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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Kildare farmer objects to €8bn Intel investment...

12467…17

Comments

  • #152
    Simple_Simone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Simple_Simone


    sbsquarepants wrote: »


    Would you like it if Tesco decided your house was going to be their new frozen food aisle, regardless of whether you wanted it to be or not?

    Not being a third generation sentimental fool, I'd very happily take Tesco's money and run. In fact I'm tempted to question your sanity in asking such an incredibly naive question.


  • #153
    greencap
    Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Possibly, possibly not.

    As I said I don't know the ins and outs of this one - my issue is with their CPO attempt. 8 billion, 80 billion, or 8 euro doesn't make a difference to that one - it's either right or it's wrong, and I believe it's wrong.

    but no, not possibly.

    jobs are vital to the economy, and the economy is vital to the state.

    if you want the country to continue to function, and if that one site is the only place that these jobs can go, then how else do you resolve the issue other than apply to the court for a cpo?

    discussion/2058195983/russia-threadbanned-users-in-op/p3135

    😁



  • #154
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    This whole jobs talk is no different to the wall trump wants to build along Mexico.


  • #155
    Ri_Nollaig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭Ri_Nollaig


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    Would you like it if Tesco decided your house was going to be their new frozen food aisle, regardless of whether you wanted it to be or not?

    Well its not like they are just taking it and throwing him on the side of the road is it?
    I am sure he will be very well compensated.

    He won the previous case because the IDA tried to CPO without a buyer/investment. Well now they have one don't they.


  • #156
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Ri_Nollaig wrote:
    Well its not like they are just taking it and throwing him on the side of the road is it? I am sure he will be very well compensated.


    Why do you assume it should only come down to money. Some people for whatever reason cannot be bought and will fight 'tooth and nail' as he has done in the past. I suspect he will do so again if the occasion arises.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    nelly17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭nelly17


    Ri_Nollaig wrote: »
    Well its not like they are just taking it and throwing him on the side of the road is it?
    I am sure he will be very well compensated.

    He won the previous case because the IDA tried to CPO without a buyer/investment. Well now they have one don't they.

    That's not quite correct though it failed because the court found the IDA acted in excess of their powers, they had not got the powers then and they don't have them now


  • #158
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,920 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    People seem to be conflating the case that involved his land with this new application. This application has absolutely nothing to do with his land, it won't affect his land, it pertains only to land that Intel already own. He is objecting purely out of bad blood, not to protect his assets.


  • #159
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,503 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    People seem to be conflating the case that involved his land with this new application. This application has absolutely nothing to do with his land, it won't affect his land, it pertains only to land that Intel already own. He is objecting purely out of bad blood, not to protect his assets.

    He sounds like a b0ll0cks


  • #160
    greencap
    Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Why do you assume it should only come down to money. Some people for whatever reason cannot be bought and will fight 'tooth and nail' as he has done in the past. I suspect he will do so again if the occasion arises.

    stop casting him as a hero.
    hes just an oddball overly attached to a field.

    he probably gets a trowel out at night, and digs a little hole, and makes sweet love to his precious precious field.

    mmmm field. youre the only field for me. i dont even look at those other fields.

    discussion/2058195983/russia-threadbanned-users-in-op/p3135

    😁



  • #161
    nelly17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭nelly17


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    People seem to be conflating the case that involved his land with this new application. This application has absolutely nothing to do with his land, it won't affect his land, it pertains only to land that Intel already own. He is objecting purely out of bad blood, not to protect his assets.

    Thanks for this, this I was not sure on. But yeah from what I can gather in this instance he is objecting to the future development which will have nothing to do with the IDA or CPO's. Theres no mention of if Intel allready owns the land so assuming thats the case leave him off.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Feisar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,708 ✭✭✭Feisar


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    People seem to be conflating the case that involved his land with this new application. This application has absolutely nothing to do with his land, it won't affect his land, it pertains only to land that Intel already own. He is objecting purely out of bad blood, not to protect his assets.

    If someone tried to force a sale of what's mine, damn right there would be bad blood. I'd definitely have my objection in.

    **** with me and I'll **** with you.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • #163
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭KERSPLAT!


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    People seem to be conflating the case that involved his land with this new application. This application has absolutely nothing to do with his land, it won't affect his land, it pertains only to land that Intel already own. He is objecting purely out of bad blood, not to protect his assets.

    It makes no odds if he has legitimate concerns.


  • #164
    corminators
    Registered Users Posts: 92 ✭✭corminators


    Feisar wrote: »
    If someone tried to force a sale of what's mine, damn right there would be bad blood. I'd definitely have my objection in.

    **** with me and I'll **** with you.

    I was in the high court for his first case where IDA tried to steal his land. Basically they had no use lined up for it but wanted to grab it off him via CPO. And the judge sided with IDA. Thought it was ridiculous at the time. Basically you have to appeal to the supreme courts to keep your rights to land.

    Of course the supreme court pointed out there was no god given right to steal his land, especially when they had no intended use for it at the time.

    No wonder he's kicking up a fuss now


  • #165
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    greencap wrote:
    stop casting him as a hero. hes just an oddball overly attached to a field.


    I'm not casting him as a hero likewise I 'm not claiming he's crazy either.


  • #166
    stoneill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭stoneill


    Looking at the Kildare co.co planning website he is the only objection listed.
    OK so people are entitled to object and he is a direct neighbor.

    However - having worked there, the job did pay well, I have my house paid off and three kids through college.
    The new development will mean that a new generation of workers may have the chance to buy their own house,
    raise a family and prepare the kids for adult life.

    I am not a brainwashed Intel head, I did work there, but not now.
    I do know that Intel are committed to a clean environment, they do work with local communities, they do get involved with further education
    and they do value being a good neighbour to the residents in Leixlip.
    Leixlip water has never been as good quality since they came here, Leixlip village has never been as thriving, Leixlip schools never had as good computer training technology.
    Same could be said for Lucan, Celbridge, Maynooth and further.

    Of all the factories that could be built beside me I would have rather have Intel than many many other companies out there.


  • #167
    machiavellianme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,678 ✭✭✭✭machiavellianme


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    From my understanding he doesn't want to give up his farm/land that has being in his family for generations.

    As a part time farmer, I understand his position. But 72 acres is not a lot and certainly won't be sufficient to sustain future generations comfortably unless he is into some very niche areas of farming with lucrative contracts in place. You wouldn't make much return on that acerage on tillage, dairy, beef or sheep. I'd say it's more a question of when rather than if he gives up his farm.


  • #168
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,346 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    stoneill wrote: »
    Looking at the Kildare co.co planning website he is the only objection listed.
    OK so people are entitled to object and he is a direct neighbor.

    However - having worked there, the job did pay well, I have my house paid off and three kids through college.
    The new development will mean that a new generation of workers may have the chance to buy their own house,
    raise a family and prepare the kids for adult life.

    I am not a brainwashed Intel head, I did work there, but not now.
    I do know that Intel are committed to a clean environment, they do work with local communities, they do get involved with further education
    and they do value being a good neighbour to the residents in Leixlip.
    Leixlip water has never been as good quality since they came here, Leixlip village has never been as thriving, Leixlip schools never had as good computer training technology.
    Same could be said for Lucan, Celbridge, Maynooth and further.

    Of all the factories that could be built beside me I would have rather have Intel than many many other companies out there.
    I live in Leixlip also and recognise all the good that they do.
    This has absolutely nothing to do with them applying for planning permission and the ability for people to lodge objections to proposed developments for whatever reasons.

    Based on your points, it could be taken that you believe that if they spend enough money in the locality, then they should be allowed do what they like.


  • #169
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,346 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    machiavellianme wrote: »
    As a part time farmer, I understand his position. But 72 acres is not a lot and certainly won't be sufficient to sustain future generations comfortably unless he is into some very niche areas of farming with lucrative contracts in place. You wouldn't make much return on that acerage on tillage, dairy, beef or sheep. I'd say it's more a question of when rather than if he gives up his farm.
    It depends on what type of farming you want to do but 72 acres is plenty if you're going organic for example or keeping a few horses.
    His is good land also!

    Either way, his land isn't currently at risk and is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion.


  • #170
    cocokabana
    Registered Users Posts: 51 ✭✭cocokabana


    the_syco wrote: »
    I doubt it. If your brother found he could treble the size of his farm, on better land, with get a free house, new farm machinery, and more animals, with money to put his children through college, I'd say he'd take it.

    I know a family who sold their farm during the Celtic tiger to a developer for €20million. They bought another farm 20 miles away and have a fabulous place. The old family farmhouse is still standing on the edge of acres of new housing estates and Tesco.


  • #171
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,305 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Mrsmum wrote: »
    Can they not go around him and basically leave him alone ?
    No. To the south of him is the road, to the north the Rye river.
    Kellan Microscopic Poppycock wrote: »
    Anyone find the actual appeal online? I didnt find it by searching intel planning applications made to Kildare Co Council.
    It's in the application in on Kildare CC's website.
    Here it is; https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109607312&postcount=54
    stoneill wrote: »
    I do know that Intel are committed to a clean environment, they do work with local communities, they do get involved with further education
    Agreed. Heck, they're not building further south because of the Rye!
    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Either way, his land isn't currently at risk and is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion.
    If his land is ever sold to Intel, Kellystown lane will disappear.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,558 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    Hoboo wrote: »
    Got over what?

    Our obsession with the past and land. A person whose family has been in the same plot for the past five hundred years deserves no more consideration than any other citizen.


  • #173
    Rows Grower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    Our obsession with the past and land. A person whose family has been in the same plot for the past five hundred years deserves no more consideration than any other citizen.

    Go home, yank.

    "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it."

    Donald Trump, March 13th 2018.



  • #174
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,305 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    Our obsession with the past and land. A person whose family has been in the same plot for the past five hundred years deserves no more consideration than any other citizen.
    Having checked the census, the family have lived in that area for just over a 100 years.

    I have no issue with IDA's land-grab being curtailed, but because of the way they went about it, there's no hope in hell he'll part with the land now, if for no other reason than to spite the IDA.


  • #175
    greencap
    Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    the_syco wrote: »
    Having checked the census, the family have lived in that area for just over a 100 years.

    so what 100 years.

    most peoples grandparents would have owned their homes 50-60 years.
    there's no song and dance about them being sold when the time comes.

    nobody from an historical agency arrives and says 'oooh the o'reillys lived there for over 62 years'.

    Someone lived in that house for 62 years, quick, list that building.

    is there something special about the 100 years mark?

    isn't it an empty field anyway?

    that would just mean that one particular name was in a land registry book for 100 years.
    along with all the other names. its not really of any consequence.

    discussion/2058195983/russia-threadbanned-users-in-op/p3135

    😁



  • #176
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Kellan Microscopic Poppycock wrote: »
    One nice thing about a fab is that once it's there, it's there. The construction costs are so great that relocating operations to a cheaper location is unlikely to be financially viable, the way it was for Dell to relocate their factory from Limerick for example.
    No.

    They have to build a fab for each level of technology.

    It's like the UK car industry, they used to invest £2.5Bn a year, but since the referendum it's dropped down to £0.6Bn a year. Car models have a 3-5 year life cycle and as the reach the next cycle most of the production lines in the UK will need major investment to catch up or be shut down.


  • #177
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    the_syco wrote: »
    IMO, they should look into tunnelling. Tunnel south, and expand that way.
    Or go full Hank Scorpio and tunnel an underground base under the farm.


  • #178
    stoneill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭stoneill


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    I live in Leixlip also and recognise all the good that they do.
    This has absolutely nothing to do with them applying for planning permission and the ability for people to lodge objections to proposed developments for whatever reasons.

    Based on your points, it could be taken that you believe that if they spend enough money in the locality, then they should be allowed do what they like.

    I suggest you read it again


  • #179
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,558 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    the_syco wrote: »
    Having checked the census, the family have lived in that area for just over a 100 years.

    I have no issue with IDA's land-grab being curtailed, but because of the way they went about it, there's no hope in hell he'll part with the land now, if for no other reason than to spite the IDA.

    I wasn’t referring to them in particular, just the attitude in general. It shouldn’t matter at all how long somebody’s family have lived in a particular place.


  • #180
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,558 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    Rows Grower wrote: »
    Go home, yank.

    Threads about land always contain some strange responses.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    facehugger99
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    The principle of being able to object to planning isn't an issue. What is the problem, is the amount of time it takes for the appeals process to run its course.

    As it stands, applicants can spend a couple of years and hundreds of thousands carrying out the requires studies and surveys and compiling an Environmental Impact Assessment and submitting this to a planning authority.

    A few cranks can then lodge fairly spurious objections and frustrate the process for further years in some cases.

    There are international companies that have chosen other countries to invest in over Ireland purely on the basis of the time, expense and hassle to secure planning permission.


  • #182
    Rows Grower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,375 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    Threads about land always contain some strange responses.

    No collar, uniform or weapon will protect the man who steals my field.

    "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it."

    Donald Trump, March 13th 2018.



  • #183
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,346 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    stoneill wrote: »
    I suggest you read it again
    I've read it again. Should I have seen something that you think I may have missed?


  • #184
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    greencap wrote: »
    but no, not possibly.

    jobs are vital to the economy, and the economy is vital to the state.

    if you want the country to continue to function, and if that one site is the only place that these jobs can go, then how else do you resolve the issue other than apply to the court for a cpo?

    No, absolutely not. Intel do not own or run this country - they do not get to compel anyone to do anything.

    They can offer remuneration in return for services, materials, land, whatever - but that is all they can do.

    It is then up to the person involved to either accept or reject that offer - that's as far as it goes. That's fundamental to contract law, and Intel would be quick enough to point that out should anyone try compel them to move for example.
    Simple_Simone wrote: »
    Not being a third generation sentimental fool, I'd very happily take Tesco's money and run. In fact I'm tempted to question your sanity in asking such an incredibly naive question.

    So would I most likely - but the crucial thing is that's my choice as it is yours, we're both free to choose a different course should we wish to. It's when you try remove that freedom to suit a commercial entity that I have a problem with.

    Intel may well be a giant corporation, but it's still just a corporation. It doesn't and shouldn't get to have any power whatsoever over the citizens of this or any other country.


  • #185
    10pennymixup
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭10pennymixup


    Simple_Simone wrote: »
    Not being a third generation sentimental fool, I'd very happily take Tesco's money and run. In fact I'm tempted to question your sanity in asking such an incredibly naive question.

    And that's OK, it's your choice if you want to take the money and allow Tesco ride roughshod over you.

    Just as there are very stubborn third generational fools in life, there are also plenty of people that have no principals at all.


  • #186
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,495 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    I don't dispute they've had an enormous effect on the economy and the country as a whole.
    This would appear to be true.
    If it wasn't suiting them, they'd up and leave
    That's true too, considering the enormous effect on the economy and the country as a whole, well, lets hope that it continues to suit them.
    we owe them nothing!

    Wait, what about the whole "enormous effect on the economy and country as a whole" thing?


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,447 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Mad_maxx wrote: »
    There wouldn't be a decent road in the country if guys like him were indulged

    Roads are a public asset to be used by the public at large. While there is certainly a public benefit.arisibg from building a factory, the constitution preserves personal property rights which means he should have strong rights to determine whether another private entity should be permitted to effectively acquire his property.


  • #188
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,558 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    Ireland indulges nimbys far too much and we’ve seen the effects in Dublin as well. The constitutional pendulum needs to swing a little more in favour of the national interest. Not too sound too freemannish here but, in the final analysis, the people of Ireland are sovereign and all property rights are granted by them to individuals.


  • #189
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,175 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    Ireland indulges nimbys far too much and we’ve seen the effects in Dublin as well.

    better that and it's many faults then giving private multinationals leeway to do what they like.
    Ardillaun wrote: »
    The constitutional pendulum needs to swing a little more in favour of the national interest.

    the constitution strikes the correct balance between national and personal interest. no changes are required to deal with this specific issue as the relevant procedures are more then enough.
    Ardillaun wrote: »
    Not too sound too freemannish here but, in the final amalysis, the people of Ireland are sovereign and all property rights are granted by them to individuals.

    ultimately irrelevant as we via the constitution grant the rights to ourselves and we all benefit from such property rights.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #190
    greencap
    Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    sbsquarepants wrote: »

    It is then up to the person involved to either accept or reject that offer - that's as far as it goes.



    No its not, thankfully.

    Just the same as if there was someone who owned a square meter in the path of the m50 they would have got some compensation and a wave off, I'm hoping this particular case gets the same treatment.

    A whole country shouldn't have to miss out over one gobshytes nostalgia for a random field.

    discussion/2058195983/russia-threadbanned-users-in-op/p3135

    😁



  • #191
    elperello
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,603 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    greencap wrote: »
    No its not, thankfully.

    Just in the same was as if there was someone who owned a square meter in the path of the m50 they would have got some compensation and a wave off, I'm hoping this particular case gets the same treatment.

    A whole country shouldn't have to miss out over one gobshytes nostalgia for a random field.

    Bit harsh calling him a gob****e but he does march to a different drum to say the least.

    There is quite a difference between the State compulsorily purchasing land for public infrastructure and a privately owned company seeking to buy land from a citizen.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,558 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    end of the road wrote: »
    ultimately irrelevant as we via the constitution grant the rights to ourselves and we all benefit from such property rights.

    It’s not at all irrelevant to the insular, nimby mindset that is given so much weight in Ireland. If we started every discussion of this sort from the national interest end of things we would be better off.

    This incident in Sligo illustrates how people can get a bit carried away when the issue of da land comes up:

    https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/sligo-farmer-warned-by-gardai-about-shotgun-patrolling/


  • #193
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,175 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    It’s not at all irrelevant to the insular, nimby mindset that is given so much weight in Ireland. If we started every discussion of this sort from the national interest end of things we would be better off.

    we already do where such needs to happen.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #194
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,346 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    greencap wrote: »
    No its not, thankfully.

    Just in the same was as if there was someone who owned a square meter in the path of the m50 they would have got some compensation and a wave off, I'm hoping this particular case gets the same treatment.

    A whole country shouldn't have to miss out over one gobshytes nostalgia for a random field.
    If you're referring to the Intel objection then your way off! The ownership or CPOing of land is not part of this!


  • #195
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    facehugger99 wrote: »
    The principle of being able to object to planning isn't an issue. What is the problem, is the amount of time it takes for the appeals process to run its course.

    As it stands, applicants can spend a couple of years and hundreds of thousands carrying out the requires studies and surveys and compiling an Environmental Impact Assessment and submitting this to a planning authority.

    A few cranks can then lodge fairly spurious objections and frustrate the process for further years in some cases.

    There are international companies that have chosen other countries to invest in over Ireland purely on the basis of the time, expense and hassle to secure planning permission.

    One of the big issues is the many of these "studies" are not worth the paper their written on in terms of carrying out a fair assessment of a developments impact. Developers will never produce a "study" that shows their development is economically or environmentally unsustainable. I've read many of these in my time and the amount of BS and gaps would make you laugh if it wasn't so potentially serious. At the end of the day ABP and the courts will nearly always kick spurious objections out. The issue is the length of time it takes to process such things. What we don't need are facist proposals that restrict peoples legitmate rights to environmental justice which is quaranteed under various EU Directives and Aahraus etc.


  • #196
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Ardillaun wrote:
    This incident in Sligo illustrates how people can get a bit carried away when the issue of da land comes up:


    Yet the article you linked has nothing got to do with da land, it concerns dogs attacking sheep. At least read your own links FFS.


  • #197
    rayjdav
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭rayjdav


    For anyone on here who wants to actually see what InHell are proposing:

    http://webgeo.kildarecoco.ie/public/planningsearch/171#

    file No. 1991

    Seems he should have paid a few quid in fairness to someone who knows how to compile objection letters as this will be ignored as vexatious waffle tbh.... Wasted opportunity to be taken somebit serious imo....


  • #198
    Sheep breeder
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,093 ✭✭✭Sheep breeder


    There is two sides to this the good and the bad, the good of the country and the bad the guy that won’t sell the land, the middle is the mess the IDA have caused and the cost to the state. In approaching the purchase of the land and ending up in court and now a Mexican standoff over the planning,surly the have made a tit of this and should be held accountable and asked who got the back hander to get the guy off the land and bull a head and forget about owners rights.


  • #199
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,558 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Yet the article you linked has nothing got to do with da land, it concerns dogs attacking sheep. At least read your own links FFS.

    It has everything to do with the land. You think a man threatening dog owners with a gun on a public road is acceptable? In an earlier outburst, he even threatened to shoot the dogs while they were on their leads right beside their owners for crying out loud. That sense of entitlement arises from an outdated cultural consensus. In a properly run country he would have been charged to send a clear message to any other loon with the same worldview.


  • #200
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Ardillaun wrote:
    It has everything to do with the land. You think a man threatening dog owners with a gun on a public road is acceptable? In an earlier outburst, he even threatened to shoot the dogs while they were on their leads right beside their owners for crying out loud. That sense of entitlement arises from an outdated cultural consensus. In a properly run country he would have been charged to send a clear message to any other loon with the same worldview.


    Yet again the article refers to dogs worrying sheep. Says it all when you refer to others as 'loons'. Sense of entitlement? You don't really understand property rights do you?


  • #201
    The pink killer
    Registered Users Posts: 65 ✭✭The pink killer


    Its like offering someone money for there car but they don't want to sell it as its there pride and joy but the guy wanting to buy it starts crying cause him and his mates can't get to work in the the new flashy car, ITS HIS CAR NOT YOURS NOW F#CKOFF. !


  • Advertisement
Advertisement