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

N6 - Galway outer bypass: Is it needed?

1…34689…19

Comments

  • #152
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    MYOB wrote: »
    Because you can't accept its the case?

    There are people who oppose the bypass for no other reason than 1980s planning decisions. That is petty and vindictive, whether you like it or not.

    There are others who oppose it solely because they don't actually want traffic to get any better unless its bikes/walking/buses that make it better. That is also petty and vindictive.

    'Fraid not. Only in Ireland are people made out to be the bad guys -petty and vindictive bad guys at that apparently - because they object to infrastructure provision without a modern planning regime in place to facilitate it. You'll be calling us begrudgers next....


  • #153
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TINA1984 wrote: »
    'Fraid not. Only in Ireland are people made out to be the bad guys -petty and vindictive bad guys at that apparently - because they object to infrastructure provision without a modern planning regime in place to facilitate it. You'll be calling us begrudgers next....

    You really, really don't have much knowledge of the world if you think that's the case.

    I'd actually say its probably much closer to reality that its "only in Ireland" that people think its acceptable to prevent something being built as a punishment for something. Might happen in some Tory areas of the UK, that's about it.

    You may also want to inspect this thread. People are objecting because a planning routine wasn't in place thirty years ago. You don't appear to have realised that. You may be objecting about the present - although your posts don't seem to suggest that - but others clearly aren't


  • #154
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    MYOB wrote: »
    You really, really don't have much knowledge of the world if you think that's the case.

    No evidently I don't. Oh please cultured man of the world MYOB, please fill in the gaps for me, for I am but a simple country bumpkin. Truly you appear to be a font of wisdom and knowledge. Show me the error of my ways.....
    MYOB wrote: »
    I'd actually say its probably much closer to reality that its "only in Ireland" that people think its acceptable to prevent something being built as a punishment for something. Might happen in some Tory areas of the UK, that's about it.

    I think its more an Irish thing to frame things - like this debate on the GCOB - in terms of reward and punishment. Or perhaps more succintly 'you're either with us or against us'.

    Question the need for a bypass and Galway planning strategies which have led to calls for a bypass = you're the enemy. Not exactly the most reasoned way to debate the merits of this scheme now is it?

    It's also an Irish thing to try and discredit people who disagree with you, hence Sponge Bob before he was banned, Anto earlier in this thread and you here now using disrespectful language to people who have the temerity - how very dare they! - to hold a different opinion to you.
    MYOB wrote: »
    You may also want to inspect this thread. People are objecting because a planning routine wasn't in place thirty years ago. You don't appear to have realised that. You may be objecting about the present - although your posts don't seem to suggest that - but others clearly aren't

    You realise that in that 30+ year time frame you mention, despite the fact Cork, Dublin & Belfast have managed to implement reasonable planning strategies - often through trial and error and with more then a pinch of corruption thrown into the mix - Galway hasn't really done anything similar? nothing, zilch. Nada. I think its quite nonsensical that other Irish cities have got their acts together eventually yet Galway seems to get some kind of exemption, as if it is special case that doesn't need anything like a fancy schmancy LUTS.

    So with that in mind, I can't speak for anyone else but several contributors to this thread have made reasonable critiques on the need for the GCOB - as well wider issues relating to the knock-on effect of building it without the Galway LA's doing anything proactive at their end on the land use side of things.

    You on the otherhand appear to suggest that appropriate planning regime's are some kind of side issue, an irrelavance even, to the issue of the GCOB. They most certainly are not.


  • #155
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TINA1984 wrote: »
    No evidently I don't. Oh please cultured man of the world MYOB, please fill in the gaps for me, for I am but a simple country bumpkin. Truly you appear to be a font of wisdom and knowledge. Show me the error of my ways.....

    No need to be so completely childish.
    TINA1984 wrote: »
    Question the need for a bypass and Galway planning strategies which have led to calls for a bypass = you're the enemy. Not exactly the most reasoned way to debate the merits of this scheme now is it?

    You're arriving after two to three years of debate on here. The need has been debated, and proven to all but those who have extremely polarised positions.
    You can read the old threads.
    TINA1984 wrote: »
    It's also an Irish thing to try and discredit people who disagree with you, hence Sponge Bob before he was banned, Anto earlier in this thread and you here now using disrespectful language to people who have the temerity - how very dare they! - to hold a different opinion to you.

    In this case, its putting people in the same basket as those who have already been debating something with the exact same, nearly entirely irrelevant points for years.
    TINA1984 wrote: »
    You on the otherhand appear to suggest that appropriate planning regime's are some kind of side issue, an irrelavance even, to the issue of the GCOB. They most certainly are not.

    In this case - yes, they are a side issue. The planning has been done and most critically, the buildings have been built and are in use. There is a problem on the ground that must be fixed, but people are obsessed with constant post mortems of why their is a problem.

    You can fix the planning issues but the bypass is entirely needed, and no amount of fixing planning is going to make it un-needed. But it appears you can't accept that.

    Constantly running back to previous planning issues is nothing more than throwing distractions in the way - a common tactic on here.


  • #156
    Con Logue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 277 ✭✭Con Logue


    So, why the defensiveness? Is there some reason why opinions on this thread will somehow stop the bypass from being built?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Con Logue wrote: »
    So, why the defensiveness? Is there some reason why opinions on this thread will somehow stop the bypass from being built?

    If you read the recent posts without a blinkered view on, you'll see there's one poster being extremely defensive and it ain't me.


  • #158
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    MYOB wrote: »
    No need to be so completely childish.

    You started it :)
    MYOB wrote: »
    You're arriving after two to three years of debate on here. The need has been debated, and proven to all but those who have extremely polarised positions.
    You can read the old threads.

    In this case, its putting people in the same basket as those who have already been debating something with the exact same, nearly entirely irrelevant points for years.

    Well if a group of people on the internet have decided then that the GCOB is indeed needed then who am I to argue?
    MYOB wrote: »
    In this case - yes, they are a side issue. The planning has been done and most critically, the buildings have been built and are in use. There is a problem on the ground that must be fixed, but people are obsessed with constant post mortems of why their is a problem.

    You can fix the planning issues but the bypass is entirely needed, and no amount of fixing planning is going to make it un-needed. But it appears you can't accept that.

    Constantly running back to previous planning issues is nothing more than throwing distractions in the way - a common tactic on here.

    Oh ye guys have decided now that planning issues are an irrelvance as well have ye? We may as well just shut the thread now so if that's the case. Do you want to PM the mod to lock it down or will I?
    MYOB wrote: »
    If you read the recent posts without a blinkered view on, you'll see there's one poster being extremely defensive and it ain't me.

    Who's that then?


  • #159
    Con Logue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 277 ✭✭Con Logue


    MYOB wrote: »
    If you read the recent posts without a blinkered view on, you'll see there's one poster being extremely defensive and it ain't me.

    Well, for the avoidance of any confusion I have a view that Galway is one of the worst examples of bad planning in Europe, and would support any measure that would attempt to make sense of it.

    I've been caught in the traffic nightmare there on plenty of occasions but would be extremely skeptical that simply chucking a by-pass - which experiences teaches us will eventually be festooned with ribbon development, will give relief for maybe five years but eventually, unless the underlying issues with Land Use and Transportation in Galway are properly tackled, will end up being worse again.


  • #160
    galwayrush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    The most obvious thing about the bypass is how much it would improve the existing city infrastructure by removing thousands of vehicles that are currently forced to drive through a narow corridor in order to cross the Corrib.
    It won't solve all our traffic woes but it would be a major step in ther right direction.


  • #161
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TINA1984 wrote: »
    You started it :)

    No, I didn't. And this isn't a classroom
    TINA1984 wrote: »
    Well if a group of people on the internet have decided then that the GCOB is indeed needed then who am I to argue?

    You could read the thousands of posts made on the topic already.
    TINA1984 wrote: »
    Oh ye guys have decided now that planning issues are an irrelvance as well have ye? We may as well just shut the thread now so if that's the case. Do you want to PM the mod to lock it down or will I?

    I think its extremely obvious that past, unchangeable planning issues have absolutely zero relevance to whether a bypass is needed. And that is the entire topic of this thread.

    A thread on Galway's past and future planning may be worthwhile but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is nothing more than an attempt to avoid actually discussing the topic.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Con Logue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 277 ✭✭Con Logue


    In fact, it isn't just my opinion that Galway's planning could improve. See link:http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/51354/galway-county-council-gets-f-grade-for-bad-planning


  • #163
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Con Logue wrote: »
    In fact, it isn't just my opinion that Galway's planning could improve. See link:http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/51354/galway-county-council-gets-f-grade-for-bad-planning

    Plenty of people agree with that - but it has zero relevance to whether a bypass is needed.


  • #164
    Con Logue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 277 ✭✭Con Logue


    MYOB wrote: »
    Plenty of people agree with that - but it has zero relevance to whether a bypass is needed.

    I am puzzled at that. Land Use and Transportation provision are inextricably linked but seemingly not in Galway.


  • #165
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    galwayrush wrote: »
    The most obvious thing about the bypass is how much it would improve the existing city infrastructure by removing thousands of vehicles that are currently forced to drive through a narow corridor in order to cross the Corrib.
    It won't solve all our traffic woes but it would be a major step in ther right direction.

    Let's talk hypotheticals galwayrush. Say the GCOB is built, and the M17/18 follows in due course? whats going to happen?

    Now to my mind, without any kind of cop on from the Galway LA's vis a vis implementing a LUTS. These brand shiny new roads are going to increase the attractiveness of new build one offs in the boreens and minor roads in and around the central Connacht area, as such in time the roads are going to get busy pretty quickly. Afterall if you can buy a house with a garden, 3 bedrooms, a view of the Atlantic and cows for neighbours for the same price as an apartment in downtown G-town, what are people going to consider? Afterall Eyre square is but less then an hour away from ballynowhere 80km away now thanks to the motorways.

    So for sure,the commute from Mayo and West Galway is going to be quicker, but if you're funnelling even more commuters into the city via several junctions on the GCOB and M17/18 isn't it inevitable that these junctions are eventually going to fill up quickly and congestion onto and out of the GCOB & M6 is as inevitable as night follows day?

    Bare in mind Galway and Mayo CC's have the highest incidences of granting of planning of one-off housing in the state.

    The longer it takes for Galway to cop themselves on and implement a LUTS, the shorter the time its going to take for Galway to congest up again once the regions pet projects are built.

    As such its critical that the Galway LA's do something wrt a LUTS now before the GCOB is funded, because afterall it is highly unlikely imo that they'll do anything about a LUTS after the GCOB & M17/18 is built.

    What do you reckon will happen Galwayrush?


  • #166
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Con Logue wrote: »
    I am puzzled at that. Land Use and Transportation provision are inextricably linked but seemingly not in Galway.

    They're linked when planning for the future.

    In this case there is a pressing need for a bypass for what is already built.


  • #167
    yer man!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭yer man!


    I find it quite strange that some people are so against the bypass and say that public transport should be improved instead when you have the likes of London and Paris, two of the best public transport systems in the world and they both have bypasses. Obviously there is no comparison in size to Galway but bypasses are designed to alleviate congestion, what is there in Galway? congestion.... what would alleviate it? a bypass.... you could put in the best subway in the world in Galway and it would still need a bypass. Even in the Netherlands (arguably the best place in the world to cycle and one of the higher ridership stats) most of the major cities are bypassed to get congestion out.


  • #168
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    MYOB wrote: »
    No, I didn't. And this isn't a classroom

    We entered into this exchange with you decrying my goodself as being ''petty'' & ''vindictive''. You then went on to tell me I don't have ''much knowledge of the world'' abd you then went into to portray me as somekind of Tory NIMBY.

    All because I hold a differing opinion.

    Man up and apologise for your offensive tone and comments. They're wholly unwarranted, we were all having a reasonably polite debate 'til you decided to stick your oar in.
    MYOB wrote: »
    You could read the thousands of posts made on the topic already.

    Quantity does not equal quality in this instance.
    MYOB wrote: »
    I think its extremely obvious that past, unchangeable planning issues have absolutely zero relevance to whether a bypass is needed. And that is the entire topic of this thread.

    A thread on Galway's past and future planning may be worthwhile but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is nothing more than an attempt to avoid actually discussing the topic.

    'fraid not. Again you are trying to seperate the issues of planning and infrastructure provision. That is just not logical. Sorry.


  • #169
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TINA1984 wrote: »
    We entered into this exchange with you decrying my goodself as being ''petty'' & ''vindictive''. You then went on to tell me I don't have ''much knowledge of the world'' abd you then went into to portray me as somekind of Tory NIMBY.

    All because I hold a differing opinion.

    Man up and apologise for your offensive tone and comments. They're wholly unwarranted, we were all having a reasonably polite debate 'til you decided to stick your oar in.

    None of those are childish (which is what you were claiming here), unwarranted or offensive except to someone who is extremely defensive about their position. It is not my problem if you're touchy, and there is absolutely nothing to apologise for.
    TINA1984 wrote: »
    Quantity does not equal quality in this instance.

    When you're just repeating the same content as them, that's not really the issue is it?
    TINA1984 wrote: »
    'fraid not. Again you are trying to seperate the issues of planning and infrastructure provision. That is just not logical. Sorry.

    The only illogical thing here is trying to claim that past planning can somehow be changed - which is what you, and others, imply when you repeatedly debate it as if it can be an altered factor in whether a bypass is needed. Once again, back to petty and vindictive tactics.


  • #170
    Con Logue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 277 ✭✭Con Logue


    yer man! wrote: »
    I find it quite strange that some people are so against the bypass and say that public transport should be improved instead when you have the likes of London and Paris, two of the best public transport systems in the world and they both have bypasses. Obviously there is no comparison in size to Galway but bypasses are designed to alleviate congestion, what is there in Galway? congestion.... what would alleviate it? a bypass.... you could put in the best subway in the world in Galway and it would still need a bypass. Even in the Netherlands (arguably the best place in the world to cycle and one of the higher ridership stats) most of the major cities are bypassed to get congestion out.

    To be completely clear on the definition of Transport Planning - Transport does not just cover public transport. It also includes private car use, road provision and the nature of traffic catered for on those roads. Public transport is one aspect albeit a very important one. In the context of Galway it means that each area needs to be properly looked at in terms of population density, businesses in the area and other sources of employment.

    This means that an intelligent look at the big picture is vital before jamming in more road infrastructure. Decisions regarding the sort of planning being catered for will need to be taken. Building a road now without a proper Land Use and Transportation Strategy will result in five years time it being saturated with housing and industrial estates, as has happened many many times before in Ireland. Constructing the bypass without the safeguard of a proper LUTS will be a waste of scarce resources now.

    Plan properly and then build.


  • #171
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,110 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    WARNING TO ALL: Note mod warning in the opening post!

    MYOB wrote: »
    No need to be so completely childish.

    ...extremely polarised positions.

    Deal with point. Do not attack the posters.

    Play the ball. Not the man.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    galwayrush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    TINA1984 wrote: »
    Let's talk hypotheticals galwayrush. Say the GCOB is built, and the M17/18 follows in due course? whats going to happen?

    ?

    Simple, traffic will flow .The city centre will become attractive / safer for cyclists, more room for bus corridors. Less pollution , at the moment there are thousands of vehicles taking way too long to get through the severe bottlenecks , taking up to an hour to travel short distances.
    The region is growing, will continue to do so, it's important to put some proper infrastructure to plan ahead for the future.


  • #173
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Con Logue wrote: »
    Building a road and then, in five years time, that it gets saturated with housing and industrial estates, as has happened many many times before in Ireland, will be a waste of scarce resources now.

    This has not happened to any great extent since road construction was turned over to the NRA. In 1993. Nothing like what happened before then.

    There's towns where you'd expect the bypass would be littered with private entrances and development where there hasn't been a single change - such as Longford. Compared to the widescale development along older roads which have effectively ruined the fairly huge investment in wide single carriageways of the 60s to 80s. The NRA are much better at protecting their roads than local authorities are.

    When the road in question is D2M-grade with limited junctions, as the GCOB is planned to be, it is an even rarer occurrence.


  • #174
    Con Logue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 277 ✭✭Con Logue


    MYOB wrote: »
    This has not happened to any great extent since road construction was turned over to the NRA. In 1993. Nothing like what happened before then.

    There's towns where you'd expect the bypass would be littered with private entrances and development where there hasn't been a single change - such as Longford. Compared to the widescale development along older roads which have effectively ruined the fairly huge investment in wide single carriageways of the 60s to 80s. The NRA are much better at protecting their roads than local authorities are.

    When the road in question is D2M-grade with limited junctions, as the GCOB is planned to be, it is an even rarer occurrence.

    Good point, even though Longford does have its own breeze-block-arama at one end of the bypass.

    But it isn't only about rubbish planning in the immediate vincinity of the bypass - feeding another National Route into the mix proves yet again that Galway is in dire need of a proper Land Use and Transportation Strategy - though this country's track record is appalling. Remember the National Spatial Strategy? Nice idea on paper until the pols and the usual vested interests got their claws into it.

    A nice shiny bypass will be of bugger all use in another five years if more uncontrolled development keeps feeding into the Greater Galway Area, which with the M17/18 will expand even further.


  • #175
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    MYOB wrote: »
    This has not happened to any great extent since road construction was turned over to the NRA. In 1993. Nothing like what happened before then.

    There's towns where you'd expect the bypass would be littered with private entrances and development where there hasn't been a single change - such as Longford. Compared to the widescale development along older roads which have effectively ruined the fairly huge investment in wide single carriageways of the 60s to 80s. The NRA are much better at protecting their roads than local authorities are.

    When the road in question is D2M-grade with limited junctions, as the GCOB is planned to be, it is an even rarer occurrence.

    No one here is doubting the NRA and their ability to protect their assets. The concern is the Galway LA's - who have shown little in the way of developing a cohesive LUTS, nevermind implementing one - failing to stymie demand for one-off housing and dispersed settlement near the GCOB and M17/18, just like they've failed to do anything of note with the infrastructure the state has already gifted them - the WRC & M6.

    Now you appear to be of the opinion that the GCOB should be built like NOW, and we can get around to trifling issues like a LUTS AFTER the GCOB is built. It is my contention that a carrot/stick approach, as ably outlined by Aidan1 I believe, is needed to coax the Galway LA's into promulgating such a plan and sticking to it, in order to progress funding the GCOB, otherwise despite the NRA's best efforts the GCOB is just going to clog up in no time with Connacht commuters.

    Remember, the NRA hasn't done the job all on its own in protecting its assets, its required co-operation from the more forward thinking LA's like in Cork, who conveniently enough have a LUTS in place for 30+ years.


  • #176
    galwayrush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    We are already clogged up with traffic which will continue to grow, where do you suggest the extra traffic should go?
    Perhaps we should prevent any more factories / offices locating to the west, let them all go to the east coast? let our kids follow because there won't be any jobs for them to survive here?


  • #177
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,110 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    TINA1984 wrote: »
    Now you appear to be of the opinion that the GCOB should be built like NOW, and we can get around to trifling issues like a LUTS AFTER the GCOB is built.

    While. It'll take two or more years to build even if diggers went on site tomorrow morning.
    TINA1984 wrote: »
    Remember, the NRA hasn't done the job all on its own in protecting its assets, its required co-operation from the more forward thinking LA's like in Cork, who conveniently enough have a LUTS in place for 30+ years.

    Cork has actually been amongst the worst if not the worst for hampering the NRA, they are in no way a paragon of virtue here. Slapping a set of traffic lights on a DC (albeit never used, Amgen) and building a shopping centre on an underspecced DC junction very close to a major non-grade-separated interchange do not show much care and attention. Both City and County councils.


  • #178
    TINA1984
    Closed Accounts Posts: 372 ✭✭TINA1984


    MYOB wrote: »
    While. It'll take two or more years to build even if diggers went on site tomorrow morning.

    Plenty of time then for the Galway LA's to come up with a LUTS then eh? Of course one wonders what would happen if the Galway LA's actually did produce a plan which intended to focus housing and dvelopment in certain area's.
    MYOB wrote: »
    Cork has actually been amongst the worst if not the worst for hampering the NRA, they are in no way a paragon of virtue here. Slapping a set of traffic lights on a DC (albeit never used, Amgen) and building a shopping centre on an underspecced DC junction very close to a major non-grade-separated interchange do not show much care and attention. Both City and County councils.

    Clare Co. Co have been the worse wrt the NRA. Cork LA's for all their faults and brown envelopes (!) have still done a decent job in focusing housing and jobs in the Cork metropolitan area in a reasonably well planned and concise manner. Its not perfect by any means, this is Ireland afterall, but still light years ahead of Galway.


  • #179
    Con Logue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 277 ✭✭Con Logue


    galwayrush wrote: »
    We are already clogged up with traffic which will continue to grow, where do you suggest the extra traffic should go?
    Perhaps we should prevent any more factories / offices locating to the west, let them all go to the east coast? let our kids follow because there won't be any jobs for them to survive here?

    As MYOB says, whatever happens there would be a two year lead time before any bypass would be finished.

    A Land Use and Transportation Strategy would benefit Galway people. The whole point of that exercise would be to make Galway more attractive to industry and for better working and living conditions. Condemning people to life long traffic jams because the dots won't join together will make Galway even less attractive and will cause more jobs to be lost.


  • #180
    Con Logue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 277 ✭✭Con Logue


    TINA1984 wrote: »
    Plenty of time then for the Galway LA's to come up with a LUTS then eh? Of course one wonders what would happen if the Galway LA's actually did produce a plan which intended to focus housing and dvelopment in certain area's.



    Clare Co. Co have been the worse wrt the NRA. Cork LA's for all their faults and brown envelopes (!) have still done a decent job in focusing housing and jobs in the Cork metropolitan area in a reasonably well planned and concise manner. Its not perfect by any means, this is Ireland afterall, but still light years ahead of Galway.

    Indeed. I am fascinated as to why after the crash folks still seem to blithely accept the oul brown envelope culture and that means of protecting folks from all that flowed from that is somehow an optional extra.

    Unless of course the right of a farmer to flog flood plain land for housing outside the jurisdiction of a city but within easy access of a motorway exit is an expression of his inalieable rights..


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,236 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Con Logue wrote: »
    I am puzzled at that. Land Use and Transportation provision are inextricably linked but seemingly not in Galway.
    Putting up contextless statements is a rather brash attempt at adding to a debate, is it not?


Advertisement