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

joela

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The towers will be 200m apart. Since they say towers then one has to assume that there would be more than one on her land.

T---T----T---T


T\_________/T

So you are talking about 600m under ground.


http://www.trenchlessonline.com/index/webapp-stories-action?id=434 the record for microtunneling is 1625feet which is just under 500m,

of course if there would be three or more towers...

Sorry I'm not sure what you are saying, my previous post was a joke one following on from previous jokey ones with another poster.

joela

Zimmerframe wrote: »

micro- tunneling -I think, he was taking the Micky

Cheers and I is a she not a he

Zimmerframe

joela wrote: »

Cheers and I is a she not a he

Apologies

She was taking the Micky

theparish

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/free-teresa-treacy-the-woman-who-stood-up-to-eigrid-an.html">FREE TERESA TREACY, WHO STOOD UP TO EIGRID & THE ESB Petition | GoPetition</a>

Because I'd prefer if prisoners were rapists or murderers above is a link to a petition to have the poor woman freed.

joela

theparish wrote: »

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/free-teresa-treacy-the-woman-who-stood-up-to-eigrid-an.html">FREE TERESA TREACY, WHO STOOD UP TO EIGRID & THE ESB Petition | GoPetition</a>

Because I'd prefer if prisoners were rapists or murderers above is a link to a petition to have the poor woman freed.

Errr what? Have you actually put any thought into what you just posted? She can free herself this very minute if she just purged her contempt of court and abided by the law like the rest of us poor drones:rolleyes:

Peetrik

supernoob wrote: »

Well, it seems she did get sent to prison for preventing trespass as far as I can make out.

Trespassing is going on someone's land without their permission.

A court ordered her to let someone else enter her land, but she never gave her permission, so therefore they were still trespassing, albeit with the courts permission.
So she was still preventing trespass given that they did not in fact have her permission and the judge said that unless she allowed them on her land she would be sent to prison.

The court doesn't have the power to make her give her permission, they can demand that she does and they can send her to prison if she doesn't, but they can't make her give her permission, or else they would have done so.
Instead they sentenced her to prison.

I don't really get how people can say this is an issue of law and order when it's obvious the law in this country is totally out of order.

How can people say what's happening to her is right or correct because 'it's the law' when 'the law' failed us utterly at a time when we needed it more than at any other time in the history of this state ?

The fact that the legal system and bodies of laws in this country have nothing to say about what happened in govt, regulatory bodies, banking sector etc. but are all about land and property disputes and forcing private citizens to comply with their orders means that 'the law' in this country does not in fact stand to protect the citizens of this country from those with power or resources at their disposal but the other way around.

It just amazes me that with this country still falling around our ears and a deafening silence coming from the instruments of law and order on what happened people can still say that sending this woman to prison is about law and order.

This is about the people who have positions of power and influence over matters of law such as our elected politicians and the judiciary, making no effort to ensure that matters such as tenants rights being adequately protected, or that the regulator was actually doing it's job when all the financial skulduggery was going on, are adequately covered in the bodies of law on the statute books, but still making sure that they can pass court orders to allow powerful bodies such as the ESB access whatever land they want and cut down whatever trees they want.

This is about making sure that the country can function in order to pay it's Bailout back and tip along while we quietly ignore what really happened here
and the fact that the govt was up to it's neck in it, so that nothing really changes.The affluent retain their influence over how things are really run and everyone else foots the bill and asks no questions while tut tutting at a women who forgot her place and deserves what she's getting because it's a matter of law and order.

This case came about because the ESB demanded action, and paid lawyers to make it happen.
As far as I'm aware there was an article in the paper in which a lawyer stated that there is no law currently written which requires her to give access to her land.

The fact that a court issued an order does not mean that the order would have stood up to being challenged in court, which does not appear to have happened here as she was in fact unrepresented in court.

Also don't forget that this court order arose because the ESB paid to have a legal argument put before a judge who then made the order in what was in fact a property access dispute, not because the forces of law and order were swift in addressing a crime that had gone unpunished and seeing that justice was done.

If this lady had been adequately represented in court it's not clear that the order would ever have been granted, as the judge would be required to take into account any counter argument such as requiring an independent costing of going underground etc.

It strikes me as being a lot more serious for this country than people realise as this and the Shell to sea cases and who knows how many others prove that 'the law' is and always was capable of serious and stern action in addressing matters of individuals being put in their place when they get out of step, whether it's housebreaking or violent crime or telling the ESB no.
Unfortunately, it's dealing with those in positions of power of influence when they get out of line, don't even pretend to do their job, or blatantly abuse their powers that 'the law' does not seem capable of doing, or has no interest or business in doing.

.... sheesh.

...exactly what this person said

Zen65

supernoob wrote: »

I don't really get how people can say this is an issue of law and order when it's obvious the law in this country is totally out of order.

Are you aware of any other country in Europe where a landowner can legally refuse permission for a transmission line which has been passed through the Planning Permission process? I have driven though many of the countries in Europe and their lines go through private land just as much as they do here. Where would our infrastructure be if private landowners could simply say "no" whenever they wanted?

If the trees were in any way special surely An Bord Pleanala would not have allowed the line to get PP?


Z

Paparazzo

supernoob wrote: »

Well, it seems she did get sent to prison for preventing trespass as far as I can make out.

Trespassing is going on someone's land without their permission.

A court ordered her to let someone else enter her land, but she never gave her permission, so therefore they were still trespassing, albeit with the courts permission.
So she was still preventing trespass given that they did not in fact have her permission and the judge said that unless she allowed them on her land she would be sent to prison.

The court doesn't have the power to make her give her permission, they can demand that she does and they can send her to prison if she doesn't, but they can't make her give her permission, or else they would have done so.
Instead they sentenced her to prison.

I don't really get how people can say this is an issue of law and order when it's obvious the law in this country is totally out of order.

How can people say what's happening to her is right or correct because 'it's the law' when 'the law' failed us utterly at a time when we needed it more than at any other time in the history of this state ?

The fact that the legal system and bodies of laws in this country have nothing to say about what happened in govt, regulatory bodies, banking sector etc. but are all about land and property disputes and forcing private citizens to comply with their orders means that 'the law' in this country does not in fact stand to protect the citizens of this country from those with power or resources at their disposal but the other way around.

It just amazes me that with this country still falling around our ears and a deafening silence coming from the instruments of law and order on what happened people can still say that sending this woman to prison is about law and order.

This is about the people who have positions of power and influence over matters of law such as our elected politicians and the judiciary, making no effort to ensure that matters such as tenants rights being adequately protected, or that the regulator was actually doing it's job when all the financial skulduggery was going on, are adequately covered in the bodies of law on the statute books, but still making sure that they can pass court orders to allow powerful bodies such as the ESB access whatever land they want and cut down whatever trees they want.

This is about making sure that the country can function in order to pay it's Bailout back and tip along while we quietly ignore what really happened here
and the fact that the govt was up to it's neck in it, so that nothing really changes.The affluent retain their influence over how things are really run and everyone else foots the bill and asks no questions while tut tutting at a women who forgot her place and deserves what she's getting because it's a matter of law and order.

This case came about because the ESB demanded action, and paid lawyers to make it happen.
As far as I'm aware there was an article in the paper in which a lawyer stated that there is no law currently written which requires her to give access to her land.

The fact that a court issued an order does not mean that the order would have stood up to being challenged in court, which does not appear to have happened here as she was in fact unrepresented in court.

Also don't forget that this court order arose because the ESB paid to have a legal argument put before a judge who then made the order in what was in fact a property access dispute, not because the forces of law and order were swift in addressing a crime that had gone unpunished and seeing that justice was done.

If this lady had been adequately represented in court it's not clear that the order would ever have been granted, as the judge would be required to take into account any counter argument such as requiring an independent costing of going underground etc.

It strikes me as being a lot more serious for this country than people realise as this and the Shell to sea cases and who knows how many others prove that 'the law' is and always was capable of serious and stern action in addressing matters of individuals being put in their place when they get out of step, whether it's housebreaking or violent crime or telling the ESB no.
Unfortunately, it's dealing with those in positions of power of influence when they get out of line, don't even pretend to do their job, or blatantly abuse their powers that 'the law' does not seem capable of doing, or has no interest or business in doing.

.... sheesh.

What have the banks got to do with anything? Can I go out and break whatever laws I feel like because the courts didn't deal with the banks?
She went to prison for contempt of court. And as for the bit in bold:
Electricity Supply Act 1927

(9) Where the Board or an authorised undertaker is authorised by or under this section to place or retain any electric line across any land or to attach or retain any fixture on any building the Board or such authorised undertaker (as the case may be) may at any time enter on such land or building for the purpose of placing, repairing, or altering such line or such fixture or any line or apparatus supported by such fixture

And you're not a trespasser if you have a right to be there.
And no one has answered the question yet: How can a country provide electricity if you think it's perfectly ok for landowners to refuse purchase or use of their land? And the same goes for roads? Say for instance a few landowners in important locations near Tralee didn't want anything build on the lands. The entire dingle peninsula gets cut off from the rest of the country? Wake up ffs.

Peetrik

My main concern is that what the ESB has done is morally reprehensible. Imprisoning an old lady and cutting down nearly 1000 trees on her property against her will.

Paparazzo wrote: »

How can a country provide electricity if you think it's perfectly ok for landowners to refuse purchase or use of their land? And the same goes for roads? Say for instance a few landowners in important locations near Tralee didn't want anything build on the lands. The entire dingle peninsula gets cut off from the rest of the country? Wake up ffs.

An individual should have EVERY right to refuse purchase of land they own, especially to a company that is ment to be competing in "a liberalised and competitive market".

There are national roads leading to every corner of Ireland so your landowners cutting off Dingle, or any other place, idea is ridiculous.

billybudd

Peetrik wrote: »

My main concern is that what the ESB has done is morally reprehensible. Imprisoning an old lady and cutting down nearly 1000 trees on her property against her will.



An individual should have EVERY right to refuse purchase of land they own, especially to a company that is ment to be competing in "a liberalised and competitive market".

There are national roads leading to every corner of Ireland so your landowners cutting off Dingle, or any other place, idea is ridiculous.

Because the majority of people accept whatever is thrown at them, they use the law to justify their own cowardly behaviour.

sensibleken

Patser wrote: »

I bet when your dangerous criminal was in court. he said he was very sorry and wouldn't do it again. So the judge gave him a suspended sentence as a warning.

When the Judge in this case asked the Lady will she stop breaking the law, she effectively said no, I intend to break it as soon as I get home and not stop. What was the judge to do in this case?

It sucks that bad things happen and skangers walk free but to have some-one say to the Judge 'Yes I will defy you as soon as I'm out' cannot be tolerated. Same would've happened if your burglar had said something similar. That's why she's in jail and as soon as she says she won't break the law (and complies), she'll be out. It's her choice.

Afraid not buddy. no apology was made, no admission of guilt. It was spelled out to the judge that this guy had an incredibly dangerous history, ie 17 previous for firearms, breaking and entering, drugs etc going back 20 years. he then a few weeks later tried and very nearly succeeded to kill me and my girlfriend by setting the house on fire at night. And im afraid to say he's still loose

not only that but there were 6 other trials before this one on the day, all repeat offenders, all violent or highly dangerous and all got suspended sentences. The reason we were told was that theres no room in the jails. Not for violent repeat offenders who are a danger to the public but for old ladies who insult a judges ego aparantly.

Stark

Peetrik wrote: »

There are national roads leading to every corner of Ireland so your landowners cutting off Dingle, or any other place, idea is ridiculous.

There are plenty of instances of landowners blocking off access to tourist sites by closing off old pedestrian rights of way and putting gates across roads. Just because Dingle has a national road going into it doesn't mean every square metre of the country is served by national road.

Peetrik

Stark wrote: »

There are plenty of instances of landowners blocking off access to tourist sites by closing off old pedestrian rights of way and putting gates across roads. Just because Dingle has a national road going into it doesn't mean every square metre of the country is served by national road.

This is a classic strawman arguement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).
We are not debating right of access for tourists or hillwalkers. We are talking about the rights of an old lady to refuse access to people who have stated they plan to (in her eyes, mine also for that matter) defile her land by felling hundreds of the trees she planted and grew herself all because it was cheaper for them to do so than to go around her property.
This is a case of corporate bullying plain and simple, what makes it worse is that it is being facilitated and abetted by the very institution that should there to protect her as a citizen

humanji

Peetrik wrote: »

My main concern is that what the ESB has done is morally reprehensible. Imprisoning an old lady and cutting down nearly 1000 trees on her property against her will.

ESB didn't put her in prison.

An individual should have EVERY right to refuse purchase of land they own, especially to a company that is ment to be competing in "a liberalised and competitive market".

There are national roads leading to every corner of Ireland so your landowners cutting off Dingle, or any other place, idea is ridiculous.

It's a perfect example, because this used to happen. A wealthy landowner would blackmail people with tolls they had to pay as they'd no choice but to cross their land.

In the above cases, laws were enacted to allow public roads to be built through such land, to benefit the nation. This is exactly what is happening here, except with electricity lines.

And something people have to keep in mind is that the ESB don't all sit at a whale bone table, eating dolphin steaks with ivory cutlery and using baby seals to wipe their mouths.

They take a lot of effort to plan out the routes to inconvenience as few people as possible. They put in planning permission and people can argue against it. When they get the full legal go ahead, then they start working. They didn't sit down one day and say "Who's trees will we destroy today?".

It's unfortunate that someone has to lose out, but it really is a case of her needs over the needs of many. It's funny people crying "Fascism". What do you call it when one person dictates to everyone else?

Peetrik

humanji wrote: »

ESB didn't put her in prison.

They are the reason she is in prison. They applied to the High Court for Teresa's committal, they are legally entitled to apply to the court for her release, they havent done this.

humanji wrote: »

It's a perfect example

Again, no its not. This is not a right of way issue. This is not a wealthy land barron charging a toll to impovrished serfs. This is an issue of state aided corporate vandalism to the property of a pensioner.

humanji wrote: »

really is a case of her needs over the needs of many

Wrong. This is a case of a citizens rights vs the desires of a corporation to save itself money.
Its profit over people and its a shameful shameful act for the EBS and for Judge Daniel Herbert.

Zen65

Stark wrote: »

There are plenty of instances of landowners blocking off access to tourist sites by closing off old pedestrian rights of way and putting gates across roads. Just because Dingle has a national road going into it doesn't mean every square metre of the country is served by national road.

One of the most notoriously dangerous roads in Donegal has sharp, blind bends for 1km or so purely because one wealthy landowner ("old money") refused to let Donegal Co Co buy a strip of land to widen & straighten it.

In almost every country in the world the national roads, gas, water & electric companies have the right to traverse any private land in order to deliver the necessary infrastructure to the nation. Why should we be different?

Z

joela

This line was given planning permission by Offaly Co Co in 2006, a number of people (not including Teresa Treacy) made submissions and it was referred to An Bord Pleanala. No complaint registered from Teresa Treacy and permission was granted. The alignment was tweaked 2 years later & planning granted by local authority with no submissions made. So why did she not utilize the planning process to argue her case? All info available on the internet for anyone who wants to look. Sounds like something else is going on here, maybe she didn't like the amount of money offered? It is ridiculous one person is causing so much hassle for everyone else.

humanji

Peetrik wrote: »

They are the reason she is in prison. They applied to the High Court for Teresa's committal, they are legally entitled to apply to the court for her release, they havent done this.

They are not the reason she is in prison. She is the reason she's in prison. She had plenty of time to legally challenge the work before hand, but didn't. They applied to the High Court to intervene. She decided the law didn't apply to her and was punished accordingly. The same as everyone else should.

And why would they apply for her release when she is actively trying to go against them? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Again, no its not. This is not a right of way issue. This is not a wealthy land barron charging a toll to impovrished serfs. This is an issue of state aided corporate vandalism to the property of a pensioner.

Eh, this is a wealthy land owner demanding that things are done her way or not at all. And all for her personal benefit. It's pretty much exactly what I'm talking about above.

Wrong. This is a case of a citizens rights vs the desires of a corporation to save itself money.

No, it's a case of one person thinking their wants outweigh other people's needs.

Its profit over people and its a shameful shameful act for the EBS and for Judge Daniel Herbert.

You're right, it's that woman's profit over the people of Ireland.

Zen65

Peetrik wrote: »

humanji: wrote:

ESB didn't put her in prison.

They are the reason she is in prison. They applied to the High Court for Teresa's committal, they are legally entitled to apply to the court for her release, they havent done this.

I stand to be corrected, but surely if this is a Transmission line it was not ESB but rather EirGrid who must have initiated the legal action? I know that the national media usually cannot grasp that the companies are entirely separate, but they are, in fairness.

They are the reason she is in prison. They applied to the High Court for Teresa's committal, they are legally entitled to apply to the court for her release, they havent done this.

I believe this is not correct. If she had been imprisoned for the complaint for which EirGrid made the committal order then yes maybe they could. However she has been imprisoned for contempt of court, so I doubt she can be released without purging herself.

Z

Zen65

Peetrik wrote: »

Its profit over people and its a shameful shameful act for the EBS and for Judge Daniel Herbert.

Well in fairness EBS (sic) do need the money after acquiring all those bad loans

As for the judge, well maybe despite his years of learning and his experience and having all of the facts in front of him he was not as wise as you!


Z

Peetrik

Zen65 wrote: »

As for the judge, well maybe despite his years of learning and his experience and having all of the facts in front of him he was not as wise as you!

Hahaha of course, Judges become infallible at the moment of their appointment, how silly of me for forgetting

loremolis

The conclusion to this stand-off is going to be interesting.

The woman is in prison.

She won't be released until she says sorry to the Muppet who put her there or until the ESB ask for her release.

Meanwhile, the ESB are still being prevented from carrying out the work because the womans supporters are stopping them.

The Gardai won't arrest those people because they are on private property and the court has made no order to have them locked up.

If the ESB do request that the woman is released then they know that she will continue to block them and they won't get another from the court to have her locked up.

This situation isn't going to do the ESB any favours.

I just hope that she gets some decent legal advice and gets them thrown off her land.

seamus

loremolis wrote: »

The Gardai won't arrest those people because they are on private property and the court has made no order to have them locked up.

The court can probably issue an order which specifically allows Eirgrid to carry out this work unhindered, which will give Gardai the scope to hold back any protestors.

loremolis

seamus wrote: »

The court can probably issue an order which specifically allows Eirgrid to carry out this work unhindered, which will give Gardai the scope to hold back any protestors.

"hold back any protestors"?

This isn't like the situation in Mayo.

The woman owns this land. The people blocking the ESB at the moment are apparently on the land with her permission.

joela

Right so because she owns the land the law has to be applied differently to her? So how do you plan on powering your home, office etc. when the power fails because well we all own our land and so we stop the infrastructure needed to power all these things we take for granted daily.

This is hilarious, she is in prison because she refused to abide by a court order, she had years to challenge the planning applications and to mount a legal challenge if she felt that strongly. Undergrounding should have pushed in 2006 & again 2008, she didn't even lodge against the planning reading the available info. She is just a woman who happens to be 65, who happens to have an illogical issue with a tiny percentage of her plantation being remove and is standing in the way of a cable for some inexplicable reason. Ridiculous, silly, ill-informed mass hysteria and people being absolutely over the top because she happens to be 65. If she was a teenager or in her 20's no one would be interested at all.

Peetrik

joela wrote: »

This is hilarious

Glad you find an elderly womans plight so funny.

joela wrote: »

she had years to challenge the planning applications and to mount a legal challenge if she felt that strongly.

I suppose, femal OAPs in Ireland are notorious legal eagles... not to mention computer hackers, they're always at that.

joela wrote: »

who happens to have an illogical issue with a tiny percentage of her plantation being remove

We're not talking about a few broken branches, this is 1200 of the poor womans trees that she planted and grew herself. Its very logical for her to have an objection to them being destroyed.

joela wrote: »

and is standing in the way of a cable for some inexplicable reason

She did explain it, the reasons for her objections have been explored indept. Your not making any sense here.

joela wrote: »

If she was a teenager or in her 20's no one would be interested at all.

Wrong again. If she was a young attractive female instead of an OAP a LOT more people would be very happy to champion her cause

Paparazzo

Peetrik wrote: »

My main concern is that what the ESB has done is morally reprehensible. Imprisoning an old lady and cutting down nearly 1000 trees on her property against her will.



An individual should have EVERY right to refuse purchase of land they own, especially to a company that is ment to be competing in "a liberalised and competitive market".

There are national roads leading to every corner of Ireland so your landowners cutting off Dingle, or any other place, idea is ridiculous.

Not sure you're getting it. We only have roads because we did the opposite of what you want. We wouldn't have any roads if the landowner had the right to refuse. And all we need is a couple of power lines falling down and by your logic the landowners could refuse access so you could have entire towns without power. Dreamworld. I'll ask again. Can you explain how a new road, new railway, new gas line, new water mains, new broadband connections, new electricity lines can be built if people can just refuse to sell?

loremolis

joela wrote: »

Right so because she owns the land the law has to be applied differently to her? So how do you plan on powering your home, office etc. when the power fails because well we all own our land and so we stop the infrastructure needed to power all these things we take for granted daily.

This is hilarious, she is in prison because she refused to abide by a court order, she had years to challenge the planning applications and to mount a legal challenge if she felt that strongly. Undergrounding should have pushed in 2006 & again 2008, she didn't even lodge against the planning reading the available info. She is just a woman who happens to be 65, who happens to have an illogical issue with a tiny percentage of her plantation being remove and is standing in the way of a cable for some inexplicable reason. Ridiculous, silly, ill-informed mass hysteria and people being absolutely over the top because she happens to be 65. If she was a teenager or in her 20's no one would be interested at all.

Do you work for the ESB or Eirgrid?

joela

No I don't but why should I even have to answer that question? I am entitled to my opinion and as it differs for you it means I work for ESB or EirGrid. Who do you work for?

What I did though is research the facts when people started to try to bully me via emotional media reports, facebook, twitter and when I saw the hate being directed at the contractors doing their jobs. ESB and Eirgrid may not be beyond reproach but the facts are clear to see that they went through the system as required, she didn't object to planning or take legal action so something else in entirely is happening here. She chose to fight them over a small number of trees from her forestry plantations (less than 20 years old) which they would replace and also pay her compensation money as well. I just don't believe the spin and hype and the more I read the more convinced I am that this lady is behaving in a selfish manner and should purge her contempt. Some of the supporters including her neighbour are quoted as never having met her, a neighbour!! His name is Cormac Lally it is in an article in the Examiner.

joela

Peetrik wrote: »

Glad you find an elderly womans plight so funny.



I suppose, femal OAPs in Ireland are notorious legal eagles... not to mention computer hackers, they're always at that.



We're not talking about a few broken branches, this is 1200 of the poor womans trees that she planted and grew herself. Its very logical for her to have an objection to them being destroyed.




She did explain it, the reasons for her objections have been explored indept. Your not making any sense here.



Wrong again. If she was a young attractive female instead of an OAP a LOT more people would be very happy to champion her cause

It isn't an OAP's plight, she made a very conscious decision to go to jail and like everyone else she could have hired a solicitor and used the law to argue her case.

Her land is hosting a forestry plantation a tiny percentage of which will be removed and then replanted. Her objections make no sense when you realise the facts of the case.

If she was a young woman there would be none of this ridiculous emotional "poor old woman" carry on. She has a classic case of nimbyism, her electricity comes from cables somewhere, hypocrisy much?