The battle of the Bog

Baralis1

"Please do try and understand the difference between Raised bog and Blanket bog. The 'whataboutery' of Bord Na Mona simply isn't relevant. BNM are cutting blanket bog, the protected bogs are not the same thing."

The bogs were the same thing or at least very similar, differing only in location and perhaps depth of the bog. You can't surely say that raised and blanket bogs are completely different and it was no harm destroying the blanket bogs.

"You think this a 'punishment'?? Minimal damage? Get real."
"And there's money to be made, stop with the diddle-iddley rose-tints. Sausage machines are not cheap."


Ok, maybe not punish but it feels like the state is taking a high moral ground after destroying about 90% of the bogs itself. Rural turfcutters do minimal damage. For your information, sausage machines which do do huge damage to the bog (not as much as BMN machines) have been banned for years.

Hoppers are now used. A small hole is dug at the corner of a bank, just enough to get past the surface and get enough turf to fill the hopper a few times, which is really not a lot, and the turf is then laid out on the bank to dry etc by the tractor towing the hopper. There is no cutting of the bank besides that one small area and once the turf is gathered after a few weeks, the grass stands up again and you would never know the turf had been laid out.

I live in a rural area, I know what all the neighbours do with their turf, and the vast majority if it is either for themselves or a few relations. There are a few cowboys who sell a bit but to be honest it's hard work saving your own turf, never saving enough to sell. While the odd person sells a load, it is definately not a commerical enterprise due to the large amount of physical labour involved. This idea of turf cutters cutting vast areas of bog to sell is complete nonsense.

"If raised bog turf-cutting were sustainable do you think we would be having this debate?"

I'm not saying their sustainable but as there are only small quantities cut every year, most bog owners have hundreds of years worth of turf.


"Prepared to go to jail?"
Maybe, I'm prepared to defend our right to cut turf in the bogs that we own which has been done for for generations.

Baralis1

As for the fine, the gov should just refuse to pay it. Who are the EU to tell us what our citizens can do with their own land.

Baralis1

Oh,and the machinery for cutting turf is owned by contractors, not by individual turf cutters. The contractor will cut for a large amount of people and most of the machinery can be put to other uses for the rest of the year.

Baralis1

Baralis1 wrote: »

As for the fine, the gov should just refuse to pay it. Who are the EU to tell us what our citizens can do with their own land.

Is this honestly your view of the world? Not exactly a pragmatic one, is it?

MadsL

Baralis1 wrote: »

The bogs were the same thing or at least very similar, differing only in location and perhaps depth of the bog. You can't surely say that raised and blanket bogs are completely different and it was no harm destroying the blanket bogs.

I think you need to do some reading on this - they are not the same thing. http://www.ipcc.ie/inforaisedbogfs.html might be good starting point.

Ok, maybe not punish but it feels like the state is taking a high moral ground after destroying about 90% of the bogs itself. Rural turfcutters do minimal damage. For your information, sausage machines which do do huge damage to the bog (not as much as BMN machines) have been banned for years.

Ok. Strange how these are still around then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKOwto5j2fw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11SGolwiIzw

Hoppers are now used. A small hole is dug at the corner of a bank, just enough to get past the surface and get enough turf to fill the hopper a few times, which is really not a lot, and the turf is then laid out on the bank to dry etc by the tractor towing the hopper. There is no cutting of the bank besides that one small area and once the turf is gathered after a few weeks, the grass stands up again and you would never know the turf had been laid out.

Right. They may be how you are doing it, I suspect many are not.

I live in a rural area, I know what all the neighbours do with their turf, and the vast majority if it is either for themselves or a few relations. There are a few cowboys who sell a bit but to be honest it's hard work saving your own turf, never saving enough to sell.

So it is never sold?

While the odd person sells a load, it is definately not a commerical enterprise due to the large amount of physical labour involved.

So why is there a Turf contractors association?

This idea of turf cutters cutting vast areas of bog to sell is complete nonsense.

Where did I say that?

I'm not saying their sustainable but as there are only small quantities cut every year, most bog owners have hundreds of years worth of turf.

Hundred of years? Experts disagree.

Half of Ireland's raised bogs were destroyed (at a rate of 800,000 tons per year) between 1814 and 1946. After World War 2, the government set up Bord na Móna to cut peat by mechanical means and this simply accelerated the process. In 1969, there were just 100,000 hectares of raised-bog left in Ireland, of which Bord na Móna owned 45,000 hectares. Most of this will be exhausted by the middle of the coming century.

Patrick Abbot.
Source: Feehan, J; McIlveen, S; writing in "The Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape", Cork University Press, 1997.

"Prepared to go to jail?"
Maybe, I'm prepared to defend our right to cut turf in the bogs that we own which has been done for for generations.

Should Dubliners start burning coal in fireplaces they own as they have done for generations, should I have the 'right' to burn my rubbish in my back garden on land I own as was done for generations?

With over 10 years notice of the ending of this 'right', how have you not made arrangement for an alternative fuel source?

Baralis1 wrote: »

As for the fine, the gov should just refuse to pay it. Who are the EU to tell us what our citizens can do with their own land.

Refuse to pay it???? Have you even watched the news in that past 3 years - The EU is bailing out the country to the tune of billions. The EU are our, and our neighbours, democratically elected representives. Ireland voted to join the EU you might remember. The EU pay quite handsomely for the right to tell farmers what to do with their land - or would you also like to see farm subsidies stopped? Have you any grasp of the economic situation Ireland is in?

As to some imagined 'right' that you have to do what you like with your own land. Can you build on it without permission? No. Can you dump waste on it? No. Can you excavate for mineral deposits without licence? No. So why the hell do you think that ripping it up and burning it should be an inalienable right?

Baralis1 wrote: »

Oh,and the machinery for cutting turf is owned by contractors, not by individual turf cutters. The contractor will cut for a large amount of people and most of the machinery can be put to other uses for the rest of the year.

But it is not like there are any commercial operations as you said earlier.

Seriously, the country is about to be hit with €25k a day fines; and you want to maintain your 'right' to an unsustainable, archaic practice that causes huge environmental damage, prevents the positive carbon-sink' action of the bog, bankrupts the country further, after you have been told for years that you have to stop. How selfish do you want to get? Good luck with explaining that to your Grandchildren.

I remember showing a French girl standing turf and explaining what it was for. She was incredulous, and thought I was pulling her leg. Digging up soil and burning it is an absurd way to be carrying on.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0477.html

I think you are really struggling if you truly believe turf-cutting does not require the consent of the Minister in SACs

Again you rely on an Instrument that is primarly designed for SPAs and not on a statute that abolishes a common law right of Turbary.

Address the question I asked you yesterday DIRECTLY and while you are at it explain how a 10 year notice period starting 10 YEARS ago seemingly relies on a statutory instrument from 2011.

Helpful Hint...... 2011 is not 10 years ago!!!

Sponge Bob wrote:

Turbary rights do not cease after some mysterious 10 year notice period from the state where the state is not the landowner.

Where on earth did that assertion of yours come from...supporting links would be a requisite.

Sponge Bob

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0622/1224318456581.html

A FORMER Fine Gael mayor ( of Galway County) has called on Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Jimmy Deenihan to return to the European Commission and seek more time to implement the national peatlands protection plan.


Cllr Jimmy McClearn, who was Galway county mayor last year, said that otherwise Mr Deenihan was only “postponing a problem which would arise again”.


Mr McClearn was one of a group which negotiated an end to the 18-hour stand-off between turf-cutters, the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and gardaí at a south Galway bog.


At least 200 people were involved in the overnight protest at Clonmoylan Bog near Woodford in southeast Galway, during torrential rain. The protest arose when machinery was seized by the NPWS on Wednesday.

There is a very simple way to solve all this but it does require a constitutional amendment.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Again you rely on an Instrument that is primarly designed for SPAs and not on a statute that abolishes a common law right of Turbary.

Address the question I asked you yesterday DIRECTLY and while you are at it explain how a 10 year notice period starting 10 YEARS ago seemingly relies on a statutory instrument from 2011.

Helpful Hint...... 2011 is not 10 years ago!!!

Sponge Bob, we have been over and over this in a previous thread.

And you are misinterpresting (probably wilfully) what I said.

I said "Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which, after ten years notice period, has ceased. " In other words I said. "Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which has ceased. I noted that there was a ten years notice period, I didn't not mean the right had ceased because a ten years notice period had passed.

In fact FOIE have always maintained the derogation introduced in 1999 was illegal anyway.

2. In a Dáil debate on 25 February 2009, the Taoiseach commented, having been asked about the original derogation for turf cutting on 32 raised bog SACs: The then Minister, Síle de Valera, successfully obtained a derogation of ten years when the [habitats] directive was announced.3
There are several factual errors in this statement, the most significant of which is the suggestion that the Minister “obtained” some sort of official derogation from the terms of the Habitats Directive. As set out in detail below, this is simply not the case: the four derogations in question were unilaterally “granted” by the government - and have been sustained by successive governments - in breach of EU law. Indeed, we use
the term “derogation” (and the related term “granted”) for ease of reference only, since they are consistently used by others. As set out below, use of the term derogation is in fact a misnomer. The true situation is that the government unilaterally arrogated unto itself the power to impose, selectively, the terms of the Habitats Directive, when it has no such legal right.

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/cmsfiles/files/library/consultation_on_cessation_of_turf_cutting_in_designated_areas_28.07.09.pdf

So I'm not saying that there is some statute that allows for a 10 year notice period. Rather I'm commenting on the situation. But hey, you keep looking for your magic bullet that somehow means EU law does not apply.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0622/1224318456581.html

There is a very simple way to solve all this but it does require a constitutional amendment.

What aspect of the Constitution do you believe (imagine) EU law breaches?

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

I said "Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which, after ten years notice period, has ceased. " In other words I said. "Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which has ceased. I noted that there was a ten years notice period, I didn't not mean the right had ceased because a ten years notice period had passed.

That is very clear but would you perhaps like to improve its overall clarity just a tad??

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is very clear but would you perhaps like to improve its overall clarity just a tad??

Perhaps you might like to stop with your oblique insinuations and clearly state what you think is unconstitutional about the Habitats Directive and other legislation and why turf-cutting in your view does not require consent?

Sponge Bob

Friends of the Irish Environment FIE have a peculiar and generally entirely sociopathic view of environmental matters. I find it best to completely ignore them and everything they say. The are way out on the absolutely lunatic fringe of the electorally marginal Green Party.

The Irish constitution establishes the right to land ownershp Madsl and in order to extinguish a common law right that predates the constitution, EG Estovers, the constitution needs to be amended. Simples. verys verys Simples.

Nearly everybody in Ireland loathes the so called 'friends' who are nothing but a small cult like organisation. This small cult like organisation rely on constantly discovering mysterious and generally factually unsupported 'threats from Brussels' to get their way.

They are best ignored completely unless they are currently flying around overhead ......as they are known to do.

There is nothing to stop the 'friends' from campaigning for a constitutional amendment which will clarify matters for once and for all. But that "Birds" thing you keep referring to Madsl does not extinguish any right per se. Please stop relying on it.

The MANY people who have recently stopped cutting turf have been CONTRACTED to so do by the state and have abjured their Turbary or Fee Simple rights as a consequence of their entering a CONTRACT.

However there is no evidence of any individual breaching such a contract and the hysteria and bile emanating from the lunatic green fringe such as FIE is most unhelpful.

I would ask you to condemn this hysteria Madsl, you do seem like a reasonable type.

dulpit

I must say I am quite enjoying this (as far as I can tell at least) well-informed debate from both sides...

My own opinion is the turf-cutters need to stop, but it's interesting to see why others disagree.

Although I wonder - are there any non-turf cutting, non-rural dwelling people in favour of the turf-cutters opinions?

oscarBravo

I'm seeing two conflicting narratives here.

One is that there is no constitutional basis for a ban on turf-cutting, and - in effect - that the government are acting ultra vires in issuing such a ban, to the extent of having no constitutional right to do so.

The other is that the law is unjust and as such must be resisted through civil disobedience.

These are mutually exclusive. If there is a constitutional basis for challenging the ban, it should be taken through the courts. The failure to do so, and the fact that the civil disobedience route has been chosen instead, strongly implies that there is no such constitutional basis.

Open to correction.

Sponge Bob

oscarBravo wrote: »

Open to correction.

Nearly there Oscarbravo. As there is no contitutional basis for a ban the state instead sought to enforce a ban through contract law which is a perfectly reasonable approach.

However the state appears not to have a contract with all of the rights owners, only with some of them.

Furthermore the state appears to have been grossly negligent in its performance of the contract especially where bog swaps and turf deliveries were involved.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Friends of the Irish Environment FIE have a peculiar and generally entirely sociopathic view of environmental matters. I find it best to completely ignore them and everything they say. The are way out on the absolutely lunatic fringe of the electorally marginal Green Party.

Well, you have me there - I'm completely won over by your rational argument. What can I say.

The Irish constitution establishes the right to land ownershp Madsl and in order to extinguish a common law right that predates the constitution, EG Estovers, the constitution needs to be amended.

Riiiiighhhht! Remind me what constitutional amendments were required to introduce a planning system giving control over activities on citizen's own land in 1963? Remind me....can't seem to find one.

Simples. verys verys Simples.

Does anyone actually use this expression anymore?

Nearly everybody in Ireland loathes the so called 'friends' who are nothing but a small cult like organisation. This small cult like organisation rely on constantly discovering mysterious and generally factually unsupported 'threats from Brussels' to get their way.

They are best ignored completely unless they are currently flying around overhead ......as they are known to do.

Except you also seem to ignore the legislation they quote.

There is nothing to stop the 'friends' from campaigning for a constitutional amendment which will clarify matters for once and for all.

There is no need for one - Article 15 lays out provision for the Oireachtas to make laws. You might also note Article 29

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

So that "Birds" thing - not going away you know.

But that "Birds" thing you keep referring to Madsl does not extinguish any right per se. Please stop relying on it.

That 'thing' by the way is the transposition of the Bern Convention - you are aware that Ireland has signed and transposed it??

The MANY people who have recently stopped cutting turf have been CONTRACTED to so do by the state and have abjured their Turbary or Fee Simple rights as a consequence of their entering a CONTRACT.

When did the state last collect ground rent in respect of these rights? I'm sure many of these Turbary holders have ensured that they have paid up to date? No? Might be tricky to assert the 'right' in that case. I believe around 1982 was when they were last collected.

However there is no evidence of any individual breaching such a contract and the hysteria and bile emanating from the lunatic green fringe such as FIE is most unhelpful.

As is your blatant pretense that the law does not apply to some individuals.

36. (1) Where an activity, plan or project that has been carried out within or outside a European Site, has caused damage to that site or to species or habitat types for which the site was selected as a European Site, and—

(a) it is in contravention of the requirements of these Regulations, or of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2011,

(b) it required any statutory consent for the carrying out of such an activity, plan or project but was undertaken without such consent,

(c) it is in contravention of any of the terms or conditions of a consent referred to in subparagraph (a) or (b), or

(d) it is otherwise unlawful,

the Minister may, by Direction issued in writing, require the owner, occupier or user of the land or the person who carried out the activity, plan or project, or such of those persons as he or she considers appropriate, to restore the land in accordance with the Direction.

(2) Where an activity, plan or project referred to in paragraph (1) has been carried out, and has resulted in the production of mineral or other resources, including but not limited to soil, gravel, timber or the product of turf-cutting or peat extraction, any person who removes, or places in or on a vehicle for removal, any such resources, save in accordance with paragraph (5), shall be guilty of an offence.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/si/0307.html

Turf-cutting ceased immediately on 31 raised bogs designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). No further turf-cutting can occur on these sites without the express consent of the Minister. It was also decided that turf-cutting would cease on a further 24 raised bog SACs at the end of 2011

http://www.npws.ie/peatlandsturf-cutting/turfcutting/

I would ask you to condemn this hysteria Madsl, you do seem like a reasonable type.

I'd ask you to wake up to the fact that your delusion about the law might end up with you giving advice to someone that will see them in jail.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

I said "Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which, after ten years notice period, has ceased. " In other words I said. "Turbary rights are only the given right to cut turf which has ceased. I noted that there was a ten years notice period, I didn't not mean the right had ceased because a ten years notice period had passed.

Lets try this again shall we.

While that reasoning of yours is _very clear_ I implore you to to find time to make it clearer again.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nearly there Oscarbravo. As there is no contitutional basis for a ban

Nonsense. If the Govt voted to ban the playing of hurling tomorrow there would be nothing in the constitution to prevent it.

Show me the text of this so-called contract.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Lets try this again shall we.

While that reasoning of yours is _very clear_ I implore you to to find time to make it clearer again.

I'm very close to reporting this post. Spit it out ffs.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

Show me the text of this so-called contract.

Some former Turf Cutters have a contract with the state. I am not one of them and do not have the text of the contract to hand.

Can you work on clarifying your 'Turbary Rights' piece instead, and my advance thanks in great anticipation of a job well done.

oscarBravo

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Nearly there Oscarbravo. As there is no contitutional basis for a ban the state instead sought to enforce a ban through contract law which is a perfectly reasonable approach.

However the state appears not to have a contract with all of the rights owners, only with some of them.

Were that the case, then those who had not entered into such a contract would be within their rights in taking a Supreme Court challenge to the government acting ultra vires in attempting to prevent them from cutting turf.

I'm not aware of such a challenge (still open to correction), which strongly implies (to me) that no such basis for a challenge exists.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Can you work on clarifying your 'Turbary Rights' piece instead, and my advance thanks in great anticipation of a job well done.

Can say what you mean and stop being so fucking obtuse, this is a discussion - not your little game.

If you have a point to make, make the ****ing point. Otherwise I'm done with you and you are on ignore.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Some former Turf Cutters have a contract with the state. I am not one of them and do not have the text of the contract to hand.

A contact to stop cutting. Where is the contract that says they have a right to cut?

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

A contact to stop cutting. Where is the contract that says they have a right to cut?

Please stop accusing me of being obtuse. I was perfectly clear all along.

CERTAIN Turf Cutters entered a contract not to cut turf and are performing the contract.

I neglected to explain a salient point...this is not obtuseness merely neglect and I do apologise to those who have been trying to follow that particular aspect the thread.

The Contract ( where a contract is in force) lasts 15 years. During that 15 year period a now 'ex' turf cutter is paid not to cut turf on their old bog.

I have said before and will reiterate that there is no evidence of unilateral breach of contract by any supposed ex turf cutter who is currently in contract. In the case of certain bogs no turf has been cut this year as was the desired effect of the contract regime.

Once the 15 years are up I think that a Turbary right can be extinguished by custom. I think 14 years is the magic number. The custom applies to all easements or profit a prendre rights and indeed to common law events such as fairs and markets.

However that principle is complex and it has been suggested that 20 years may be the magic number (here) or indeed 175 years. I don't believe that any land in Ireland vests in the state under a principle such as Res Nullius

I will say that once the 15 year contract is performed fully by both parties the extinguishment of Turbary is certainly easier. Other common law rights have been regulated by contractual means in the past.

Sponge Bob

oscarBravo wrote: »

Were that the case, then those who had not entered into such a contract would be within their rights in taking a Supreme Court challenge to the government acting ultra vires in attempting to prevent them from cutting turf.

I'm not aware of such a challenge (still open to correction), which strongly implies (to me) that no such basis for a challenge exists.

Class Actions are not allowed in Ireland, consequently they would have to pick a very good example to go to the High Court as a test case.

Then everybody has to fund that very good example case which is the hard bit. It is _easier_ and cheaper if someone is arrested first.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Please stop accusing me of being obtuse. I was perfectly clear all along.

..and you still haven't explained what you were getting at in asking me to clarify.

CERTAIN Turf Cutters entered a contract not to cut turf and are performing the contract.

I neglected to explain a salient point...this is not obtuseness merely neglect and I do apologise to those who have been trying to follow that particular aspect the thread.

The Contract ( where a contract is in force) lasts 15 years. During that 15 year period a now 'ex' turf cutter is paid not to cut turf on their old bog.

Where was the old contract that allowed them to cut turf? Was it payment in exchange for a licence?

I have said before and will reiterate that there is no evidence of unilateral breach of contract by any supposed ex turf cutter who is currently in contract. In the case of certain bogs no turf has been cut this year as was the desired effect of the contract regime.

So 12 people are the only ones up in that bog in Galway who haven't signed contracts? Bigger crowd than that methinks.

Once the 15 years are up I think that a Turbary right can be extinguished by custom. I think 14 years is the magic number. The custom applies to all easements or profit a prendre rights and indeed to common law events such as fairs and markets.

However that principle is complex and it has been suggested that 20 years may be the magic number (here) or indeed 175 years. I don't believe that any land in Ireland vests in the state under a principle such as Res Nullius

I will say that once the 15 year contract is performed fully by both parties the extinguishment of Turbary is certainly easier. Other common law rights have been regulated by contractual means in the past.

Would you say that a State has the right to control activities concerning the environment, even if they are customary? ie lead in paint, open air rubbish burning, solvents poured down drains?

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Class Actions are not allowed in Ireland, consequently they would have to pick a very good example to go to the High Court as a test case.

Then everybody has to fund that very good example case which is the hard bit. It is _easier_ and cheaper if someone is arrested first.

In over ten years no-one has even suggested bringing a constitutional challenge? How odd.

golfball37

I wish they'd use teh air corps or Garda resources in Moyross or certain parts of Finglas, it might save a few lives.

Political poilicing yet again from the GS. The establishment are just as hypocritical when it comes to being selective as these law breakers. Still no movement on Anglo, still people living in terror in certain housing estates across the country....What should we prioritise? Oh yes a few madcap farmers, handy soft targets.

This country is dead only to wash it.

MadsL

golfball37 wrote: »

I wish they'd use teh air corps or Garda resources in Moyross or certain parts of Finglas, it might save a few lives.

Political poilicing yet again from the GS. The establishment are just as hypocritical when it comes to being selective as these law breakers. Still no movement on Anglo, still people living in terror in certain housing estates across the country....What should we prioritise? Oh yes a few madcap farmers, handy soft targets.

This country is dead only to wash it.

Did you miss the part about Ireland having to find €25k a day in fines if they don't take action? Do you think this Govt wants to do this? Sure, the last one fannied about for 10-12 years over the issue.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

I'm done with you and you are on ignore.

If I am "on ignore" as you say why are you quoting a post I made afterwards ??? Try putting me on ignore again, maybe it will work properly next time.

IrishHomer

golfball37 wrote: »

I wish they'd use teh air corps or Garda resources in Moyross or certain parts of Finglas, it might save a few lives.

Political poilicing yet again from the GS. The establishment are just as hypocritical when it comes to being selective as these law breakers. Still no movement on Anglo, still people living in terror in certain housing estates across the country....What should we prioritise? Oh yes a few madcap farmers, handy soft targets.

This country is dead only to wash it.

Not everyone shows disregard for the natural environment in Ireland despite your views -:)

I feel proud of my country that they are making efforts to halt the destruction despite all the opposition from small minority. And believe me you are the minority!

MadsL

Don't misquote me. I said

Otherwise I'm done with you and you are on ignore.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

.Where was the old contract that allowed them to cut turf? Was it payment in exchange for a licence?

There was no "old contract", nobody apart from you ever said there was.

The RIGHT to cut turf was acquired by a variety of means. Contracts are NEW and are in order NOT to cut turf when in place.

So 12 people are the only ones up in that bog in Galway who haven't signed contracts? Bigger crowd than that methinks.

Not every TURBARY owner was offered a contract so they could not have signed up to that which they were not offered a contract.

Would you say that a State has the right to control activities concerning the environment, even if they are customary? ie lead in paint, open air rubbish burning, solvents poured down drains?

They control the use of substances which are not naturally occuring. This is unremarkable and not analagous either.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

There was no "old contract", nobody apart from you ever said there was.

The RIGHT to cut turf was acquired by a variety of means. Contracts are NEW and are in order NOT to cut turf when in place.

And these rights are documented how?

Not every TURBARY owner was offered a contract so they could not have signed up to that which they were not offered a contract.

But you claim they have a right, presumably that right has a legal basis and so they can assert that right in law. Why has no turf cutter gone to the courts to assert their rights?

They control the use of substances which are not naturally occuring. This is unremarkable and not analagous either.

Do you dispute the right of the state to control matters concerning the environment? Do you dispute the right of the state to control the use of privately held land? As I asked earlier remind me what constitutional amendments were required to introduce a planning system giving control over activities on citizen's own land in 1963?

joela

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Friends of the Irish Environment FIE have a peculiar and generally entirely sociopathic view of environmental matters. I find it best to completely ignore them and everything they say. The are way out on the absolutely lunatic fringe of the electorally marginal Green Party.

The Irish constitution establishes the right to land ownershp Madsl and in order to extinguish a common law right that predates the constitution, EG Estovers, the constitution needs to be amended. Simples. verys verys Simples.

Nearly everybody in Ireland loathes the so called 'friends' who are nothing but a small cult like organisation. This small cult like organisation rely on constantly discovering mysterious and generally factually unsupported 'threats from Brussels' to get their way.

They are best ignored completely unless they are currently flying around overhead ......as they are known to do.

There is nothing to stop the 'friends' from campaigning for a constitutional amendment which will clarify matters for once and for all. But that "Birds" thing you keep referring to Madsl does not extinguish any right per se. Please stop relying on it.

The MANY people who have recently stopped cutting turf have been CONTRACTED to so do by the state and have abjured their Turbary or Fee Simple rights as a consequence of their entering a CONTRACT.

However there is no evidence of any individual breaching such a contract and the hysteria and bile emanating from the lunatic green fringe such as FIE is most unhelpful.

I would ask you to condemn this hysteria Madsl, you do seem like a reasonable type.

Wow SpongeBob you have outdone yourself on the turning in circles stakes this time. YOU do not speak for me or I am sure for many of the people commenting on this thread so please do not assume that I or anyone else refers to FIE as having a "sociopathic" view of environmental matters. on the contrary they are a particularly informed group that have of their own initiative produced some excellent reports, produced aerial photos showing the damage and successfully petitioned the EU. I for one applaud the work they do in bringing this environmental destruction to the attention of the greater public. You are laughable referringto them as a cult just because they actually oppose environmental damage and request enforcement of environmental legislation.

MadsL give up on this guy, I have been round the houses with him on another thread providing links and facts but he either lacks the ability to understand them or is refusing to face facts. Seriously it is soul destroying to watch him meander around the subject trying to sound knowledgeable. He doesn't like the law, he has issues with eNGOs, concerned citizens and science :rolleyes:

Sponge Bob

Rumour in the west that the Battle of the Bog is moving to Roscommon on Monday where some machinery is to be confiscated. I'll be up on my own bog tomorrow so. Weather looks good.

MadsL

Will they burn the machine for the publicity in Roscommon as well?

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

Will they burn the machine for the publicity in Roscommon as well?

Who is "They" ??

nice_guy80

people like burning turf

it is a clean fuel (generally)
doesn't destroy fireplaces, ranges and stoves as it burns at much lower temperature than coal or timber
it is quite cheap
is easy to store.
tradition

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Who is "They" ??

Do you think that the Guards or the NPWS set fire to the machinery at the last 'protest'?

Still haven't answered my questions above.

Do you dispute the right of the state to control matters concerning the environment?

Do you dispute the right of the state to control the use of privately held land?

As I asked earlier remind me what constitutional amendments were required to introduce a planning system giving control over activities on citizen's own land in 1963?

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Just a reminder to posters: play the ball, not the (wo)man. If you can't critique someone's argument without critiquing their intelligence, then think long and hard before posting.

Personal digs aside, at this point this 'debate' seems to be generating more heat than light. If this is just going to be a snipe-fest, then I'm afraid this thread isn't going to stay open much longer.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

As I asked earlier remind me what constitutional amendments were required to introduce a planning system giving control over activities on citizen's own land in 1963?

That is an interesting question (and not one raised by me in this forum) so you answer it. I'll give you a tip, the Land Registry.

Uriel.

Not gonna dwell on this too much cause it was done to death in a previous thread which was closed.

The state doesnt need a contract with any citizen to introduce and enforce laws. I have no contract with the state committing me to abide by the speed limits. Yet when I break them and get caught I pay the penalty.

Land rights are protected in the constitution but with caveats for the public good - farmer in kerry found this out at his expense after destroying a ring fort earlier this year.

If you break a law you deserve punishment, I have no sympathy and I hope the state grows some balls soon and starts punishing these criminals.

If anyone thinks the law is unconstitutional then the courts is the place to play that one out not through civil disobedience.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

As I asked earlier remind me what constitutional amendments were required to introduce a planning system giving control over activities on citizen's own land in 1963?

That is an interesting question (and not one raised by me in this forum) so you answer it. I'll give you a tip, the Land Registry.

OK, I'll bite, despite your odd concept of a discussion. I'll assert that no constitutional changes we required to introduce the planning system. Do you agree?

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

As I asked earlier remind me what constitutional amendments were required to introduce a planning system giving control over activities on citizen's own land in 1963?

That is an interesting question (and not one raised by me in this forum) so you answer it. I'll give you a tip, the Land Registry.

OK, I'll bite, despite your odd concept of a discussion. I'll assert that no constitutional changes were required to introduce the planning system. Do you agree?

Sponge Bob

Yes but why did we apparently need a planning system in 1963 that we seemingly did not need in ....say..... 1953.

Seth Brundle

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Yes but why did we apparently need a planning system in 1963 that we seemingly did not need in ....say..... 1953.

Who says that we didn't need one?
We don't have public sector accountability at the moment but we need it.
We don't have many things that we need. Getting them into law is a long and arduous process, often stymied by the politicians themselves who all too often prefer personal interests over public interest.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Yes but why did we apparently need a planning system in 1963 that we seemingly did not need in ....say..... 1953.

and the question dodged once more. Care to answer any of the other questions I have posed to you? You seem to be really struggling with the concept of the State having a say in activities on private land. Why is that?

re: land registry comment. Care to explain?

funt

was it not some jouneyman gun for hire that sent us to the bogs in the first place, then we discover we can burn the wet mud he couldn't drown us in, and now some eastern european chancellor tells us no. tell her to feck off with all due respekt

(i don't own a bog or even a scrap of land in the republic of ireland,)

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

and the question dodged once more.

Bog utilisation rights have nothing whatsoever to do with the 1963 planning act. The question is therefore irrelevant.

The Title legislation from around that time is not irrelevant but you seem completely unaware of that legislation despite my hint and I won't go into it any further...it is more than a tad complex.