07.30.07
Country mouse fights back
About five years ago, Iarnrod Eireann was required to erect fortifications along the railways. Litigants had successfully claimed that the company hadn’t tried hard enough to keep them out of the path of trains whilst frolicking on the railway. Since our diesel powered engines are large and noisy and railways are generally so quiet, I’d argue a significant degree of contributory negligence is necessary for someone to be accidentally hit by a train. Nevertheless Irish Rail has to show in court that they have made every effort to keep the railway wandering public off their property.
This has proved to be a terrible nuisance for our family since our land runs along one of the major lines. Until the recent fencing initiative we could walk up the fields, cross the railway at a gate or easily tackled fence and get onto the banks of the Royal Canal. From there we could walk for miles on what is a stunning linear wildlife park. Even as children we didn’t find it particularly arduous to check the signal box, watch and listen before crossing the line.
Between deep ditches and double lines of barbed wire, now I have to get into a car, drive to the village and find parking before trekking off down the canal bank. It wrecks my walking buzz and I’m resentful that my children will never experience the freedom I did as a child to enjoy the canal. However, such is the litigious nature of our society I can understand why Irish Rail had to act as they did.
For the same reason I can understand why the Office of Public Works has had to fence off and close gates at Castletown House, the beautiful estate at Celbridge. If they left access to the estate open all day and night, it would only be a matter of time before they’d find themselves in court because some fool tripped over a mushroom and felt obliged to seek compensation.
This is the way the State and its agencies have been forced to protect themselves from the stupidity and greed of the general public. What I don’t understand then is why private landowners who take the same steps are the subject of outrage. If someone walks across private land and finds a hole in which to fall or provoke a beast into a personal attack then that farmer will find themselves in a great deal of trouble.
He would have to demonstrate in court that he had taken substantial steps to protect the casual visitor to his land, even if he had no idea that person was present. Private property is constitutionally protected but the general understanding of that concept is that it refers to people’s gardens and not what is known as the “open countryside” or to rural dwellers, our land. The “right to roam”, so indignantly proclaimed by the walking fraternity does not mean my right to a recreational skip through the gardens of Ballsbridge on a Sunday afternoon. The roaming in question will only be done in the “country” and the consensus appears to be that the general population has a right to possession of the countryside on the basis that they rather like the look of it.
Curiously my toddlers have a similar outlook on life. If they see something an automatic presumption of ownership applies and any rival claims will be met with high pitched shrieking and wails of injustice.
The walkers will argue that they’ve indirectly paid for access since they pay taxes and farmers receive grants. Thanks to the efficiency of the Revenue Commissioners, farmers pay taxes too, yet no one would argue this entitles them to free water supplies or the occasional ride on Dublin Bus.
The Minister for Rural and Community Affairs Eamon O’Cuiv looks set to introduce legislation to resolve the issue along the lines of a report submitted to him by an expert working group he established. It is proposed that a right to roam will be established on mountainous and uncultivated areas but that as in Scotland “a person has access rights only if they are exercised responsibly” and that those exercising the right of access must comply with an “Access Code”. This fairly shifts a degree of responsibility onto the walkers themselves and should go someway towards protecting landowners from presumptuous and litigious tourists.
Of course, the IFA has rather stupidly announced that this amounts to “nationalisation” of private land and proposes a standard annual payment of €1000 plus €5 per metre of walk. This greedy demand will be simply ignored and its mere existence will only serve to reinforce the image of the farming community as free-loading grant grabbers. Padraig Walshe, its current President, would be much better off ensuring that sensible provisions are made to ensure good relations between farmers and walkers by establishing clear rights and responsibilities on either side.
Nevertheless, the whole issue illustrates the culture clash between the established urban consensus which dominates the media and the every day lives of the rural population. The accepted narrative of our urban-rural divide is that people who live in the country are a costly, polluting indulgence and an offence to proper planning.
Minister O’Cuiv was interviewed last Friday week on The Last Word about the €6.8bn to be spent on developing rural communities over the next seven years. Presenter Matt Cooper confidently questioned the value of such an investment since it is accepted wisdom that people who live in the country drive too much, cost too much to service and their houses ruin the view when city folk drive to their coastal holiday homes on bank holiday weekends.
O’Cuiv’s response was so refreshing it reminded me how seldom the rural perspective features in the media. He observed that planners see Ireland as a hierarchy of cities, towns and gateways but that in reality, our society strongly recognises another hierarchy of place – that of townland, parish, county and province. This is the organisation which provides the backbone of Irish society and one which thrives while urban areas suffer all kinds of problems from congestion to deprivation. There are massive social and economic benefits to rural living and no evidence whatsoever that a country dweller leaves a carbon footprint any greater than an urban one. Certainly, most people that I know in Dublin have two cars which they drive everywhere. Yet apparently a view exists that only those cars driving in from the country present an environmental hazard.
I didn’t want my children to grow up in a city because I knew they’d live in a bubble with people of like mind and means. The social and economic mix which exists in the country will give them a more balanced perspective on the nature of our society and one from which the mall-dwelling teenagers of our cities might benefit.
O’Cuiv has said “Amidst the important debate about preserving the heritage of our countryside and the value of its traditions, music and culture, the point is often missed that without our people, these cease to exist.” I agree. So from walkers to planners to commentators, how about a little more respect for those of us who live beyond the Pale?
ben said,
July 30, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Just issue another demand through the IFA and you’ll get your cheque as always. The people who live in the cities and have productive jobs and pay taxes will fork over more cash down the gaping maw, as we always do, so we can enjoy the mountains and beaches which they acquired through public subsidy and which provide them with more public subsidy every year. We’ll just keep paying and paying to stop the “farmers” from putting up barbed wire and breeze blocks to deny people access to every area of outstanding natural beauty they can find, once they’ve finished dumping on it, building illegally, and gassing badgers. Having just come back from Connemara and seeing what’s being done there is enough to make anyone’s blood boil: there are plenty of “farmers” (they’ve never farmed a damn thing and wouldn’t know how) out there who have as their main motivation in life the spiteful, grasping “GET ORRFF MY LAND” philosophy and nothing else.
Making up litigious fantasies to accuse hill-walkers of is particularly rich; who knows litigation, fraud, and milking the system like our rural brethren, eh? They take and take and cry bloody murder when asked to be decent citizens and decent human beings in return. And equating the right to roam over farmland and wilderness with the invasion of privacy of people’s homes and gardens is such a blatantly scurrilous piece of disingenuity as to be beneath contempt.
Fence said,
July 31, 2007 at 8:45 am
As a child I regularly wandered through the fields, and never once did a farmer come with the “get off my land” mentality that the above commenter mentions. And that wasn’t too long ago. Longer than I like, but I’m only 28
And we took our dog. Through fields with cattle and sheep. Any farmer probably had plenty of grounds for complaint, although she was usually on a lead.
Nowadays however there are an increasing amount of signs warning people that the farms are private property. I’m not sure if anyone would actually come waving a stick about, but the warning IS there.
I’m not sure if it is just the litigation issue though. You have a lot of farmer nowadays who are part-timers, whereas in previous years they might have been around on the land to spot any problems before they got out of hand.
Plus there is the sense of entitlement some people seem to display. As though it is a god-given right for anyone to wander across any bit of farm land without even bothering to ask for permission. Farms are businesses. A rambler can cause problems. Why shouldn’t the farmers ask for some form of compensation, and protection from the government.
I’d be in favour of allowing people to roam through the countryside, but, to paraphrase Spiderman’s uncle, “with freedom comes responsibility”, and I don’t think that a lot of people understand that.
crocodile said,
July 31, 2007 at 10:20 am
Well made points about private property and the arrogance of city dwellers who assume rights over the countryside. Ben’s use of the word ‘productive’ is a real giveaway: our new national ethos is ‘he who pays the piper…’
A bit cheeky though to conflate the rambling issue with the ‘right’ to throw up one-off housing. There’s nothing traditional or central to the sense of rural community about most of the monstrosities lining the roads out of every rural town. They’re portrayed as homes for the children of those who own the land – and I gather yours is, Sarah – but most of them are selfish exercises in car-dependent vulgarity and have nothing to do with the families of the site-farmers. As our rural towns and villages, where the ‘community’ should be, die.
Ray said,
July 31, 2007 at 10:28 am
We live in the city, and we have two cars, but we’re not completely dependent on those cars. We can and do walk to the shops, or to school, or get the bus into town…
Colman said,
July 31, 2007 at 10:35 am
It seems easy enough to sort out fairly: severely limit the right to claim against a farmer when you’re on their land without permission and simply stop support payments to farmers who try to ban people from walking on their land without good reason. I don’t see the problem. You want us to pay to support your way of life? There are conditions attached.
I’ll note that I don’t recieve any subsidies for my back-garden and for the record:
“Thanks to the efficiency of the Revenue Commissioners, farmers pay taxes too, yet no one would argue this entitles them to free water supplies or the occasional ride on Dublin Bus.”
I’m perfectly happy to give farmers free (domestic) water supplies or allow them to avail of the same subsidies to public transport the rest of us should.
Dave said,
July 31, 2007 at 10:43 am
There is a mountain in front of my house and they’ve just approved public funding for a walkway to the top.
Should i be worried about tourists in rain jackets wandering through my garden?
To be honest it would bother me and I’m not a farmer for the record.
dor said,
July 31, 2007 at 10:50 am
“I didn’t want my children to grow up in a city because I knew they’d live in a bubble with people of like mind and means. The social and economic mix which exists in the country will give them a more balanced perspective on the nature of our society and one from which the mall-dwelling teenagers of our cities might benefit” – I don’t know what part of the country you grew up in, but my experience of rural dwelling was the ultimate in closemindedness with no acceptance of social mixing or other perspectives – I dreamed of living in a city where nobody gave a shite about who your family were, who got pregnant, what length your brothers’ hair was, etc. I now live in the inner city of Dublin and get exposed to all walks of live every day – I think it’s much more beneficial for children than the closed world of rural live. It’s easy to avoid the ‘bubble’ in the city if you try.
leon said,
July 31, 2007 at 11:11 am
Is the traditional subsistence style farmer, i.e. farms of less than 200 acres, that is preserved in Ireland and southern mediterrean countries worth maintaing? If you care about the environment, be it water quality, flora & fauna, global warming, flooding, sustainable planning, etc, the answer is clearly no.
In Ireland, rural land owners have been responsible for undermining the principle alternative income sources they have torism/leisure pursuits, through the construction of ranchero style bungalows home and holiday accomodation despoiling the landscape, that people come to see, almost intentionally destroying fish stocks with poor farm mangement, hounding walkers of of their land.
Isn’t it ironic the recent squeals from the B&B owners, who are frequently farmers or relatives of farmers, about the reduction in trade, perhaps if them and theirs had not destroyed the angling and walking trade and sullied the landscape with unsustainable development, they would be attracting more internal and external business.
Their are many problems with both rural and urban life, but the one advantage of the urban over the rural is that a person and family are not judged by their contempories on the actions of their ancestors 50 or 100 years ago. Rural in ireland general means conservative, reactionary and petty minded, thats not to say that these attitudes are absent in an urban setting but atleast they are escapable.
If the rural setting was so positive and supportive why are the rates of suicide higher than in the urban population.
leon said,
July 31, 2007 at 11:14 am
Is Sarah looking to land a PR job with the IFA?
tom said,
July 31, 2007 at 11:16 am
A few weeks ago I was travelling to Omagh on the bus and got diverted through the back roads of Monaghan. I could hardly believe my eyes. Colossal houses in almost every other field. BMWs (multiple) parked in the driveways. And this is supposed to be the ‘depressed’ border regions.
I think most city dwellers are sick to the back teeth of paying taxes in order to compensate people for owning a valuable asset. It defies all logic. And as the case of Monaghan – and pretty much every other area of Ireland – demonstrates, they are doing an appalling job of looking after that land.
These farmers always seem incredibly attached to their land – until they get a decent offer. One-off development is gradually killing Ireland and the idea that the same people profiting from this blight are raking in money from the taxpayer as well is ridiculous.
Every landowner in the country should be made an offer: continue to receive subsidy and have your land nationalised, or refuse the subsidy and maintain private ownership.
NATIONALISE THE LAND!
Sarah said,
July 31, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Tom,Leon and Ben show exactly how acceptable it is to peddle grossly simplistic, inaccurate and prejudiced descriptions of farmers.
Dor’s life in the north inner city is very much the exception of urban life. Most urban areas are ghettoes for specific classes where children of similiar incomes go to particular schools and the minds are just as closed. The city does give one anonymity, that’s true.
Arguments about poor planning are a different story.
btw, don’t know what any of you are complaing about YOUR taxes going to farmers for. I think the German tax payer is the one with the legitimate complaint. They’re also paying for the motorways that go through the land!
Sarah said,
July 31, 2007 at 12:50 pm
You know the confident aggression about “farmers” is starting to piss me off. I am just doing a headcount of the houses on our road.
1. Husband and daughter farming the land. Wife works in the village (1mile away)
2. Our house – I work from home. My husband gets the bus to Heuston station and the train to Cork for his work Mon-Wed and Thurs-Fri works from home.
3. Husband and two grown sons do commute somewhere to work. The father is a builder and so has different places to go. The two sons are both in sales type work ie all three would need cars anyway even if they lived in the village.
4. My parents – both of whom farmed the land all their lives and built a family business one mile away in the village. BOTH actually frequently cycle to the village.
5. Farmer and his wife who also works part time locally.
6. Farmer and his wife.
7&8 Sons of that farmer who started a joinery business which they operate from their yard.
9. Farmer and his wife. Daughter also living there who works locally.
10. Retired garda (worked in Enfield for 25 years?)
11. Newcomers who bought an existing house and they do drive into town a lot
12. House currently being rebuilt. Former occupant was farmer plus wife and grown son. Parents died, son sold house. It was knocked and his being rebuilt and we don’t know who’ll buy it.
13. Other son of that house. He and his wife work locally. Not sure what the sons do.
14. Local post mistress.
15. Not yet in existence but planning granted to a daughter of house 9. She works locally too.Oh and currently lshe is living in a council house so when her house is built a local authority house will become available.
So of that lot, hardly any commuters. No polluted land or water. Most people in local employment.
Meanwhile down in the village at the supposedly environmentally friendly houses, the bulk of people are commuting into Dublin. They need public services like water and sewerage and lighting which puts massive pressure on local authorities (everyone on our road has their own well and waste water treatment system, no lights or anything like that). Why is there an automatic presumption that the rural people are the ones causing the problem? We’re the ones living the more sustainable lives and thanks to our land, eating our own produce (fruit and summer veg etc).
Joseph said,
July 31, 2007 at 2:10 pm
I am a bit confused
Gerry said,
July 31, 2007 at 2:28 pm
yet again that refreshing honesty that is coming to mark you out Joseph.
crocodile said,
July 31, 2007 at 2:38 pm
In countries where planning takes into account matters like sustainability, aesthetics and availability of services, most of the people on your road would be living in Enfield, because the ribbon development along the side roads wouldn’t be allowed. This applies even to the farmers, who in many European countries live in villages and farm outside them. In turn, the cummuters who live in new estates in Enfield would still be in Dublin, because the developer-led estate building wouldn’t be allowed without pre-existing services and better public transport.
andrew said,
July 31, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Racing tip for you, Sarah: first race at Galway this evening. Horse number 5 – ‘The Ex-Townie’. Each way value at about 8/1.
Colman said,
July 31, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I presume none of those people have substantial amounts of land Sarah and therefore thave little to do with the access rights issue?
Dave said,
July 31, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I’m with you on this Sarah. The ignorance and lets be honest, hatred of rural Ireland displayed here is indicative of a real division in Irish society.
I’m from London originally and live in VERY rural West Cork and am well aware of both sides of the coin.
At least in Ireland ordinary people still live in the country. In large parts of Britain it has become the domain of the rich only.
joseph said,
July 31, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Whatever about land, mouses and farmers. We need to get right into the spirit of things here.
Accordingly:
We laid on a dune, we looked at the sky,
When the children were babies and played on the beach.
You came up behind us, we saw you go by,
You were always so close and still within reach.
Sarah, Sarah,
Whatever made you want to change your mind?
Sarah, Sarah,
So easy to look at, so hard to define.
We can still see them playin’ with their pails in the sand,
They run to the water their buckets to fill.
We can still see the shells fallin’ out of their hands
As they follow each other back up the hill.
Sarah, Sarah,
Sweet virgin angel, sweet love of our life,
Sarah, Sarah,
Radiant jewel, and someone elses ourstical wife.
Sleepin’ in the woods by a fire in the night,
Drinkin’ white rum in a Portugal bar,
Them playin’ leapfrog and hearin’ about Snow White,
You in the marketplace in Savanna-la-Mar.
Sarah, Sarah,
It’s all so clear, we could never forget,
Sarah, Sarah,
Lovin’ you is the one thing we’ll never regret.
We can still hear the sounds of those Methodist bells,
I’d taken the cure and had just gotten through,
Stayin’ up for days in the Chelsea Hotel,
Writin’ “Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands” for you.
Sarah, Sarah,
Wherever we travel we’re never apart.
Sarah, oh Sarah,
Beautiful lady, so dear to our heart.
How did I meet you? I don’t know.
A messenger sent me in a tropical storm.
You were there in the winter, moonlight on the snow
And on Lily Pond Lane when the weather was warm.
Sarah, oh Sarah,
Scorpio Sphinx in a calico dress,
Sarah, Sarah,
You must forgive me our unworthiness.
Now the beach is deserted except for some kelp
And a piece of an old ship that lies on the shore.
You always responded when I needed your help,
You gimme a map and a key to your door.
Sarah, oh Sarah,
Glamorous nymph with an arrow and bow,
Sarah, oh Sarah,
Don’t ever leave me, don’t ever go
Sarah said,
July 31, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Hurrah! Thanks Joseph:-)
As for the people on our road. There were 5 original holdings (Land Commission parcels). Most of the people are the original landowners or the sons and daughters of them. Two new families. So each of those families has parcels of land of about 80 acres which would be farmed one way or another by a family member. Don’t forget the trickle down effect of farming too – 100,000 people kept in jobs by farming (machinery, food processing etc).
And just think logically about encouraging widescale abandonment of the land. Then you’d have your Brazillian beef. Plenty of airmiles and no traceability.
Maria Ramirez said,
July 31, 2007 at 5:37 pm
The lady doth protest too much.
It’s natural to oppose with vigour any challenge to the morality of your lifestyle choices. The suppressed fear that you may need to change drives this kind of fervour. This creates an inner tension and I don’t think it’s making you happy. It’s also making you look slightly ridiculous (but endearingly so).
Daring to consider that you may be wrong is liberating and I urge you to step back and realise that it’s not right to rape the nation and ask city workers to pick up the tab. Your family are only farmers in the same way that a couple whose children live in an orphanage are parents. Ireland will be a net contributor to the EU during the current budget round so you are not asking that your subsidised eco-killing parochial lifestyle be funded by some anonymous fat kraut in lederhosen- but by me.
I’m a bad person and I’m so much happier knowing it and discovering it since I gave up trying to justify my wrong deeds. At least there’s a slim chance of redemption and rehabilitation. Join me Sarah! You have nothing to lose.
In your heart of hearts you know that Eamon O’Cuiv is a bad man. I had the misfortune to share a flat with the bastard in the late 1970s and, I kid you not, he spent hours listening to tapes of his grandfather and attempting to ape a man who himself was deeply flawed. Irish culture and music will not die if people live closer together in towns and villages. Eamon Junior has his own demons, just different from those his grandpa kept in a locked closet.
Many of the arguments in your article were so hackneyed. I know you were just repeating the idiotically weak tirades of others you’ve come into contact with during your rural life in B&Q and whatnot but it’s plain that you don’t believe them yourself. Not in your heart. You’re better than that. Instead of tirelesly rebutting why not do something really impressive and play devil’s advocate? Tell us what the counter arguments are to your own article.
lots of love
Maria
Sarah said,
July 31, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Oooh how patronising. I’ve no intention of making counter-arguments. And I know Eamon has many other issues on which I disagree (like his hypocrisy in being against holiday homes whilst representing the builders’ party)
Rural people are raping the nation? Please.
I acknowledge that there is over-development but I am heartily sick of the inconsistent, irrational and smug arrogance of urbanites who so casually insult farmers and complain about the existence of people who live in the country. They are against subsidies but in favour of eating locally produced food. They love the idea of farmers’ markets but there are queues in Tesco every Saturday. They feel small and uneconomic farmers should abandon the land but want all the hedgerows and meadows preserved when these are the first things that would go if ranch style farms were introduced. They claim farmers contribute nothing to the economy while ignoring all the related industries. I could go on.
Why don’t you tell me what subsidy free farming looks like? Are you all prepared to pay more money for your food? What jobs do you intend providing for all the people that work in agriculture and agriculturally related industries? Do you think the farming community would conveniently disappear? just think it through before you start the rants.
Dan Sullivan said,
July 31, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Sarah,
I also noted in O’Cuiv’s interview that he thought while people should be able to build in rural environments that it didn’t mean they had to be lined up along the main road either. I do wonder if the folks the IRDA who talk about how Irish people lived in famine times and before ever think about the fact that we lived 10-/12 people per house and that we also lived in clusters of houses, not one house ever 200 yards along the road. It is strange the people who get excessively upset about the idea of people walking land that is not being farmed.
Joseph said,
July 31, 2007 at 6:58 pm
“n your heart of hearts you know that Eamon O’Cuiv is a bad man. I had the misfortune to share a flat with the bastard in the late 1970s”
Well thats pretty strong stuff and very personal.
DO TELL US MORE!
Joseph said,
July 31, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I gather you were very close at some point. dare I say it probably Lovers at one stage? Yes I can see it now, the bitter retribution of a woman rejected.
Ray said,
July 31, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Instead of subsidy-free farming, how about subsidies for farmers who –
preserve meadows and hedgerows
allow access to walkers
don’t pollute water supplies
don’t use intensive farming methods
don’t despoil the countryside with ginormous one-off bungalows
Meet those conditions, you get subsidies. Don’t and you don’t. Where’s the problem?
joseph said,
July 31, 2007 at 9:14 pm
“Instead of subsidy-free farming, how about subsidies for farmers who -
preserve meadows and hedgerows
allow access to walkers
don’t pollute water supplies
don’t use intensive farming methods
don’t despoil the countryside with ginormous one-off bungalows
Meet those conditions, you get subsidies. Don’t and you don’t. Where’s the problem?”
So you’re saying that Maria Ramirez and Eamon O’Cuiv were not lovers at an stage? Or that if they were then still its worth imposing strict monitoring of the farmers before we give them any money.
Yeah you might be right, but I still reckon that Maria Ramirez and Eamon O’Cuiv were lovers. While the mice are away the cats will play
Sarah said,
July 31, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Instead of subsidy-free farming, how about subsidies for farmers who -
preserve meadows and hedgerows
allow access to walkers
don’t pollute water supplies
don’t use intensive farming methods
don’t despoil the countryside with ginormous one-off bungalows
Meet those conditions, you get subsidies. Don’t and you don’t. Where’s the problem?”
Yes Ray, that’s called REPS, Rural Environmental Protection Scheme, one of the major subsidy schemes under which many farmers get their cheques. And trust me there is a lot of monitoring. The exact distance of a tree planted from a house or the position of a fence. All of those things you mentioned like fertilisation, beast:acreage ratios, types of crops planted and exactly where are covered in it.
I think Maria is a man. I don’t think a woman would say “endearingly so” unless she considers herself VERY superior to me whereas even the most mediocre man would consider himself superior to me and think himself charming for being so nice to me and even though the not so inner infantile Sarah responds to that “praise” there’s just enough of the squeenchy tiny part of my brain that did grow up to know it wasn’t praise at all.
I did meet O’Cuiv once. His fundamentalist logic is fascinating but you don’t really see him as the lover type, really, do you?
Joseph said,
July 31, 2007 at 10:26 pm
“I did meet O’Cuiv once. His fundamentalist logic is fascinating but you don’t really see him as the lover type, really, do you?”
Hang on a moment, now youre saying you were lovers with Eamon Cuiv?
What the hell is going on here, good grief this guy has some charisma, talk about a dark horse?
This has to all stop. Women who are men, Minsiters who are Fundamentalists and randy as heck. Its all getting just a bit too crazy for me.
Graham said,
July 31, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Sarah,
Why is it such an offence ” to peddle grossly simplistic, inaccurate and prejudiced descriptions of farmers” and yet it’s ok for you to retort with “Most urban areas are ghettoes for specific classes where children of similiar incomes go to particular schools and the minds are just as closed”. Did you have a second childhood in an urban ghetto that you haven’t told us about?
I grew up in an essentially urban area in Dublin, yet we had the mountains at our backs and so rural life was only a twenty min walk into the hills (it’s further now!). I went to the local public school and my friends came from homes of varying income brackets. You’ve just chosen to base your argument on a very small part of urban reality in Dublin. The rural farmers that I came into contact with (working with a vet in the area where I grew up) were very mixed. Some were preserving the land and farming in a more sustainable way. Others were destroying the land, polluting water and always complaining about the meagre handouts they were getting.
leon said,
August 1, 2007 at 8:39 am
Sarah you are basically defending the rights of the minority rural dwellers to despoil the resources of ireland for their own perceived individual rights.
It is excessively costly for local authorities to provide sanitation to one off an ribbon ousing development, hence the profileration of single waste water treatment plants and contaminated drinking water wells. Rural dwellers only have electricity supplies because urbanites subsidised the rural electrification schemes, ok you have slightly higher standing charges now but these in no way commensate with the costs of providing the supply infrastructure.
There is a myth that the irish lived in lone houses dotted across the countryside, this is simply not supported by sociological and archaeological evidence, prior to the famine the rural irish lived in clusters of housing, usual a minimum of 4 to 6 households with a shared communal area, it is only post famine and really post-commenecemnt of the land commission that the irish have lived in one off housing.
Why should urban dwellers subsidise and facilitate the rural dwellers abuse of national resources by permitting corrupt local politicians and unstainable development plans?
The biggest resource the rural population have is amenity and tourism, especially in the west and south, but this appears to be the key resource that rural dwellers are seeking to destroy, through pollution, poor planning, agression to walkers, etc. Why should the wealth generated by the city, and particularly Dublin, be used to subsidise this destructive minority, let the have the despoiled environment and poverty they seek to bring on themselves.
A link that shows some of the pressures on the environment from agriculture, one off housing, among others,
http://www.wrbd.ie/PDF/Water%20Matters%20booklet%20PDF.pdf
Sarah said,
August 1, 2007 at 8:48 am
Perceived rights? PERCEIVED RIGHTS? Since when was the right to private property perceived?
And who’s subsidising whom? Since we get no public services and pay the same taxes you do, then it looks like we’re the ones doing the subsidising.
Re schools..Graham. You tell me then what the socio-economic mix is like in the primary schools around Neilstown or Blackrock…Leave out the perfect childhood Dublin used to be the country stuff…
Joseph said,
August 1, 2007 at 9:07 am
“Neilstown”
I WONT HEAR OF A BAD WORD ABOUT THE PLACE.
It’s the Zenith of Dublin/Irish culture and perfect example of succesive policies and social attitudes. And not at all like those rough areas on the Northside.
Actually this place may need to be nuked!
Then when you think about it, most of the crime and social ills of Dublin are in the southside of Dublin. For one thing its about twice the size as the “Northside”
Joseph said,
August 1, 2007 at 9:09 am
YOU SAID
“Sarah you are basically defending the rights of the minority rural dwellers to despoil the resources of ireland for their own perceived individual rights.
It is excessively costly for local authorities to provide sanitation to one off an ribbon ousing development, hence the profileration of single waste water treatment plants and contaminated drinking water wells. Rural dwellers only have electricity supplies because urbanites subsidised the rural electrification schemes, ok you have slightly higher standing charges now but these in no way commensate with the costs of providing the supply infrastructure.
There is a myth that the irish lived in lone houses dotted across the countryside, this is simply not supported by sociological and archaeological evidence, prior to the famine the rural irish lived in clusters of housing, usual a minimum of 4 to 6 households with a shared communal area, it is only post famine and really post-commenecemnt of the land commission that the irish have lived in one off housing.
Why should urban dwellers subsidise and facilitate the rural dwellers abuse of national resources by permitting corrupt local politicians and unstainable development plans?
The biggest resource the rural population have is amenity and tourism, especially in the west and south, but this appears to be the key resource that rural dwellers are seeking to destroy, through pollution, poor planning, agression to walkers, etc. Why should the wealth generated by the city, and particularly Dublin, be used to subsidise this destructive minority, let the have the despoiled environment and poverty they seek to bring on themselves.
A link that shows some of the pressures on the environment from agriculture, one off housing, among others,
http://www.wrbd.ie/PDF/Water%20Matters%20booklet%20PDF.pdf”
AND I HEARD
BLAH BALH BLAH
BLAH BALH BLAH
BLAH BALH BLAH
BLAH BALH BLAH
BLAH BALH BLAH
BLAH BALH BLAH
BLAH BALH BLAH
leon said,
August 1, 2007 at 9:11 am
Yes perceived rights, the rural dwellers of ireland appear to beleiev they have the right to do as they wish with their lands; build where they please, dump their rubbish in holes, pour there effluents in to aquifers, spray slurries when they please, etc. The attitude is that the laws made for the common good for environmental or planning reasons for example should not apply to them, as they perceive these laws to be mad by urban D4 types. Unfortunately rural councils and councillors often complicit in these abuses of law.
Common good overrides pivate rights to property as I understand, hence CPOs and the like for development
Sarah said,
August 1, 2007 at 9:50 am
yeah cos roads are for the common good. Even though any transport economist will tell you that it doesn’t matter how many roads you build they will fill up with cars. Railways, how about CPOs for railways?
Now Leon claims that someone is impersonating him. Is that real Leon or fake Leon?
If its real Leon, Mr anti-rural dweller, since you acquired a girlfriend, your face hasn’t been seen around here much. To think I ironed your linen jacket before you met her for an early date. Little I did I realise that I was creating the circumstances for you to dump me. And then you wonder why we seek escapism in bad television programmes. SOB.
Dan Sullivan said,
August 1, 2007 at 10:22 am
Sarah, the right to private property does not been the right be absolute king of what you own and to do whatever you want with it. Just because you can play your stereo as loud as you like what with the nearest neighbour being dozens of yards away does not been this automatically becomes is the right of everyone who lives in a house that they own. It is a circumstantial opportunity
As for no public services, I’m guessing you paid for the road all the way into town from your house completely out of your own pocket, that you have a private security service patrolling the area, that you have no call on any emergency medical services such as ambulances, and didn’t you mention something about your hubby getting a bus into Heuston?
Sarah said,
August 1, 2007 at 11:07 am
But I never said private property rights should never be sacrificed. I simply argued that if those rights ARE sacrificed to the walkers then the walkers shouldn’t get to sue.
I shouldn’t have said “no” public services – what I mean is no water/sewerage/lighting etc. And hubby gets the bus with everyone else.I thought you WANTED people getting the bus? Most of my Dublin pals wouldn’t be seen dead on a bus. The DART appears to be slightly more respectable. When I did live in Dublin and frequently got the bus the clientele were primarily composed of:
- pensioners
- students
- immigrants
- non-executive type workers.
We did have to pay several thousand towards the road. Its a standard levy now for everyone who gets PP. I am not complaing about paying btw. I am complaining about other people complaining that they are subsidising me when they are not.
Dan Sullivan said,
August 1, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Sarah, you said “And who’s subsidising whom? Since we get no public services and pay the same taxes you do, then it looks like we’re the ones doing the subsidising.”
Dan Sullivan said,
August 1, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Sarah, I think everyone who has contributed so far believes that they are contributing an excess to society and that practically everyone else is sponging. I would say that this is part of the problem in that the vast majority of people believe that they are the ones. We have taken on the American viewpoint far too much that all our taxes are being spent on other feckless people and none on us.
For example Sarah, it is not like you never ever avail of the street lights of urban areas now is it? You may avail of them much less but you still do avail of them and I wonder how much is the cost of providing them in the first place compared to the maintenance and running costs?
Law Bra said,
August 2, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Sarah,
Your wrong about your mushroom tripping walkers. Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995 the owner of the land is obliged only to not intentionally injure or harm the recreational user or act with reckless disregard for the recreational user’s welfare.
See http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/travel-and-recreation/recreational-activities-in-ireland/sport-and-leisure/walking_and_rambling_in_ireland
As for O’Cuiv he doesn’t really believe that crap about hierarchy of place himself, does he? In traditional FF style he is pandering to the misty eyed view of rural Oirland. It’ll be comely maidens next. Oh and planning permission for all. Not too many votes for sustainability. Can’t believe you fell for it. Must be Meath’s run in the qualifiers gone to your head?
Sarah said,
August 7, 2007 at 3:22 pm
ho ho
On the liability side, I checked, in a moment of fine investigative journalism with FBD who insure most farmers in Ireland and they said that tripping on a farmer’s land would land him in big trouble if it was say, over a piece of wire or a hole. He has to show that he took due care, so all wires picked up and random holes filled or fenced off, fields with bulls in them having lots of warning signs etc.
As for O’Cuiv..well I did say earlier his views were fine but hardly in keeping with FF principles. I confess to a general gullibility but feel its preferable than persistent cyncism…
Gerry said,
August 7, 2007 at 5:07 pm
sarah does the FBD give any actual figures for the numbers of walkers who have successfully sued a farmer for falling over in their fields. if it’s over one a year i’ll be amazed.
Sarah said,
August 7, 2007 at 5:09 pm
yeah..could be right there..still no comfort if you’re the one a year..BUT I’ll ask
Gerry said,
August 7, 2007 at 5:20 pm
still no excuse to refuse access nationwide, demand compensation and generally act the arse because of some myth of the suing walker. sounds like more of a myth o convenience to me
Sarah said,
August 7, 2007 at 5:49 pm
well, be fair, access is not being refused nationwide..its actually only a few cases. I think the official hill walkers have actually come to agreements already with many landowners on recognised routes – there is an exceptional few holding out for money – which I don’t agree with as I made clear in the article.
My beef is with the proposition that anyone has a RIGHT to walk across anyone’s else’s land. I think that they should be let walk the land, but having sought permission and it being granted.
Joseph said,
August 7, 2007 at 11:10 pm
a walk in the park