This'll get them going in Cork!!!!!

Zebra3 · 2006-11-01 06:45:57

This'll certainly have them up in arms again!!!!! :D http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1716036&issue_id=14831 Royal helper demands €1m for town's park A BUCKINGHAM Palace official and his brother were last night accused of acting like 'carpetbaggers' over ancestral lands used as an Irish town…

#32 01-11-2006 01:28PM

ziggy

Closed Accounts Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2004

Posts: 4533

This post has been deleted.

0

#33 01-11-2006 01:31PM

humanji

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2004

Posts: 17901

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Other than Australians, I don't think I've ever heard anyone call someone else 'mate' up here either. I hate to be the one to point it out, but there are lots of 'different' people in the world. Gross generalisation of a city (paticularly one with so many foreign people) is a bit pointless.

0

#34 01-11-2006 01:42PM

r3nu4l

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,392 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: January 2006

Posts: 15535

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I won't get into that on this thread but we know all about the uproar in Cork over the way that was done.

Ask the ordinary working-class/lower middle-class Dub or Cork man to comment on most issues and you'll get a similar response from both.

As for my personal experience I refer to Gaelic football as Ga, GAA or football and to English football as football or soccer depending on my mood. After all it's GAELIC football not football. The word soccer seems to be an American thing but we'll leave that to the Linguistics and Eytymology folk.

Back on topic, was that guy in Dublin English? I can't remember.

0

#35 01-11-2006 01:50PM

The Sweeper

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,658 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 10331

ClockWorkOrange wrote:

I'm embarrassed for you..

You clearly don't understand the difference between the dynamics of early human settlement and the concept of modern colonization...

Think about it, what if you were an aboriginal? Would you be making the same argument?

Nice - do you want to hold off being embarassed for a few minutes and define 'modern' for me?

0

#36 01-11-2006 02:19PM

seamus

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 66931

Common law here people. Think about this as a rational person. If the land no longer belonged to them when Ireland declared independence, then it would have been properly seized, and have become public property. Instead, the lease stayed in effect, was recognised by the Government and 99 years later those with whom the lease was agreed, have a right to do with their land as they see fit.

If we had declared independence five years ago, then maybe we would have grounds to "annex" this plot of land, but not now. 99% of us are living on land that has been taken from someone over the last 1000 years. The logic that some are using above dictates that we should trace back the ancestry of every sq.m. of land in this country and return it to its "rightful" owners.

0

#37 01-11-2006 02:31PM

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭ $\m/_(>_<)_\m/$

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 1172

seamus wrote:

Common law here people. Think about this as a rational person. If the land no longer belonged to them when Ireland declared independence, then it would have been properly seized, and have become public property.

ahe but here is the scenario,
When Ireland declared independence it was a public park, therefor may have slipped through the cracks when the property was being seized by the free state.

0

#38 01-11-2006 02:38PM

humanji

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2004

Posts: 17901

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

ahe but here is the scenario,
When Ireland declared independence it was a public park, therefor may have slipped through the cracks when the property was being seized by the free state.

But wouldn't the fact that it was owned land mean it's not now or ever was a public park, it was private land opened for the public to use? I honestly don't know myself, but that's what it seems to me.

0

#39 01-11-2006 02:48PM

BaZmO*

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,625 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: October 2003

Posts: 18268

ClockWorkOrange wrote:

The difference in the US is that the colonists committed mass genocide so that there wasnt enough native americans to push their right to get any of their lands back.. The colonization of America was probably the most shameful period in human history.. the liquidation of entire races.. you wont find it in the offical history...

Always thought it was quite ironic that the Americans sent APACHE Helicopters into Kossovo to help against Genocide condisering that the Helicopters were named after a race of people that they tried to wipe out themselves.

0

#40 01-11-2006 02:55PM

Thrill

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,485 ✭✭✭

Join Date: October 2006

Posts: 5189

If this goes to court the costs could be staggering, and they would probably
still have to pay them the money anyway.
I think they should give them the 1 mil and tell them to shove it.
At least the land would be in Irish hands again.

0

#41 01-11-2006 03:00PM

meditraitor

Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭

Join Date: October 2004

Posts: 5044

ClockWorkOrange wrote:

I'm embarrassed for you..

You clearly don't understand the difference between the dynamics of early human settlement and the concept of modern colonization...

Think about it, what if you were an aboriginal? Would you be making the same argument?

Please elaborate on this statement, I would like to know were Early Human settlement ends and "modern colonization" starts so I can reply to your points,

0

#42 01-11-2006 03:25PM

thebman

Closed Accounts Posts: 10,001 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: August 2005

Posts: 9806

meditraitor wrote:

So you believe that a family who were granted land 426 years ago by the ruler of Ireland at the time should have their land stolen from them?

The land wasn't given to them by the Irish government. If it was directly after the Irish independence do you think they'd of been paid. They have no right to the land anymore because the country is under different ownership. There complaint is with the British government for letting the Irish take control of their land. They should ask them for the million.

They are just looking for free cash anyway so I come down against them because their request is ridiculous.

Thanks be that this type of "blame the brits for everything" attitude is not as prevelant anymore.

BTW do you live in ireland with a comment like this? That attitude is alive and well in parts of the country. Besides this has nothing to do with that. It is a simple matter of change of ownership of the country. The previous contract should be considered null and void.

0

#43 01-11-2006 03:53PM

Marksie

Closed Accounts Posts: 6,395 ✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2006

Posts: 6189

meditraitor wrote:

Please elaborate on this statement, I would like to know were Early Human settlement ends and "modern colonization" starts,

east of clonmel

0

#44 01-11-2006 04:05PM

humanji

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2004

Posts: 17901

But they legally own the land. The Irish government believes that and so do the people of Mallow. TBH, they are letting Mallow off easy by just asking for the million. The land could be sold off to developers for millions more.

As for what local Cllr Joe Sherlock said in the article: "They have never made any fruitful contribution to life in Mallow..." this would back up the my thought that maybe the guys just want rid of the land. They are selling it off cheap (and quite rightly refused a lesser offer from the council).

Going back to an idea that put forward, since there's 75,000 of us on boards, why don't we pitch in €14 each and buy the land and create BoardsLand, Irelands premium theme park! Think of the rides we could have. "It's a CoolSmileyGirl World After All", "Thunder Mountainyman", "Gordon's Wild Ride", "Beruthiel's 'This Is Not A Medical Forum' Adventure". I'm telling you, this could really work!

0

#45 01-11-2006 04:06PM

mountainyman

Closed Accounts Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2005

Posts: 1972

MinesBIGSLUT wrote:

Nice - do you want to hold off being embarassed for a few minutes and define 'modern' for me?

Well if you can't distinguish between the outmigration from africa a hundred thousand years ago and the Elizabethan conquest of Ireland I am fraid I can't hold off the emabarassment, anyway if you don't knwo what modern means what's the point.

MM

0

#46 01-11-2006 04:26PM

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭ $\m/_(>_<)_\m/$

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 1172

humanji wrote:

it was private land opened for the public to use?

that's why i said that it may have slipped through the cracks and wasn't picked up by the free state as land to be reclaimed for the people of Ireland.

0

#47 01-11-2006 04:29PM

The Sweeper

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,658 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 10331

The point is simple.

I didn't know any of the migrating early men.

I didn't know the Elizabethans.

I didn't know the Raj, those who sailed with Columbus, the Vikings or any of the other historical figures who expanded their borders into other countries.

Subsequently I don't feel passionately enough about a patch of land in Mallow to see any justification in people shouting arse about it because it's 'the English' that own it.

If you want to play the ear-achingly dull '800 years of colonisation' record because two English people are requesting a more realistic - but still bargain - price for a patch of land that is legally theirs, I ask you this:

When are you going to get over it?

Can you see a solution that'll suit everyone?

No?

Do you just enjoy drinking pints and singing rebel songs because you have nothing else in your life to be passionate about?

Now that's embarassing.

0

#48 01-11-2006 04:37PM

BaZmO*

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,625 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: October 2003

Posts: 18268

Why don't the government just buy it back on a Cumpulsary Purchase Order?

0

#49 01-11-2006 04:48PM

Dyr

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2002

Posts: 22866

MinesBIGSLUT wrote:

Do you just enjoy drinking pints and singing rebel songs because you have nothing else in your life to be passionate about?

Now that's embarassing.

do you hit the desk with your foot everytime your knee jerks while you're posting?

Must hurt a bit

0

#50 01-11-2006 05:00PM

The Sweeper

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,658 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 10331

Did you miss the first 40 posts in this thread? If you go have a look through them you'll see I'm actually involved in a debate. (For a given value of 'debate'.) I'm sure you could buy something useful with that two cents though.

0

#51 01-11-2006 05:03PM

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,222 ✭✭✭ $\m/_(>_<)_\m/$

Join Date: May 2006

Posts: 1172

MinesBIGSLUT wrote:

Now that's embarassing.

no we all cant be wrong, everybody else is able to debate this issue like adults, no matter what side they believe is right....
but your just embarrassing yourself here with your posts, and yes that's embarrass with two R's

0

#52 01-11-2006 05:04PM

Gordon

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,522 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 34513

humanji wrote:

"Gordon's Wild Ride",

YEAH BABY!!

Love it! A wild ride with Gordon is certainly worth at least 14 euros.

0

#53 01-11-2006 05:08PM

Dyr

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2002

Posts: 22866

oh i did read it for my sins, well done on the debating.

Im just pointing out that you deciding that someone is a big sad bar stool sitting rebel song singing git because they aint got no respect for land deeds given out by her maj. queen vic (God rest her heathen soul) is a bit like if i was to call you a post-colonial-apologising-hand-the-country back-to-the-sassenach-and-apologise-for-the-state-its-in west brit based on your posts, *foot hits table*

ie knee jerky

0

#54 01-11-2006 05:27PM

Lurk

Closed Accounts Posts: 460 ✭✭

Join Date: August 2006

Posts: 452

Well the lease has run out, so those two guys own the land and can do what they want with it in reason. The woman who owned it originally must have wanted to keep it in the family, or else why didn't she just donate the park to Mallow.
Someone referred to that guy who bought Dartmouth Square...didn't the government just laugh at him when he asked for €15 million or thereabouts?
As a taxpayer, I don't mind contributing toward €1 million for a public park in wee Cork, but €15 million going to a speculator is just bananas.

0

#55 01-11-2006 06:11PM

The Sweeper

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,658 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 10331

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

no we all cant be wrong, everybody else is able to debate this issue like adults, no matter what side they believe is right....
but your just embarrassing yourself here with your posts, and yes that's embarrass with two R's

In order to be embarrassed, I need to actually be personally affected by what you're spouting. I'm sorry - I really am - but I don't care. That's the beauty of the internet. I can make my point, argue my point, and ignore the poor posting technique that is the pseudo-concerned "sssh your embarrassing yourself", or the correcting of spelling, or any of the other nifty little asides you want to use because you can't answer my points.

Let me state them again, so you can have another go:

Do you *really* know where you come from?

If you don't know where you come from, how can you truly lay claim to anywhere that you live based on anything outside the piece of paper that declares your legal ownership?

Can you define 'modern' in terms of colonisation?

Can you tell me why what happened 100 years ago is of greater importance than 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 3,000 years ago etc?

bambi wrote:

Im just pointing out that you deciding that someone is a big sad bar stool sitting rebel song singing git because they aint got no respect for land deeds given out by her maj. queen vic (God rest her heathen soul) is a bit like if i was to call you a post-colonial-apologising-hand-the-country back-to-the-sassenach-and-apologise-for-the-state-its-in west brit based on your posts, *foot hits table*

So if I were to head up a military coup in Ireland tomorrow, assume control, form my own government, I could take the deeds of all of ye who own homes in Ireland (precious commodity that they are!) and it'd be all right because I don't need to respect the deeds handed out by a law formed under the previous government?

Smashing! To arms!

0

#56 01-11-2006 06:57PM

tallus

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,324 ✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2005

Posts: 5943

The previous governments aren't an occupying power tho.

0

#57 01-11-2006 07:34PM

Dyr

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2002

Posts: 22866

MinesBIGSLUT wrote:

In order to be embarrassed, I need to actually be personally affected by what you're spouting. I'm sorry - I really am - but I don't care. That's the beauty of the internet. I can make my point, argue my point, and ignore the poor posting technique that is the pseudo-concerned "sssh your embarrassing yourself", or the correcting of spelling, or any of the other nifty little asides you want to use because you can't answer my points.

oh dear slutty, you might just have missed the point a teensy bit. Your points have been peppered with ad hominum attacks where you try to tar people with a big green brush. Thats the point.

Im glad you've bought the subject of posting technique up though, as we need to have a quick chat on the matter. It's all a bit embarrasing to bring this up in public of course but when you quote someone convention dictates that you're supposed to be responding to the text in the quote. I'm not sure why you've quoted my post when your response has nothing to do with it but i'll try to soldier on. Heres a quick example of correct usage of quotes for future note:

MinesBIGSLUT wrote:

So if I were to head up a military coup in Ireland tomorrow, assume control, form my own government, I could take the deeds of all of ye who own homes in Ireland (precious commodity that they are!) and it'd be all right because I don't need to respect the deeds handed out by a law formed under the previous government?

Why no bigslut, it would be very wrong indeedy. Which is why those two lads probably have no claim to a field in mallow

Also, lets take all those COI churches that were nicked offa the pope back in the day. Anglicans are old and wussified now, it'll be dead easy

0

#58 01-11-2006 09:06PM

The Sweeper

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,658 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 10331

Bambi wrote:

Im glad you've bought the subject of posting technique up though, as we need to have a quick chat on the matter. It's all a bit embarrasing to bring this up in public of course but when you quote someone convention dictates that you're supposed to be responding to the text in the quote. I'm not sure why you've quoted my post when your response has nothing to do with it but i'll try to soldier on. Heres a quick example of correct usage of quotes for future note

Hahahahahahahah ignore my points, engage in a snippity bitch war about posting methodology?

Do you have something to contribute to the actual original context of this thread, or should I point you in the direction of the gathering cards so you can find something cutting and lol-worthy?

0

#59 02-11-2006 03:55AM

sceptre

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,607 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 17983

brim4brim wrote:

The land wasn't given to them by the Irish government. If it was directly after the Irish independence do you think they'd of been paid. They have no right to the land anymore because the country is under different ownership.

If that was the case (and obviously it wasn't), every single person who owned a house prior to 1922 would have suddenly found right after independence that they didn't own it and that they'd have to ask permission from the new provisional government to have the deeds to their property. What you might have liked to happen, regardless of whether it should have happened or not, obviously didn't happen.

Given the location of the land in question and the size of the land in question, I tend to think a million euros is something of a bargain for the town council to pay for a freehold interest. Of course, whether I trust a town council to take a freehold interest in something like that without selling off part of it every few years whenever cash runs low for a few apartments to be slotted into place with a nice view of the river is another thing again.

0

#60 02-11-2006 06:08AM

Hobbes

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 1998

Posts: 18308

sceptre wrote:

If that was the case (and obviously it wasn't), every single person who owned a house prior to 1922 would have suddenly found right after independence that they didn't own it and that they'd have to ask permission from the new provisional government to have the deeds to their property.

Technically they did. Isn't that what compulsory purchase orders are for.

0

#61 02-11-2006 10:22AM

BaZmO*

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,625 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: October 2003

Posts: 18268

Hobbes wrote:

Technically they did. Isn't that what compulsory purchase orders are for.

Nope.

Compulsory purchase orders

What does it mean?

City Council has the power to compulsorily acquire property for certain purposes.

From the planning point of view, powers are available for land to be developed, redeveloped or improved.

It is important for local authorities and other public bodies to use to get together the land needed to help deliver change.

Used properly, they can help with good urban regeneration, the revitalisation of communities, and the promotion of business - leading to improvements in quality of life.

Those possessing compulsory purchase powers - whether at local, regional or national level - are encouraged to consider using them pro-actively wherever appropriate to ensure real gains are brought to residents and the business community without delay.

Compulsory Purchase Orders have to be authorised by the City Council.

Compulsory Purchase is a legal process but the basic steps are as follows:

The City Council authorise an Order.

The Order is made and submitted to the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State.

Notification of the Order is served on all those having an interest in the land.

This then allows for objections to be made.

Anyone can object to the Order, not just those having interests in the land concerned.

If the objections are not withdrawn a Public Local Inquiry will be held.

This is open to the public and, at the Inspector's discretion; it may be possible for those not having a direct interest in the Order to be heard.

Following the Inquiry the Secretary of State will then issue his decision.

This can either be that he confirms the Order, or confirms the Order with modification (ie. he may take some of the properties out of the Order), or does not confirm the Order.

If the Order is agreed the City Council will proceed to take possession of the property.

If there are no objections an Inquiry will not be held but the Secretary of State will make his decision as above.

All those having an interest in land will be compensated for the loss of their property.

The rules of compensation are complex but as a general principle no owner should be worse off as a result of compulsory purchase.

For instance, if the property concerned is where you live either the City Council will re-house you or you should have enough compensation to set up a new home.

Although Compulsory Purchase is way to get land it is usually done as part of a wider initiative, eg. a regeneration scheme or City Centre redevelopment scheme.

These are subject in their own right to consultation with local communities.

There will always be opportunities for individuals to make their views known about the proposals.

0

Comments