Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
13567…26

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    Hang on, it's her propery they want to ransack, why should she let them? She requested that they put them undergaround, something she would have happily complied with and they refused.

    The minute we start letting them barge onto people's property and do whatever they like is the minute we may as well roll over and let them take us up the árse.

    Ransack ? Im sure this happens all the time... The difference is an emotional attachment to trees led this woman to jail. I personally wouldnt mind too much, i mean 100acres means there's still a lot of trees for her to like.


  • Options
    #63
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    Hang on, it's her propery they want to ransack, why should she let them? She requested that they put them undergaround, something she would have happily complied with and they refused.

    The minute we start letting them barge onto people's property and do whatever they like is the minute we may as well roll over and let them take us up the árse.

    A bit dramatic?

    Of all the motorways built, and electricity cables assembled across peoples land, this seems, to me, to be the first case of a homeowner refusing access and turning down any compensation. Or perhaps there is someone else?
    Also, going underground doesn't seem to have been a viable option. Otherwise they would have done it.

    She has 100 acres of land someone said? Well excuse me, but she is a massive landowner and I'm finding it very hard to find pity for her. She doesn't need sympathy.


  • Options
    #64
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Google "Eirgrid protests" and you'll find there have been protests many times before.


  • Options
    #65
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    joseph brand wrote: »
    She has 100 acres of land someone said? Well excuse me, but she is a massive landowner and I'm finding it very hard to find pity for her. She doesn't need sympathy.

    Sorry, so because she happens to be lucky/well off enough to own a significant amount of land we shouldn't feel sympathetic? There's some lovely inverted snobbery for you.
    As far as I'm concerned, it's her property and she should be able to refuse ESB entrence. It's not like they needed to get at existing pylons etc that were already on her land. She's entitled to privacy on her own property.

    I don't get why people think this is ok....?


  • Options
    #66
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    joseph brand wrote: »
    AAlso, going underground doesn't seem to have been a viable option. Otherwise they would have done it.

    It was too expensive for them. Cheaper to go above ground.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    Sorry, so because she happens to be lucky/well off enough to own a significant amount of land we shouldn't feel sympathetic? There's some lovely inverted snobbery for you.
    As far as I'm concerned, it's her property and she should be able to refuse ESB entrence. It's not like they needed to get at existing pylons etc that were already on her land. She's entitled to privacy on her own property.

    I don't get why people think this is ok....?
    Because there has to be a balance between the needs of the many and the wants of the few.

    Allowing someone to block needed infrastructure because they want a few nice trees on their ample land would be illogical. There's no ethical issue here.

    If they were looking to pull down her home, or build them right beside it, she may have a point. But they're going to pull down a few trees on her land and pay her a ****load of money to do so. Anyone with a sound mind can see that's a reasonable thing to do in the national interest. But there's no reasoning with some people.


  • Options
    #68
    stephendevlin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,307 ✭✭✭stephendevlin


    Id plant mines...:D


  • Options
    #69
    Zen65
    Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    Hang on, it's her propery they want to ransack, why should she let them?

    Because she lives in a democratic country where the wealth of the individual (this lady owns at least 100 acres, so by any definition she is wealthy) does not allow them to prevent the construction of national infrastructure. Perhaps the sympathy being felt towards this woman is associated with her age and gender rather than the facts of the case?

    What if the landowner was in fact a leading politician or well-known wealthy celebrity? The rights and wrongs would be the same, but I suspect there would be little sympathy for them.

    If every landowner in the country took the same view as this lady we would have no infrastructure to speak of, and the collective wealth and well-being of our citizens would be diminished as a result. I do genuinely dislike the idea of sending this woman to jail, but the laws are there to protect the people, not just the wealthy land-owners.

    In any event "ransacked" is a misleading term. It's a forest, so a few trees need to be cut down to build the line. Trees can be planted to replace the loss. Putting the line into the trees hides it from general view so it's probably exactly the right thing to do.


    Z


  • Options
    #70
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    We will idly stand by and watch an old woman being imprisoned to protect her land.
    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    It isn't a sexism or ageism issue.
    I must have let the words old woman fool me there.


    Afaik, Eirgrid doesn't have the same rights as ESB and so cannot enter private lands as ESB can.
    I guess we'll have to wait for the trial to find out.


  • Options
    #71
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    seamus wrote: »
    Because there has to be a balance between the needs of the many and the wants of the few.

    Allowing someone to block needed infrastructure because they want a few nice trees on their ample land would be illogical. There's no ethical issue here.
    I think it was the going to jail for it was the main problem.
    and pay her a ****load of money to do so.
    When someone does not want to sell something, its ok to force them, once the money is high to the average person? Maybe it is.
    Anyone with a sound mind can see that's a reasonable thing to do in the national interest. But there's no reasoning with some people.

    Would you object to a landfill close to your house, thats not even on your property, or would you just accept it because it might be in the national interest?

    Its the usual boards thing anyway, object to others actions for something you might do yourself in certain circumstances.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Zen65
    Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned, it's her property and she should be able to refuse ESB entrence. It's not like they needed to get at existing pylons etc that were already on her land. She's entitled to privacy on her own property.

    Many of the old roads in Ireland have twists and bends in them because wealthy landowners were able to refuse Local Authorities the right to enter their lands (and the LA's were too poor to pursue the matter through the courts). Hence our roads were just dreadfully slow (I'm old enough to remember driving cross-country from Dublin to Cork, Galway, Donegal and the journey would take most of the day) and dangerous. Deaths on the roads were far more common than today, with "accident black spots" all over the place.

    So the many suffered because of the power and wealth of the few.

    New laws were passed to create the NRA and give it far stronger powers to acquire lands. The result is a far safer & faster road network. Those who stood in the way of the NRA were taken to court and forced to comply. The needs of the many prevailed.

    This woman is a throw-back to those olden times. We can admire her courage and conviction, not to mention her passion for her craft (growing trees). I certainly do admire those qualities in her. But behind it all is her unfounded and selfish belief that her wants are more important than the needs of the citizens of Ireland, and I cannot admire that in anyone. It is at its core the very same set of values which prompted our political leaders (and bankers, and developers, etc) to act in the corrupt way they did for so many years.


    Z


  • Options
    #73
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    biko wrote: »
    I must have let the words old woman fool me there.


    Afaik, Eirgrid doesn't have the same rights as ESB and so cannot enter private lands as ESB can.
    I guess we'll have to wait for the trial to find out.

    She is infact a woman and elderly. My second comment you qouted still holds true.


  • Options
    #74
    Paparazzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    Sorry, so because she happens to be lucky/well off enough to own a significant amount of land we shouldn't feel sympathetic? There's some lovely inverted snobbery for you.
    As far as I'm concerned, it's her property and she should be able to refuse ESB entrence. It's not like they needed to get at existing pylons etc that were already on her land. She's entitled to privacy on her own property.

    I don't get why people think this is ok....?

    Because people need electricity. It we did it your way half the country wouldn't have it. Entire towns without it unless every house and business had an individual generator. No running water, or roads either.
    Your utopian world doesn't look to rosey to me


  • Options
    #75
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Paparazzo wrote: »
    Because people need electricity. It we did it your way half the country wouldn't have it. Entire towns without it unless every house and business had an individual generator. No running water, or roads either.
    Your utopian world doesn't look to rosey to me

    Its ok though, luckily she is locked away where she belongs, so no national blackouts thankfully.


  • Options
    #76
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Zen65 wrote: »
    The needs of the many prevailed.

    We are borg, resistance is futile.


  • Options
    #77
    Paparazzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Its ok though, luckily she is locked away where she belongs, so no national blackouts thankfully.

    I hate using rolleyes, but...:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #78
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    I think it was the going to jail for it was the main problem.
    Because it's reported incorrectly to make it appear like the ESB are having her jailed. She's going to jail for contempt of court. Rightly so. I've no sympathy for anyone who defies a court order because if we allow people to do so then we may as well abandon the court system.
    When someone does not want to sell something, its ok to force them, once the money is high to the average person? Maybe it is.
    Provided that the compensation properly covers the disruption and/or loss that is suffered by the person. While I have strong feelings about the inviolability of a person's home, I'm less strong on the inviolability of property. Property is a commodity, like any other, which can be converted to cash at no loss to the previous owner. Trees are commodities, and replaceable ones at that. Sentimental value is irrelevant. Provided that the conversion to cash is done fairly, and for valid social reasons, I will not defend anyone's right to sit on land or commodities "just because".
    Would you object to a landfill close to your house, thats not even on your property, or would you just accept it because it might be in the national interest?
    Provided that it will have no effect on me or my family in the way of health (including issues with smell, noise, and water supply), then no I wouldn't. In fact, I would even have a right to object.


  • Options
    #79
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    seamus wrote: »
    Provided that it will have no effect on me or my family in the way of health (including issues with smell, noise, and water supply), then no I wouldn't. In fact, I would even have a right to object.

    Yes in boards world you wouldnt object to a dump next door, but the reality is, you know well you would if it happened, despite how you say you would accept it on here.


  • Options
    #80
    FortyPlusHubby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 79 ✭✭FortyPlusHubby


    focus_mad wrote: »
    I believe best practice is to have the "cabling" underground?

    Really? Where was that declared? Take a look around anywhere in the USA and you'll see all the transmission grid is overhead. Even in the middle of some cities.


  • Options
    #81
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Yes in boards world you wouldnt object to a dump next door, but the reality is, you know well you would if it happened, despite how you say you would accept it on here.
    Nope. In fact, I can think of perfect place about 1km away from me, across the road from the halting site and about 300m away from any houses.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Its far cheaper to run them overhead, as well as other factors.


  • Options
    #83
    FortyPlusHubby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 79 ✭✭FortyPlusHubby


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Would you object to a landfill close to your house, thats not even on your property, or would you just accept it because it might be in the national interest?

    I live within a stone's throw of a landfill, it's well run and I don't experience any adverse effects from it (no noise, smell, or dust). I can't say I'd object to have power lines near me either.

    40pH


  • Options
    #84
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,941 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    When someone does not want to sell something, its ok to force them, once the money is high to the average person? Maybe it is.

    People have had to sell a lot more than trees to satisfy compulsory purchase orders.

    ⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥



  • Options
    #85
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Stark wrote: »
    People have had to sell a lot more than trees to satisfy compulsory purchase orders.

    My point is, people are suggesting she is wrong to object, one of the factors based on being offered money.


  • Options
    #86
    cyrusdvirus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,752 ✭✭✭cyrusdvirus


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    My point is, people are suggesting she is wrong to object, one of the factors based on being offered money.

    No one is objecting to her objecting. No one is saying she was wrong to object.

    But she defied a court order. and THAT is wrong


  • Options
    #87
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,941 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    robbie7730 wrote:
    My point is, people are suggesting she is wrong to object, one of the factors based on being offered money.

    She's not wrong for objecting. She's wrong for being in contempt of court after her objections were rejected.

    ⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥



  • Options
    #88
    Paparazzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Yes in boards world you wouldnt object to a dump next door, but the reality is, you know well you would if it happened, despite how you say you would accept it on here.
    There's 2x220kv overhead lines, 2x38kv lines and a motorway within 100m of my house. Were not all nimbys.
    And can you explain how electricity can be transmitted around the country if land owners could simply refuse access to their land? Same goes for motorways.


  • Options
    #89
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    FortyPlusHubby wrote: »
    I live within a stone's throw of a landfill, it's well run and I don't experience any adverse effects from it (no noise, smell, or dust). I can't say I'd object to have power lines near me either.

    Many posters are saying the woman had little or no right to object, needs of many etc. But the many citizens in ireland would object to any forced use of lands or property, even if a few come on here saying they wouldnt be bothered at all. Im not really saying she was right or wrong to object, just that many othets would as well, even if they say they wouldnt on here.


  • Options
    #90
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    My point is, people are suggesting she is wrong to object, one of the factors based on being offered money.
    I'm not suggesting she was wrong to object. She has a right to object. But when that objection is overturned and you have no further legal means with which to appeal, then stand aside and let them get on with it.

    The purpose of the right to object or appeal is specifically to add balance to the equation and prevent the state riding roughshod over people. It's critical. But once you have exhausted those rights, then it's been determined that your objections do not trump the requirement for which your land is being purchased.

    Rights carry obligations. With the right to appeal comes the obligation to accept the outcome of that appeal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    GetWithIt
    Registered Users Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭GetWithIt


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Its far cheaper to run them overhead, as well as other factors.
    I've only read the first page and last page (like many others I'm sure) but in order to put the cables under ground wouldn't you have to dig up the trees first?

    I'm fully expecting a Fry from Futurama meme style response.

    (Edit) ala: http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/newsfeed/000/131/351/eb6.jpg


Advertisement