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

Bruthal

seamus wrote: »

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

Even if its the appeal of a convicted innocent man? Thats a strong obligation.

Bruthal

Paparazzo wrote: »

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.

I also hate the roll eyes thing, but i try avoiding stuff i hate, although not always.

FortyPlusHubby

robbie7730 wrote: »

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.

I didn't see anyone say she was wrong to object. This is a democracy so everyone has that right. What most people are saying here is that in a democracy there must be law and order, and the courts found in favour of EirGrid, so her objection was not upheld.

To defy the court order is wrong, and that's why she's in prison. Nobody but herself is responsible for that.


40pH

abelard

I guess what will happen is she will stay in Mountjoy until the work can be completed and she'll be released then. I imagine Eirgrid will soak up the court costs themselves. And I imagine the court will not require her to purge her contempt but just let her walk. Essentially she is being put in prison to keep her out of the way while the work can be carried out, and will be freed once it's done, or sooner if they reach a point where she can't hold things up any more. Whether that's right or wrong is up to everyone to decide individually.

SillyMcCarthy

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

How this story isn't been made a big deal shows how sleep like we have become in this country. We will idly stand by and watch an old woman being imprisoned to protect her land. I thought we had moved on from that.

Absolutely shocking story, ESB and our courts should be ashamed of themselves.

She's standing in the way of progress!
I worked with a guy who said there was no way they were getting his land
when a motorway was being built! A compulsory purchase order was placed against it, so though sh*te!

Bruthal

FortyPlusHubby wrote: »

of EirGrid, so her objection was not upheld.

To defy the court order is wrong, and that's why she's in prison. Nobody but herself is responsible for that.


40pH

Well that could be said, or it could be said she is in prison for stopping people going onto her land, and the court said she cant stop them, so she is in prison for stopping people going onto her land to install plant on it, even if you want to disconnect the court order from the event.

Anyway, my whole point was, while many will say she is in contempt of court and so should be jailed, they might just have a similar stance if in the exact same or similar circumstances themselves, but of course not while on their keyboards.

Kintarō Hattori

biko wrote: »

Everyone wants power and motorways but not in their backyard.

I'd happily do without motorways and if wind turbines were more affordable I'd do my best to live 'off the grid'.

Seanachai

jdooley28 wrote: »

can nobody else see they are just f..kin trees..trees like! Its a nuthouse she should be locked up in not a jail do

Ireland needs all the NATIVE woodland that it can get instead of the poxy regimented conifer plantations that we have everywhere. Woodland is an invaluable aesthetic resource that needs to be preserved. Plus the fact that the woodland was on this woman's private land. I know of a case in rural Cork where the locals banded together and succeeded in getting the ESB to install underground cabling so it seems like an unnecessary act of destruction.

Seanachai

FortyPlusHubby wrote: »

I didn't see anyone say she was wrong to object. This is a democracy so everyone has that right. What most people are saying here is that in a democracy there must be law and order, and the courts found in favour of EirGrid, so her objection was not upheld.

To defy the court order is wrong, and that's why she's in prison. Nobody but herself is responsible for that.


40pH

To defy the court order may be illegal. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.

joseph brand

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....?

First time I ever heard that phrase. You're right though, it IS terrible this 'inverted snobbery'. I've been looking UP my nose at the gambling bankers for a while now, and the Royal family in England. With their golden toilets and what not.
Shame on me. I should give em all a break. Ahahahaha.
Are you for real?

seamus

robbie7730 wrote: »

Even if its the appeal of a convicted innocent man? Thats a strong obligation.

A convicted man is not innocent. He may be factually innocent, but he's not legally so.
The legal system isn't perfect, but it's the framework we have in place and in order for society to function, everyone must abide by it. Some are hard done by, most aren't.

joseph brand

robbie7730 wrote: »

I think it was the going to jail for it was the main problem.


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.



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.

Awwww, now we're onto landfills?
They didn't try to build a stinkin landfill or put in another Dale Farm on her land. Just a clean, non-polluting mast. Did you read the story?

joseph brand

Zen65 wrote: »

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

/claps
BTW if you want to see some of those very dangerous winding roads, drive from Athboy to Mullingar. Treacherous. 'Dangerous bends ahead' signs every 50 meters.

Bruthal

seamus wrote: »

A convicted man is not innocent. He may be factually innocent, but he's not legally so.

The legal view wont change the fact, he is innocent. A person who commits no crime is an innocent man even if convicted. Dress it up how you like. If you believe a wrongly convicted person is guilty only because the law says he is, and wrongly says it, then there is a problem in that view.

Some are hard done by, most aren't.

Ok, so if you were wrongly convicted, you will just accept your new found guilt, comforted by the fact that most around you are in fact guilty, coupled with the obligation you gave yourself to accept the appeal decision even if its wrong.

Stark

Are you saying we should allow convicted criminals to make their own decisions as to whether to go to jail or not so they don't feel hard done by?

Bruthal

Stark wrote: »

Are you saying we should allow convicted criminals to make their own decisions as to whether to go to jail or not so they don't feel hard done by?

If you point out where i said that, it might help, or maybe read the posts associated with my last post.

Bruthal

seamus wrote: »

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

robbie7730 wrote: »

Even if its the appeal of a convicted innocent man? Thats a strong obligation.

Maybe that explains it a little stark.

Freddie59

Right. Firstly, i wouldn't like one in MY back garden. But I live in a city, so there is a large population of these things (along with mobile phone masts, TV masts, etc). It's the price we pay for progress.

I'm glad that those who went before us hadn't our attitudes, or you would probably never have seen rural electrification. (That ridiculous carry-on about Shell springs to mind).

The courts made a decision. IT HAS TO BE OBEYED. End of story.

Regarding undergounding the cables:

1. It is cost prohibitive.

2. Do people actually believe that radiation won't seep UPWARDS?

seamus

robbie7730 wrote: »

Ok, so if you were wrongly convicted, you will just accept your new found guilt, comforted by the fact that most around you are in fact guilty, coupled with the obligation you gave yourself to accept the appeal decision even if its wrong.

I wouldn't accept the decision, however I would accept that as far as the legal system is concerned I am guilty, so I am not suddenly going to expect them to release me because I say so and I would continue to pursue every legal avenue available to me to assert my innocence.

The key here being legal avenue. We can't just allow people to decide which legal rulings they do and do not abide by.

The "innocent man" argument is a strawman. It doesn't relate to this issue at all. She defied a court order, she broke the law.

Stark

robbie7730 wrote:

Maybe that explains it a little stark.

But who decides who's innocent or who's not? If a court decides you're guilty, you have to accept that. If as a society we decide that a court isn't fit to make that decision, then everyone can walk free.

What method would you use so that we can let people decide themselves whether or not to accept court decisions without having anarchy?

Bruthal

Stark wrote: »

But who decides who's innocent or who's not? If a court decides you're guilty, you have to accept that.

I doubt you would accept it as easily if you were wrongly convicted of murder for example. But read the posts. All i said was the claimed obligation seamus mentions to accept the outcome of an appeal would be a hard obligation to keep, if you are in fact innocent. I said nothing about people deciding their own sentence.

Not that that is the same as the case here. It was a simple post i made, about how appeals can be completely wrong. It was not a claim that convicted people should decide their own fate. You came up with that yourself.

Bruthal

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't accept the decision, however I would accept that as far as the legal system is concerned I am guilty, so I am not suddenly going to expect them to release me because I say so and I would continue to pursue every legal avenue available to me to assert my innocence.

I never said release anyone convicted though, did i?. I said the obligation you mention that we would have to accept its outcome when appealing a wrong conviction, or a wrong decision, i simply said you would not be so obliging if you are innocent, and would not just sit back if the appeal failed. Thats all i said, and the reason i said it was because appeals can be wrong in their outcome.

I made no mention oif releasing anyone, innocent or guilty.

The "innocent man" argument is a strawman. It doesn't relate to this issue at all. She defied a court order, she broke the law.

So everyone that breaks the law should be jailed?

Handy11

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well that could be said, or it could be said she is in prison for stopping people going onto her land, and the court said she cant stop them, so she is in prison for stopping people going onto her land to install plant on it, even if you want to disconnect the court order from the event.

Anyway, my whole point was, while many will say she is in contempt of court and so should be jailed, they might just have a similar stance if in the exact same or similar circumstances themselves, but of course not while on their keyboards.

It's not a question of people saying whether she is in contempt of court or not. She is in contempt of court. That is a fact, as that is what she is currently being jailed for. If I stood in contempt of court I would also have to be 100% prepared to take my punishment (jail time). She can object and appeal all she likes, and I respect her right to do that. But you can't disobey the court. If you do you go to jail. That's fairly basic.

seamus

robbie7730 wrote: »

I made no mention oif releasing anyone, innocent or guilty.

It's what you implied. Yes, it's a tough obligation, but the only way to not comply with that obligation is to break the law. If I was wrongly convicted, I would know that any attempt to skip jail or leave the country would be in itself a distinct crime and I could rightfully be arrested for that.

So everyone that breaks the law should be jailed?

*facepalm*
You're going on about innocence. She's not. That's why your argument is a strawman.

Let's use a more relevant example; The local council has decided that in order to accomodate a new roadway they need to bulldoze my house. They offer me well over the market value for the house, including any moving-related expenses and give me six months to find somewhere new to live.
But I don't want to move, I like where I live, so I appeal to the courts. The appeal finds against me.

While I wouldn't be happy about the outcome, would I instead chain myself inside the house until I was heard? No. Because I understand that the world doesn't revolve around what I want, and if my state has decided that the state's needs trump my wishes (and I'm being amply compensated for the disruption), then I will respect that.

I accept that because I live in a society, that my individual opinion can't force the rest of society to do what I want. So even when it doesn't go my way, I accept it because that's how society works.

Handy11

Seanachai wrote: »

To defy the court order may be illegal. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.

If the courts don't decide that, then who does? There has to be a standard set somewhere.

Cee-Jay-Cee

longhalloween wrote: »

Hold on now, so does that mean the ESB can roll up to anyones house, say 'sorry luv we have to dig up your garden and stick a pylon in' and that's legal?

Grand it's all for the greater good or whatever but if you own a property, shouldn't it be YOUR property?

And so what if they were trees?? that could easily have been a shed or a garage in the way! Is she going to be compensated for the destruction of her property?

The ESB dont route their power lines through peoples gardens, they generally route them through open country side away from urban or heavily populated areas so your arguement is a non starter.

I'm sure that she has or will be compensated for the inconvenience she may suffer from it all.

She's a stubborn stupid old woman with no regard for any one or anything but herself so why should any one else give a fúck about her....i certainly dont!

Handy11

robbie7730 wrote: »

The legal view wont change the fact, he is innocent. A person who commits no crime is an innocent man even if convicted. Dress it up how you like. If you believe a wrongly convicted person is guilty only because the law says he is, and wrongly says it, then there is a problem in that view.

Ok, so if you were wrongly convicted, you will just accept your new found guilt, comforted by the fact that most around you are in fact guilty, coupled with the obligation you gave yourself to accept the appeal decision even if its wrong.

If you are wrongly convicted, you still must follow the rules of your conviction, whilst employing all legal means to appeal to have the conviction overturned. There is no alternative to accepting the punishment within the bounds of the law.

FortyPlusHubby

robbie7730 wrote: »

Even if its the appeal of a convicted innocent man? Thats a strong obligation.

That is however at the heart of democracy, and the rule of law.

Of course there may be bad laws, but I don't see any bad laws in this case. National infrastructure is a necessity, and it must be built at a reasonable cost. The case went to court and was ruled upon. The courts sometimes find against state bodies (look at all the court cases relating to medical negligence by the HSE for example), and by and large they do seem to be fairly impartial.

Neither do I see an innocent person being sent to prison here. The lady has made it clear she will not uphold the laws of the country where she has been given the right of citizenship. Why should we accept that? If she was a sister of a prominent FF politician we'd be far from sympathetic, no?


40pH

sensibleken

I would like to thank the courts for putting this dangerous criminal behind bars while at the same time give a suspended sentence to the guy who burgled my house, had 17 previous convictions and then went on to commit attempted murder against me.

I thought judges were supposed to be intelligent?

smash

Reports from the photography forum say the ESB were in there yesterday cutting her trees down.