Woman faces jail for preventing ESB access to her property

bassey

eastwest wrote: »

Eirgrid was cited in the court, along with ESB. Eirgrid has no statutory powers to enter on lands without permission. This Woman needs a lawyer, she'll be out in five minutes. Her mistake was in going into court without a proper lawyer.
The ESB has huge expertise in overhead powerlines, but very little up to date experience in underground cabling. It uses comparisons against the cost of undergrounding lines in urban areas to justify not doing so in rural areas. ESB doesn't want to go down the route of undergrounding; too many managerial careers are staked on overhead lines.
If all costs are taken into account, compensation etc included, shorter underground rputes taken into account, and like is compared with like, the underground option costs around the same. Moving to underground on a large scale would destroy a few careers, so it won't happen.

Sorry but this is utter bullshìt. The HV cables section in ESB Networks. have some of the highest skilled and highly trained cable jointers in Europe.

The extra cost of putting a line underground comes from:

1. The cable itself is incredibly expensive because it's a lot more than just the aluminium involved in overhead lines.

2. The joints on the cable take a good while to do. A 110KV joint takes about a week to do depending on the manufacture of the cable.

3. All the extra expense involved in putting a cable underground such as the slabs, the thermal sand and maybe having to re route the cable or other services along the way.

Victor

bucketybuck wrote: »

Victor wrote: »

Knock it off.

While I understand your intentions, why is it that this lady can be characterised as "a very kind and caring respectable person", a claim completely without any evidence and used to present her as the victim in every way? Yet to highlight this by describing her otherwise gets sanctioned?

Hardly a big deal, but frustrating that for some people the only argument they can present is that "she is an old woman, leave her alone", and that cannot be responded to.

Those other people are asking for the woman to be left alone. You are asking (a) for her not to be left alone and (b) that you be allowed continue insulting her.

The person involved in the case isn't here to defend herself.

Victor

bucketybuck wrote: »

Victor wrote: »

Knock it off.

While I understand your intentions, why is it that this lady can be characterised as "a very kind and caring respectable person", a claim completely without any evidence and used to present her as the victim in every way? Yet to highlight this by describing her otherwise gets sanctioned?

Hardly a big deal, but frustrating that for some people the only argument they can present is that "she is an old woman, leave her alone", and that cannot be responded to.

Those other people are asking for the woman to be left alone. You are asking (a) for her not to be left alone and (b) that you be allowed continue insulting her.

The person involved in the case isn't here to defend herself.

Justice for the individual

"a claim completely without any evidence". Please refer to The Irish Mail on Sunday, September 18, P.12-13, O'Reilly, A., Lynott, L., where you will find the evidence to refute your completely incorrect argument. The woman is completely innocent.

eastwest

You are ignoring the cost of pylons, the cost of building roads to reach pylon bases, the huge compensation costs, and the longer routes taken by overhead lines (up to 50% longer in many cases).
In Roscommon/Sligo, a line that was budgeted to cost around 30 million, and that took a 30 mile route when a 20 mile route was available along the N4 for a cabled option, now seems set to top 100 million, a lot more more than the cost of the underground option that was touted by eirgrid in their original arguments in favour of the (cheaper?) 30 million option. In addition, ESB and Eirgrid have spent the best part of two decades trying to ram this line through a community that doesn't want it and that gets no benefit from it. The deliberate routing of the line through an important Bronze Age site seems little more than a "giving the finger" to a concerned community that values this heritage, is in direct contrdiction of ESBs' supposed environmental policy, and would be punishable as a crime in many countries.
Sooner or later, the privatised ESB will root out the cabal of overhead lines "lifers" and contract out this kind of infrastructure to the people who can deliver it cheaper, quicker and without alienating most of its customers. The jailing of this woman is the tip of the iceberg of a PR disaster brought about by bull-headed anti-social elements within this semi-state monolith.

bassey wrote: »

Sorry but this is utter bullshìt. The HV cables section in ESB Networks. have some of the highest skilled and highly trained cable jointers in Europe.

The extra cost of putting a line underground comes from:

1. The cable itself is incredibly expensive because it's a lot more than just the aluminium involved in overhead lines.

2. The joints on the cable take a good while to do. A 110KV joint takes about a week to do depending on the manufacture of the cable.

3. All the extra expense involved in putting a cable underground such as the slabs, the thermal sand and maybe having to re route the cable or other services along the way.

loremolis

Justice for the individual wrote: »

"a claim completely without any evidence". Please refer to The Irish Mail on Sunday, September 18, P.12-13, O'Reilly, A., Lynott, L., where you will find the evidence to refute your completely incorrect argument. The woman is completely innocent.

Can you be more specific.

What is the "claim completely without evidence" and what does the Irish Mail on Sunday say? (for those of us who didn't buy it.)

loremolis

eastwest wrote: »

You are ignoring the cost of pylons, the cost of building roads to reach pylon bases, the huge compensation costs, and the longer routes taken by overhead lines (up to 50% longer in many cases).
In Roscommon/Sligo, a line that was budgeted to cost around 30 million, and that took a 30 mile route when a 20 mile route was available along the N4 for a cabled option, now seems set to top 100 million, a lot more more than the cost of the underground option that was touted by eirgrid in their original arguments in favour of the (cheaper?) 30 million option. In addition, ESB and Eirgrid have spent the best part of two decades trying to ram this line through a community that doesn't want it and that gets no benefit from it. The deliberate routing of the line through an important Bronze Age site seems little more than a "giving the finger" to a concerned community that values this heritage, is in direct contrdiction of ESBs' supposed environmental policy, and would be punishable as a crime in many countries.
Sooner or later, the privatised ESB will root out the cabal of overhead lines "lifers" and contract out this kind of infrastructure to the people who can deliver it cheaper, quicker and without alienating most of its customers. The jailing of this woman is the tip of the iceberg of a PR disaster brought about by bull-headed anti-social elements within this semi-state monolith.

I agree.

Another relevant actor here is the fact that the ESB must seek approval from the CER if they want to acquire an easement to underground a cable.

By using a section 53 wayleave for an overground cable they are avoid the scrutiny of the CER and there is no independent third party checking if they have planned their line properly.

Wayleaves for overhead lines suit the ESB as they are answerable to nobody.

The myth that an underground cable is more expensive than an underground cable is put forward by the ESB as a reason to avoid having to acquire an easement.

If anyone believes that underground is more expensive than overground, show me the figures.

Justice for the individual

bucketybuck wrote: »

While I understand your intentions, why is it that this lady can be characterised as "a very kind and caring respectable person", a claim completely without any evidence and used to present her as the victim in every way? Yet to highlight this by describing her otherwise gets sanctioned?

Hardly a big deal, but frustrating that for some people the only argument they can present is that "she is an old woman, leave her alone", and that cannot be responded to.

I was referring to the above assumption by bucketybuck. The article in The Mail On Sunday gave a very detailed background into the whole controversy. They actually investigated all of the issues instead of making wild accusations. It proves that she is a very decent person with sincerely held principles. Apologies would be in order from certain quarters.

bucketybuck

Justice for the individual wrote: »

I was referring to the above assumption by bucketybuck. The article in The Mail On Sunday gave a very detailed background into the whole controversy. They actually investigated all of the issues instead of making wild accusations. It proves that she is a very decent person with sincerely held principles. Apologies would be in order from certain quarters.

I make no apology at all. With all due respect, a new user with the name "justice for the individual" telling me to find an old newspaper and accept what they say at face value, well, thats not evidence, not in the slightest. You cannot deny you have an obvious bias in this instance. And where exactly am I to find a copy of the Mail on Sunday? Thats rather convenient isnt it, evidence that I am unable to read myself.

ETA: I would also like to make clear that I want to make no particular judgement of this womans personality. I do not know her, and she may be a perfectly nice woman. I do think it is lazy for people to support their opinions by painting her as some sort of latter day saint, that is just filling in the gaps to suit your own arguments.

Justice for the individual

Justice for the individual wrote: »

"a claim completely without any evidence". Please refer to The Irish Mail on Sunday, September 18, P.12-13, O'Reilly, A., Lynott, L., where you will find the evidence to refute your completely incorrect argument. The woman is completely innocent.

BUCKETYBUCK
The article is in the Mail On Sunday, Sept. 18, 2011, and therefore is not old. I have given you the details, now go and get it for yourself and prove yourself so wrong. I hope you are man enough to apologize when you read the full story and discover that she is in fact a very genuine person. Being a lady, she would not call people insulting names. In any case you should self-educate yourself by buying a few papers and and keeping up with all the news. It looks like you are the stubborn (intractable, obstinate, inflexible) one. Withdraw gracefully and leave the woman alone. You have lost the argument, goodbye.

Justice for the individual

bucketybuck wrote: »

I make no apology at all. With all due respect, a new user with the name "justice for the individual" telling me to find an old newspaper and accept what they say at face value, well, thats not evidence, not in the slightest. You cannot deny you have an obvious bias in this instance. And where exactly am I to find a copy of the Mail on Sunday? Thats rather convenient isnt it, evidence that I am unable to read myself.

ETA: I would also like to make clear that I want to make no particular judgement of this womans personality. I do not know her, and she may be a perfectly nice woman. I do think it is lazy for people to support their opinions by painting her as some sort of latter day saint, that is just filling in the gaps to suit your own arguments.

It looks like you are back-tracking and softening your comments, which is an example of self-analysis or self-preservation. You are obviously not researching for any evidence to back up your claims, which badly undermines your argument. I cannot hold your hand and guide you to a telephone to ring The Mail On Sunday to ask for information to obtain a copy of the edition for last Sunday (hint). My only bias is on the side of justice.

As well, all this negative publicity reflects badly on the ESB & Eirgrid and will be costly in the long run. It will also gradually bring some light (pun) into the workings of these bodies. At the moment, all the pay structures in these organisations are being re-accessed (we hope) and they will have to "feel the pain" like everyone else.

Meanwhile, we the taxpayers are, and will continue to pay for these expensive incursions on to private land. Remember, you or I could be next and your rights will be trampled on in the same manner.
Do not accuse me of bias, facts are facts. Some other way must be found to resolve these issues, instead of the powerful dictating to the weak. It will also bring us to question the ownership of our land. According to the Oxford Dictionary, Freehold is: holding of land or property in absolute possession. What does this mean? Is Miss Teresa Treacy a Freeholder? Has she a case? As the solicitors would say " this could be interesting".

bucketybuck

Justice for the individual wrote: »

BUCKETYBUCK
The article is in the Mail On Sunday, Sept. 18, 2011, and therefore is not old. I have given you the details, now go and get it for yourself and prove yourself so wrong. I hope you are man enough to apologize when you read the full story and discover that she is in fact a very genuine person. Being a lady, she would not call people insulting names. In any case you should self-educate yourself by buying a few papers and and keeping up with all the news. It looks like you are the stubborn (intractable, obstinate, inflexible) one. Withdraw gracefully and leave the woman alone. You have lost the argument, goodbye.

Can you please tell me where I can go to buy last Sundays "Mail on Sunday"? Should be an easy one for you, after all, it is not that old.

Justice for the individual

bucketybuck wrote: »

Can you please tell me where I can go to buy last Sundays "Mail on Sunday"? Should be an easy one for you, after all, it is not that old.

I'm amazed such a brilliant person cannot think for himself. Ring The Mail on Sunday and they will tell you where to go to get a copy. You need somebody to look after you!

Milk & Honey

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038740/Teresa-Treacy-Irelands-unlikely-martyr--sent-prison-trying-save-trees.html

bucketybuck

Interestingly, the Sunday Sport ran a fascinating article on this very issue, September 11, Pg.8, Janus, Hugh. It was a very informative article indeed, that touched on all aspects of the case. One quote in particular stood out for me;

It has been apparent that ESB acted appropriately in this matter, and they should be commended for their willingness to engage in dialogue

Seems to me like conclusive evidence that ESB acted appropriately. I can't see how anybody could possibly think otherwise. After all, no news article in any newspaper ever has had any sort of editorial slant, that just does not happen.

Victor

bucketybuck, please don't make stuff up like that with insulting names.

bucketybuck

Ridiculous.

Somebody implies that this woman is a saint, I say that there is just as much evidence for her being a loon (ie. None). I am the one that gets admonished.

Somebody states that some newspaper article nobody can read backs up their opinion and so they are right. I state that this newspaper article nobody can read backs up my opinion. I get a warning.

So be it Victor. If you want to shut down any discussion that disagrees with your own viewpoint, well, lets all just praise this woman to high heaven.

Thank you Teresa Treacy for showing us all that we are allowed to ignore court orders. I hope more people do that in future. We have much to learn from her.

There is obviously no desire for debate here, so I will just leave you to it. Wouldn't want to get banned for disagreeing with someone.

loremolis

bucketybuck wrote: »

Interestingly, the Sunday Sport ran a fascinating article on this very issue, September 11, Pg.8, Janus, Hugh. It was a very informative article indeed, that touched on all aspects of the case. One quote in particular stood out for me;


Seems to me like conclusive evidence that ESB acted appropriately. I can't see how anybody could possibly think otherwise. After all, no news article in any newspaper ever has had any sort of editorial slant, that just does not happen.

Someone went to the bother of posting a link to the article which you claimed you wanted to see.

Rather than respond to the content of the article, you decide to create a fictional article from which you then quote.

Is this the type of argument and discussion you are looking for?

No wonder you couldn't understand my point.

AstonMartin

What is the relevant legislation that allows the esb to go where they please?

loremolis

AstonMartin wrote: »

What is the relevant legislation that allows the esb to go where they please?

Without wanting to give you a smart answer, they can't go wherever they please (in terms of entry onto private property).

If your question was allows them to put up electricity lines wherever they please then the main legislation they use is the 1927 Electricity Supply Act, Section 53 in particular.

eastwest

loremolis wrote: »

Without wanting to give you a smart answer, they can't go wherever they please (in terms of entry onto private property).

If your question was allows them to put up electricity lines wherever they please then the main legislation they use is the 1927 Electricity Supply Act, Section 53 in particular.

The 1927 Act allows the ESB to go on lands to erect lines, but it gives no such powers to Eirgrid. The judge would appear to have assumed that Eirgrid is the same as the ESB; it isn't, it's a separate company.

As I said before, a good lawyer should get this woman out in five minutes.

Milk & Honey

eastwest wrote: »

The 1927 Act allows the ESB to go on lands to erect lines, but it gives no such powers to Eirgrid. The judge would appear to have assumed that Eirgrid is the same as the ESB; it isn't, it's a separate company.

As I said before, a good lawyer should get this woman out in five minutes.

The 1927 Act also allows the ESB to authorise other undertakers to access land.
At the time the ESB was set up there were a number of companies involved in the supply and generation of electricity. The ESB could if it wished co-operate with one of those companies to deliver electricty to consumers.
The ESB can authorise EIRGRID to do anything the ESB can do itself.

At this stage legally, the ESBs powers are irrelevant. That was a matter to be argued in court. Insofar as it was argued, a finding was made. An order was given. It can only be re-argued on appeal to the Supreme Court and only then on limited grounds. Unless the points about the ESB's powers were argued in the High Court, the Supreme Court will not entertain it.
If she wants out, she will have to purge her contempt.

loremolis

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The 1927 Act also allows the ESB to authorise other undertakers to access land.
At the time the ESB was set up there were a number of companies involved in the supply and generation of electricity. The ESB could if it wished co-operate with one of those companies to deliver electricty to consumers.
The ESB can authorise EIRGRID to do anything the ESB can do itself..

I understand the point about authorised undertakers but it isn't as simple as that.

The powers given to the ESB under Section 53 cannot or have not been passed onto Eirgrid.
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/4319FA63-D2D7-4E76-9A8F-B69016A1B63E/0/FOI20112RequestandReply.pdf
The last 7 pages (pages 13 & 14 in particular) of this document confirm that.

At this stage legally, the ESBs powers are irrelevant. That was a matter to be argued in court. Insofar as it was argued, a finding was made. An order was given. It can only be re-argued on appeal to the Supreme Court and only then on limited grounds. Unless the points about the ESB's powers were argued in the High Court, the Supreme Court will not entertain it.
If she wants out, she will have to purge her contempt

Seems harsh.
The punishment doesn't fit the crime. This woman could potentially spend more time in prison than a rapist or a murderer for a "crime" which is relatively minor.

Justice for the individual

Following a Query by the Legal Division , Eirgrid, on "whether the powers conferred on the ESB pursuant to Section 53 of Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 were transferred to Eirgrid by Regulation 29 of S.I. 445/2000", the conclusion by Michael Conlon, the Law Library (11 Nov. 2010) Quote:" In my opinion, the answer to that question is "no". The conclusion went on to quote "It appears from what I have discussed above, in my view, if and insofar as Eirgrid has been granted an authorisation to construct an interconnector, it may, with the consent of the commission, for the purposes of such authorisation, exercise the powers conferred on the Board by sections 1 to 5 and 9 of section 53".

Following on from this judgement, the question could be asked: Has this authorisation been given to Eirgrid in this situation?

loremolis

Justice for the individual wrote: »

Following a Query by the Legal Division , Eirgrid, on "whether the powers conferred on the ESB pursuant to Section 53 of Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 were transferred to Eirgrid by Regulation 29 of S.I. 445/2000", the conclusion by the Law Library (11 Nov. 2010) Quote:" In my opinion, the answer to that question is "no". The conclusion went on to quote "It appears from what I have discussed above, in my view, if and insofar as Eirgrid has been granted an authorisation to construct an interconnector, it may, with the consent of the commission, for the purposes of such authorisation, exercise the powers conferred on the Board by sections 1 to 5 and 9 of section 53".

Following on from this judgement, the question could be asked: Has this authorisation been given to Eirgrid in this situation?

Just to correct your post slightly.

The "Law Library" didn't reach that conclusion. The Barrister who signed the opinion from which you've quoted was Michael Conlon. Law Library is his "address".

In relation to your question, Why not ask Eirgrid?

eastwest

loremolis wrote: »

Justice for the individual wrote: »

Following a Query by the Legal Division , Eirgrid, on "whether the powers conferred on the ESB pursuant to Section 53 of Electricity (Supply) Act 1927 were transferred to Eirgrid by Regulation 29 of S.I. 445/2000", the conclusion by the Law Library (11 Nov. 2010) Quote:" In my opinion, the answer to that question is "no". The conclusion went on to quote "It appears from what I have discussed above, in my view, if and insofar as Eirgrid has been granted an authorisation to construct an interconnector, it may, with the consent of the commission, for the purposes of such authorisation, exercise the powers conferred on the Board by sections 1 to 5 and 9 of section 53".

Following on from this judgement, the question could be asked: Has this authorisation been given to Eirgrid in this situation?

Just to correct your post slightly.

The "Law Library" didn't reach that conclusion. The Barrister who signed the opinion from which you've quoted was Michael Conlon. Law Library is his "address".

In relation to your question, Why not ask Eirgrid?

It would appear that no power has been given to Eirgrid in this situation. Essentially, they are trespassing.
Judges (and gardai) tend to assume, as a fallback position, that semi state companies operate within the law -- a dangerous assumption.

Justice for the individual

eastwest wrote: »

It would appear that no power has been given to Eirgrid in this situation. Essentially, they are trespassing.
Judges (and gardai) tend to assume, as a fallback position, that semi state companies operate within the law -- a dangerous assumption.

Thanks for that correction. I understand that from an academic viewpoint you must quote the citation source.

Also, on your last point, about unlawful entry on to private property it is assumed that it is done lawfully, but this may not be the case and a bit of bluff is involved. It is hard to believe that this would be done, but you never know. Also according to some of the other correspondence the progress of any appeals, objections, etc, will be a slow process.

The private individual does not have the resources to pursue an objection through the courts, and they know that. If you are brave enough to try it, they have the financial resources ( paid for by the consumer) to employ the top lawyers. The individual has no power in this scenario. They can only depend on media and public support.

Jo King

From what I can see of that opinion Eirgrid does not have the pwoers that the ESB has but what is to stop the ESB using its own powers to authorise Eirgrid to install cable?

loremolis

Jo King wrote: »

From what I can see of that opinion Eirgrid does not have the pwoers that the ESB has but what is to stop the ESB using its own powers to authorise Eirgrid to install cable?

The approval of an authorised undertaker requires the approval of the Commission for Energy Regulation.

I can only assume that they don't do it because they don't want an independent third party involved.

Justice for the individual

eastwest wrote: »

It would appear that no power has been given to Eirgrid in this situation. Essentially, they are trespassing.
Judges (and gardai) tend to assume, as a fallback position, that semi state companies operate within the law -- a dangerous assumption.

Is it possible that The Irish Mail On Sunday can follow up on their revelations concerning this case and pursue this issue further and check with Eirgrid if they have the necessary authority, in whatever manner, to enter on to the Treacy property. If the law is to be upheld, it should be transparent and applicable to all. In any case, the whole thing is an embarrassment from a PR perspective and reflects badly on the management of the issues involved.