The ESB And Eirgrid can go f*ck themselves - Merge

Zen65

Peetrik wrote: »

Ill try to help you understand what I mean...

Which is worse?
1) A judge to feel insulted
2) An old woman to be imprisioned for 3 weeks and counting

Hi Peetrik,

I do understand why people support the stance being taken by Ms Treacy, though it is primarily the case (IMHO based on the posts I've read here) that those supporting her see this as a romantic David-vs-Goliath sort of battle.

To that end, painting unfounded images of either Ms Treacy's person or the character of the judge (or EirGrid, or ESB) is not dealing with the issue.

And I know that this is the AH forum, so it's the right place to express unbalanced views, but at this stage I think this debate is worthy of being treated fairly.

You talk about the judge's actions as though it's a matter of a man dealing with his wounded ego. I cannot see where such a view comes from. Judges apply the law and for the most part they don't let feelings get in the way. In this case the judge explicitly sympathised with Ms Treacy, but the laws of this country (and pretty much every democratic country) require that the rulings of the court are recognised by the citizens. Ms Treacy did not seek a temporary injunction while she pursued a point of law to argue her case. She simply said that she would not accept the ruling of the court.

In any democracy that is an action which requires suspension of the right of free citizenship. What makes it appear unfair in this case is that arises because of her honesty (she's telling it like it is). The bankers and developers who have destroyed our economy have not been brought to task because they have obfuscated the truth and because (unpopularly) the laws are less clear in terms of their actions.

The judge did not act on ego. If there had been 20 judges listening to this case they would all have taken the same view. The point of law is so central to our democracy that the country would descend into anarchy without it (and that is exactly what the judge said).

I feel sympathy for Ms Treacy. She is being punished disproportionately by being imprisoned for so long. Her stay in prison is being extended by the failure to cut the few trees on her land which are in the way of the line (I say "few trees" because she reportedly owns 100 acres of trees and unless they are all lined up in a narrow strip 30m wide exactly along the path of the line the fact must be that EirGrid only wish to remove a small percentage of her trees). She cannot be released while she refuses to comply with the ruling of the court (and any one of us would be in prison for any offence if we refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the courts).

So let's debate the issue without assigning unfounded character traits to the protagonists in the case.


Z

PS: I've now reached 1,000 posts on Boards.ie so I'm going to disappear for a few hours to celebrate!!

Peetrik

Zen first off, let me just say congrats on 1000 posts

When I speak of ego, I am not talking about the ruling, I am talking about her being held in contempt of court.
The court had already ruled against her, her property was being protected by protestors and so the only possible advantage of her imprisonment, stopping her continuing to obstruct the courts ruling, became invalid.

Finding the woman to be in contempt of court was a decision the judge made, he could just have easily have decided to exercise some discretion for a woman naive enough to represent herself in the highcourt, but he chose not to, a decision btw that has greatly exacerbated the situation.

CDfm

joela wrote: »

Your post doesn't make much sense but again just to reiterate "her rights" have not been abused. This line went through the planning system in 2006 and again in 2008. There is no record on the publically accessible files of an objection from Ms Treacy so she didn't take the oportunity to use the system to fight for her rights as you see them.

Actually it does not seem to have been an open process and I have read that the IFA represented some farmers who "sold" their rights for money.

So the idea that it was an open process isn't quite true and it also seems to me that the ESB didn't make an offer to replace the habitat or offer to work with the landowner to do that.

Zen65

Peetrik wrote: »

Zen first off, let me just say congrats on 1000 posts

Thanks - I'm actually quite surprised that I've posted so much because in all honesty I only joined Boards.ie to talk about martial arts, but some of the threads just drew me in and before I knew it....

When I speak of ego, I am not talking about the ruling, I am talking about her being held in contempt of court.

.....

Finding the woman to be in contempt of court was a decision the judge made, he could just have easily have decided to exercise some discretion for a woman naive enough to represent herself in the highcourt, but he chose not to, a decision btw that has greatly exacerbated the situation.

Contempt of court is a fairly black-and-white crime. Where a court instructs a person to discontinue an action it has deemed to be unlawful, failure to discontinue that action shows disregard for the court's rule. Similarly when a court instructs a person to carry out a legal action, failure to carry out that action is contempt of court.

In fact the judge in this case attempted to treat Ms Treacy in a very compassionate and moderate manner. Her actions were deemed to have been unlawful, but rather than impose a fine or a sentence of any type the judge simply instructed her to discontinue her action of locking the gates of her farm, but she stated in court that she would not comply. At that stage the judge did not have any margin for discretion whatsoever.

My favourite case of contempt of court was during the tribunals. Several politicians & political advisors spent a great deal of time avoiding the questions being asked of them. When Frank Dunlop took the stand he pulled a similar stunt, but the judge took the view that the responses to the questions were disingenuous, and he gave Mr Dunlop a period of time "to reflect" on how he would answer the questions the next day, stating that if he failed to give a plausible answer he would be imprisoned immediately for contempt of court. Mr Dunlop returned the next day and confessed to having bribed counsellors during his time as a consultant for some leading developers. In the case of Liam Lawlor it was his failure to answer the questions put to him which resulted in his immediate imprisonment, and he was released only when he purged his contempt in court, and gave some of the answers being sought.

Without a contempt of court offence on our statute books our courts would be powerless to prosecute the most serious of crimes. Its very beauty is that it is so simple, and it cannot be contested. Imprisonment is immediate.

I agree however that Ms Treacy's imprisonment makes the whole problem potentially more difficult to resolve. Nobody (least of all EirGrid & ESB) want her in prison, but the electricity line cannot be held up because one landowner values her trees ahead of the nation's electricity infrastructure. The line was submitted for planning permission which is the process in which such issues are dealt with. She must have been notified that the line was to go through her land but she chose not to make a submission, preferring instead to turn the matter into a media circus.

As I have said already, I do have sympathy for her, but not a lot. At least in this case she is defending her own trees, unlike the eco-warriors who dug themselves into the woods in the Glen of the Downs in Wicklow in the late '90's. Those actions did more harm than good. Nowadays you can see the N11 operating in harmony with the woods there, and nobody could honestly suggest that any real loss had occurred to the natural environment.

Ms Treacy reportedly owns some 100 acres of land. That's plenty of land to live off. How could anybody in their right mind believe that they could own such a large estate and not have to interact with Irish society by offering up an easement for an essential service to pass through her land? The easement would be paid for by EirGrid at its full commercial value, and the land would remain hers to do with as she pleased (though not to grow trees above a certain height).

I love a good David vs Goliath story, but I only support David in such encounters when he's acting for the greater good rather than for his own ends.


Z

joela

CDfm wrote: »

Actually it does not seem to have been an open process and I have read that the IFA represented some farmers who "sold" their rights for money.

So the idea that it was an open process isn't quite true and it also seems to me that the ESB didn't make an offer to replace the habitat or offer to work with the landowner to do that.

The IFA would have represented the farmers during negotiations for compensation but there is nothing new or secretive about that. They have done the same when there was new designations of Special Areas of Conservation.

Go check out the planning on Offaly County Council, there for everyone to see as is the judegement on An Bord Pleanala website. Again when an additional planning change was made in 2008 the information is on the website. How much more open can it be? If you look at the permission one of the conditions is replanting so again that is taken care of especially when you consider the habitat is coniferous plantation for the most part.

They have been in lengthy consultations with her since aat least 2008 and it is very unusual for things to go this far. I have no particular love for ESB or Eirgrid but it is not right for them to be blamed for doing their job which is to maintain and construct our electrical infrastructure. The guys who approached her may not have been the nicest I don't know but they got 83 other people to sign up so they made peace with all of them somehow even if it was money. This is what makes me wonder if the reason teresa objected to the line was down to her feeling she wasn't getting enough money??? €150,00 is what was mentioned although that is probably not accurate as it has been bandied about in the press.

Zimmerframe

Zen65 wrote: »

Contempt of court is a fairly black-and-white crime. Where a court instructs a person to discontinue an action it has deemed to be unlawful, failure to discontinue that action shows disregard for the court's rule. Similarly when a court instructs a person to carry out a legal action, failure to carry out that action is contempt of court.

In fact the judge in this case attempted to treat Ms Treacy in a very compassionate and moderate manner. Her actions were deemed to have been unlawful, but rather than impose a fine or a sentence of any type the judge simply instructed her to discontinue her action of locking the gates of her farm, but she stated in court that she would not comply. At that stage the judge did not have any margin for discretion whatsoever.

My favourite case of contempt of court was during the tribunals. Several politicians & political advisors spent a great deal of time avoiding the questions being asked of them. When Frank Dunlop took the stand he pulled a similar stunt, but the judge took the view that the responses to the questions were disingenuous, and he gave Mr Dunlop a period of time "to reflect" on how he would answer the questions the next day, stating that if he failed to give a plausible answer he would be imprisoned immediately for contempt of court. Mr Dunlop returned the next day and confessed to having bribed counsellors during his time as a consultant for some leading developers. In the case of Liam Lawlor it was his failure to answer the questions put to him which resulted in his immediate imprisonment, and he was released only when he purged his contempt in court, and gave some of the answers being sought.

Without a contempt of court offence on our statute books our courts would be powerless to prosecute the most serious of crimes. Its very beauty is that it is so simple, and it cannot be contested. Imprisonment is immediate.

I agree however that Ms Treacy's imprisonment makes the whole problem potentially more difficult to resolve. Nobody (least of all EirGrid & ESB) want her in prison, but the electricity line cannot be held up because one landowner values her trees ahead of the nation's electricity infrastructure. The line was submitted for planning permission which is the process in which such issues are dealt with. She must have been notified that the line was to go through her land but she chose not to make a submission, preferring instead to turn the matter into a media circus.

As I have said already, I do have sympathy for her, but not a lot. At least in this case she is defending her own trees, unlike the eco-warriors who dug themselves into the woods in the Glen of the Downs in Wicklow in the late '90's. Those actions did more harm than good. Nowadays you can see the N11 operating in harmony with the woods there, and nobody could honestly suggest that any real loss had occurred to the natural environment.

Ms Treacy reportedly owns some 100 acres of land. That's plenty of land to live off. How could anybody in their right mind believe that they could own such a large estate and not have to interact with Irish society by offering up an easement for an essential service to pass through her land? The easement would be paid for by EirGrid at its full commercial value, and the land would remain hers to do with as she pleased (though not to grow trees above a certain height).

I love a good David vs Goliath story, but I only support David in such encounters when he's acting for the greater good rather than for his own ends.


Z

Nice post m8, the voice of reason.

wee truck big driver

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Deluded, heh.

Landowner does not equal wealthy, far from it in most cases.

find that hard to believe. so what your saying is that owning something which is worth hundreds of thousands leaves you poor and cash strapped. by that logic people who are up to their eyeballs in debt and working (or not) struggling to feed themselves are rich.if she was cash strapped why doesnt she put the land to productive use with livestock or crops(while people starve) why doesnt she sell the land or rent it and live the high life. the poor old dear

wee truck big driver

drdeadlift wrote: »

Deranged and wealthy its her land her character need not come into this.Elderly people will be forking out increased prices this winter the wnkers in esb don't need excuses to increase prices.If people slowed down on the road less would die but they wont Irish drivers are careless.Im not a tree hugger but the tree is just as alive as a person.
If you owned a nice bit of land,you enjoyed it maybe it was passed down to you im sure you wouldn't welcome the thoughts of the esb waltzing through at their own wish.Too many people are intimidated im glad she stood up for here corner no matter what you think is right or wrong.

so your advice to people who have lost loved one because of the state of are roads is slow down. i suppose if they hit a tree you would enquire if the tree was ok

CDfm

wee truck big driver wrote: »

find that hard to believe. so what your saying is that owning something which is worth hundreds of thousands leaves you poor and cash strapped. by that logic people who are up to their eyeballs in debt and working (or not) struggling to feed themselves are rich.if she was cash strapped why doesnt she put the land to productive use with livestock or crops(while people starve) why doesnt she sell the land or rent it and live the high life. the poor old dear

Well , during the boom tradesmen were coining it in and Dublin householders were hardly selling up their very expensive houses and buying farms. These people were rich.


Farm incomes are half the average industrial wage. Civil and public servants are the rich today.

So a farm is a way of making a living.

According to the ESB workers Union leader they are the ones that are spoiled.

It was widely expected that the ESB would introduce a hike in prices, but the organisation has been criticised for imposing a greater hike than its rivals.
Competitors Bord Gais and Airtricity both announced hikes of 12pc earlier this summer.
The announcement comes as the most senior union official at the state-owned body described ESB workers as "spoilt" .
The comments by UNITE's Brendan Ogle were recorded at an address to militant republican organisation, Eirgi, in May.
Mr Ogle described himself and his colleagues as "privileged and very lucky" and listed an "after hours work scheme" as well as over time as examples of the "gravy" that workers had become used to.


http://www.herald.ie/news/esb-workers-spoiled-as-our-bills-soar-2859660.html

I haven't seen any ESB worker representative comment on the workers behavior on Miss Treacy's land.

And the ESB & Eirgrid statement scores on being patronising

ESB and EirGrid added:

Representatives of the companies were involved in the past week in positive discussions with the family of Ms Treacy who has been imprisoned for contempt of court, and progress was made towards a resolution.

A feature of the companies’ plans is a major programme of planting of replacement trees, following the construction of the vital electricity line. In the discussions it has been clear that delays or an impasse caused by protests would be regretted by both the family and ESB/EirGrid as it would result in prolonging Ms Treacy’s stay in the Dochas Centre.

http://www.thejournal.ie/vast-majority-of-tree-cutting-completed-on-teresa-treacys-land-241033-Sep2011/

It is demeaning and portraying her as a bit of an incompetant and a nut rather than someone of deeply held principles.

Is it my imagination or is there a bit of misogyny in the statement.

wee truck big driver

we have all heard the poor farmer story before. infact in all my life i cant remember a time when the farmers or there associations came out and admitted to being rich and yet all the farmer i know where able to build houses without mortages and drive new jeeps. the only time they are stuck for money is when its their round

Chuck Stone

CDfm wrote: »

It is demeaning and portraying her as a bit of an incompetant and a nut rather than someone of deeply held principles.

Is she a woman of deeply held principles though?

What principles are they if she is?

CDfm

wee truck big driver wrote: »

we have all heard the poor farmer story before. infact in all my life i cant remember a time when the farmers or there associations came out and admitted to being rich and yet all the farmer i know where able to build houses without mortages and drive new jeeps. the only time they are stuck for money is when its their round

I am not a farmer but I think you are talking about a lifestyle that doesn't exist or you know some very rich farmers.

Why not use proper statistics.

The National Farm Survey 2009 estimates that 39% of farm holders had an off-farm occupation. Most of the farmers with off-farm jobs were classified as part-time (in terms of labour input on farm) and had combined farm and non-farm earnings of €31,100. Those with full-time farms and off-farm employment had an average income of €42,600. Overall average off-farm earnings, for those who had off-farm jobs was estimated to be €24,700 (Figure 2.3), average family farm income for these farms was €7,800 giving a combined income of €32,500.
Of the 65% of farm holders who stated that they had no off-farm income, 40% were estimated to have full-time farms. These full-time farms had an average family farm income of €25,000. The remaining 60% were classified as part-time farms and had no off-farm earnings. These had an average family farm income of €7,000.
Direct payments per farm in 2009 averaged €17,109, accounting for 36% of Gross Output and 143% of family farm income. And they are payments farmers receive from the EU as compensation for poor prices.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) direct payments system is the cornerstone of the 'European Model of Agriculture'. It maintains the maximum number of people living and working in rural communities, supports the production of safe food with high environmental and animal welfare standards while maintaining a pleasant landscape for the enjoyment of everyone.


http://www.teagasc.ie/agrifood/

Where is your proof that Miss Treacy is rich.

Chuck Stone

Why is farming subsidized at all though? If I had a business making table lamps and I couldn't compete with, say, a Chinese table lamp maker then it's tough shit on me.

Why is it different for farming?

CDfm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why is farming subsidized at all though? If I had a business making table lamps and I couldn't compete with, say, a Chinese table lamp maker then it's tough shit on me.

Why is it different for farming?

That would be an EU matter and is part of EU social policy.

Probably a safety/security measure.

And that has what to do with Miss Treacy's case ?

Stark

Probably because having your supply of Chinese table lamps suddenly cut off is less of an issue than having your food supply cut off.

Chuck Stone

CDfm wrote: »

And that has what to do with Miss Treacy's case ?

Not much but I have a point to make.

If she's recieving money from the EU then she is okay with transferring the property of workers (i.e. the fruits of their labour in the form of taxes) to her so she can't exactly be a woman of impeccable property rights principles.

Chuck Stone

Stark wrote: »

Probably because having your supply of Chinese table lamps suddenly cut off is less of an issue than having your food supply cut off.

That doesn't really explain why farming is subsidized though does it?

CDfm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If she's recieving money from the EU then she is okay with transferring the property of workers (i.e. the fruits of their labour in the form of taxes) to her so she can't exactly be a woman of impeccable property rights principles.

The quality of rights is that they work on the lowest common denominator principle.

If it can happen to her and she is not protected then what about the rest of us.

joela

CDfm wrote: »

The quality of rights is that they work on the lowest common denominator principle.

If it can happen to her and she is not protected then what about the rest of us.

But what happened to her? Her human rights have not been attacked, she was asked to allow a cable through her land and told she would be compensated. She obviously agreed at some point because apparently it all seemed ok until they turned up to start work and she refused to let them in? Then eventually it went to court, she refused to abide by the court order and she went to jail because of it as is the law. So what was she not protected from?

What I'd like to know is where were all these neighbours when she was apparently being bullied by the ESB?

Chuck Stone

CDfm wrote: »

The quality of rights is that they work on the lowest common denominator principle.

And lets say there is a community on the far side of her land that has a need for electricity - whose rights do we decide are more important?

If it can happen to her and she is not protected then what about the rest of us.

It happens to us in a less overt way routinely through taxation. If I decided that I wasn't going to pay income tax anyomre because I don't want it to be spent on rescuing failed banks then I'd find myself in the slammer pretty quick.

Chuck Stone

FWIW I don't think the woman should have been sent to prison and if there was a viable alternative route then I think it should have been taken.

Peetrik

Zen65 wrote: »

Thanks - I'm actually quite surprised that I've posted so much because in all honesty I only joined Boards.ie to talk about martial arts, but some of the threads just drew me in and before I knew it....

Snap, Thai boxer myself

Zen65 wrote: »

Without a contempt of court offence on our statute books our courts would be powerless to prosecute the most serious of crimes. Its very beauty is that it is so simple, and it cannot be contested. Imprisonment is immediate.

Not contesting the necessity of the law, simply as to if it is appropriate to use it in this case, I would argue that in this case it has been used solely to appease the ego of the judge in question.

Zen65 wrote: »

Nobody (least of all EirGrid & ESB) want her in prison

As of this moment 42% of people (that read this thread) apparently disagree with you and think she should be in prison for the outrageous crime of wanting to protect her land.

Zen65 wrote: »

unlike the eco-warriors who dug themselves into the woods in the Glen of the Downs in Wicklow in the late '90's. ... nobody could honestly suggest that any real loss had occurred to the natural environment.

Hahaha oh man do we disagree on such a fundamental level its actually hilarious. You realise that wildlife native to Ireland cannot thrive in the manmade evergreen forests that Coilte grow right?
Coilte grow evergreen species imported from northern America which need constant pesticide to allow them grow as they are not native to Ireland and have no immunities. Evergreen species are grown in Ireland simply because they grow 20% faster.
The Glen of the downs was one of the last remaining indigenous forests existing in Ireland. I myself grew up less than 15km from the glen of the downs and would visit there as a child.
I would honestly suggest that this was very much a loss to the natural environment.

Capt'n Midnight

Chuck Stone wrote: »

FWIW I don't think the woman should have been sent to prison and if there was a viable alternative route then I think it should have been taken.

At what financial cost, with what delays to the project and who would pay ? What you may not realise is that (and it has been posted many times) is it would be cheaper to buy the land with compulsory purchase than it would be to bury the cable.

The compulsory bit means she would have no choice and no land and no compensation apart from a fair market value.



Has anyone has posted up how long the path across her land would be ?



BTW I'm fairly sure her electricity connection hasn't been cut off.

CDfm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

FWIW I don't think the woman should have been sent to prison and if there was a viable alternative route then I think it should have been taken.

I think it was possible to circumnavigate the habitat bit.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At what financial cost, with what delays to the project and who would pay ? What you may not realise is that (and it has been posted many times) is it would be cheaper to buy the land with compulsory purchase than it would be to bury the cable.

The compulsory bit means she would have no choice and no land and no compensation apart from a fair market value.



Has anyone has posted up how long the path across her land would be ?

The figure of 150,000 of payments was mentioned somewhere.

It does seem that a deal was brokered with other farmers by the Irish Farmers Association.

Now I am not saying she was being reasonable but if you put up poles etc it is possible to farm around them.

This land was not being farmed conventionally and it has all the hallmarks of skullduggery and a failure by ESB to put forward a proposal tailored to her land use.

Chuck Stone

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

At what financial cost, with what delays to the project and who would pay ?

That's why I said 'viable'.

What you may not realise is that (and it has been posted many times) is it would be cheaper to buy the land with compulsory purchase than it would be to bury the cable.

I know that burying a cable is punitively expensive - I don't doubt that for a second. Also, I would imagine burying a cable is hugely destructive to the environment. Digging huge trenches thru bogs and rock must have a massive impact.

Has anyone has posted up how long the path across her land would be ?

I would like to see this too.

BTW I'm fairly sure her electricity connection hasn't been cut off.

Cutting off her electricity supply would probably be a violation of her consumer rights.

CDfm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That's why I said 'viable'.



I know that burying a cable is punitively expensive - I don't doubt that for a second. Also, I would imagine burying a cable is hugely destructive to the environment. Digging huge trenches thru bogs and rock must have a massive impact.

Creating a habitat is expensive too.

So what are the ESB going to do about replacing the habitat.

I think we need to see a habitat proposal from the ESB.

joela

CDfm wrote: »

Creating a habitat is expensive too.

So what are the ESB going to do about replacing the habitat.

I think we need to see a habitat proposal from the ESB.

They are replacing plantation so it is relatively cheap and simple to create like for like in this situation.

CDfm

joela wrote: »

They are replacing plantation so it is relatively cheap and simple to create like for like in this situation.

Planting trees is cheap .

Replacing and stocking a habitat is a bit trickier and costs more.

joela

What habitat are you talking about? The conifer plantation is a monoculture and the broadleaf plantation is immature ash. The habitat requires new plantation to replace like for like. No complex hydrological issues or soil issues or any of the things that complicate habitat restoration. I'll think you'll find habitat creation and restoration is focused on high value habitat.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Teresa-Treacy/275465865811440

Pictures of the habitat!

Zen65

Peetrik wrote: »

Not contesting the necessity of the law, simply as to if it is appropriate to use it in this case, I would argue that in this case it has been used solely to appease the ego of the judge in question.

Respectfully, you do not know the judge so your opinion on his motivation is unfounded. Furthermore if you discuss this with a solicitor I'm quite sure you would be told (again) that the judge had no option but to apply the law. By dealing with the issue it is possible to have intelligent debate, but simply attacking the people serves no purpose.

As of this moment 42% of people (that read this thread) apparently disagree with you and think she should be in prison for the outrageous crime of wanting to protect her land.

That was not the question which people answered. The poll shows 42% believe she should not be released immediately i.e. without purging herself of contempt. I am among that 42% but I do not want her in prison. I want her to purge her contempt, get out of prison and enter discussion with EirGrid on a way to settle the issue to everyone's satisfaction. She cannot simply block a project that has been through the public planning process. This is after all a democracy.

The Glen of the downs was one of the last remaining indigenous forests existing in Ireland. I myself grew up less than 15km from the glen of the downs and would visit there as a child.
I would honestly suggest that this was very much a loss to the natural environment.

I too live nearby and have gone there often throughout my life (and still do). The number of trees felled by the road project was a very small percentage of the total. The road is vastly improved, human lives have undoubtedly been saved by the work, and the forest is still there for everyone to enjoy.

Ms Treacy's trees are not in any way comparable to the Glen of the Downs. Her trees are apparently not indigenous to the area (I don't claim that as a fact, I'm basing it upon what people have posted here) and they add no more to the biodiversity of the country than my own back garden. I do not see a "greater good" being supported by insisting the trees all stay. If ESB/EirGrid cut down enough trees to allow the line to pass through it would be about as harmful as a firebreak in a well-planned forest.

Z


PS: Wouldn't it be funny if you turned out to be the guy that lives across the road from me? He's into Thai too!