The battle of the Bog

freyners

from what I've heard (and forgive me if im wrong on this count, im only going on what I've been told) the compensation scheme is massively flawed.

How it was explained to me is that the compensation is paid out per person, not per bog. A lot of farmers have 3/4 banks that they either rent out for money or let their family members (brothers family, daughters family etc) cut turf off. Because the renter/family member doesnt own the bank they cant claim the compensation scheme and farmer cant claim for more than one bank which leaves 3/4 familys with diddly squat

Rasheed

freyners wrote: »

from what I've heard (and forgive me if im wrong on this count, im only going on what I've been told) the compensation scheme is massively flawed.

How it was explained to me is that the compensation is paid out per person, not per bog. A lot of farmers have 3/4 banks that they either rent out for money or let their family members (brothers family, daughters family etc) cut turf off. Because the renter/family member doesnt own the bank they cant claim the compensation scheme and farmer cant claim for more than one bank which leaves 3/4 familys with diddly squat

Ya fair point and I think you're right, never thought of that. I suppose getting the turf delivered and sharing it out or taking the other bog offered is the only way here.

MadsL

freyners wrote: »

from what I've heard (and forgive me if im wrong on this count, im only going on what I've been told) the compensation scheme is massively flawed.

How it was explained to me is that the compensation is paid out per person, not per bog. A lot of farmers have 3/4 banks that they either rent out for money or let their family members (brothers family, daughters family etc) cut turf off. Because the renter/family member doesnt own the bank they cant claim the compensation scheme and farmer cant claim for more than one bank which leaves 3/4 familys with diddly squat

They have had ten years notice. Forgive me if I am not more sympathetic. Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which, after ten years notice period, has ceased. The way some of this lot behave you would think the rights were God-given.

freyners

MadsL wrote: »

They have had ten years notice. Forgive me if I am not more sympathetic. Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which, after ten years notice period, has ceased. The way some of this lot behave you would think the rights were God-given.

not disputing the notice but if what ive heard is true (again im basing this on hearsay only) you can understand the complaining over the compensation scheme, either the farmer is losing his land so people can claim the money (no a snowballs chance in hell of happening) or non owners are left with nothing.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which, after ten years notice period, has ceased.

Turbary rights do not cease after some mysterious 10 year notice period from the state where the state is not the landowner.

Where on earth did that assertion of yours come from...supporting links would be a requisite.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

He also claimed that turfcutters were like the black civil rights movement in 50s America. :rolleyes:

Sure, because the right to permanently destroy an extremely rare and irreplaceable habitat is exactly the same as the right not to be treated as sub-human.

oscarBravo

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Turbary rights do not cease after some mysterious 10 year notice period from the state where the state is not the landowner.

But turbary is a common law principle and can be overridden by statute. No?

Rasheed

I love Ming but he really needs to cool the jets with the turf. He's not the quirky mayor of Roscommon anymore. He needs to have more respect for the law and protest in a more legal way.

oscarBravo

Rasheed wrote: »

I love Ming but he really needs to cool the jets with the turf. He's not the quirky mayor of Roscommon anymore. He needs to have more respect for the law and protest in a more legal way.

There's an entire rump of our national parliament that believes that obedience of the law is totally conditional on whether you feel like obeying it. If you don't feel like obeying the law, you describe it as "unjust" and invoke Rosa Parks, and bada bing: you're not a criminal, you're a civil rights hero.

I find corporation tax unjust. I feel I have a civic duty not to pay it.



(For the avoidance of doubt: I will most certainly be paying my corporation tax, and my VAT, and my PAYE and PRSI returns, and everything else that's required of me by law. I'm not even remotely interested in running for elected office, but I hold myself to a higher standard than many of our current crop of representatives appear to feel the need to.)

MadsL

Turbary rights do not cease after some mysterious 10 year notice period from the state where the state is not the landowner.

Where on earth did that assertion of yours come from...supporting links would be a requisite.

What notice period should the State give?

And to be clear, are you saying that some mysterious 15th or more likely 19th Century agreement (transferred from landowner to tenant) has precedent over the democratically agreed law of the State and the European Union?

Xantia

Some laws are unjust.
Just because they have been made laws does not mean that they are unjust laws.

People have to stand up for what they believe in.

MadsL

Xantia wrote: »

Some laws are unjust.
Just because they have been made laws does not mean that they are unjust laws.

People have to stand up for what they believe in.

How is this law unjust. No-ones land is being taken from them and they are being generously compensated for the loss of the turf. Wtf were they expecting?

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Turbary rights do not cease after some mysterious 10 year notice period from the state where the state is not the landowner.

Where on earth did that assertion of yours come from...supporting links would be a requisite.

Here's Phil Hogan to explain it to you again. I'm sure you are very familiar with the legislation - but I realise you do like to read it selectively.

Under the 1992 Habitats Directive Ireland agreed to protect various natural habitats which are of international importance, including by designating areas as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for their protection. Once designated, Ireland is obliged to monitor, protect and, where necessary, restore those habitats and species which are under threat. 55 sites have been designated as SACs for the conservation of raised bog habitat. In 2004, Ireland also designated 75 raised bogs as Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) under the Wildlife Acts.

In 1999, arrangements were announced for the protection of the 31 raised bog sites that had been designated as SACs at that time. This included a 10-year national derogation during which domestic turf cutting could continue subject to certain restrictions. A similar 10-year derogation applied to the further 24 raised bog SACs and 75 raised bog Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) designated after 1999.

In May 2010, the Government confirmed the end of the derogation for domestic turf cutting in these 130 Raised Bog conservation sites, on a phased basis, with restrictions being implemented on 31 bogs from 2010. The previous Government did not take any decision to amend or reverse their decision of May 2010.

An interim compensation scheme was put in place and land / turbary right owners that could be readily identified were notified directly of the restrictions and the compensation scheme. Advertisements were placed in local newspapers and on local radio.

My Department continued to monitor bogs in designated areas following the Government decision ending the derogation. In a number of cases contractors coming onto bogs to begin turf cutting discontinued their activities on having the situation explained to them.

The Programme for Government contains a commitment to the establishment of independent mediation between all relevant stakeholders with the specific objective of facilitating resolution to 55 Special Area of Conservation designated SAC bogs and to outstanding issues associated with turf cutting on blanket bogs.

I am giving early and urgent attention to this issue, and am currently working with my colleague Mr Jimmy Deenihan, TD, who will have responsibility for this matter as Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs, in developing comprehensive proposals for Government reflecting the commitment in the Programme for Government. These proposals will also form the basis of Ireland’s response to a recent Letter of Formal Notice from the European Commission regarding Ireland’s alleged breaches of the Habitats and Environmental Impact Assessment Directives in relation to the issue of peat extraction.

The European Commission has also expressed concern regarding turf-cutting on raised bog Natural Heritage Areas. In addressing this issue, and achieving compliance with European law, we will also seek to accommodate the rights and wishes of turbary right owners in these sites, in accordance with the provisions of the Programme for Government of the Habitat Directive.

This Government will seek to resolve the long-standing issues regarding peat extraction on protected sites by working with local communities to address legitimate concerns while ensuring that Ireland is in compliance with EU environmental legislation. The proposals which are now being developed will put in place a range of measures designed to meet these twin aims.

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2011-03-22.945.0&s=Turbary

http://www.npws.ie/media/npws/Press%20Release%20-%20illegal%20Turf%20Cutting.pdf

Sanctions available to the Government include prosecution under the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, prosecution under the European Communities (Environmental Liability) Regulations 2008 and cross compliance reporting which may affect payments to farmers who are found to have cut turf illegally.

Also the majority of cutters at the protest bog have already been paid to stop cutting or be relocated.

Site Name
Cloonmoylan Bog

Counties
Galway
Total acknowledged
35
Number expressing an interest in relocation
5
Number of payments made
18

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2012-05-02.749.0&s=Turbary


Take a look at kildarestreet.com http://www.kildarestreet.com/search/?s=Turbary
What you will also notice is the vast number of (details supplied) type written questions about when is Mr Bog-cutter getting his cheque. Seems like TDs spend more time asking about when the money is coming through.

Sponge Bob

oscarBravo wrote: »

But turbary is a common law principle and can be overridden by statute. No?

Yes.....but what statute are you referring to precisely and a linkee poos required from the rather aptly named http://www.irishstatutebook.ie with reference to article in statute. ???

Ta.

Next up From VERRRY long quote by Madsl from a speech from a quite recently appointed minister....greatly shortened for clarity.

Relying on extensive quotation of Phil Hogans bluster in parliament absent Linkee Poo to statute is , shall we say, "Unpersuasive". !!!!

"In 1999, arrangements were announced for the protection of the 31 raised bog sites that had been designated as SACs at that time. This included a 10-year national derogation during which domestic turf cutting could continue subject to certain restrictions. A similar 10-year derogation applied to the further 24 raised bog SACs and 75 raised bog Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) designated after 1999."

Linkee Poos to statute from you too

Apropos some of the elegant homilies on national parilaments...there is a large rump that believes that rural ireland has universal broadband because it has been announced in parliament. Reality is somewhat at odds with the parliamentary announcements.

As the song sez....Same As It Ever Was > Supporting Link Here .

MadsL

We have been over this; but to indulge you.

General provisions for the prevention of damage to European Sites

35. (1) A person who, without lawful authority—

(a) carries out, on land within or outside a European Site, any plan or project or activity that may have a significant effect on, or adversely affect the integrity of, a European Site, or

(b) enters or occupies any European Site, or brings onto or places or uses or releases in any European Site any animal or object, including but not limited to—

(i) any off-road vehicle, recreational watercraft, plant and equipment, tractor or engine,

(ii) machinery for the extraction or mining of natural resources including, but not limited to trees, vegetation, minerals, rock, soil, gravel, sand, turf or peat,

Example legislation with respect to NHAs

4. (1) Subject to sub-article (2) of this article, each of the works mentioned in Schedule 2 is specified for the purposes of section 19(1) of the Act and is unlawful unless carried out with the consent of the Minister.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

Baralis1

Rural turfcutters who own bogs have cut turf in a conservative way for their own use for hundreds of years and own only a small proportion of what was originally bog in this country, doing minimal damage to the bogs. The state through bord na mona, owned the vast majority of bog, and destroyed millions of acres of it recklessly over the last 80 years or so to supply towns and cities with briqettes, and the country with electricity. The state have destroyed their bogs and done huge amounts of damage which cannot be undone and now they want to punish the rural turfcutters who have done minimal damage. That is madness! The state should just pay the fine and invest the resources used to harass turfcutters into trying to create a sustainable habitat for wildlife in what was once Bord na Mona bogland.

By the way, most turfcutters own their bog, and a few years compensation is not enough to replace maybe hundreds of years of heating fuel self sufficiency into the future.

For the person who asked about the use of machinery and accused turfcutters of laziness. Nowadays people work full time and don't have large families of ten or twelve children to call upon to cut turf by hand. It is a very labour intensive job to cut turf by hand with a slean and not feasible in the modern lifestyle.

I fully support those people in Portumna, and nobody will stop me cutting turf in my own bogs if they are eventually included in the same scheme.

MadsL

Baralis1 wrote: »

Rural turfcutters who own bogs have cut turf in a conservative way for their own use for hundreds of years and own only a small proportion of what was originally bog in this country, doing minimal damage to the bogs. The state through bord na mona, owned the vast majority of bog, and destroyed millions of acres of it recklessly over the last 80 years or so to supply towns and cities with briqettes, and the country with electricity.

Please do try and understand the difference between Raised bog and Blanket bog. The 'whataboutery' of Bord Na Mona simply isn't relevant. BNM are cutting blanket bog, the protected bogs are not the same thing.

The state have destroyed their bogs and done huge amounts of damage which cannot be undone and now they want to punish the rural turfcutters who have done minimal damage.

You think this a 'punishment'?? Minimal damage? Get real.

That is madness! The state should just pay the fine and invest the resources used to harass turfcutters into trying to create a sustainable habitat for wildlife in what was once Bord na Mona bogland.

Pay the fine? You realise it is €25k a day - what hospitals do you propose closing to cover it?

By the way, most turfcutters own their bog, and a few years compensation is not enough to replace maybe hundreds of years of heating fuel self sufficiency into the future.

If raised bog turf-cutting were sustainable do you think we would be having this debate?

For the person who asked about the use of machinery and accused turfcutters of laziness. Nowadays people work full time and don't have large families of ten or twelve children to call upon to cut turf by hand. It is a very labour intensive job to cut turf by hand with a slean and not feasible in the modern lifestyle.

And there's money to be made, stop with the diddle-iddley rose-tints. Sausage machines are not cheap.

I fully support those people in Portumna, and nobody will stop me cutting turf in my own bogs if they are eventually included in the same scheme.

Prepared to go to jail?

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

1. A Statutory Instrument NOT A "Statute" which is what I asked for.
2. Bird SI, not applicable in a SAC ....only in an SPA.

Why did you rely on this irrelevant piece of secondary legislation ?????

Cookie_Monster

what's the point in jailing them, more money. Simply hand them an invoice for the EU fine, much fairer deal. Likely more incentive to stop them too

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

1. A Statutory Instrument NOT A "Statute" which is what I asked for.
2. Bird SI, not applicable in a SAC ....only in an SPA.

Why did you rely on this irrelevant piece of secondary legislation ?????

1. Are you now questioning if an S.I. carries force of law?? Behave.

2. Really? “activity” includes any operation or activity likely to impact on the physical environment or on wild flora or fauna or on the habitats of wild flora and fauna, other than—

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

“activity requiring consent” includes any activity that has, before the commencement date of these Regulations, been notified pursuant to Regulation 4(3)(b) of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997, any activity listed in Regulations made under the Act of 1972 for the purpose of designating a site as a special protection area or as a special area of conservation, and any activity in relation to which the Minister has given a Direction pursuant to Regulation 28 of these Regulations, as being an activity that requires the approval of the Minister or is covered by the consent of a public authority;


I think you are really struggling if you truly believe turf-cutting does not require the consent of the Minister in SACs

Baralis1

"Please do try and understand the difference between Raised bog and Blanket bog. The 'whataboutery' of Bord Na Mona simply isn't relevant. BNM are cutting blanket bog, the protected bogs are not the same thing."

The bogs were the same thing or at least very similar, differing only in location and perhaps depth of the bog. You can't surely say that raised and blanket bogs are completely different and it was no harm destroying the blanket bogs.

"You think this a 'punishment'?? Minimal damage? Get real."
"And there's money to be made, stop with the diddle-iddley rose-tints. Sausage machines are not cheap."


Ok, maybe not punish but it feels like the state is taking a high moral ground after destroying about 90% of the bogs itself. Rural turfcutters do minimal damage. For your information, sausage machines which do do huge damage to the bog (not as much as BMN machines) have been banned for years.

Hoppers are now used. A small hole is dug at the corner of a bank, just enough to get past the surface and get enough turf to fill the hopper a few times, which is really not a lot, and the turf is then laid out on the bank to dry etc by the tractor towing the hopper. There is no cutting of the bank besides that one small area and once the turf is gathered after a few weeks, the grass stands up again and you would never know the turf had been laid out.

I live in a rural area, I know what all the neighbours do with their turf, and the vast majority if it is either for themselves or a few relations. There are a few cowboys who sell a bit but to be honest it's hard work saving your own turf, never saving enough to sell. While the odd person sells a load, it is definately not a commerical enterprise due to the large amount of physical labour involved. This idea of turf cutters cutting vast areas of bog to sell is complete nonsense.

"If raised bog turf-cutting were sustainable do you think we would be having this debate?"

I'm not saying their sustainable but as there are only small quantities cut every year, most bog owners have hundreds of years worth of turf.


"Prepared to go to jail?"
Maybe, I'm prepared to defend our right to cut turf in the bogs that we own which has been done for for generations.

Baralis1

As for the fine, the gov should just refuse to pay it. Who are the EU to tell us what our citizens can do with their own land.

Baralis1

Oh,and the machinery for cutting turf is owned by contractors, not by individual turf cutters. The contractor will cut for a large amount of people and most of the machinery can be put to other uses for the rest of the year.

Baralis1

Baralis1 wrote: »

As for the fine, the gov should just refuse to pay it. Who are the EU to tell us what our citizens can do with their own land.

Is this honestly your view of the world? Not exactly a pragmatic one, is it?

MadsL

Baralis1 wrote: »

The bogs were the same thing or at least very similar, differing only in location and perhaps depth of the bog. You can't surely say that raised and blanket bogs are completely different and it was no harm destroying the blanket bogs.

I think you need to do some reading on this - they are not the same thing. http://www.ipcc.ie/inforaisedbogfs.html might be good starting point.

Ok, maybe not punish but it feels like the state is taking a high moral ground after destroying about 90% of the bogs itself. Rural turfcutters do minimal damage. For your information, sausage machines which do do huge damage to the bog (not as much as BMN machines) have been banned for years.

Ok. Strange how these are still around then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKOwto5j2fw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11SGolwiIzw

Hoppers are now used. A small hole is dug at the corner of a bank, just enough to get past the surface and get enough turf to fill the hopper a few times, which is really not a lot, and the turf is then laid out on the bank to dry etc by the tractor towing the hopper. There is no cutting of the bank besides that one small area and once the turf is gathered after a few weeks, the grass stands up again and you would never know the turf had been laid out.

Right. They may be how you are doing it, I suspect many are not.

I live in a rural area, I know what all the neighbours do with their turf, and the vast majority if it is either for themselves or a few relations. There are a few cowboys who sell a bit but to be honest it's hard work saving your own turf, never saving enough to sell.

So it is never sold?

While the odd person sells a load, it is definately not a commerical enterprise due to the large amount of physical labour involved.

So why is there a Turf contractors association?

This idea of turf cutters cutting vast areas of bog to sell is complete nonsense.

Where did I say that?

I'm not saying their sustainable but as there are only small quantities cut every year, most bog owners have hundreds of years worth of turf.

Hundred of years? Experts disagree.

Half of Ireland's raised bogs were destroyed (at a rate of 800,000 tons per year) between 1814 and 1946. After World War 2, the government set up Bord na Móna to cut peat by mechanical means and this simply accelerated the process. In 1969, there were just 100,000 hectares of raised-bog left in Ireland, of which Bord na Móna owned 45,000 hectares. Most of this will be exhausted by the middle of the coming century.

Patrick Abbot.
Source: Feehan, J; McIlveen, S; writing in "The Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape", Cork University Press, 1997.

"Prepared to go to jail?"
Maybe, I'm prepared to defend our right to cut turf in the bogs that we own which has been done for for generations.

Should Dubliners start burning coal in fireplaces they own as they have done for generations, should I have the 'right' to burn my rubbish in my back garden on land I own as was done for generations?

With over 10 years notice of the ending of this 'right', how have you not made arrangement for an alternative fuel source?

Baralis1 wrote: »

As for the fine, the gov should just refuse to pay it. Who are the EU to tell us what our citizens can do with their own land.

Refuse to pay it???? Have you even watched the news in that past 3 years - The EU is bailing out the country to the tune of billions. The EU are our, and our neighbours, democratically elected representives. Ireland voted to join the EU you might remember. The EU pay quite handsomely for the right to tell farmers what to do with their land - or would you also like to see farm subsidies stopped? Have you any grasp of the economic situation Ireland is in?

As to some imagined 'right' that you have to do what you like with your own land. Can you build on it without permission? No. Can you dump waste on it? No. Can you excavate for mineral deposits without licence? No. So why the hell do you think that ripping it up and burning it should be an inalienable right?

Baralis1 wrote: »

Oh,and the machinery for cutting turf is owned by contractors, not by individual turf cutters. The contractor will cut for a large amount of people and most of the machinery can be put to other uses for the rest of the year.

But it is not like there are any commercial operations as you said earlier.

Seriously, the country is about to be hit with €25k a day fines; and you want to maintain your 'right' to an unsustainable, archaic practice that causes huge environmental damage, prevents the positive carbon-sink' action of the bog, bankrupts the country further, after you have been told for years that you have to stop. How selfish do you want to get? Good luck with explaining that to your Grandchildren.

I remember showing a French girl standing turf and explaining what it was for. She was incredulous, and thought I was pulling her leg. Digging up soil and burning it is an absurd way to be carrying on.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

I think you are really struggling if you truly believe turf-cutting does not require the consent of the Minister in SACs

Again you rely on an Instrument that is primarly designed for SPAs and not on a statute that abolishes a common law right of Turbary.

Address the question I asked you yesterday DIRECTLY and while you are at it explain how a 10 year notice period starting 10 YEARS ago seemingly relies on a statutory instrument from 2011.

Helpful Hint...... 2011 is not 10 years ago!!!

Sponge Bob wrote:

Turbary rights do not cease after some mysterious 10 year notice period from the state where the state is not the landowner.

Where on earth did that assertion of yours come from...supporting links would be a requisite.

Sponge Bob

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0622/1224318456581.html

A FORMER Fine Gael mayor ( of Galway County) has called on Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Jimmy Deenihan to return to the European Commission and seek more time to implement the national peatlands protection plan.


Cllr Jimmy McClearn, who was Galway county mayor last year, said that otherwise Mr Deenihan was only “postponing a problem which would arise again”.


Mr McClearn was one of a group which negotiated an end to the 18-hour stand-off between turf-cutters, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and gardaí at a south Galway bog.


At least 200 people were involved in the overnight protest at Clonmoylan Bog near Woodford in southeast Galway, during torrential rain. The protest arose when machinery was seized by the NPWS on Wednesday.

There is a very simple way to solve all this but it does require a constitutional amendment.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Again you rely on an Instrument that is primarly designed for SPAs and not on a statute that abolishes a common law right of Turbary.

Address the question I asked you yesterday DIRECTLY and while you are at it explain how a 10 year notice period starting 10 YEARS ago seemingly relies on a statutory instrument from 2011.

Helpful Hint...... 2011 is not 10 years ago!!!

Sponge Bob, we have been over and over this in a previous thread.

And you are misinterpresting (probably wilfully) what I said.

I said "Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which, after ten years notice period, has ceased. " In other words I said. "Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which has ceased. I noted that there was a ten years notice period, I didn't not mean the right had ceased because a ten years notice period had passed.

In fact FOIE have always maintained the derogation introduced in 1999 was illegal anyway.

2. In a Dáil debate on 25 February 2009, the Taoiseach commented, having been asked about the original derogation for turf cutting on 32 raised bog SACs: The then Minister, Síle de Valera, successfully obtained a derogation of ten years when the [habitats] directive was announced.3
There are several factual errors in this statement, the most significant of which is the suggestion that the Minister “obtained” some sort of official derogation from the terms of the Habitats Directive. As set out in detail below, this is simply not the case: the four derogations in question were unilaterally “granted” by the government - and have been sustained by successive governments - in breach of EU law. Indeed, we use
the term “derogation” (and the related term “granted”) for ease of reference only, since they are consistently used by others. As set out below, use of the term derogation is in fact a misnomer. The true situation is that the government unilaterally arrogated unto itself the power to impose, selectively, the terms of the Habitats Directive, when it has no such legal right.

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/cmsfiles/files/library/consultation_on_cessation_of_turf_cutting_in_designated_areas_28.07.09.pdf

So I'm not saying that there is some statute that allows for a 10 year notice period. Rather I'm commenting on the situation. But hey, you keep looking for your magic bullet that somehow means EU law does not apply.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0622/1224318456581.html

There is a very simple way to solve all this but it does require a constitutional amendment.

What aspect of the Constitution do you believe (imagine) EU law breaches?

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

I said "Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which, after ten years notice period, has ceased. " In other words I said. "Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which has ceased. I noted that there was a ten years notice period, I didn't not mean the right had ceased because a ten years notice period had passed.

That is very clear but would you perhaps like to improve its overall clarity just a tad??