Saturday, March 29, 2008
“We need to make an example of this particular incident..”
Interesting interjection by DUP MLA Jim Wells, and one I entirely agree with, on the felling of a number of protected trees in a private estate on the outskirts of Newcastle, County Down. One for the Northern Ireland Minister for the Environment, the DUP’s Arlene Foster, to ponder.. As the Woodland Trust spokesman says,
Patrick Craig from the Woodland Trust said: “We’re just absolutely appalled that yet again some more native trees have been destroyed.
“The legislation is very, very strong, but unfortunately when it comes to enforcement, there doesn’t seem to be the willingness or ability of anybody to actually enforce those protection orders.”
Also from the BBC report
A DOE spokesperson said: “Planning Service can confirm that investigations into a possible breach of planning control in the Bryansford area of Newcastle are ongoing, however we cannot comment on the details of the investigation at this stage.”
A possible breach?
Pete Baker @ 12:54 AM
Eoghan, are inveterate tree huggers barking mad or just informers for the Special Branch?
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 11:30 AMwe always export our right wing nuts
and like almost every great thing in the states.....they got it from Canada. its a good thing they have such excelent neighbours
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 12:08 PM*Don’t knock Canada
The world’s greatest right wing polemicist, Mark Steyn, is Canadian (er.. though he lives in Vermont)*And he’s currently being dragged through the star chamber that is known as the Canadian Human Rights Commission for having the temerity to express opinions that the government doesn’t approve of.
Canada, what a nasty little country.
Back on topic, so the private property in question was not subject to any preservation order at the time when the owner of said private property disposed of it according to his own wishes.
Case closed.
As I said above, get stuffed and mind your own business.
You want to have rights over another man’s private property? No problem, buy it off him, otherwise bog off and hug your own trees.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 01:30 PMHarry
If the current levels of woodland mirrored those which are across Europe as a whole, I’d be the first to agree with you. But they don’t. You aren’t, by any chance, Seymour Sweeney?
By the way, you say “You want to have rights over another man’s private property?” State already does. The lodge is listed. That didn’t come from the local W.I. There’s planning permission. Building Control. Lots of little things like that. Your argument is a non-sequiter, and frankly in this case, just trollish.
I hope this guy gets well and truly butt-fucked. He is symptomatic of the piss-poor environmentally-challenged private sector in this region.
TreesRus
Did the developer pull the trees down during the loophole dates? UNless I picked this up incorrectly, there was a two day window, yet he seems to have done this outside of the dates...?
Also, I doubt very much if any judge would be lax enough to say “Oh you did on those two day? Oh that’s ok then”. The developer knew the notice would be renewed and yet pulled the trees down in full knowledge of this? That ain’t gonna stand.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 02:28 PMCare to explain how a country can be nasty, Harry.
Or are you just taking man (and woman) playing to an extreme?Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 03:09 PMThe owner/developer commenced his destruction on the 26th March around 7am and was still pulling down trees at 11.30pm that night.
They parked their vans over the entrance to block access throughout the day to police, planners, reports etc.
The owner/developer is a very wealthy man whose family own an estate agency in Newry (some might say it is the best agency in Newry - it may well bee or it may not bee) and have a large development company that have extensive properties throughout England and Dublin.
This property was purchased for £3.5m some 12 months ago at the peak. A neighboring property was purchased around the same time for £6m and resold 6 months later for £8m. Its believed the TPO effectively made the redevelopment a non starter and the market conditions prevented a flip on meaning potentially a significant loss to the developer (£2m).
This was a blatant act of destruction to make this property more commercially viable, persons in the planning dept are involved in this tip off and one would suspect what their motivations are..
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 04:27 PMIn what way am I taking “man playing” joe?
Is Canada a man now?
I make my assertion about Canada’s nastiness as a result of following the kafkaesque censorship laws which are enshrined in Canadian law to allow the Canadian government to suppress dissenting thought.
I dislike such censorship in China, I hate it in Russia and I loathe it in Cuba and when I discover that kangaroo courts can operate in Canada to suppress free thought I am entitled to my opinion that a country which would allow such a travesty of free political expression is a nasty country.
If Canadians want to rejoin the community of nations which support the idea of freedom of expression than they can abolish their despotic censorship courts, until such time I am entitled to my opinion that Canada is a nasty society (note “entitled to my opinion”, it appears to be an alien concept in modern day Canada).
As regards the trees, here’s my point; trees can be planted and can grow again, believe me, the last time I checked there were an awful lot of trees out there. However civil and social liberties once surrendered to the state can never be brought back.
Far too many people in wee Norn Iron have an inbuilt, illiberal, “the government should do something” attitude. If the trees belong to this man and he has broken no law (though what the hell the state is doing telling a private individual how he can dispose of his own property defeats me - you want the trees? Fine, buy the feckin’ things or leave the free born citizen the hell alone) then it is of fuck all concern to the posters on Slugger O’Toole what the man does with his own property.
As for the idiot poster above who seemed to believe that trees equate to human children I can only suggest he go and boil his head.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 04:28 PM“Regarding Finaghy road, if the tree removal being talked about is where I think, it was at the bridge over the railway. To the best of my knowledge, this is in South Belfast from a parliamentary POV.”
Yes it is, though fights between SDLP election canvassers turned it into a no-go area for a while.
I wrestled one SDLPer to the ground as he lunged at another with a packet of sandwiches. If I’d had a piece on me (pun itended) I would have just capped the sucker.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 04:45 PM“Eoghan, are inveterate tree huggers barking mad or just informers for the Special Branch?”
Environmentalism is not like SF, it is possible to rise through the ranks without being a tout.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 04:48 PMI’m not sure to whom Harry refers to with regard to tree/children thing. But it was not I, so I can only assume he’s referring to TreesRus.
It’s very easy to bury your head in the sand on this, Harry. But I would suggest to you that when you do, and you cut your head because it’s full of human detritus, old breeze blocks and hazardous materials, you may think differently.
Easy to write off any concern for the environment as tree-hugging, isn’t it? I’ll bet you’re the sort of person who believes nuclear energy is a good thing, and that all those clusters of leukemia in proximity to Sellafield were “coincidence”.
Certainly the trees can be planted again. But if they are forming a part of a localised eco-system, there’s not much point. Anyway, the land will have already been built upon for second home owning chip eaters. I hope that clarifies for you the statement, “when it’s gone, it’s gone.”
I’ll write it again for the hard of understanding, Harry: “You want to have rights over another man’s private property?” The State already does. The lodge is listed. Listing has been around since the 1960’s. There’s planning permission to gain; this has been around since the 1950’s. Building Control to satisfy - building control has been around in one form or another since the Great Fire of London. People have not had rights over the building purposes of their land for decades. And rightly so.
Your argument is a non-sequiter, and just trollish. But given your past form, Harry, that seems to be as far as informed debate ever runs with you.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 07:14 PMHarry
“However civil and social liberties once surrendered to the state can never be brought back.”
Absolute Boll***s
But then the hyperbolic exaggeration is no stranger to you my friend.
Head Boiler.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 07:23 PMThe state can do what it wants, you need to own the National Gallery or something before you can turn billet hungry troops away.
Before WWI ( I think) they discussed cutting down *all* the trees to make acetone for munitions.
Me no chemist, so go easy on me.
G.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 07:38 PMTreeRus - thanks for the clarification by the way. In addition to the potential loss you mentioned, I’d like to add that the full force of the law, with £30k per tree, over 100 trees, would take another £3m from his already depleted wallet.
That old “last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned” Cree proverb springs to mind. I hope this developer likes his money crispy…
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 07:42 PMGreg...environmentally, at least, things have come on, *just* a tad since then.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 07:43 PM“Greg...environmentally, at least, things have come on, *just* a tad since then.”
Just give me time to read up on it.
There is a wierd thing, my tree is still there in the magnified view of those satelite maps. Do you reckon ‘he who must be obeyed’ called up NASA or somebody and said “use archive stuff or Curleys will stop advertising on the side of your space ships”?
G.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 08:47 PMGregory, tree .. bark .. branch. Twigged it? ;)
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 09:01 PMI don’t think I have quite twigged it.
You mean ‘somebody’ asked SF to whack my tree because I exposed CEOP’s porn-fest?
UK Government Caught at “Child Protection” Conference with Porn Industry
By Terry Vanderheyden
BELFAST, November 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Northern Ireland Assemblyman is condemning a British government MP for attending a “child protection” conference at a Belfast hotel known for its purveyance of pay-per-view pornography, an industry that is often guilty of trafficking in women and underage girls.
Well, the Castle spooks will not sit still for being brought to notice by uppity taigs.
On the other hand you may have completely lost me, but don’t worry about that, you won’t be the first. I can be as dumb as anything at times.
I liked your web-site by the way. The Carrickarede Rope Bridge is a big hit with my US coleagues, I have to find them things to do when they’re not up at Stormont or whatever.
All the best
G.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 09:13 PM“In addition to the potential loss you mentioned, I’d like to add that the full force of the law, with £30k per tree, over 100 trees, would take another £3m from his already depleted wallet.”
In Hampstead, I think they can take a lot of cash from a person who does a tree wrong if the tree is protected.
G.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 09:16 PMI could be wrong but I thought the railway was the boundary for the Ladybrook ward which falls into West Belfast, I’m open to correction as others disagree.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 10:28 PMIs Appleton Park SB as well? I seem to recall the Reverend Martin Smyth MP having to do their stuff? Orchardville is SB, Ardmore also, I never canvassed (for the UUP) over the railway bridge though. I did Stockmans Lane, and Diamond Gardens etc.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 12:09 AMOh Christ, Cree proverbs, lord lift me out of it!
So that’s the standard of debate, jesus wept.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 01:19 AMNo, the debate ended two or three posts up.
The bit where you postulated that the State has no rights over what you do with your property, and then I went back to around 1600 to underline the fact that you’re just a silly arse, who most likely lives in a bungalow in Helen’s Bay, and has nothing more to do than troll on subjects you have little worthy opinion on?
That’s where it ended.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 02:07 AMHarry
to put it plainly you are full of shit
Canada has one of the strongest free speach rights in the world
But neither the government nor the people will stand for hate speach
we don’t allow nazik’s to advocate the murder of jews or skin heads on blacks
I havent a clue who this person is but if the governmet is prosecuting him I am more than confident that he is deserving of censorship
Complete freedom of speach is total bullshit but post here exactly why this man deserves protection and why he is being persecuted instead of just spouting bile
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 03:02 AMSteyn reported on 1st March 2008 that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had declined to hear the suit against Maclean’s.[19] In Ontario, the Human Rights Code specifically prohibits the Commission from “interfer[ing] with the freedom of expression of opinion.[20]
So harry in Steyn’s own words you are full of shit, so apologize before you lose all credibility
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 03:17 AMI think Harry’s problem is that there isn’t a Cree proverb which says
“When the white man comes just hand everything over, especially the trees. It will be better for you in the long run.”
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 08:45 AM
