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 battle of the Bog
Options
Comments
-
Sponge Bob wrote: »That is very clear but would you perhaps like to improve its overall clarity just a tad??
Perhaps you might like to stop with your oblique insinuations and clearly state what you think is unconstitutional about the Habitats Directive and other legislation and why turf-cutting in your view does not require consent?0 -
Friends of the Irish Environment FIE have a peculiar and generally entirely sociopathic view of environmental matters. I find it best to completely ignore them and everything they say. The are way out on the absolutely lunatic fringe of the electorally marginal Green Party.
The Irish constitution establishes the right to land ownershp Madsl and in order to extinguish a common law right that predates the constitution, EG Estovers, the constitution needs to be amended. Simples. verys verys Simples.
Nearly everybody in Ireland loathes the so called 'friends' who are nothing but a small cult like organisation. This small cult like organisation rely on constantly discovering mysterious and generally factually unsupported 'threats from Brussels' to get their way.
They are best ignored completely unless they are currently flying around overhead ......as they are known to do.
There is nothing to stop the 'friends' from campaigning for a constitutional amendment which will clarify matters for once and for all. But that "Birds" thing you keep referring to Madsl does not extinguish any right per se. Please stop relying on it.
The MANY people who have recently stopped cutting turf have been CONTRACTED to so do by the state and have abjured their Turbary or Fee Simple rights as a consequence of their entering a CONTRACT.
However there is no evidence of any individual breaching such a contract and the hysteria and bile emanating from the lunatic green fringe such as FIE is most unhelpful.
I would ask you to condemn this hysteria Madsl, you do seem like a reasonable type. 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Sponge Bob wrote: »Friends of the Irish Environment FIE have a peculiar and generally entirely sociopathic view of environmental matters. I find it best to completely ignore them and everything they say. The are way out on the absolutely lunatic fringe of the electorally marginal Green Party.
Well, you have me there - I'm completely won over by your rational argument. What can I say.
Riiiiighhhht! Remind me what constitutional amendments were required to introduce a planning system giving control over activities on citizen's own land in 1963? Remind me....can't seem to find one.The Irish constitution establishes the right to land ownershp Madsl and in order to extinguish a common law right that predates the constitution, EG Estovers, the constitution needs to be amended.
Does anyone actually use this expression anymore?Simples. verys verys Simples.Nearly everybody in Ireland loathes the so called 'friends' who are nothing but a small cult like organisation. This small cult like organisation rely on constantly discovering mysterious and generally factually unsupported 'threats from Brussels' to get their way.
Except you also seem to ignore the legislation they quote.They are best ignored completely unless they are currently flying around overhead ......as they are known to do.There is nothing to stop the 'friends' from campaigning for a constitutional amendment which will clarify matters for once and for all.
There is no need for one - Article 15 lays out provision for the Oireachtas to make laws. You might also note Article 29No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.
So that "Birds" thing - not going away you know.But that "Birds" thing you keep referring to Madsl does not extinguish any right per se. Please stop relying on it.
That 'thing' by the way is the transposition of the Bern Convention - you are aware that Ireland has signed and transposed it??
The MANY people who have recently stopped cutting turf have been CONTRACTED to so do by the state and have abjured their Turbary or Fee Simple rights as a consequence of their entering a CONTRACT.
When did the state last collect ground rent in respect of these rights? I'm sure many of these Turbary holders have ensured that they have paid up to date? No? Might be tricky to assert the 'right' in that case. I believe around 1982 was when they were last collected.However there is no evidence of any individual breaching such a contract and the hysteria and bile emanating from the lunatic green fringe such as FIE is most unhelpful.
As is your blatant pretense that the law does not apply to some individuals.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0307.html36. (1) Where an activity, plan or project that has been carried out within or outside a European Site, has caused damage to that site or to species or habitat types for which the site was selected as a European Site, and—
(a) it is in contravention of the requirements of these Regulations, or of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2011,
(b) it required any statutory consent for the carrying out of such an activity, plan or project but was undertaken without such consent,
(c) it is in contravention of any of the terms or conditions of a consent referred to in subparagraph (a) or (b), or
(d) it is otherwise unlawful,
the Minister may, by Direction issued in writing, require the owner, occupier or user of the land or the person who carried out the activity, plan or project, or such of those persons as he or she considers appropriate, to restore the land in accordance with the Direction.
(2) Where an activity, plan or project referred to in paragraph (1) has been carried out, and has resulted in the production of mineral or other resources, including but not limited to soil, gravel, timber or the product of turf-cutting or peat extraction, any person who removes, or places in or on a vehicle for removal, any such resources, save in accordance with paragraph (5), shall be guilty of an offence.
http://www.npws.ie/peatlandsturf-cutting/turfcutting/Turf-cutting ceased immediately on 31 raised bogs designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). No further turf-cutting can occur on these sites without the express consent of the Minister. It was also decided that turf-cutting would cease on a further 24 raised bog SACs at the end of 2011I would ask you to condemn this hysteria Madsl, you do seem like a reasonable type.
I'd ask you to wake up to the fact that your delusion about the law might end up with you giving advice to someone that will see them in jail.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
A contact to stop cutting. Where is the contract that says they have a right to cut?
Please stop accusing me of being obtuse. I was perfectly clear all along.
CERTAIN Turf Cutters entered a contract not to cut turf and are performing the contract.
I neglected to explain a salient point...this is not obtuseness merely neglect and I do apologise to those who have been trying to follow that particular aspect the thread.
The Contract ( where a contract is in force) lasts 15 years. During that 15 year period a now 'ex' turf cutter is paid not to cut turf on their old bog.
I have said before and will reiterate that there is no evidence of unilateral breach of contract by any supposed ex turf cutter who is currently in contract. In the case of certain bogs no turf has been cut this year as was the desired effect of the contract regime.
Once the 15 years are up I think that a Turbary right can be extinguished by custom. I think 14 years is the magic number. The custom applies to all easements or profit a prendre rights and indeed to common law events such as fairs and markets.
However that principle is complex and it has been suggested that 20 years may be the magic number (here) or indeed 175 years. I don't believe that any land in Ireland vests in the state under a principle such as Res Nullius
I will say that once the 15 year contract is performed fully by both parties the extinguishment of Turbary is certainly easier. Other common law rights have been regulated by contractual means in the past.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Were that the case, then those who had not entered into such a contract would be within their rights in taking a Supreme Court challenge to the government acting ultra vires in attempting to prevent them from cutting turf.
I'm not aware of such a challenge (still open to correction), which strongly implies (to me) that no such basis for a challenge exists.
Class Actions are not allowed in Ireland, consequently they would have to pick a very good example to go to the High Court as a test case.
Then everybody has to fund that very good example case which is the hard bit. It is _easier_ and cheaper if someone is arrested first. 0 -
Sponge Bob wrote: »Please stop accusing me of being obtuse. I was perfectly clear all along.
..and you still haven't explained what you were getting at in asking me to clarify.CERTAIN Turf Cutters entered a contract not to cut turf and are performing the contract.
I neglected to explain a salient point...this is not obtuseness merely neglect and I do apologise to those who have been trying to follow that particular aspect the thread.
The Contract ( where a contract is in force) lasts 15 years. During that 15 year period a now 'ex' turf cutter is paid not to cut turf on their old bog.
Where was the old contract that allowed them to cut turf? Was it payment in exchange for a licence?I have said before and will reiterate that there is no evidence of unilateral breach of contract by any supposed ex turf cutter who is currently in contract. In the case of certain bogs no turf has been cut this year as was the desired effect of the contract regime.
So 12 people are the only ones up in that bog in Galway who haven't signed contracts? Bigger crowd than that methinks.Once the 15 years are up I think that a Turbary right can be extinguished by custom. I think 14 years is the magic number. The custom applies to all easements or profit a prendre rights and indeed to common law events such as fairs and markets.
However that principle is complex and it has been suggested that 20 years may be the magic number (here) or indeed 175 years. I don't believe that any land in Ireland vests in the state under a principle such as Res Nullius
I will say that once the 15 year contract is performed fully by both parties the extinguishment of Turbary is certainly easier. Other common law rights have been regulated by contractual means in the past.
Would you say that a State has the right to control activities concerning the environment, even if they are customary? ie lead in paint, open air rubbish burning, solvents poured down drains?0 -
Sponge Bob wrote: »Class Actions are not allowed in Ireland, consequently they would have to pick a very good example to go to the High Court as a test case.
Then everybody has to fund that very good example case which is the hard bit. It is _easier_ and cheaper if someone is arrested first.
In over ten years no-one has even suggested bringing a constitutional challenge? How odd.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
.Where was the old contract that allowed them to cut turf? Was it payment in exchange for a licence?
There was no "old contract", nobody apart from you ever said there was.
The RIGHT to cut turf was acquired by a variety of means. Contracts are NEW and are in order NOT to cut turf when in place.So 12 people are the only ones up in that bog in Galway who haven't signed contracts? Bigger crowd than that methinks.
Not every TURBARY owner was offered a contract so they could not have signed up to that which they were not offered a contract.Would you say that a State has the right to control activities concerning the environment, even if they are customary? ie lead in paint, open air rubbish burning, solvents poured down drains?
They control the use of substances which are not naturally occuring. This is unremarkable and not analagous either. 0 -
Sponge Bob wrote: »There was no "old contract", nobody apart from you ever said there was.
The RIGHT to cut turf was acquired by a variety of means. Contracts are NEW and are in order NOT to cut turf when in place.
And these rights are documented how?Not every TURBARY owner was offered a contract so they could not have signed up to that which they were not offered a contract.
But you claim they have a right, presumably that right has a legal basis and so they can assert that right in law. Why has no turf cutter gone to the courts to assert their rights?They control the use of substances which are not naturally occuring. This is unremarkable and not analagous either.
Do you dispute the right of the state to control matters concerning the environment? Do you dispute the right of the state to control the use of privately held land? As I asked earlier remind me what constitutional amendments were required to introduce a planning system giving control over activities on citizen's own land in 1963?0 -
Sponge Bob wrote: »Friends of the Irish Environment FIE have a peculiar and generally entirely sociopathic view of environmental matters. I find it best to completely ignore them and everything they say. The are way out on the absolutely lunatic fringe of the electorally marginal Green Party.
The Irish constitution establishes the right to land ownershp Madsl and in order to extinguish a common law right that predates the constitution, EG Estovers, the constitution needs to be amended. Simples. verys verys Simples.
Nearly everybody in Ireland loathes the so called 'friends' who are nothing but a small cult like organisation. This small cult like organisation rely on constantly discovering mysterious and generally factually unsupported 'threats from Brussels' to get their way.
They are best ignored completely unless they are currently flying around overhead ......as they are known to do.
There is nothing to stop the 'friends' from campaigning for a constitutional amendment which will clarify matters for once and for all. But that "Birds" thing you keep referring to Madsl does not extinguish any right per se. Please stop relying on it.
The MANY people who have recently stopped cutting turf have been CONTRACTED to so do by the state and have abjured their Turbary or Fee Simple rights as a consequence of their entering a CONTRACT.
However there is no evidence of any individual breaching such a contract and the hysteria and bile emanating from the lunatic green fringe such as FIE is most unhelpful.
I would ask you to condemn this hysteria Madsl, you do seem like a reasonable type.
Wow SpongeBob you have outdone yourself on the turning in circles stakes this time. YOU do not speak for me or I am sure for many of the people commenting on this thread so please do not assume that I or anyone else refers to FIE as having a "sociopathic" view of environmental matters. on the contrary they are a particularly informed group that have of their own initiative produced some excellent reports, produced aerial photos showing the damage and successfully petitioned the EU. I for one applaud the work they do in bringing this environmental destruction to the attention of the greater public. You are laughable referringto them as a cult just because they actually oppose environmental damage and request enforcement of environmental legislation.
MadsL give up on this guy, I have been round the houses with him on another thread providing links and facts but he either lacks the ability to understand them or is refusing to face facts. Seriously it is soul destroying to watch him meander around the subject trying to sound knowledgeable. He doesn't like the law, he has issues with eNGOs, concerned citizens and science :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement