the full shilling?
And you know self righteousness and hypocrisy are never too far apart?

It's apparent to anyone reading content from what I term the anti-Lissadell Brigade's argument was centred through this thread prism re the right of way issue -

So you accuse people of not talking about the issue i.e Rights of Way but when they do you accuse them of using it as a smoke screen for other ulterior
motives.
Agree with me or else Ill insult you!

I agree with Sueme. Theres either a right of way or there isn't.
I hope the verdict in the case is just.

il gatto · 18-01-2009 9:45am

Sir Josslyn worked as an investment banker and inherited Lissadel from his late father, along with the title. He spent a considerable amount of his own money having the roof restored to preserve the house, but found it was a massive drain on resources and although he opened the house to the public, by his own admission, he wasn't cut out for running such a venture. He eventually decided that selling the house was in the best interests of both his family and Lissadel. His first move was to approach the state, which said it had no interest in buying it (even at the knockdown price it went for. Lesser Georgian and Victorian houses in Sligo have sold for much more).
When he couldn't convince the state to buy, he put it on the market, but offered to sell the contents to the state seperately. This they also refused. The Cassidy's bought the house but for whatever reason, decided they didn't want to buy all the contents. They purchased what they thought essential and the rest was auctioned by Christie's of London. At the auction, the state proceded to buy selected items of particular interest, but at much inflated values. Many of the items sold at multiples of the expected prices.
Sligo Co Co would not have been expected to buy the house unilaterally, but having said that, could've purchased the entire house, estate and contents for less than their estimate for paving O'Connell Street , an undertaking they were willing to take out a loan for and repay over 30 years. In fact they were willing to spend almost the price of house and estate on the footbridge behind the Glasshouse which the developer decided he shouldn't pay for any more.
With regards the "right of way", if it existed, the Co Co would've ascertained this very quickly. If it's not on a map as one, it's possible for a right of way to be declared (under certain conditions) with useage for a number of years.
However, I've often herad if the owner closes the gate and locks it for one day in each year, it cannot become a right of way. I don't know the ins and outs of this. Even if there's no truth in that widely held belief, unless the landowner has dedicated the right of way, it legally cannot be considered one. Here's a link to a similar case http://www.keepirelandopen.org/newsletter_10_2006.htm

Regardless of this, the Cassidy's initial intention was to restict access to the house itself by closing off one of the avenues. Obviously with a load of kids, nobody likes unresricted access to their driveway at all hours. Because it is not a public road, no speed limit exists either. Because of the furore over this and the consequent actions of locals and the Co Co, they seem to have taken the decision to restrict access even more(as is their right if a right of way doesn't exist). If the Co Co can't prove that they are in breach of the law, there's no reason they can't do this. Seeing as the Co Co would have access to all and every scrap of information relating to this issue, but have initiated votes to investigate whether a right of way exists or could be created, I suspect they're on very thin ice.
If a right of way does not exist (and by the looks of it, it doesn't or it wouldn't have come to this) a compulsory purchase order is probably the only way to reopen the estate if the Cassidy's wish to keep it closed unless the law of the state changes with regards to public access to private property. A compulsory purchase order would never get approval for a case such as this.

Essexboy · 19-01-2009 1:19pm

Well written, Il Gatto.

The only point I would make about the County Council is that it is not always a cohesive organisation and its component parts - Executive, elected representatives - sometimes have different agendas (eg see the Borough Council and the footbridge across the Garavogue).

T runner · 19-01-2009 6:39pm

il gatto wrote: »

His first move was to approach the state, which said it had no interest in buying it (even at the knockdown price it went for.

Why would they in fairness, there are far better examples of period houses in Ireland. Plus it needed a huge amount of woek as you said.

When he couldn't convince the state to buy, he put it on the market, but offered to sell the contents to the state seperately.

The entire contents?

Sligo Co Co would not have been expected to buy the house unilaterally, but having said that, could've purchased the entire house, estate and contents for less than their estimate for paving O'Connell Street , an undertaking they were willing to take out a loan for and repay over 30 years. In fact they were willing to spend almost the price of house and estate on the footbridge behind the Glasshouse which the developer decided he shouldn't pay for any more.

I think buying the house, the work needed and maintenance would have vastly out cost those projects.

However, I've often herad if the owner closes the gate and locks it for one day in each year, it cannot become a right of way. I don't know the ins and outs of this.

???????

http://www.keepirelandopen.org/newsletter_10_2006.htm

This case was only won on appeal to the highcourt, in dubious circumstances to be honest.
What is unusual in this case is that its the authorities trying to assert the right of way. It may make a difference.

Obviously with a load of kids, nobody likes unresricted access to their driveway at all hours.

But there is a public road past my front door. Everyone is nearly the same Id guess. Would there normally be a lot of traffic around Lisadell house at all hours?

Because of the furore over this and the consequent actions of locals and the Co Co,

The furore would indicate that the locals had been using this road as a right of way which will strenghten the case.

If the Co Co can't prove that they are in breach of the law, there's no reason they can't do this.

But the Co Co has said that a RoW exists so its the owners in breach of the Law surely?

Seeing as the Co Co would have access to all and every scrap of information relating to this issue, but have initiated votes to investigate whether a right of way exists or could be created, I suspect they're on very thin ice.

Maybe issuing votes is part of democratic procedure?

If a right of way does not exist (and by the looks of it, it doesn't or it wouldn't have come to this) a compulsory purchase order is probably the only way to reopen the estate if the Cassidy's wish to keep it closed unless the law of the state changes with regards to public access to private property. A compulsory purchase order would never get approval for a case such as this.

If theres no right of way, theres no right of way, the council will have to accept the decision.

fmtdoc · 23-01-2009 11:25am

Hi all, good to see this topic addressed, although can empathise with people who say there's either a right of way or there isn't - sort it...

Just want to add that as a local- albeit a local blow-in since 2001 - who has never protested against anything (except 9 deaths in an explosion in the troubles), I have become increasingly worried that Lissadell are gradually reducing access further and further with a view to selling at a profit at a later stage. What they have done in the estate is great - I love the gardens - but they have been fairly antagonistic to locals since the beginning. I have spoken to several people who felt quite frightened when verbally attacked for walking through the grounds.

And shellyriver, while you seem very knowledgeable on a lot of fronts, the management in Lissadell certainly are trying to stop pedestrians, not just traffic. The middle avenue has a locked gate at either end, but the one at the perimeter had pedestrian access until a few months ago when this was completely blocked off. I wrote to the family a few years ago when they closed pedestrian access at the other end of this avenue, and received a reply stating that this was much too dangerous a road for walking.... Now with a locked gate at either end please explain!!

One of my neighbours was stopped walking past the house and asked to use a different route. When she was using the different route a few months later, she was stopped and asked not to use that route either.

It's so crazy that where both sides obviously feel they have a strong case regarding right of way or not, the only apparent way to resolve it is through the courts which inevitably leaves one side hugely out of pocket - I certainly couldn't afford it.

And when one of the parties is two people who are both senior counsel, one of whom specialises in litigation - please understand that the media coverage may not be even.

jimmmy · 23-01-2009 11:55am

fmtdoc wrote: »

Hi all, good to see this topic addressed, although can empathise with people who say there's either a right of way or there isn't - sort it...

Just want to add that as a local- albeit a local blow-in since 2001 - who has never protested against anything (except 9 deaths in an explosion in the troubles), I have become increasingly worried that Lissadell are gradually reducing access further and further with a view to selling at a profit at a later stage. What they have done in the estate is great - I love the gardens - but they have been fairly antagonistic to locals since the beginning. I have spoken to several people who felt quite frightened when verbally attacked for walking through the grounds.

And shellyriver, while you seem very knowledgeable on a lot of fronts, the management in Lissadell certainly are trying to stop pedestrians, not just traffic. The middle avenue has a locked gate at either end, but the one at the perimeter had pedestrian access until a few months ago when this was completely blocked off. I wrote to the family a few years ago when they closed pedestrian access at the other end of this avenue, and received a reply stating that this was much too dangerous a road for walking.... Now with a locked gate at either end please explain!!

One of my neighbours was stopped walking past the house and asked to use a different route. When she was using the different route a few months later, she was stopped and asked not to use that route either.

It's so crazy that where both sides obviously feel they have a strong case regarding right of way or not, the only apparent way to resolve it is through the courts which inevitably leaves one side hugely out of pocket - I certainly couldn't afford it.

And when one of the parties is two people who are both senior counsel, one of whom specialises in litigation - please understand that the media coverage may not be even.

Excellent first post. I too have become increasingly worried that Lissadell are gradually reducing access further and further with a view to selling at a profit at a later stage.

redarmyblues · 23-01-2009 9:36pm

The Tories in England had long imagined that they were enthusiastic about the monarchy, the church and beauties of the old English Constitution, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they are enthusiastic only about rent.

Replace the underlined phrases with, The Cassadys in Lisadell, History, Architecture and the beauties of an old Irish House

shellyriver · 25-01-2009 4:19pm

Hi FMTDoc

Re pedestrian access -- I had mentioned earlier that to the best of my knowledge, walkers were not stopped.

As you'll appreciate I'm not omnipotent (until moderator:D) so I can't verify every encounter.

Who exactly was frightened and by who?

As to my own personal and particular knowledge, I know a number of long-term residents near the Demense -- I asked them specifically for their views, and none that I have spoke to (which include people how worked their during Gore-Booths time) have had any problem walking grounds.

I know gates are locked/unlocked at about 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. -- during that time their can be no problem. Also, until this month the House was open all year round, so it seems non-sensical to say people couldn't walk by the House (unless outside the times mentioned) because it's fair to assume everyone is welcome and a visitor.

Everybody has their own view -- for example I have spoken to work acquaintances in the past re Lissadell (long before this RoW argument broke out) and many of them believed they had right to do as they pleased on Estate, and total me they basically told the family to 'F1uck Off' when confronted. I didn't bother explaining the ins-and-outs, with some people, to me it seems there's little point.

So basically, I am saying there are two sides to every storey.

Re the closed gates -- that's the issue. The Walsh family believe there is no right of way that's probably why gates are locked. Much the same as you or I would lock our front gate and wonder/ask why people are traipising through our lawn or path.

I know Jimmy, T-Runner and band, will say their is a right of way and people are pemitted to walk the route -- this is where the argument crytallises.

But if I felt there was no right of way in front of my house, and people keep walking through my grounds, insist on arguing the toss, go so far as to throw a metaphoric brick through my window, and ask what's wrong, 'all I want to do is talk about walking through your garden' -- how would you feel? It would take a patient man to resist boxing their lugs in and/or calling the Guards to have them arrested;)

Oh, and just a passing point for specatators. As I said previously, a hand-ful of misinformed individuals - who have committed criminal damage to barriers etc in the past - are behind this 'Right of Way' issue.

These conscienitious objectors purport to know a lot about what I will term natural justice alongside 'who is should be if thing's were right' line of argument.

As I said curious if they all assert this why they don't take a legal action for breach of a private right of way. Now they say is public.

If this was case Co Co can take an action under Roads Traffic Act -- to protect right of way, but instead they hide under the cloak of Co Development Plan.

Re 'letter' and private concerns -- I am afraid, you must understand if you say the road is private, as the Walshes are, if are a bypasser and trip and fall the owners will be liable for any potential claim.

Anyone who can't get their head 'round that needs it read, or is reckless to reality.

PS - Whiskers, don't just come out of the blue with a 'I can't follow you' -- really, do you think I'm concerned, you say nothing and then expect full clarity to a variety of points. Read the threads you'll know what I'm talking about.

PPS - Moderator -- do you along for swingeing comments, for example saying somebody is mentally defective? to go without regard, remark censorship?

Also I said earlier, we could discuss history of Gore-Booths on a different thread, but clap-trap from for eg Macroom and RedArmyBlues (displays his/her total ignorance of situation -- like others -- with reference to CASSADYs when the family are Walsh) with anti-Landlord mantra is off point, until it comes to understanding basics of land law and tenure.:cool:

jimmmy · 26-01-2009 1:25pm

shellyriver wrote: »

Oh, and just a passing point for specatators. As I said previously, a hand-ful of misinformed individuals - who have committed criminal damage to barriers etc in the past - are behind this 'Right of Way' issue.

A very "swingeing comment", as you would say yourself, and not very fair or true, unless you have evidence otherwise.

sorella · 26-01-2009 2:09pm

Shellyriver wrote.."However if this matter is contested in a court supporters of the right of way may be able to introduce testimony where witnesses swear to their own and their antecendents unimpeded access to the routes in question. The issue of rights of way are highly fraught and complex as many landowners can testify and this issue will not be solved on here. "

Amen to that. We lost a lot of money on the sale of a small property last year over right of way issues.

A hundred yards of dirt track between two fields.

The legal opinion of our solicitor was that as it had been in use for many years - and the number needed was 40 - it had become a prescriptive right of way..

Only the purchasers solicitor refused to accept that as legal so it took months and money to settle it.

It may be that this is what has happened here.

That someone had 'called" them on the prescriptive right of way issue.

Also, yes they have children; they mention also problems with insurance os

jimmmy · 26-01-2009 2:20pm

sorella wrote: »

It may be that this is what has happened here.

No. It is an actual road, which has been widely used by generations of people, and which was only blocked by newly erectly barriers in recent years, following the transfer of the property.

redarmyblues · 26-01-2009 3:57pm

Also I said earlier, we could discuss history of Gore-Booths on a different thread, but clap-trap from for eg Macroom and RedArmyBlues (displays his/her total ignorance of situation -- like others -- with reference to CASSADYs when the family are Walsh) with anti-Landlord mantra is off point, until it comes to understanding basics of land law and tenure

The The Walshes in Lisadell, had long imagined that they were enthusiastic about History, Architecture and beauties of an old Irish House, until the day of danger wrung from them the confession that they are enthusiastic only about rent.

Now Shelly I fixed it for you.

Essexboy · 26-01-2009 4:17pm

shellyriver wrote: »

Hi FMTDoc

Re pedestrian access -- I had mentioned earlier that to the best of my knowledge, walkers were not stopped.

As you'll appreciate I'm not omnipotent (until moderator:D) so I can't verify every encounter.

Who exactly was frightened and by who?

As to my own personal and particular knowledge, I know a number of long-term residents near the Demense -- I asked them specifically for their views, and none that I have spoke to (which include people how worked their during Gore-Booths time) have had any problem walking grounds.

I know gates are locked/unlocked at about 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. -- during that time their can be no problem. Also, until this month the House was open all year round, so it seems non-sensical to say people couldn't walk by the House (unless outside the times mentioned) because it's fair to assume everyone is welcome and a visitor.

Everybody has their own view -- for example I have spoken to work acquaintances in the past re Lissadell (long before this RoW argument broke out) and many of them believed they had right to do as they pleased on Estate, and total me they basically told the family to 'F1uck Off' when confronted. I didn't bother explaining the ins-and-outs, with some people, to me it seems there's little point.

So basically, I am saying there are two sides to every storey.

Re the closed gates -- that's the issue. The Walsh family believe there is no right of way that's probably why gates are locked. Much the same as you or I would lock our front gate and wonder/ask why people are traipising through our lawn or path.

I know Jimmy, T-Runner and band, will say their is a right of way and people are pemitted to walk the route -- this is where the argument crytallises.

But if I felt there was no right of way in front of my house, and people keep walking through my grounds, insist on arguing the toss, go so far as to throw a metaphoric brick through my window, and ask what's wrong, 'all I want to do is talk about walking through your garden' -- how would you feel? It would take a patient man to resist boxing their lugs in and/or calling the Guards to have them arrested;)

Oh, and just a passing point for specatators. As I said previously, a hand-ful of misinformed individuals - who have committed criminal damage to barriers etc in the past - are behind this 'Right of Way' issue.

These conscienitious objectors purport to know a lot about what I will term natural justice alongside 'who is should be if thing's were right' line of argument.

As I said curious if they all assert this why they don't take a legal action for breach of a private right of way. Now they say is public.

If this was case Co Co can take an action under Roads Traffic Act -- to protect right of way, but instead they hide under the cloak of Co Development Plan.

Re 'letter' and private concerns -- I am afraid, you must understand if you say the road is private, as the Walshes are, if are a bypasser and trip and fall the owners will be liable for any potential claim.

Anyone who can't get their head 'round that needs it read, or is reckless to reality.

PS - Whiskers, don't just come out of the blue with a 'I can't follow you' -- really, do you think I'm concerned, you say nothing and then expect full clarity to a variety of points. Read the threads you'll know what I'm talking about.

PPS - Moderator -- do you along for swingeing comments, for example saying somebody is mentally defective? to go without regard, remark censorship?

Also I said earlier, we could discuss history of Gore-Booths on a different thread, but clap-trap from for eg Macroom and RedArmyBlues (displays his/her total ignorance of situation -- like others -- with reference to CASSADYs when the family are Walsh) with anti-Landlord mantra is off point, until it comes to understanding basics of land law and tenure.:cool:

with reference to CASSADYs when the family are Walsh
They are Eddie Walsh and Constance CASSIDY. She uses the Cassidy name professionally and in all announcements about Lissadell.

If you think this is just about land law and tenure why not wait for the courts to decide instead of heaping personal abuse on those disagree with the current owners?

Macroom Man · 26-01-2009 4:22pm

shellyriver wrote: »

Lol one reference from article from Local Republican priest - 30 years a
after Famine, is this a good example of the basis and contention re preferring to known 'history of Gore-Booths' on Sligo Heritage.com.

Bit of stretch to claim PP Brennan a friend of the Palmerstons -- the latter benevolently gave him land for his home etc and Palmerston (like Eddie Walsh) attempted to improve the area (for all the thanks he got, like Mr Walsh). As I said Land Leaguers spiteful propaganda - re Famine. Ualanced and biased extremists.

Re 70% of contents remaining - are you a fixated rain-man!!

Asked you do you know the value of all contents sold? and/or the value of contents purchased by Walsh family? to estimate value.

Or do you prefer to compare for example Grand Piano to one tea-spoon equation?

As I said Sir Josslyn had sold many items long before Walshes on the scene -- so the estimate is based on the value of the goods sold, its not a perfect science, but its not constructed to satisfy your perverse demands re itemised itinerary break-down.

I suppose you're still polishing your cricket balls purchased.

Get Real..

Walshs et al are not local -- that's fine -- but they pay hard cash for something that the three categories I mentioned claim an illegal right to - however they don't finance it themselves they look for tax-payers to do this.

You don't seem to dispute re local yokels and parish pump gombeens. Curious.

This is a Lissadell Right of Way thread. Not a regurgitation of Lissadell history and various biased views thread.

It's apparent to anyone reading content from what I term the anti-Lissadell Brigade's argument was centred through this thread prism re the right of way issue -- but they prefer circuitous and spurious trips, like going on these alleged rights of way, they just keep on going round in circles, with nothing new, original to add or anything which bears relationship to truth -- barring their own misconceptions.:cool:

one reference from article from Local Republican priest
How could the article be from the man when it was an obituary!

fmtdoc · 26-01-2009 10:28pm

Shellyriver - where does your anger come from on this topic???

Honestly, it's stretching it pretty far to say that all those involved in this rights of way issue have inflicted criminal damage on Lissadell. In formal language, that is absoloute crap!!! I know many of the people involved, and they don't have a criminal bone between their collective bodies. Please don't quote the law so righteously and then slander people like that. I just don't get what's behind someone seemingly intelligent coming out with such extreme theories... What's your personal connection with all this? I'd love to understand it.

And yes, I personally have spoken to 3 people who are scared to walk through Lissadell because of how they have been shouted at on previous occasions. You ask: who are these people? But you don't really expect me to name them, do you? All I can say is that I am absolutely certain they are not criminals!

I think most local people want to see Lissadell open and thriving - for the long term. But I repeat that there is a fear around that the Cassidy-Walsh family are not in this for the long haul, that their background is in law and property investment, and that the long-term value of the estate is the most important thing for them. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense to welcome 40,000 in the door but prevent a few hundred walking past.

redarmyblues · 26-01-2009 11:32pm

Sorella wrote

Shellyriver wrote.."However if this matter is contested in a court supporters of the right of way may be able to introduce testimony where witnesses swear to their own and their antecendents unimpeded access to the routes in question. The issue of rights of way are highly fraught and complex as many landowners can testify and this issue will not be solved on here. "

Sorry Sorella I don't want to be a pedant but I wrote that.

Shellyriver - where does your anger come from on this topic???

Shelly is not getting angry on account of the great unwashed having access or not having access to Lisadell, he is losing the head because the great unwashed are posting on here and daring to contradict his magisterial contributions. I am guessing from his first post which reads in part like a barristers opinion that he is in the legal profession and furthermore these parts of the post were not dashed off like many of his later posts clearly were and that parts were worked and reworked and polished until the writer felt it was close to perfect.

Shelly River let me tell you the law is a rational thing (the devil is in the detail) and your resort to insult and worse emotionalism would not recommend you to the legal profession.

fmtdoc · 27-01-2009 10:33am

redarmyblues - i'd really love to hear shellyriver answer for him/herself... it's important not to get drawn into insulting someone back just cause that's what they've done! If we could have a respectful dialogue online, maybe that would be mirrored in the real world around Lissadell. All understanding starts small. I really would love to understand what is behind shellyriver's opinions.:)

redarmyblues · 27-01-2009 11:02am

Shelly cant answer for himself he is banned for a week for trollinq on the where do you come from thread.

i dont think i insulted him in my last post i merely pointed out that he got angry and started the yokel gombeen thing when people disagreed with him.

Xiney · 27-01-2009 11:03am

shellyriver wrote: »

PS - Whiskers, don't just come out of the blue with a 'I can't follow you' -- really, do you think I'm concerned, you say nothing and then expect full clarity to a variety of points. Read the threads you'll know what I'm talking about.

No, seriously. It really is sometimes very difficult to understand what you are saying. You followed the above comment with this, directed at myself and takola:

shellyriver wrote: »

PPS - Moderator -- do you along for swingeing comments, for example saying somebody is mentally defective? to go without regard, remark censorship?

To be honest I don't know what you're saying here. However, if you have a problem with a post please report it and we will look into it. Keep your posts in this thread relevant to the thread at hand. If you wish to reply to this post, please use pming.

dardevle · 27-01-2009 7:06pm

i see from the weekender that talks into resolving the dispute
have begun;

http://www.sligoweekender.ie/news/story/?trs=mhqlmhgbey&cat=news

from the article it appears the talks are being held in Dublin...bit odd no?

.

beamishman · 27-01-2009 8:14pm

A few facts - I have visited Sligo and stayed with friends within 150 metres of Lissadell at least four times a year for the past 31 years, and walked unimpeded through the grounds on each occasion until the Walsh-Cassidy takeover at which point the blocking of access became progressively more pointed and severe until the gates were finally padlocked. I have walked those roads with locals who had had access for many more years than I and who believed that there had always been a right-of-way in existence back through the generations before them. The road from the gate-house to the beach has always been a popular walk for locals. I have never seen one incident of anti-social, abusive, or dangerous behaviour on my walks, and there was always a good rapport between the locals and the Gore-Booths, with never a suggestion from them that this access was in question. I have never seen, or heard about, joy-riding through the estate.
In my opinion, the Walsh-Cassidy purchase represents an unbelievably good buy - for them but not for us. The estate should have been purchased by the State, or the State and Sligo County Council jointly. Not only is it historically and culturally very significant, but properly developed would be of far more benefit to the county and the State than Farmleigh which cost probably 20 times as much. If an East London barrow-boy was the likely purchaser then I suspect the State would have stepped in, which leads to the question of why the estate was allowed be sold to Eddie Walsh and Constance Cassidy at a knock down price. I had better keep my opinions on that to myself, but there are clues to that for those who want to see them.
So, Jocelyn Gore-Booth signed a piece of paper. So what? I could do that, and it would be just as worthless. Jocelyn had little contact with Lissadel until he inherited the place and does not seem to have had much emotional engagement with it. Just another commodity really.
In my opinion there is a right-of-way that is well established over time. In an interview she gave around the time she purchased the Lissadel Constance Cassidy claimed to have a high regard for Constance Markievicz who was born into and grew up in Lissadel. Knowing what I know of Markievicz's affinity with ordinary Irish citizens of the new Republic that she helped to create I think she would be scandalised by the attempt by the Walsh-Cassidy camp to close off access through the estate, especially to local people. I am sure she would repudiate Constance Cassidy's attempted association with her.
An end to this bullying of local citizens. Now if only we could find a judge who is independent of the Law Library, beholden to no-one, and prepared to judge the case on its own merits and on the evidence presented. I live in hope.
Beamishman

lightening · 27-01-2009 10:24pm

beamishman wrote: »

A few facts..... there is a right-of-way

Can you back that up?

dardevle · 27-01-2009 10:33pm

lightening wrote: »

you... back ?

creative editing;)

lightening · 28-01-2009 1:24am

dardevle wrote: »

creative editing;)

Just like everyone here, I don't know what the law is regarding the "right of way" people seem to think they have.

I just would like to imagine people from other cities in the country would be welcome in Sligo. Just like Yeats was.

Lissadel House Shut down

Comments