The battle of the Bog

washman3

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The state deployed the following.

1. The Air Corps it seems, maybe a private plane but usually it's the Air Corps.
2. The ERU
3. A number of uniformed police...and scuttling along behind them.

3. The Rangers. Thats the National Parks rangers not the special forces.

And between them they confiscated 2 turf cutting machines on a bog.

The machines were rescued by a couple of local farmers that night.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/26413-bog-owners-twelve-hour-stand-garda%C3%AD-turf-row-hits-new-low




And the locals are not too happy at having guns flashed at them and low flying air corps aircraft buzzing etc.

Let June 2012 be remembered as a time when the lunatics finally take control of the asylum....:mad:

60 Gardai
24 Patrol cars
12 armed members of the ERU
a Garda helicopter
an air corps plane

on a bog in the wilderness of Galway preventing people cutting turf.
while the scumbags that brought this country to its knees still swan around in the lap of luxury safe in the knowledge that they will never be touched,
and ecstatic that a handful of environmentalists will deflect attention from their crimes thus allowing them to pursue their evil ways in the near future.
The mind absolutely boggles....

southsiderosie

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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.

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.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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.

MOD NOTE:

Here's the problem: this is a discussion forum, not a hint forum. And putting smiley faces at the end of your sentences doesn't negate the fact that you have obfuscated your way through this thread.

If you don't want to engage with other posters, then rather than changing the subject, 'hinting' at arguments, and getting personal digs in, just step back and don't post. It is fine to disagree, but these posts have veered into wind-up territory.

On that note, for all posters, this is the last warning to keep it civil and on-topic. The next flamewar will result in red cards and/or bans.

jmayo

southsiderosie wrote: »

MOD NOTE:
... If this is just going to be a snipe-fest, then I'm afraid this thread isn't going to stay open much longer.

Funny you should mention snipe.
Actually isn't this whole thing about protecting the habitat of things like the snipe or is just about protecting mosses and frog spawn ?

Always remember one of the few good things about working in the bog was the sounds and the fact you can one almighty suntan, or sunburn, if there is a bit of sun.

Anyway a few questions about this whole issue.
Is it only raised lowland bogs that are affected ?
Are there plans to extend the remit to upland blanket bog ?
Are any of the bogs in private ownership, i.e. are the bogs commonage with turf cutting rights or does any of it actually belong to the folio number of the turfcutters ?

If it is the latter surely that then raises interesting question about government and state interference in dictating what the owner of land can do with the land.
What happens where a farmer is cutting out a bog and plans to reclaim the cutout bog for agricultural use, but the farmer is prevented from cutting out the bog due to such legislation ?

I would be interested in the answer to these questions rather than the usual huff and puff about saving the planet or keeping oneself warm.

Sponge Bob

jmayo wrote: »

Funny you should mention snipe.
Actually isn't this whole thing about protecting the habitat of things like the snipe or is just about protecting mosses and frog spawn ?

Anyway a few questions about this whole issue.
Is it only raised lowland bogs that are affected ?

Yes and Yes to the 2 questions.

Are there plans to extend the remit to upland blanket bog ?

These have been partially dealt with through REPs and also through a more completist Management Plamning regime. I would guess that upland bog is next up to be dealt with comprehensively as a habitat but that the abolition of REPs is not a help in this regard and that REPs should be reintroduced as part of EU Designated Habitat Management.

Are any of the bogs in private ownership, i.e. are the bogs commonage with turf cutting rights or does any of it actually belong to the folio number of the turfcutters ?

I have covered an awful lot of this if you look back over the thread. Not every Turbary is noted on a Folio...... is the simple answer.

The state should have forced everyone with any form of easement or 'profit' in the legal sense to register those years ago and the situation would be a lot less murky. They should still force them...say within three years...seeing as the Land Registry is harly busy nowadays.

In many cases commonages were divided because of REPs with ugly fencing made mandatory by the government. This arrangement should be abolished particularly in upland areas.

If it is the latter surely that then raises interesting question about government and state interference in dictating what the owner of land can do with the land.

Hence my consistent point that the Raised Bog Folio Owners were essentially CONTRACTED out of cutting for 15 years in order that their rights may be extinguised in common law.

Not every Turbary is noted on a Folio and some Turbary owners with unregistered rights were not contracted not to cut in the raised bogs. They are not happy Turbary owners.

What happens where a farmer is cutting out a bog and plans to reclaim the cutout bog for agricultural use, but the farmer is prevented from cutting out the bog due to such legislation ?

Depends to an extent on whether the Habitat is earmarked for Restoration and Protection (as with Raised Bog) or for Protection only (Blanket Bog ..upland and lowland) . Not every raised or blanket bog is protected.

The other thorny problem is that lowland blanket bog that is cut away or part cut away is frequently much richer in species of flora and fauna than intact blanket....ie BECAUSE man interfered with the blanket.

That is an extremely thorny question and one that the NPWS constantly ducks and dives around in my experience.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Yes and Yes to the 2 questions.

Mistruths as usual. This is issue is specifically about the protection of a priority European Habitat - active raised bog. This has been made clear to you previously.

These have been partially dealt with through REPs and also through a more completist Management Plamning regime. I would guess that upland bog is next up to be dealt with comprehensively as a habitat but that the abolition of REPs is not a help in this regard and that REPs should be reintroduced as part of EU Designated Habitat Management.

Reps has been around for years on all of these sites including the 53 raised bogs. I would wager that there are plenty of farmers who received reps payments but still cut turf - if that is the case, then reps doesn't deliver.
Also if you are getting European money as a farmer, you must abide by European Directives. It is clear that some farmers haven't done this - Minister has been clear that Single Farm Payments will now be targeted.

I have covered an awful lot of this if you look back over the thread. Not every Turbary is noted on a Folio...... is the simple answer.

The state should have forced everyone with any form of easement or 'profit' in the legal sense to register those years ago and the situation would be a lot less murky. They should still force them...say within three years...seeing as the Land Registry is harly busy nowadays.

That's a fine idea but those who cannot prove ownership as required under the compensation rules should be excluded from those schemes even if tehy manage to register some title in "the 3 years"

Hence my consistent point that the Raised Bog Folio Owners were essentially CONTRACTED out of cutting for 15 years in order that their rights may be extinguised in common law.

The law requires you to have consent to cut turf. were consent is not given and cutting occurs it is an offence. "Contract" or not

Not every Turbary is noted on a Folio and some Turbary owners with unregistered rights were not contracted not to cut in the raised bogs. They are not happy Turbary owners.

see above

Sponge Bob

Uriel. wrote: »

Mistruths as usual. This is issue is specifically about the protection of a priority European Habitat - active raised bog. This has been made clear to you previously.

He asked about other habitats as well. There is an objective to proect and restore certain habitats and to protect (only) others. It depends on how they are Annexed .

Reps has been around for years on all of these sites including the 53 raised bogs. I would wager that there are plenty of farmers who received reps payments but still cut turf - if that is the case, then reps doesn't deliver.
Also if you are getting European money as a farmer, you must abide by European Directives. It is clear that some farmers haven't done this - Minister has been clear that Single Farm Payments will now be targeted.

Not all Turbary Owners are in REPS and are not in a REPS contract in that case. Your assertion is true where they are.

That's a fine idea but those who cannot prove ownership as required under the compensation rules should be excluded from those schemes even if tehy manage to register some title in "the 3 years"

I dont think they should be paid anything until title is fully registered. The objective of a 3 year final reckoning is to register a claim for every 'profit' type right for the first time ever. Whether these are granted depends on the particular merits of the individual cases.

Then we know what and who we are dealing with. Other such 'profit' rights are Piscaries and Estovers and Grazing rights but Turbaries are the largest class. No point implementing a half measure.

Sponge Bob

(Councillor McClearn is an FG councillor in East Galway.)

A motion put forward by Cllr McClearn calling for the disbandment of the National Parks and Wildlife Service was passed unanimously by Galway County Council at a meeting on Monday night.

http://galwayindependent.com/stories/item/2936/2012-26/Government-%E2%80%98incapable%E2%80%99-of-resolving-bog-issue

While last week, an unlikely alliance was put together on the spot.

Fine Gael’s Jimmy McClearn who, along with Sinn Féin’s Cllr Dermot Connolly, helped broker an agreement between turf-cutters and gardaí to end the stand-off last week.

I am not minded to call for the abolition of anything but the NPWS is simply dreadful at communications....in my experience. Individual Rangers can be excellent, the problem is higher up the management chain.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

(Councillor McClearn is an FG councillor in East Galway.)

A motion put forward by Cllr McClearn calling for the disbandment of the National Parks and Wildlife Service was passed unanimously by Galway County Council at a meeting on Monday night.

http://galwayindependent.com/stories/item/2936/2012-26/Government-%E2%80%98incapable%E2%80%99-of-resolving-bog-issue

While last week, an unlikely alliance was put together on the spot.

Fine Gael’s Jimmy McClearn who, along with Sinn Féin’s Cllr Dermot Connolly, helped broker an agreement between turf-cutters and gardaí to end the stand-off last week.

I am not minded to call for the abolition of anything but the NPWS is simply dreadful at communications....in my experience. Individual Rangers can be excellent, the problem is higher up the management chain.

Or maybe you just don't like their message

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

(Councillor McClearn is an FG councillor in East Galway.)



http://galwayindependent.com/stories/item/2936/2012-26/Government-%E2%80%98incapable%E2%80%99-of-resolving-bog-issue

While last week, an unlikely alliance was put together on the spot.



I am not minded to call for the abolition of anything but the NPWS is simply dreadful at communications....in my experience. Individual Rangers can be excellent, the problem is higher up the management chain.

Ah the auld huffin' and puffin' - usually it is gombeen councillors calling for the abolition of An Taisce when their pet absurdly unsustainable scheme for 'bringing jabs' is shot down by ABP. Not of course, the abolition of ABP who actually make the decision, but An Taisce for daring to point out the flaws.

In this case it is a council being mislead into attacking those who merely carry out policy for fear of a voting backlash.

Not that any of this matters, Galway Co. Co. could call for pretty much anything they like - all it does is make them appear as is petulant toddlers - this vote has zero relevance.

“It’s [the Government’s] implementation of these SACs that had led to this and these SACs were never meant to cripple local people

Sorry, cripple? The hyperbole is just ridiculous at this point. The only people being 'crippled' are those cutting for profit, which was never the point of Turbary rights in the first place.

Reacting to Minister Jimmy Deenihan’s warning that illegal turf cutting could bring fines of up to €25,000 per day, Mr Moran said the money used to fund Garda and NPWS operations could cover such fines

Is this guy for real? He really is a Moran (sic) - has he any grasp of real-world economics?


Remind me again why no turfcutter has brought either constituional challenge nor any other form of legal action. The new Planning and Development Act allows for court cases to be brought where each side covers their own costs and no punitive costs are awarded. Surely some lawyer would pro-bono this case?

The reason? Raised bog turf-cutters have no case.

Sponge Bob

This all went fairly quiet in recent weeks ( bar some meetings hither and yon in East galway in particular) but is set to het up again now the rain has finally stopped and the warm dry summer weather is on the way back to us.

Meanwhile Ming has hitched up with Mischa Barton and Galway County Council (majority FG plus Independents) are discussing the matter at their meeting this week.

http://www.roscommonherald.ie/news/kfmhojgbql/

Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan has praised the star for the positive publicity she has given turf cutting in the county, following her statement.
"It goes to show that turf cutting is something close to the hearts of even Hollywood's biggest stars. I'm sure there are plenty of lads who would be more than happy to have her back in Roscommon working on their bogs when she comes back to Ireland in September!"

Now that would be funny, the FIE air corps buzzing a Hollywood star on a bog.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Mischa Barton [/url]



Now that would be funny, the FIE air corps buzzing a Hollywood star on a bog.

"Hollywood Star" you are so funny, Bob...

laoch na mona

the government should lead by example and close the board na mona bogs first

MadsL

laoch na mona wrote: »

the government should lead by example and close the board na mona bogs first

Please try and understand the difference between raised and blanket bogs. BnM are not cutting on raised bogs which are the protected bogs under EU legislation.

BnM have nothing to do with this debate. Read back in the thread.

laoch na mona

MadsL wrote: »

Please try and understand the difference between raised and blanket bogs. BnM are not cutting on raised bogs which are the protected bogs under EU legislation.

BnM have nothing to do with this debate. Read back in the thread.

http://www.bordnamona.ie/our-company/our-businesses/feedstock/peat/

bord na mona own 20% of raised bogs

MadsL

laoch na mona wrote: »

http://www.bordnamona.ie/our-company/our-businesses/feedstock/peat/

bord na mona own 20% of raised bogs

It is fairly obvious I would have thought that ownership does not automatically mean cutting. Which Special Areas of Conservation and Natural Heritage Areas bogs are BnM cutting on?

laoch na mona

MadsL wrote: »

It is fairly obvious I would have thought that ownership does not automatically mean cutting. Which Special Areas of Conservation and Natural Heritage Areas bogs are BnM cutting on?

read the link they cut on 12% it shows the government only care if theirs a risk of a fine

MadsL

laoch na mona wrote: »

read the link they cut on 12% it shows the government only care if theirs a risk of a fine

Where are you getting 12% from?

Raised bogs currently in production by Bord na Móna 25,000 hectares 8%

They are cutting on just 8% of the total area of raised bogs. Can you show me which of that 8% is an SAC or NHA? BnM are also rehabilitating a number of cut bogs under the supervision of NPWS.

http://www.bordnamona.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BNM_SR_english.pdf

This is just a red herring in the debate, I'm not a supporter of BnM's activities, but the whataboutery is just a smokescreen for individual's unsustainable activities.

Uriel.

MadsL wrote: »

laoch na mona wrote: »

read the link they cut on 12% it shows the government only care if theirs a risk of a fine

Where are you getting 12% from?

Raised bogs currently in production by Bord na Móna 25,000 hectares 8%

They are cutting on just 8% of the total area of raised bogs. Can you show me which of that 8% is an SAC or NHA? BnM are also rehabilitating a number of cut bogs under the supervision of NPWS.

http://www.bordnamona.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BNM_SR_english.pdf

This is just a red herring in the debate, I'm not a supporter of BnM's activities, but the whataboutery is just a smokescreen for individual's unsustainable activities.

He can't show you because BnM don't cut on protected sites.

A number of sites which the Bord had an interest in back in 97 were designated as SACs. The bord's land interest in those sites were subsequently transferred to the State

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

BnM are not cutting on raised bogs which are the protected bogs under EU legislation.

BnM ONLY CUT on raised bogs nowadays.

They have handed cutaway specimens to the state such as Derryfadda near Ballyforan and they have also handed over intact specimens they never got around to developing...at least I think that is what Uriel means. Some ( even cutaway specimens) were designated as NHA after being cut away but only fairly intact ones are SACs.

I think BnM owned fully 50% of raised bog in the state at one point but have cut away much of that .

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

BnM ONLY CUT on raised bogs nowadays.

They have handed cutaway specimens to the state such as Derryfadda near Ballyforan and they have also handed over intact specimens they never got around to developing...at least I think that is what Uriel means. Some ( even cutaway specimens) were designated as NHA after being cut away but only fairly intact ones are SACs.

I think BnM owned fully 50% of raised bog in the state at one point but have cut away much of that .

Which SACs are they currently cutting on?

Sponge Bob

Who??

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Who??

BnM of course.

SdoowSirhc

Seriously, what is the problem with using the bogs? People have been at it for years, why stop them now?

MadsL

SdoowSirhc wrote: »

Seriously, what is the problem with using the bogs? People have been at it for years, why stop them now?

People used CFCs for years too, why were they banned?

The negative consequences of domestic cutting on raised bogs were confirmed by the Raised Bog Monitoring Project (Fernandez et al., 2005), which assessed the conservation status of a selection of designated raised bogs sites (covering almost 50% of the national resource). It was found that there has been a 36.80% decrease in extent of priority habitats on these bogs over a ten years period, and that 1% of the high bog area had been irreversibly lost. The conservation status of the Active Raised Bog habitat on these sites was assessed as “Unfavourable bad”.

The situation in relation to the remaining sites is likely to be as bad if not worst and therefore, the results can be taken to be representative for the situation of all designated raised bogs. The major cause of the adverse impacts was considered to be domestic peat cutting, combined with the associated drainage and burning. Hence, this study confirmed the incompatibility of these activities with raised bog conservation. Under the terms of the Habitats Directive, Ireland is required to maintain the habitats listed in the Directive in favourable conservation status. Therefore, further deterioration would be opposed by the EU and possible economic sanctions may arise if favourable conservation status is not achieved.

source

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

People used CFCs for years too,

People never "used" CFCs, manufacturers of packaging and fridges did.

Bord na Mona never lost a bog to a SAC unlike private sector cutters. They did transfer a few ones they did not or could not use directly to the state and which subsequently became NHAs and possibly SACs.

Only private sector bogs were designated SACs while being cut.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

People never "used" CFCs, manufacturers of packaging and fridges did.

Pedantic, there was a period where CFC-free was a consumer choice.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Bord na Mona never lost a bog to a SAC unlike private sector cutters. They did transfer a few ones they did not or could not use directly to the state and which subsequently became NHAs and possibly SACs.

Only private sector bogs were designated SACs while being cut.

So BnM are not cutting any SAC bogs at the moment then. Thank you for confirming that.

Uriel.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

People used CFCs for years too,

People never "used" CFCs, manufacturers of packaging and fridges did.

Bord na Mona never lost a bog to a SAC unlike private sector cutters. They did transfer a few ones they did not or could not use directly to the state and which subsequently became NHAs and possibly SACs.

Only private sector bogs were designated SACs while being cut.

Clara Bog is one such bog handed over by the Bord. There are many others. A lot of which the Bord paid fair amounts of money acquiring under cpo only for them to be designated.

Doesn't stop people saying how come Bord na Mona are getting away with this, oh yeah leave the big guy alone but go after the little guy etc etc.

Not saying you have but you see it over and over again being trotted out by Ming and his ilk.

Sponge Bob

Uriel. wrote: »

Clara Bog is one such bog handed over by the Bord. There are many others. A lot of which the Bord paid fair amounts of money acquiring under cpo only for them to be designated. .

Ehhh Clara Bog was 'undevelopable' wasn't it. No wonder BnM handed it over.

laoch na mona

MadsL wrote: »

Where are you getting 12% from?

ya i read it wrong still why isn't this bog protected its already state owned so easy to stop cutting on

MadsL

laoch na mona wrote: »

ya i read it wrong still why isn't this bog protected its already state owned so easy to stop cutting on

If it is not a SAC or NHA then there is no legal requirement to do so, unlike the legal requirement to stop cutting on other bogs. You may not like that fact but that BnM are cutting on a tiny fraction of unprotected raise bog does not give others the right to cut on protected raised bogs.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

You may not like that fact but that BnM are cutting on a tiny fraction of unprotected raise bog does not give others the right to cut on protected raised bogs.

Bord na Móna were not faced with having 100% of their bog protected out from under them like private owners were. Nor did they suffer a lot (relatively) seeing as they cut over 60% of all the raised bog in the state.

StudentDad

As usual in Oireland the State regulates something and the 'locals' - aka - 'the law doesn't apply to me brigade' have a fit. I've listened to people around me bitching along the lines of, 'who do they think they are telling me I can't cut turf?' etc etc.

SD

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

I've had to delete a few posts. Please keep smart-arse comments for a more appropriate forum, as they only serve to inflame other posters and drive things off-topic here.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Bord na Móna were not faced with having 100% of their bog protected out from under them like private owners were. Nor did they suffer a lot (relatively) seeing as they cut over 60% of all the raised bog in the state.

Nor were they handsomely compensated for their loss over a number of years.

What's your point?

majorsharpes

sorry if i'm off topic but does ne1 know i they r goin 2 stop turf cuttin in cork i living in nadd

Uriel.

majorsharpes wrote: »

sorry if i'm off topic but does ne1 know i they r goin 2 stop turf cuttin in cork i living in nadd

affected bogs are listed on this page

Sponge Bob

After 2 months of peace and quiet ( I assumed much of it weather induced) off we go again.

http://www.galwaynews.ie/27379-clonmoylan-turfcutters-return-defy-eu-ban

Raised bog owners in the Woodford area have returned to Clonmoylan to cut turf today [Aug 21] despite an EU ban.


A group of up to 60 members from local families returned to the designated site this morning after a dispute over a machinery seizure ended exactly two months ago [Jun 21].

MadsL

And he says despite the ban, the group feel they are not breaking any law but upholding a tradition.

Interesting word 'feel'. I don't 'feel' like paying my taxes. How long would a society last if we all did what we 'feel' we should do?

freyners

gbfm wrote:

12 bog complexes across County Galway are impacted by the EU directive - about a quarter of the number of designated boglands nationally.

interesting figure, seems galway residents are getting hit harder than most over this. Would explain why many didn't see relocation as an option. With soo many now protected it seems that any relocation would be too far away (which is certainly what I've heard form people affected, plus the complaints over the quality)

Government needs to revisit the compensation scheme in my opinion, why im sure it will be pointed out that this has been in situ for a long time, it obviously isnt acceptable to a lot of people

MadsL

freyners wrote: »

interesting figure, seems galway residents are getting hit harder than most over this. Would explain why many didn't see relocation as an option. With soo many now protected it seems that any relocation would be too far away (which is certainly what I've heard form people affected, plus the complaints over the quality)

Government needs to revisit the compensation scheme in my opinion, why im sure it will be pointed out that this has been in situ for a long time, it obviously isnt acceptable to a lot of people

If €1500 a year isn't enough to replace the loss of turf, you really want to be looking at getting some insulation.

I wonder if revisit is code for 'gouge as much as possible'?

freyners

MadsL wrote: »

If €1500 a year isn't enough to replace the loss of turf, you really want to be looking at getting some insulation.

I wonder if revisit is code for 'gouge as much as possible'?

MadsL have I offended you in some way because the hostility isn't needed? The compensation has some serious flaws as I have mentioned in this thread

the €1,500 is only available to the land owners, so a farmer with 3/4 banks cant (quite rightly imo) cannot claim for all the banks he owns. however the people who usually cut on these banks (normally family members) cannot claim for it either (before you point out that a farmer could transfer the land, you have never met an irish farmer). *

*Massive caveat here: this is based from what I have been able to glean from people who live near me. if someone can point out otherwise I'll be happy to take this back.

There the relocation option is the only option for people disenfranchised by the first. Some (not all) have been offered bogs miles away that make brining home the turf very awkward or banks where the turf is of poor quality.

Hence why I feel the compensation scheme needs revisiting.

geneyuss

MadsL wrote: »

If €1500 a year isn't enough to replace the loss of turf, you really want to be looking at getting some insulation.

I wonder if revisit is code for 'gouge as much as possible'?

that is paltry compensation for contract turf cutters, who's livelyhood has jus been pulled out from underneath them and what about the now obsolete machinery ?

also, 1500k does not or will not install oil heating into a home.

MadsL

freyners wrote: »

MadsL have I offended you in some way because the hostility isn't needed? The compensation has some serious flaws as I have mentioned in this thread

the €1,500 is only available to the land owners, so a farmer with 3/4 banks cant (quite rightly imo) cannot claim for all the banks he owns. however the people who usually cut on these banks (normally family members) cannot claim for it either (before you point out that a farmer could transfer the land, you have never met an irish farmer). *

*Massive caveat here: this is based from what I have been able to glean from people who live near me. if someone can point out otherwise I'll be happy to take this back.

There the relocation option is the only option for people disenfranchised by the first. Some (not all) have been offered bogs miles away that make brining home the turf very awkward or banks where the turf is of poor quality.

Hence why I feel the compensation scheme needs revisiting.

Sorry, the hostility was not aimed at you but rather those calling for the compensation to be "revisited". There has been a ten year period where it has been very clear that turf cutting will cease and the compensation has been increased by 50%. Those who stuck their heads in the ground for the last ten years are now crying foul.

Oh, you have to travel to get your turf. Tough. Here's €23,000 instead of the travel. Your choice.
Oh, not as good as your old turf. Tough. Here's €23,000 instead of the turf.
Every Tom, Dick and Seamus now claim that they cut turf there and want €23,000 each from the taxpayer - would you ever fcuk off!

Entitlement culture doesn't even begin to describe this whining.

MadsL

geneyuss wrote: »

that is paltry compensation for contract turf cutters, who's livelyhood has jus been pulled out from underneath them and what about the now obsolete machinery ?

also, 1500k does not or will not install oil heating into a home.

Yeah, where's the compensation for the plasterers, chippies, brickies, labourers etc. who lost jobs in the housing bust .?

"Just pulled out" - what? There was over 10 years notice that this was happening.

If €23,000 doesn't upgrade your heating/insulation I don't know where you are getting a quote from, but they are gouging you.

Sponge Bob

Contract Turf cutters are not being compensated at all...nor should they be.

The compensation should be for those who have established turbary or fee simple ownership rights. When 'alternative' bogs were offered half way across the country the wheels fairly collaped under the main compensation scheme.

Freyners is correct, it will have to be revisited. As for Madsl

Sorry, the hostility was not aimed at you but rather those calling for the compensation to be "revisited".

Don't bother with any more of your "hostility" please.

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Freyners is correct, it will have to be revisited.

...or what?

What compensation are you proposing and why?

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

...or what?

What compensation are you proposing and why?

Read the thread carefully, I already covered this issue.

geneyuss

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Contract Turf cutters are not being compensated at all...nor should they be.

The compensation should be for those who have established turbary or fee simple ownership rights. When 'alternative' bogs were offered half way across the country the wheels fairly collaped under the main compensation scheme.

Freyners is correct, it will have to be revisited. As for Madsl



Don't bother with any more of your "hostility" please.

care to explain why you believe our government under the direction of a few leftie pen -pushers in Europe should be allowed to put hundreds of people out of work and not offer any compensation ?

geneyuss

MadsL wrote: »

Yeah, where's the compensation for the plasterers, chippies, brickies, labourers etc. who lost jobs in the housing bust .?

"Just pulled out" - what? There was over 10 years notice that this was happening.

If €23,000 doesn't upgrade your heating/insulation I don't know where you are getting a quote from, but they are gouging you.

nobody is stopping those people working, and to be truthful, your comparisons make it very clear you know nothing of this subject, there was no ten year notice of any compensation packages, or was it ever made clear what was actually happening as is normal with successive Irish governments.And i am at a loss as to where this E23000 is coming from, but im sure you have a link for that.

Macha

geneyuss wrote: »

care to explain why you believe our government under the direction of a few leftie pen -pushers in Europe should be allowed to put hundreds of people out of work and not offer any compensation ?

It is a piece of legislation that we signed up to through our MEPs and through our Environment Minister. The idea that someone in Brussels is 'forcing' us into this law is incorrect. The government is simply being obliged to agree to something it signed up to years ago.