FREE Teresa Treacy!!!

superelectric

To find out why the ESB forced this frail 65 year old lady into Mountjoy Jail click on the following link: indymedia.ie / article/100498

And please don't forget to show your support for Teresa by signing the following petition:

petitiononline.ie / petition / free-teresa-treacy / 1323

(Due to boards.ie rules on displaying web addresses you'll need to cut and paste the urls into your web browser delete the spacing to access the links)

Handy11

She'll be free once she is no longer in contempt of court. ESB didn't put her there. The Irish legal and justice system did, according to the rules of the country that all the rest of us abide by. If I refused to recognise the right of the court to make me do something I didn't want to do, would you be campaining for my release? I think not. I'm not an elderly woman, see.

LaFlammeRouge

I hope she enjoys her stay at the Joy. The country cannot be held to ransom by a NIMBY.

loremolis

Handy11 wrote: »

She'll be free once she is no longer in contempt of court. ESB didn't put her there. The Irish legal and justice system did, according to the rules of the country that all the rest of us abide by. If I refused to recognise the right of the court to make me do something I didn't want to do, would you be campaining for my release? I think not. I'm not an elderly woman, see.

The ESB specifically sought an order from the courts to have her imprisoned.

If the ESB ask the courts to have her released then she will be released.

The courts are just doing what they're told.

loremolis

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

I hope she enjoys her stay at the Joy. The country cannot be held to ransom by a NIMBY.

If you owned property that was being destroyed then you'd feel differently.

Handy11

loremolis wrote: »

The courts are just doing what they're told.

That's a ridiculous statement. The courts applied the law of the land. She had ample opportunity to object during the planning process but never did. Why is that?

LaFlammeRouge

loremolis wrote: »

If you owned property that was being destroyed then you'd feel differently.

She lost the court hearing. I have no sympathy for her. None.

Handy11

loremolis wrote: »

If you owned property that was being destroyed then you'd feel differently.

A tiny portion of the trees on her 100 acre property are being cut (and are to be replanted, just like Coillte do all the time). It is not being destroyed. She wanted the cables put underground. That would have destroyed a lot more than the current plan. Cost more too.

I have sympathy for this woman and I respect her right to object to anything happening on her property. However, once all legal means are exhausted, then you have to accept the law of the land.

loremolis

Handy11 wrote: »

That's a ridiculous statement. The courts applied the law of the land. She had ample opportunity to object during the planning process but never did. Why is that?

The "law of the land"? Which law gives the ESB the right to enter onto this womans land, cut down hundreds of trees and imprison her for defending her rights?

I don't know for sure why she didn't object but perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the ESB don't have to notify landowners that they are making a planning application for an electricity line across their land.

Or maybe it's because the ESB don't have to erect a site notice anywhere along the route of the line.

Or maybe it's because they don't have to include a list of the landowners names in their planning application so a person would have to carefully check the maps attached to the planning permission to find out if their lands are going to be used.

Or maybe it's because the ESB deliberately target landowners who are elderly because they think that they will be easier to deal with or that they may not know that a planning application is being made on their land without their consent.

Handy11

There's a lot of maybes there. Plenty of objections were logged in the regular way. I personally would never campaign to have someone released from prison where I did not know the complete facts of the case.

loremolis

Handy11 wrote: »

There's a lot of maybes there. Plenty of objections were logged in the regular way. I personally would never campaign to have someone released from prison where I did not know the complete facts of the case.

The maybes were to highlight reasons she may have missed the planning application.

Not knowing the complete facts of the case didn't stop you from agreeing with her imprisonment.

LaFlammeRouge

loremolis wrote: »

The maybes were to highlight reasons she may have missed the planning application.

Not knowing the complete facts of the case didn't stop you from agreeing with her imprisonment.

Yeah an independent professional, the judge, heard all the facts.

Handy11

loremolis wrote: »

Not knowing the complete facts of the case didn't stop you from agreeing with her imprisonment.

Her imprisonment was because she refused to follow the order of the court, who was applying the law. I agree completely that if you break the law, according to a court, and insist that you will not uphold the court's ruling, then you should go to jail.

I'm all for objecting and appealing within the law. Once that is exhausted you HAVE to accept the judgement. Otherwise you are acting criminally.

loremolis

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

Yeah an independent professional, the judge, heard all the facts.

One Judge did hear all the facts and then a different Judge had her imprisoned.

Next your going to tell me that Judges never get it wrong.

Handy11

loremolis wrote: »

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

Yeah an independent professional, the judge, heard all the facts.

One Judge did hear all the facts and then a different Judge had her imprisoned.

Next your going to tell me that Judges never get it wrong.

Of course they do and there's legal means of appeal. If we don't take the judges decision as applying the law, though, who's should we take? There has to be a standard somewhere.

/ my participation in this thread. It is being argued in circles on Boards and there is too much drama made of it. Campaign away - a contempt of court order won't be overturned.

loremolis

Handy11 wrote: »

Of course they do and there's legal means of appeal. If we don't take the judges decision as applying the law, though, who's should we take? There has to be a standard somewhere.

/ my participation in this thread. It is being argued in circles on Boards and there is too much drama made of it. Campaign away - a contempt of court order won't be overturned.

I'm not campaigning for anything. I don't know the woman and I'm not losing any sleep over this.

I think that the punishment should fit the crime, which it doesn't in this instance.

You've conveniently ignored the point that a contempt doesn't need to be overturned if the ESB request her release.

How long do you think she should stay in prison to pay for her "crime"?

Amtmann

Sorry, wrong forum.