[MadsL]

Originally Posted by Hayte

...

Post of the Day!

Originally Posted by OscarBravo

complying with planning regulations.

Big difference between complying and ignoring. I suspect Revenue would take a dim view of cost incurred in ignoring planning regulations.

[Godge]

Originally Posted by MadsL

Big difference between complying and ignoring. I suspect Revenue would take a dim view of cost incurred in ignoring planning regulations.

Interesting, can you refer me to a specific part of the Revenue regulations or did you just make this up?

[Hayte]

Ehhh, on the environmental front, this matter went to Judicial Review last year and An Taisce accepted settlement from the state:

Originally Posted by Irish Times

In a statement to the court, the State defendants acknowledged An Taisce’s case was properly brought and said, in view of the concerns raised, the State would establish an Environmental law Implementation Group through which it would formally engage with An Taisce.

The State also acknowledged, in light of the decision of the European Court of Justice in proceedings by the European Commission v Ireland, that Ireland had failed to properly transpose certain aspects of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. It was intended all necessary transposition measures would be taken by the end of this year, it added.

While acknowledging the failures of transposition, the State said it was maintaining its claims that the consents challenged in the legal actions, including a foreshore licence, were valid and were granted “only after all necessary environmental assessment under Irish and EU law”. The State would also make a contribution to the legal costs incurred by An Taisce, it said.

Mr Justice Peter Charleton was told today the actions by An Taisce, and a separate action by local residents Peter Sweetman and Monica Muiller, were being withdrawn. The cases, brought against various State parties with Shell EP Ireland and Mayo Co Council as notice parties, had been at hearing for eleven days before the judge prior to today’s development.

Mr Sweetman and Ms Muller, Rossport South, Ballina, Co Mayo, own land 500m south of the proposed pipeline and they and An Taisce, challenged An Bord Pleanala’s decision last January granting permission to Shell E&P Ireland for its third proposed route for the pipeline. No details of the settlement of the Sweetman/Muller case were disclosed.

It was claimed the proposed pipeline traverses several areas of special interest in Co Mayo governed by the EU habitats directives. Among the claims was the Bord had failed to assess, as it was required to do, failed to assess the impact of the development on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

The same parties also challenged consents for the construction of sections of the pipeline issued by former minister for energy Pat Carey and Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan. An Taisce also challenged the granting of a foreshore licence by Mr Hogan earlier this year.

At this point it appears the main contention is that the Corrib project will be finished before the legislation comes into effect.

[oscarBravo]

Originally Posted by Hayte

See, Shell has up until now had a pretty terrible record of adhering to conditional approval set down by state agencies.

Given that this is one of the most closely scrutinised construction projects in the history of the state, I don't think Shell are likely to get away with much.

I also note that Shell has constructed sections of the pipeline without consent.

Did you happen to note that they dismantled it when ordered to do so, and only rebuilt it once consent was granted?

I further note the controversy surrounding energy companies using land compulsorily acquired through the state for gas extraction through fracking in the US and UK, where the environmental impact has not been properly assessed.

Fracking is completely irrelevant to the Corrib discussion, and I can only assume you're conflating the two situations in order to muddy the water.

I understand people quipping about law and enforcement but the principle of equity doesn't seem factor in out of convenience. The rule of law and its enforcement can and should be overturned if it causes grave inequity. If there is an inequity, is it worth fighting to rectify it?

Sure. The place to do that fighting is in the courts, or the legislature as required. The courts are the logical starting point for such a fight, as they are best placed to answer the question of inequity in a disinterested manner.

I am also curious about the stigma of civil disobedience in this country, or at least how it is reflected on this forum. In all socially contentious problems there is a cost to unilateral action. In this case, one of the costs is civil disobedience, which necessitates a large and continuous police presence. I wonder how many of you would dance to a different tune if it was your home that was subject to compulsory acquisition, if all of this was happening on your doorstep. Do you fight it and how long do you fight? Far too many people are willing to capitulate, to just go with it as long as the problems do not impact them directly.

To be fair, that's a beautifully-crafted appeal to emotion, but it's an appeal to emotion nonetheless.

For one thing, it is predicated entirely on the idea that compulsory acquisition is wrong. If you believe that compulsory acquisition should never be allowed - or at least should always be subject to disorderly protest at a cost to the state of tens of millions of euros - fair enough, as long as you make it clear that you would prefer to live in a country without much in the way of infrastructure.

If, on the other hand, you are selectively deciding that this particular compulsory acquisition is wrong because it gels nicely with your belief that this particular project shouldn't go ahead, you should make that clear also, because it clarifies the subjective nature of your appeal to emotion.

I see very few people on these boards expressing a desire to understand the problems and why they lead to civil disobedience. I see very little attempt to scrutinise Shell's past dealings with state agencies for the extraction of energy resources. I see alot of people just accepting their position because the cost of their action doesn't effect them personally, whilst the cost of opposition does. I see very little attempt to understand our laws, how they are created, how they are enforced, what systems of checks and balances have been implemented to curb abuse of power.

It's dangerously close to hypocritical to laud disorderly protest while simultaneously pontificating about checks and balances. What are the checks and balances on criminal behaviour dressed up as civil disobedience?

Originally Posted by MadsL

Big difference between complying and ignoring. I suspect Revenue would take a dim view of cost incurred in ignoring planning regulations.

You can suspect what you want, but until you produce documentary evidence to show that such expenses are required to be explicitly enumerated in a tax return, your suspicions don't count for a lot.

I notice you've avoided my question three or four times now. I thought it was a pretty straightforward question myself.

[Godge]

Originally Posted by Hayte

Ehhh, on the environmental front, this matter went to Judicial Review last year and An Taisce accepted settlement from the state:




At this point it appears the main contention is that the Corrib project will be finished before the legislation comes into effect.

As I previously pointed out, and this article certainly implies it clearly, the failures to transpose the Directives were minor or even technical in nature, particularly as the statement made by the State "said it was maintaining its claims that the consents challenged in the legal actions, including a foreshore licence, were valid and were granted “only after all necessary environmental assessment under Irish and EU law”. "

This is a far cry from the massive breaches of environmental law alluded to earlier in this thread.

[RussellTuring]

If I may be so bold as to get back to the OP, I think that it is indeed far too much to be spent on policing. Maybe people should ask if there really is a need for so many gardaí there at all. If someone witnesses a crime being committed then it would seem reasonable to call them but having the force there on a continuing basis seems like a massive waste of resources.

[Hayte]

Originally Posted by oscarBravo

Given that this is one of the most closely scrutinised construction projects in the history of the state, I don't think Shell are likely to get away with much.

Pure speculation, and honestly putting far too much faith in the capacity of Shell to give a damn.

Did you happen to note that they dismantled it when ordered to do so, and only rebuilt it once consent was granted?

Yeah. They were actually building the thing before the safety review of the pipeline was complete. I mean seriously?

Fracking is completely irrelevant to the Corrib discussion, and I can only assume you're conflating the two situations in order to muddy the water.

Noted.

Sure. The place to do that fighting is in the courts, or the legislature as required. The courts are the logical starting point for such a fight, as they are best placed to answer the question of inequity in a disinterested manner. To be fair, that's a beautifully-crafted appeal to emotion, but it's an appeal to emotion nonetheless.

The civil courts are not the logical start point of anything. The civil courts are the logical end point of a dispute that cannot be resolved between parties and must be arbitrated by an independent party. And they found failings that vindicate protest. Its disappointing to see An Taisce settle but I'm not aware of their manner in which their legal fees are dealt with and whether or not they had the resources to proceed to judgement. As such there will be no formal written decision.

For one thing, it is predicated entirely on the idea that compulsory acquisition is wrong. If you believe that compulsory acquisition should never be allowed - or at least should always be subject to disorderly protest at a cost to the state of tens of millions of euros - fair enough, as long as you make it clear that you would prefer to live in a country without much in the way of infrastructure.

Don't boil it down to right and wrong. You will get different answers depending on whether its your land or not and whether you want to stay or not. People went to jail because they didn't want to leave their homes over this project. As for the snide poke at the end, I'm just going to ignore that because infrastructure development always goes faster when you don't have to be accountable to anyone except yourself.

If, on the other hand, you are selectively deciding that this particular compulsory acquisition is wrong because it gels nicely with your belief that this particular project shouldn't go ahead

It has nothing to do with any preconceived belief with regards to whether or not this project should or should not go ahead. I appreciate there is an appeal to emotion in my post, but your entire response is really a strawman.

What are the checks and balances on criminal behaviour dressed up as civil disobedience?

What criminal behaviour? No really, what crimes have been committed?

[oscarBravo]

Originally Posted by Hayte

Don't boil it down to right and wrong. You will get different answers depending on whether its your land or not and whether you want to stay or not.

That's ducking the issue. Of course people will have subjective views on things that affect them directly. If you're going to take the view that nothing should ever happen that anyone objects to, then nothing would ever happen.

The Constitution recognises that a balance needs to be struck between private property rights and the public good. Do you disagree?

People went to jail because they didn't want to leave their homes over this project.

Which of the Rossport five was asked to leave his home?

As for the snide poke at the end, I'm just going to ignore that because infrastructure development always goes faster when you don't have to be accountable to anyone except yourself.

I don't know what you mean by that.

It has nothing to do with any preconceived belief with regards to whether or not this project should or should not go ahead. I appreciate there is an appeal to emotion in my post, but your entire response is really a strawman.

With the greatest of respect, I don't believe you. Your post only makes sense in the context of a strongly-held view on one side of this issue. Are you denying that you are opposed to the project, or claiming that your opposition hasn't informed your posts on the subject?

What criminal behaviour? No really, what crimes have been committed?

Are you asking because you genuinely believe that not one single criminal act has been committed by any of the protesters?

[Hayte]

Originally Posted by oscarBravo

That's ducking the issue. Of course people will have subjective views on things that affect them directly. If you're going to take the view that nothing should ever happen that anyone objects to, then nothing would ever happen.

The Constitution recognises that a balance needs to be struck between private property rights and the public good. Do you disagree?

No I don't disagree.

Which of the Rossport five was asked to leave his home?

I'm not clear on that. However, all of them had compulsory acquisition orders against them so at the very least, construction of the onshore pipeline was occuring on their land (which became the government's land) and they resisted it. I know they were found to be in contempt of that order and were jailed. I know that Ms. Justice Laffoy later struck down those orders and required Shell to seek landowner consent for construction on their land.

For the sake of clarity, I'll err on the side of caution, concede this point and say "none".

With the greatest of respect, I don't believe you. Your post only makes sense in the context of a strongly-held view on one side of this issue. Are you denying that you are opposed to the project, or claiming that your opposition hasn't informed your posts on the subject?

I have no direct stake in the outcome of the Corrib project so whether or not you believe me is frankly irrelevant. It would be just as irrelevant as me asserting that your posts only make sense in the context of a strongly held belief in the fairness of Shell's dealings with An Bord Pleanala.

I have not questioned your beliefs in this thread, only what you have stated as fact and what you have asserted is law. I would appreciate if you do me the courtesy of responding in kind.

The striking out of the original Shell CAOs and the judicial review proceedings brought by An Taisce and Peter Sweetman go some ways to vindicate the idea that injustice is at the root of this round of civil disobedience. That is the context I am working from.

Are you asking because you genuinely believe that not one single criminal act has been committed by any of the protesters?

I'm asking because I don't see any criminality unless civil disobience has suddenly become a criminal offence. If you can state a crime that has been committed by protesters, I'd like to know. If you can point to criminal proceedings being brought against any named protestor then I'd like to know that too because I haven't found any.

[antoobrien]

Originally Posted by Hayte

I'm asking because I don't see any criminality unless civil disobience has suddenly become a criminal offence. If you can state a crime that has been committed by protesters, I'd like to know. If you can point to criminal proceedings being brought against any named protestor then I'd like to know that too because I haven't found any.

Google a few of their names, you'll be surprised how easy it is to find this info.

Marua Harrington (one of the spokespeople for the protest) was jailed for assaulting a Garda during a fracas at the site.

Another article indicates that she had been jailed 3 times in 2009 (up to July).

n.b. unfortunately the articles are behind the paywall

[oscarBravo]

Originally Posted by Hayte

The striking out of the original Shell CAOs and the judicial review proceedings brought by An Taisce and Peter Sweetman go some ways to vindicate this idea that injustice is at the root of this round of civil disobedience. That is the context I am working from.

The problem with that context is that you're mistaking the subjective perception of injustice for the objective reality of injustice. If someone believes they are the victim of an injustice, they may be, or they may not. If someone brings judicial review proceedings, it suggests that they feel an injustice has been done. When the same party withdraws those proceedings, the implication is that the injustice has been redressed.

If you can state a crime that has been committed by protesters, I'd like to know. If you can point to criminal proceedings being brought against any named protestor then I'd like to know that too because I haven't found any.

Maura Harrington has been convicted of assault and public disorder offences. There have been numerous examples of protesters appearing in court on public order and criminal damage charges.

Are you genuinely unaware of these (as you were unaware of the circumstances of the jailing of the Rossport five), or are you blithely ignoring them for some reason?

[Hayte]

Originally Posted by oscarBravo

or are you blithely ignoring them for some reason?

Theres no need for this. I am aware of Maura Harrington and I have given the circumstances of her imprisonment some thought. Initially I felt that a slap doesn't really constitute assault and in the context of the protest up until that point I felt it was somewhat justified. The CAO was not been overturned until 2011 and this incident occured in 2007. Part of this reasoning is informed by the idea that civil disobedience must necessarily be violent if there is no recourse through other means.

But after some thought, I revised this position and concede this point. Slapping can constitute battery and we are not in Aparthied South Africa. We do have a judicial system that offers recourse through non violent means and in fact, such relief was sought and obtained. In that context, slapping a Gard was unnecessary, exposed Maura Harrington to criminal prosecution and did nothing to stop Shell's access to the land. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, when I'm actually wrong.

[MadsL]

Originally Posted by Godge

Interesting, can you refer me to a specific part of the Revenue regulations or did you just make this up?

I didn't claim to be a tax expert. However;

http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitione...ve/60/tb07.htm
http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitione...ve/60/tb11.htm

Planning applications
Section 372AL(1A) TCA 1997 provides the legislative basis for the extended deadline of 31 July 2006 for the residential element of the various schemes mentioned above. Sections 372AA, 372L, 372A(1B) and 372U TCA 1997 do likewise for the commercial and industrial elements of the town renewal, rural renewal, living over the shop and park and ride schemes respectively. The provisions ensure that expenditure incurred on or before 31 July 2006 will qualify for relief provided that it is expenditure incurred on work that is covered by a valid application for full planning permission that was received by the relevant local authority on or before 31 December 2004. The time extension does not apply to projects where the application for planning permission was received after that date. It should also be noted that where a valid planning application for full planning permission was received on time, relief is only available in respect of expenditure on actual work covered by that particular application. It does not extend to expenditure on additional work as would arise where the applicant decides to extend the scale of the project subsequent to the qualifying planning application deadline.
In this regard, Revenue is concerned at some notices that have appeared in newspapers after the 31 December 2004 deadline indicating that “significant further information has been lodged with ____ County Council under planning reference xxx, 2004". In some cases the ”significant further information" referred to would have the effect of substantially increasing the scale of projects already submitted. Where a project proceeds on the basis of the planning application that is submitted by 31 December 2004, only expenditure incurred on the basis of the original project will qualify for relief and that expenditure incurred on any extension or addition to a project will not qualify for relief. In such a situation it will be necessary for the total expenditure to be apportioned between the qualifying and the non-qualifying work. If, on the other hand, the planned extension gives rise to the need to make a further planning application after 31 December 2004 to cover the revised or extended project, then none of the expenditure incurred on that project will qualify for relief. The position is the same where an applicant is required for any other reason to submit a further planning application in respect of a project after 31 December 2004. In all such cases no relief is available.

Sale of Site/Building
A person who owns a site or a building that is to be refurbished or converted may wish to sell the site or the building after he or she has applied for or obtained planning permission. In such a situation the purchaser of the site or the building will be treated in exactly the same way as the original applicant or vendor and will only qualify for relief to the extent that the work that is carried out on the project is that provided for in the original valid application for full planning permission received on or before


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...nGiAkmJG1-e12w


Qualifying period
The scheme applies in respect of expenditure incurred on or after 15 May 2002 for private hospitals generally and from 28 March 2003 for day-case hospitals. The termination date for incurring qualifying expenditure is 31 December 2009 unless certain conditions are met, in which case a later termination date may apply. Where the work to be carried out does not require planning permission, the termination date is 30 June 2010, provided at least 30% of the construction or refurbishment costs have been incurred on or before 31 December 2009. Where the work to be carried out requires planning permission, a termination date of 31 December 2013 applies, provided a full and valid application for planning permission was submitted on or before 31 December 2009 and was acknowledged by the relevant planning authority.


Would satisfy me that the general view of Revenue is that planning permissions are relevant to claiming tax relief and incentives.

If you feel that strongly call Revenue and ask them.

[MadsL]

Originally Posted by oscarBravo

Are you asking because you genuinely believe that not one single criminal act has been committed by any of the protesters?

Good question dodge.

Do you see any crimes here?



Or here



or here?



or here



or here



Apparently it is difficult to report crimes if you are a protester.

[oscarBravo]

Originally Posted by MadsL

Good question dodge.

I wasn't dodging the question. I was genuinely gobsmacked that anyone with more than a passing interest in the Corrib situation could conceivably be unaware of the track record of the protesters.

Given that you're accusing me of dodging the question, and as someone who has an interest in the subject, are you going to claim that you're unaware of any criminal behaviour on the part of any of the protesters?

Do you see any crimes here?

I see carefully edited propaganda videos designed to put forward one side of the story. Are you going to claim that the Garda behaviour is completely unprovoked, and that model citizens were viciously attacked for absolutely no reason whatsoever?

Because if you're willing to believe that, we have no common frame of reference for this discussion.