Dissident turfcutters

joela

Dissident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident

Sofiztikated

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Won't happen, they're going to fight it to the end people are saying.

Won't be cheap either.

end of the road

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Its not a good price because its a figure you plucked out of the air

its a good price, and yes i came up with it, to see how badly the uptight would want to protect these bogs and to see how much their willing to pay to do so, seems like you lot whinj about paying so obviously you don't care about the bogs at all but the money being wasted in fines and protecting them, which is fine, but start being honest and admit its not about the bogs but the fines

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

its not at all realistic

it is if you want to protect them badly enough

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

absolutely no thought has gone into it

yes it has

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

- its a troll-ing figure.

no it isn't, i don't troll and i don't believe that having a different opinion to others makes one a troll either, i give my opinion no matter how controversial or unpopular it is. and the fact is i support our boys on the bogs who want to cut turf, nothing or nobody is going to change my opinion

Conmaicne Mara

joela wrote: »

Dissident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident

"The noun was first used in the political sense in 1940, with the rise of such totalitarian systems as the Soviet Union."

Sofiztikated

end of the road wrote: »

its a good price, and yes i came up with it, to see how badly the uptight would want to protect these bogs and to see how much their willing to pay to do so, seems like you lot whinj about paying so obviously you don't care about the bogs at all but the money being wasted in fines and protecting them, which is fine, but start being honest and admit its not about the bogs but the fines

I'll be fúcking honest with you.

I don't want to pay fines because of morons doing things that they have A)Been giving 10 years notice to stop, B)Been either paid or given alternative bogs C)No consideration for what they are actually destroying.

Do I want to pay to stop morons doing this? Fúck no. But I already am. Give. It. A. ****ing. Rest.

I'd fed the fúck up with people in this country making stupid fúcking decisions that means I have to pay for their fúcking selfishness.

runawaybishop

end of the road wrote: »

its a good price, and yes i came up with it, to see how badly the uptight would want to protect these bogs and to see how much their willing to pay to do so, seems like you lot whinj about paying so obviously you don't care about the bogs at all but the money being wasted in fines and protecting them, which is fine, but start being honest and admit its not about the bogs but the fines

it is if you want to protect them badly enough

How about we charge 1000000 a pop to cut turf on these protected bogs? Its a good price i came up with to see how badly the uptight want to rape our country and see how much they are willing to pay. Seems like you lot like whining about peoples rights but you obviously don't care about the rest of society and their rights.

Start being honest and admit you don't give a flying fcuk about anyone else but yourself nor do you give a **** what devastation you cause.

RossFixxxed

I don't entirely understand the situation.

1) Were they told years ago that they wouldn't be allowed to do this?
2) Were they paid to not use the land and/or given alternatives?
3) Are the tax payers paying for this?

It sounds to me, with no knowledge of the situation, that they (the turf cutters) are absolutely taking the micky here.

OpenYourEyes

end of the road wrote: »

its a good price, and yes i came up with it, to see how badly the uptight would want to protect these bogs and to see how much their willing to pay to do so, seems like you lot whinj about paying so obviously you don't care about the bogs at all but the money being wasted in fines and protecting them, which is fine, but start being honest and admit its not about the bogs but the fines

it is if you want to protect them badly enough

yes it has

no it isn't, i don't troll and i don't believe that having a different opinion to others makes one a troll either, i give my opinion no matter how controversial or unpopular it is. and the fact is i support our boys on the bogs who want to cut turf, nothing or nobody is going to change my opinion

*sigh* I want a billion euro or I'll run you over with my car - you're not willing to pay me a billion euro? you obviously want me to run you over with my car! It is about the bogs, very very obviously if you'd care to take in anything that has been said up until now rather than just looking at other peoples posts trying to think of a way to contradict or annoy them.

It is about the bogs, but we can accept that certain people will never take that on board for various reasons - but they should be able to the simple math involved and realise that the various compensation packages on offer ensures virtually everyone wins!

Having a different belief to another one does not make anyone a troll - but theres a difference between having a reasonable (or even heated) debate about a topic, and what you have been doing in ignoring the facts and opinions posted and telling us if we don't want to pay millions to buy the bogs then we obviously don't care about them!

Nothing and nobody is going to change your mind? Wonderful, I'm glad you've said that because it underlines and summarises how unreasonable you've been about the issue. People who won't change their mind no matter how much evidence and logic is presented to them are one of the major problems on this planet and have been since modern society began. Thankfully there has always been people who strive for progress in the face of this idiocity, or we wouldn't be where we are as a species today.

Sofiztikated

RossFixxxed wrote: »

I don't entirely understand the situation.

1) Were they told years ago that they wouldn't be allowed to do this?
2) Were they paid to not use the land and/or given alternatives?
3) Are the tax payers paying for this?

It sounds to me, with no knowledge of the situation, that they (the turf cutters) are absolutely taking the micky here.

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Don't we always.

OpenYourEyes

RossFixxxed wrote: »

I don't entirely understand the situation.

1) Were they told years ago that they wouldn't be allowed to do this?
2) Were they paid to not use the land and/or given alternatives?
3) Are the tax payers paying for this?

It sounds to me, with no knowledge of the situation, that they (the turf cutters) are absolutely taking the micky here.

1) Yes, although the government only properly started getting onto them about it and offering compensation etc. in the last few years. Still plenty of time though overall.

2) Theres money/turf/relocation to another bog on offer for those who stop cutting turf on protected bogs, so a variety of alternatives to cater to everyone.

3) Yes, we're paying for the compensation on offer, the significant resources in the aerial and ground-monitoring and confrontations on the bogs, and we could soon be paying millions in fines, with thousands added every day that turfcutting on SAC's persist. - so thats a lot of money!


And yeah they really are taking the mickey! A lot of them have been convinced they're being hard-done by (they're not) by the contractors, who will have less work if there's less bogs being cut!

RossFixxxed

Ah come on that sounds clear cut (ha i'm so funny). Given years notice, remuneration and alternative arrangements.... And now we're all paying cos they're not happy? Fuck 'em!

Uriel.

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

1) Yes, although the government only properly started getting onto them about it and offering compensation etc. in the last few years. Still plenty of time though overall.

Actually, that's not quite correct.
It seems compensation has been available since the initial derogation was provided back in 1999. People at that time had the choice to continue cutting (domestically) for the ten years or avail of compensation right up until 2010.Then after the ending of the derogation a further (Current) scheme of compensation was introduced.

So money has always been available with at least 14 years notice. And the so called commercial cutters were also provided the opportunity for compensation as well by the looks of it. Serious money paid out under those previous schemes.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/mediazone/localmediareports/weekending9february/deenihanoutlinescompensationforraisedbogowne/

Compensation has been paid under several measures by the Department of Arts, Heritage & the Gaeltacht and its predecessors in respect of the protection of raised bog habitat designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the EU Habitats Directive and as Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) under the Wildlife Acts, Minister Jimmy Deenihan told the Dáil.

In 1999, the then Minister confirmed that commercial turf cutting on these protected sites had to cease immediately, he said. Commercial operators compelled to cease turf extraction activities within the designated sites could apply for compensation for the losses they suffered. Compensation was paid in respect of 11 such claims totalling €4.04 million between 2000 and 2010.

“It was announced subsequently that domestic cutting could continue under a derogation for a further ten years,” he said. “This announcement was accompanied by the introduction of a voluntary bog purchase scheme under which domestic turf cutters could sell their plots at agreed rates. Those rates were subsequently increased in 2004 following agreement with the farming organisations under the partnership talks. A total of €23.4 million was paid to 814 applicants under the scheme between 2000 and 2010. In May 2010, the then Government announced the closure of the voluntary bog purchase scheme to new applicants. However, my Department is continuing to process applications in respect of special areas of conservation received before that date.”

When the end of the derogation for domestic turf cutters was confirmed in May 2010 an interim compensation scheme was established, said Minister Deenihan. This provided interim funding to those who had been cutting turf on raised bog special areas of conservation nominated for designation between 1997 and 1999. A total of €171,000 was paid to 171 applicants under the scheme in 2010. The scheme has since been replaced by a 15-year annuity payment of €1,500 per annum, index linked, for those who have been required to cease cutting on special area of conservation raised bogs.

EDIT
Actually, when you look at it, it's a shocking indictment....

compensation scheme provided and open for 10 years. When that closed an interim scheme of compensation brought in, when that finished a further scheme (the current one) brought in. And at the very outset those who had commercial cutting operations in these sites were also compensated.

Really and truly these people should face the full consequences of the law. How any representative, political or otherwise can defend all of this is beyond me, especially with the prospect of €9m (per year) worth of fines coming down the tracks

Mr Whirly

The turfcutters are clearly thick as pig****.

Hondo75

Anyone organising an anti cuttin protest!! It just the same as destroying the rainforests..

From the indo:


Footing the Turf! Senator John Whelan spoke a lot of sense yesterday when he said.

"These Special Areas of Conservation are protected under both Irish and European law. Damaging these sites is breaking the law and exposes the Irish taxpayer to fines of up to €25,000 per day. It is also important to put the scale of the issue in context as 53 raised bogs are preserved as SACs are unique sites, which make up about 2% of our extractable peat lands.

"Ireland's raised bogs are unique in Europe, preserve a wealth of wildlife and are a fundamentally important part of our heritage and landscape. They are also important carbon sinks and play a significant role in flood protection. These distinctive and internationally significant boglands, if lost, will be gone forever and in that regard are afforded the same protection as our parks, rivers, estuaries, forests, sand dunes, beaches and foreshore. They are every bit as important as historic treasure, manuscripts or priceless artefacts".

‘Serious concerns’ have been raised today by the European Officials about the illegal turf-cutting

Grayson

34% of the people who voted in the poll supported them. I don't think 34% of the posters who are discussing this are supporting them.

And i can't see any reason why they're getting that much support.

John_Rambo

end of the road wrote: »

the state and some here want to protect the bogs badly enough so there fore will have to pay for it, so how about the state actually buy the protected bogs from the land owner, i say 1000000 per bog would be a good price

There's another man educated by David Drumm if I ever saw one!! Where did you get that figure? Picked it out of your arse?

Grayson wrote: »

And i can't see any reason why they're getting that much support.

Eejits who will support anything as long as it's anti-government, anti-Europe, pro- "I'll do what I want it's my lind" and will assure lots of little "thanks" at the end of their posts.

joela

Here is one of the people who support the turf cutters for the reasons outlined by John_Rambo. The turf cutters personal journalist http://www.connachttribune.ie/galway-news/item/808-bitter-turf-war-shows-no-sign-of-easing as usual fuels the so called 'revolutionary' aspect of this. Pathetic really as he is so biased he can't be taken seriously by anyone but turf cutting supporters. Just read the headline and some of the text for example :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Galwayguy35

joela wrote: »

Here is one of the people who support the turf cutters for the reasons outlined by John_Rambo. The turf cutters personal journalist http://www.connachttribune.ie/galway-news/item/808-bitter-turf-war-shows-no-sign-of-easing as usual fuels the so called 'revolutionary' aspect of this. Pathetic really as he is so biased he can't be taken seriously by anyone but turf cutting supporters. Just read the headline and some of the text for example :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Don't see any bias there, he's only reporting what actually happened.

joela

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Don't see any bias there, he's only reporting what actually happened.

No he isn't, he never does when the piece related to turf cutters.

Galwayguy35

joela wrote: »

No he isn't, he never does when the piece related to turf cutters.

So maybe you would like to point out where exactly you see bias in the article, because I genuinely can't see any.

joela

It is the choice of words he uses, the way he actually describes things, the fact he repeatedly & publicly comments on the issue in favour of the turf cutters on social media. It doesn't take a genius to see all those things and read his reports to realise he is fanning flames with the words he uses e.g. The Monivea siege seriously like a siege? then this leading to fears that the dispute at 53 SAC bogs nationwide is set to escalate beyond control That is just pure nonsense & emotive enough to continue to fan the flames which is simply irresponsible.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

joela wrote: »

It is the choice of words he uses, the way he actually describes things, the fact he repeatedly & publicly comments on the issue in favour of the turf cutters on social media. It doesn't take a genius to see all those things and read his reports to realise he is fanning flames with the words he uses e.g. The Monivea siege seriously like a siege? then this leading to fears that the dispute at 53 SAC bogs nationwide is set to escalate beyond control That is just pure nonsense & emotive enough to continue to fan the flames which is simply irresponsible.

Tabloid style of writing so

Galwayguy35

joela wrote: »

It is the choice of words he uses, the way he actually describes things, the fact he repeatedly & publicly comments on the issue in favour of the turf cutters on social media. It doesn't take a genius to see all those things and read his reports to realise he is fanning flames with the words he uses e.g. The Monivea siege seriously like a siege? then this leading to fears that the dispute at 53 SAC bogs nationwide is set to escalate beyond control That is just pure nonsense & emotive enough to continue to fan the flames which is simply irresponsible.

It's not an article in a local paper that is barely read outside Galway that will "fan the flames" as you put it.

Whether you agree with them or not these people won't change their minds any time soon.

It will also depend on the outcome of the courtcase in december, if the fine is huge people may rethink their course of action.

M three

@openyoureyes and other posters vehemently opposed to turf cutting - have any of ye considered the fact that it is a semi state company ie. Bord na mona who cut the vast majority of turf in Ireland?

Probably not as that's not how rte news present the story.
No doubt ye never objected to illegal quarries, illegal landfills etc which also destroyed habitat.
But that's understandable as rte news didn't get ye all wound up about it in time, did it.

The amount of potential fines pales in comparison to the ridiculous sums we'll be paying private speculators who took massive gambles on Irish banks.

So enough of either knowingly or unknowingly talking up the little sideshow.

Uriel.

M three wrote: »

@openyoureyes and other posters vehemently opposed to turf cutting - have any of ye considered the fact that it is a semi state company ie. Bord na mona who cut the vast majority of turf in Ireland?

Probably not as that's not how rte news present the story.
No doubt ye never objected to illegal quarries, illegal landfills etc which also destroyed habitat.
But that's understandable as rte news didn't get ye all wound up about it in time, did it.

The amount of potential fines pales in comparison to the ridiculous sums we'll be paying private speculators who took massive gambles on Irish banks.

So enough of either knowingly or unknowingly talking up the little sideshow.

I'm not "vehemently opposed" to turf cutting. I am however opposed to the destruction of an endangered habitat that enjoys legal protection under both national and European law. Only a tiny fraction of bogs in this country enjoy protection to the point that turf cutting for domestic use is outright prohibited.

I am also opposed to the ongoing daily fines that Ireland will be subject to if destruction of protected areas continues. As a tax payer I'll be very angry for fines ( or withholding of grant monies etc) to be imposed on the state coffers because a small band of gob****es disregard the law. That is especially the case where tens of millions of compensation has been and continues to be paid out.

Am I angry about bankers, rabble rabble etc , yeah of course I am. But I don't expect to get away with Armed robbery or motoring offences because of some misguided concept that because some guys in suits haven't yet felt the letter of the law. One crime, whether it an illegal act(s) or a social crime (or both) doesn't give carte Blanche for others to do what they please.

Bord na Móna do not cut on protected sites. The Bord's bogs that were included in the protected areas at the adoption of the habitats regs in Ireland were transferred to the state and their operations duly ceased.

You are making the mistake that this is a move against turf cutting generally. It is not. It is about the protection of a very specific endangered habitat

OpenYourEyes

M three wrote: »

@openyoureyes and other posters vehemently opposed to turf cutting - have any of ye considered the fact that it is a semi state company ie. Bord na mona who cut the vast majority of turf in Ireland?

Probably not as that's not how rte news present the story.
No doubt ye never objected to illegal quarries, illegal landfills etc which also destroyed habitat.
But that's understandable as rte news didn't get ye all wound up about it in time, did it.

The amount of potential fines pales in comparison to the ridiculous sums we'll be paying private speculators who took massive gambles on Irish banks.

So enough of either knowingly or unknowingly talking up the little sideshow.

@M three, have you read any of this thread? or any of the other threads at all? Seriously? Have you engaged with anyone from the anti-illegal-turfcutting side? These topics have been covered countless times, so don't come walking in thinking you've got a trumps card on the issue when its been shown countless times that its nothing of the sort!

Its not about turfcutting - we can accept the private turfcutting that goes on on 95% of bogs - we just want/need 5% to be protected - not too much to ask. We all are painfully aware of the damage Bord na Mona has done to the countryside, but the SAC bogs (remember, 5% of raised bogs - a very small amount) that are protected were chosen because they're either relatively intact, or could be brought back to something close to intact with a bit of work. Nothing can be done with the Bord na Mona bogs to turn them back intoanything close to a bog habitat - its too late for those bogs, we're trying to protect the bogs it isn't too late for! Oh, and Bord na Mona handed back the few bogs it had that were capable of being restored!

And I can assure you we are more aware and concerned about the long list of ways the environment is being destroyed or unsustainably used in this country - obviously more ware than you and your patronising and dismissive attitude are.

The amount of fines is almost infinite when you think of what could be done with that money, or even if you just consider the fact that we owe enough money as a country without throwing a few more million on top of it. If its such a small fine, you can pay it, thanks!

Everything can be dismissed as a "little sideshow", much easier than having a decent argument to back your point on it isn't it?
If its such a small issue then why can't the illegal turfcutters accept the few grand or move to another bog, and leave the 5% of raised bog we want to and need to protect alone.
Answer:

Selfishness and gullibility.