The ESB And Eirgrid can go f*ck themselves - Merge

danniemcq

A JUDGE has ordered that a woman be sent to prison due to her refusal to comply with High Court orders allowing ESB and Eirgrid access to her land to complete the construction of a power line.

Yesterday at the High Court, Mr Justice Daniel Herbert ordered that Teresa Treacy (65), Woodfield House, Clonmore, Tullamore, Co Offaly, be committed to prison for contempt of court after she said she would not obey orders allowing ESB and Eirgrid workers access to her land. She said she would not allow workers on the land for health and safety reasons and because of her fears that her property, which she said had many beautiful trees, would be destroyed. She wants the power line placed underground.

Mr Justice Herbert told Ms Treacy, who was not legally represented, that he “admired her principles” but did not admire what she was doing.

He said this was a citizen setting herself against the Constitution and against the courts. If this was allowed, “we may as well sink into anarchy”, adding he would not allow that.

He said he had no choice other than to commit her to prison over her refusal to comply. His “hand had been forced”.

Mr Justice Herbert directed that Ms Treacy should remain in custody until she had purged her contempt.

The ESB and Eirgrid brought proceedings against Ms Treacy because she refused them access to her land by locking gates and by standing in front of the locks when workers tried to cut them.

Michael Conlon, for ESB/Eirgrid, said Ms Treacy was “emotionally attached to her forestry”, but ESB and Eirgrid had a job to do. Mr Conlon added that his clients had brought a motion committing Ms Treacy to prison “with great reluctance”.

Last July Ms Justice Mary Laffoy granted the ESB and Eirgrid orders against Ms Treacy and her sister Mary allowing them to carry out works on the Treacys’ land.

The defendants were further ordered to unlock gates and remove any barriers blocking the ESB/Eirgrid from accessing the sisters’ property.

While his clients were initially allowed on to the land, gates were subsequently locked, preventing any work from being carried out, while Ms Treacy blocked machinery from coming on her land.

Mr Conlon said his clients returned to the High Court in August and secured an order allowing them to open the locks on the gates and enter the lands.

Last week when workers tried to cut open the locks, Ms Treacy stood in front of the locks and refused access to the workers. They were unable to proceed due to concerns that Ms Treacy might be injured, and such a situation was unacceptable, Mr Conlon added.

He said that ESB/Eirgrid had offered to compensate Ms Treacy and to plant new trees to replace any that might get damaged. He said it was not possible to place the wires underground.

When the matter was before the court in August, Ms Treacy was warned by Ms Justice Laffoy of the serious consequences she faced if she continued to act in breach of the orders. The judge expressed the hope “common sense would prevail”.

On that occasion, Ms Treacy said she had “no intention” of granting the ESB/Eirgrid access because of the effects its work was having on what she said was a place of natural beauty. She told the court she would “gladly go to jail” and did not want compensation.

She said the land contained oak, ash, sycamore, birch and pine trees and was mainly surrounded by hedgerows. She said the ESB and Eirgrid’s actions were “wrong” and they should “stop what they are doing”.

you know what them judges can go f*ck themselves too.

more info on it here too www.facebook.com/pages/Teresa-Treacy/164471736970470

pconn062

Hello last week!!

afatbollix

Looking for facebook friends I see..

Micky Dolenz

How this story isn't been made a big deal shows how sleep like we have become in this country. We will idly stand by and watch an old woman being imprisoned to protect her land. I thought we had moved on from that.

Absolutely shocking story, ESB and our courts should be ashamed of themselves.

booboo88

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

How this story isn't been made a big deal shows how sleep like we have become in this country. We will idly stand by and watch an old woman being imprisoned to protect her land. I thought we had moved on from that.

Absolutely shocking story, ESB networks and our courts should be ashamed of themselves.

Just thought I'd take the liberty to correct that for you

focus_mad

I believe best practice is to have the "cabling" underground?

kirving

First of all, I don't agree that she should be sent to prison.

However, it's madness that one person can hold up a big project over her love for trees. Also, they haven't planned to cut them down, although there is a risk that some may be damaged. They will be replaced though.

It's all very well having principles until you don't have any electricity because the lines couldn't be replaced. ESB should cut her off, since she seems to think it's so dangerous.

(Edit: Might be best practice, but it's not always possible to place them underground)

sdanseo

Ashamed of themselves they may be, but this isn't the ESB talking.

The woman lost her case, and is in contempt of court. She's being sent to prison for wilfully spitting in the face of the state, and very, very rightly so. She'll be let out as soon as she complies with the court order. Ball in her court.

When this was the Rossport five, an awful lot of people said good for them, let them and their vigilante ways stay in prison in definitely. This is no different.

jdooley28

can nobody else see they are just f..kin trees..trees like! Its a nuthouse she should be locked up in not a jail do

Killer Pigeon

This is an absolute disgrace!

... she should have complied with the high court order.

/trollface

Orando Broom

She has a ****ing cheek, costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of euros to just hold up progress. She should be left to rot and her ****ing neighbors power turned off. This country needs cheap infrastructure, dumbass nimbys need a dose of reality!

Zen65

On that occasion, Ms Treacy said she had “no intention” of granting the ESB/Eirgrid access because of the effects its work was having on what she said was a place of natural beauty.

jdooley28 wrote: »

can nobody else see they are just f..kin trees..trees like! Its a nuthouse she should be locked up in not a jail do

I'm not well read on this case, but I looked at the area on Google Maps and it seems to me that the trees are part of a man-made (woman-made in this case, I guess) forest, hence not truly "natural". I wonder if she got a grant from Coillte for planting them?

As for the OP's thread title, it seems ironic that some people support the right of one person against the rights of the wider population. When the situation related to the M50 objector many years ago it was widely considered that the objector should be sued by the state for the cost of the legal proceedings, motorists were furious at the protracted delays in completing the road, and there was uproar when it turned out the objector was some student without means from the south of the country.

Fast-forward to now, and when the objector refuses to comply with the result of the court case, there is some (limited) sympathy for her.

The Romans would never have stood for such messing about!!


Z

Paparazzo

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

How this story isn't been made a big deal shows how sleep like we have become in this country. We will idly stand by and watch an old woman being imprisoned to protect her land. I thought we had moved on from that.

Absolutely shocking story, ESB and our courts should be ashamed of themselves.

On the contrary, I thought we had moved on from people holding up major projects that is costing the state money for stupid reasons.

Chuck Stone

She only owns the land while she's alive and people will need electricity after she's gone the daft old bat.

It's comparable with listed buildings. You only own the building while you're alive so you can't buy a part of our heritage and destroy it because you have money or imaginary absolute property rights.


GTFOutTheWAY.

longhalloween

Hold on now, so does that mean the ESB can roll up to anyones house, say 'sorry luv we have to dig up your garden and stick a pylon in' and that's legal?

Grand it's all for the greater good or whatever but if you own a property, shouldn't it be YOUR property?

And so what if they were trees?? that could easily have been a shed or a garage in the way! Is she going to be compensated for the destruction of her property?

up for anything

Chuck Stone wrote: »

She only owns the land while she's alive and people will need electricity after she's gone the daft old bat.

It's comparable with listed buildings. You only own the building while you're alive so you can't buy a part of our heritage and destroy it because you have money or imaginary absolute property rights.


GTFOutTheWAY.

I'd sooner see the listed buildings knocked down than the trees - planted under a Coillte grant or not.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

How this story isn't been made a big deal shows how sleep like we have become in this country. We will idly stand by and watch an old woman being imprisoned to protect her land. I thought we had moved on from that.

Absolutely shocking story, ESB and our courts should be ashamed of themselves.

Brilliant pun and no one commented.

Chuck Stone

longhalloween wrote: »

Hold on now, so does that mean the ESB can roll up to anyones house, say 'sorry luv we have to dig up your garden and stick a pylon in' and that's legal?

Property rights are not absolute. Try telling the government you're not going to pay them anymore taxes and you'd be in the slammer pretty quick.

Grand it's all for the greater good or whatever but if you own a property, shouldn't it be YOUR property?

Do you think someone should be able to buy Newgrange and demolish it?

Or buy a strip of land which encircles a town or village and insist nobody crosses it or build a bridge over it or road across it?

And so what if they were trees?? that could easily have been a shed or a garage in the way! Is she going to be compensated for the destruction of her property?

She would have rights to civil action against property destruction I'm fairly sure.

Chuck Stone

up for anything wrote: »

I'd sooner see the listed buildings knocked down than the trees

Really? I think you'd find yourself in an insignificant minority on that issue.

Thank goodness.

Orando Broom

longhalloween wrote: »

Hold on now, so does that mean the ESB can roll up to anyones house, say 'sorry luv we have to dig up your garden and stick a pylon in' and that's legal?

Grand it's all for the greater good or whatever but if you own a property, shouldn't it be YOUR property?

And so what if they were trees?? that could easily have been a shed or a garage in the way! Is she going to be compensated for the destruction of her property?

No. There is a process. Of course there is a process. The same way your house won't be bulldozed for a road. If it has to be, believe me you will be adequately rewarded. State bodies actually go to great lengths to preserve private property as best they can. Hard to believe but there you have it.

longhalloween

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Property rights are not absolute. Try telling the government you're not going to pay them anymore taxes and you'd be in the slammer pretty quick.

I thought the govt had compulsory purchase orders or at least gave compensation to land they had to build on,

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you think someone should be able to buy Newgrange and demolish it?

Or buy a strip of land which encircles a town or village and insist nobody crosses it or build a bridge over it or road across it?

Well, Newgrange is owned and protected by the OPW and is a World Heritage Site, so it's illegal to damage it.

I'm sure you could buy a strip of land, similar in the way that you can buy a beach and stop people walking on it. But roads are publicly owned and again CPO's

Chuck Stone wrote: »

She would have rights to civil action against property destruction I'm fairly sure.

Ah ok.

RoundyMooney

longhalloween wrote: »

Hold on now, so does that mean the ESB can roll up to anyones house, say 'sorry luv we have to dig up your garden and stick a pylon in' and that's legal?

Grand it's all for the greater good or whatever but if you own a property, shouldn't it be YOUR property?

And so what if they were trees?? that could easily have been a shed or a garage in the way! Is she going to be compensated for the destruction of her property?

Bollocks.

Without lifting a finger, she'd have pocketed 150k. Now she may well have to pay the legal costs, if, as she inevitably will, she keeps kicking up about what amounts to a single mast on her land, and timber clearance to facilitate the line.

They're not knocking her flippin' house, and I'm sick of people putting a daft spinster like her, who never struggled for a bob in her life, forward as some sort of cause de celebre, with the usual would be accompanying disclaimer to the effect that if we didn't jail the bankers, we shouldn't jail her, blah blah blah.

I vote we jail both, and keep the lights on AND the books balanced.

longhalloween

Ahh, just after looking at the facebook page now. She has FIELDS of trees!!, I thought the ESB were building a pylon next to her house or something.

Chuck Stone

longhalloween wrote: »

I thought the govt had compulsory purchase orders or at least gave compensation to land they had to build on,

They do compensate. I think people actually get a continuing payment off whoever puts a pole or whatever on their land. She'll probably get income for it. (stand to be corrected on this)

Well, Newgrange is owned and protected by the OPW and is a World Heritage Site, so it's illegal to damage it.

I was using Newgrange as an extreme example. The point still stands. There is such a thing as heritage and lots of our buildings are listed so that any old gobshite can't come along and pull down something on a whim.

I'm sure you could buy a strip of land, similar in the way that you can buy a beach and stop people walking on it.

Do you think someone should be able to buy a strip of land 30 miles long and 20 feet wide and insist nobody cross it or bridge it or build a road on it? That's the implication.

But roads are publicly owned and again CPO's

The land they're built through isn't. That's why there's a CPO in the first place.

EGAR

Perhaps the lady doesn't care about the money she would have received but cares about her trees??

And I wager that all those on here who spout *what's her problem* would not react like that if they were affected similarly, especially if it was something they spent a lifetime developing.

Chuck Stone

I don't think the woman should be sent to prison btw.

Paparazzo

longhalloween wrote: »

Hold on now, so does that mean the ESB can roll up to anyones house, say 'sorry luv we have to dig up your garden and stick a pylon in' and that's legal?

Of course. No one actually wants a mast on their land. So how could electricity be supplied around the country if everyone could just tell the ESB that they don't want masts on their land?

starbelgrade

Paparazzo wrote: »

So how could electricity be supplied around the country if everyone could just tell the ESB that they don't want masts on their land?

They could sell it to people at the ESB shops.

biko

Old lady, check
Big company, check
Angry people, check

Big company man says that ESB/Eirgrid had offered to compensate Ms Treacy and to plant new trees to replace any that might get damaged. He said it was not possible to place the wires underground.

Would the judge not send her to prison but acquit her any landowning Tom, Dick, Harry and so-called Irish Freemen would soon use this to piss off the government at any turn.

If this was a 30 year old man instead of a 65 year old woman would everyone scream blue murder? I don't think so.

Capt'n Midnight

How much would it cost to bury the cables ?
including any increase in maintenance and power loss

and would that money be better spent elsewhere ?

It cost £600,000 to bury one mile of cable for Turlough Hill back in 1971. Today's cost would a tad more.

What would the land be worth with a compulsory purchase order ?
The point here is that technically they could just kick her off the land anyway.

How much is this delay costing in terms of construction delay etc ?

Mr Justice Herbert told Ms Treacy, who was not legally represented, that he “admired her principles” but did not admire what she was doing.

He said this was a citizen setting herself against the Constitution and against the courts. If this was allowed, “we may as well sink into anarchy”, adding he would not allow that.

skelliser

Good to see the powers of the state are coming down hard on old ladys like this whilst dragging their feet in relation to our bank collapse and the corruption that went on there.

This is how a banana republic should be run!

Yakult

I can tell you first hand, that these fella's have little or no respect for the surroundings they work in so I dont blame her for the way she has reacted.
They are also pricks to deal with when you take them on after they fcuk you over on your own land.

MungBean

Strange reaction from some people here.

If that was my land and those bastards came along and told me they would be bulldozin through it to stick up some pylons I wouldnt be too fcukin pleased. Nor would I open the gates and tell them to destroy what they like.

kraggy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Property rights are not absolute. Try telling the government you're not going to pay them anymore taxes and you'd be in the slammer pretty quick.



Do you think someone should be able to buy Newgrange and demolish it?

Or buy a strip of land which encircles a town or village and insist nobody crosses it or build a bridge over it or road across it?



She would have rights to civil action against property destruction I'm fairly sure.

Bullsiht example.

She is not the one making a move on something that isn't hers. They are moving on her.

She was just living there minding her own business and they decided to move on HER.

If it's a complusory purchase order, then she'll have to let them it and that's that. But your example has got nothing to do with this case.

Victor

longhalloween wrote: »

Hold on now, so does that mean the ESB can roll up to anyones house, say 'sorry luv we have to dig up your garden and stick a pylon in' and that's legal?

No. First off, they are going to plan the route, which on balance minimises cost, disruption and environmental effect. So when its a choice between a housing estate and open fields, its likely to go in the open fields. Forest -v- open fields, well, through the open fields again. Short route through forest -v- long route through fields, well they're going to weigh that up.

Then they need planning permission - if its a major line, they also need to do an Environmental Impact Statement. That can be appealed to An Bord Pleanála (on planning or point of law) and then to the courts (point of law only). That could take 3 months - 2 years.

Is she going to be compensated for the destruction of her property?

It seems its quite lucrative. Lump sum up front + annual payment. It seems the lump sum can work out to be worth more than the land (but you get to keep the land). http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74594029&postcount=122

up for anything

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Really? I think you'd find yourself in an insignificant minority on that issue.

Thank goodness.

Gee whiz, do I feel small? No. :cool:

Chuck Stone

kraggy wrote: »

If it's a complusory purchase order, then she'll have to let them it and that's that. But your example has got nothing to do with this case.

I was merely using it to show how property rights are not absolute.

I agree with you that she was minding her own business but if there is such a thing as being reasonable and she is living in a country which will actively uphold her property rights the vast majority of the time.

cyrusdvirus

Property and accommodation have a 4 0r 5 page thread on this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056383068

Much the same points are being hashed out over there.

Fact of the matter is that the woman is going to jail for contempt of court. She defied a court order and is going to jail for that reason. Simples. And good enough for the daft old biddy.

Micky Dolenz

biko wrote: »

Old lady, check
Big company, check
Angry people, check

Big company man says that ESB/Eirgrid had offered to compensate Ms Treacy and to plant new trees to replace any that might get damaged. He said it was not possible to place the wires underground.

Would the judge not send her to prison but acquit her any landowning Tom, Dick, Harry and so-called Irish Freemen would soon use this to piss off the government at any turn.

If this was a 30 year old man instead of a 65 year old woman would everyone scream blue murder? I don't think so.

It isn't a sexism or ageism issue. It's a land right issue.

There is also a difference between impossible and inconvenient.

We often have no room in our prisons for criminals but this person gets an indefinite sentence. Wheres the justice there?

cyrusdvirus

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

It isn't a sexism or ageism issue. It's a land right issue.

There is also a difference between impossible and inconvenient.

We often have no room in our prisons for criminals but this person gets an indefinite sentence. Wheres the justice there?

What gives her the right to totally ignore and disregard a valid court order? If i decide what laws and court orders i will and will not obey does that mean i will be able to get a face book campaign going, and have loads of internet heads standing up for my rights as a obnoxious twat too?

Micky Dolenz

gatecrash wrote: »

What gives her the right to totally ignore and disregard a valid court order? If i decide what laws and court orders i will and will not obey does that mean i will be able to get a face book campaign going, and have loads of internet heads standing up for my rights as a obnoxious twat too?

Firstly the insults are unnecessary and just weaken any argument you may have.

The landowner isn't opposed to having the powerlines on her land but wants them out of view.

biko

Everyone wants power and motorways but not in their backyard.

cyrusdvirus

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Firstly the insults are unnecessary and just weaken any argument you may have.

The landowner isn't opposed to having the powerlines on her land but wants them out of view.

I insulted her in my first post on the thread, in the one you quoted I was saying that I'D be the obnoxious twat for picking and choosing what laws and orders i want to obey.

Anyway, this is all well and good, and in-line with most internet discussions/arguments totally pointless. I have my opinion, you have yours, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Micky Dolenz

biko wrote: »

Everyone wants power and motorways but not in their backyard.

Again, the landowner isn't opposed to her land being used. She is objecting to how it's being used.

ringadingding

Get darryl karrigan on the case

Tell em they're dreeemin

Bruthal

gatecrash wrote: »

What gives her the right to totally ignore and disregard a valid court order? If i decide what laws and court orders i will and will not obey does that mean i will be able to get a face book campaign going, and have loads of internet heads standing up for my rights as a obnoxious twat too?

So once a court order is issued, it is infallible and just, beyond any doubt, and there is no possibility it might be unjust? im sure there are some court orders you might not obey, in the right circumstances.

blaze1

Kevin Irving wrote: »

First of all, I don't agree that she should be sent to prison.

However, it's madness that one person can hold up a big project over her love for trees. Also, they haven't planned to cut them down, although there is a risk that some may be damaged. They will be replaced though.

It's all very well having principles until you don't have any electricity because the lines couldn't be replaced. ESB should cut her off, since she seems to think it's so dangerous.

(Edit: Might be best practice, but it's not always possible to place them underground)

I'm sure the money they wasted on bringing the women to court and greasing the judge would have at the very least paid for the ducting for the cabling.

Victor

robbie7730 wrote: »

So once a court order is issued, it is infallible and just, beyond any doubt, and there is no possibility it might be unjust? im sure there are some court orders you might not obey, in the right circumstances.

You can appeal the order, but the person in this case appears not to be doing so.

Tazz T

gatecrash wrote: »

What gives her the right to totally ignore and disregard a valid court order? If i decide what laws and court orders i will and will not obey does that mean i will be able to get a face book campaign going, and have loads of internet heads standing up for my rights as a obnoxious twat too?

I'm stunned by the amount of people willing to 'stand up' for a laws deliberately created to bypass 'laws made to protect people and their property'. These are laws created by the establishment to get round their own laws legitimately when the need arise.

The iron is there's a big sign outside the ESB building in Dublin, saying 'no skateboarding' on a public area. If you went to protest by putting a tent up you'd be arrested.

Not one of you would take the same stance if it was your property or any other law that infringed on your freedom. Hypocrites the lot of you.

We've become a country full of pussies ready to lie down and get shagged when the powers that be say so.

stovelid

I have some sympathy for her but I also don't like the nimby thing of holding up important projects by people who are often reaping the benefits of society (like indirectly or directly benefiting from roads or electricity) themselves but just don't want it on their manor.

By all means replace the trees though even if elsewhere.

biko

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Again, the landowner isn't opposed to her land being used. She is objecting to how it's being used.

Oh? I haven't read that. Maybe you can find the source?

This is what I've read "Treacy had objected to the construction of the power line because it would mean the destruction of a substantial number of trees on her land"

"Teresa Treacy was "emotionally attached to her 100 acres of forestry"."

Bruthal

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Bollocks.

Without lifting a finger, she'd have pocketed 150k. Now she may well have to pay the legal costs, if, as she inevitably will, she keeps kicking up about what amounts to a single mast on her land, and timber clearance to facilitate the line.

They're not knocking her flippin' house, and I'm sick of people putting a daft spinster like her, who never struggled for a bob in her life, forward as some sort of cause de celebre, with the usual would be accompanying disclaimer to the effect that if we didn't jail the bankers, we shouldn't jail her, blah blah blah.

I vote we jail both, and keep the lights on AND the books balanced.

The ESB v the old woman. Id say if it was a lanfill on any of the pro esb posters doorstep, or indeed the overhead line , they would likely not be so in favour, even though they are needed somewhere. Its ok when its someone else though.

But i think its the jail sentence that annoyed people more than the order.