A5 WTC (New Road from Aughnacloy to Derry)

[David McKeown]

John Hamilton Hassard; Robin Bruce; Carol Porter; Robert McKean; David Peoples; Wildridge Coote; Derick Donnell; David Brush; and Victor Brush

The names of the objectors, uh. I wonder how many will be down to see Tyrone vs Dublin or maybe their just sad Derry fans

What I find unforgivable is that Ciaran O'Hare represented these lads and Justice McAlinden sided with them. Not that it's surprising, these ambulance chasing pricks would sell their soul for a half-crown.

Why is it unforgivable? Ciaran is certainly not an ambulance chaser, he like most in the profession represents clients without fear or favour. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and to have their case presented in the best possible way. That's a prerequisite of any democratic society. Like doctors will treat the patient in front of them it's not a lawyers job to assess the moral makeup of a client or only take on cases when we agree with the client's point of view.

As for Mr Justice McAlinden, what was he to do ignore the law and make an exception because of his personal views on the matter?  No point in having a justice system if that was the approach to take.

[Tony Baloney]

John Hamilton Hassard; Robin Bruce; Carol Porter; Robert McKean; David Peoples; Wildridge Coote; Derick Donnell; David Brush; and Victor Brush

The names of the objectors, uh. I wonder how many will be down to see Tyrone vs Dublin or maybe their just sad Derry fans

What I find unforgivable is that Ciaran O'Hare represented these lads and Justice McAlinden sided with them. Not that it's surprising, these ambulance chasing pricks would sell their soul for a half-crown.

Come on now. Everyone is entitled to fair representation in the courts and not down orange and green lines. I'm sure Joe Brolly has represented some choice individuals but that is their right. Paul Tweed has represented both Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley Jr.

[giveherlong]

Vested lands being returned to landowners according to Ulster Hearld

[trileacman]

John Hamilton Hassard; Robin Bruce; Carol Porter; Robert McKean; David Peoples; Wildridge Coote; Derick Donnell; David Brush; and Victor Brush

The names of the objectors, uh. I wonder how many will be down to see Tyrone vs Dublin or maybe their just sad Derry fans

What I find unforgivable is that Ciaran O'Hare represented these lads and Justice McAlinden sided with them. Not that it's surprising, these ambulance chasing pricks would sell their soul for a half-crown.

Why is it unforgivable? Ciaran is certainly not an ambulance chaser, he like most in the profession represents clients without fear or favour. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and to have their case presented in the best possible way. That's a prerequisite of any democratic society. Like doctors will treat the patient in front of them it's not a lawyers job to assess the moral makeup of a client or only take on cases when we agree with the client's point of view.

As for Mr Justice McAlinden, what was he to do ignore the law and make an exception because of his personal views on the matter?  No point in having a justice system if that was the approach to take.

Mc Alinden made his money prosecuting Personsal Injury claims. That makes him an ambulance chasing p***k in my book. I'm sure the objectors were delighted to have a judge well versed in letting the rights of the individual ride roughshod over the interests of society.

O'Hare is a shil for bigoted protestants who want to prevent their land being used for a road linking two parts of the Republic of Ireland irrespective of how many lives their protests may cost. They placed him front and centre because he's a Catholic who provides a convenient figleaf to disguise their naked bigotry. He's either a naïve idiot for not recognising this or he knew exactly what they were at and went along with it because the price was right. The grounds on which he argued are so spurious that I've yet to see any media outlet or post here clearly explain what the issue is. Some watery shite about human rights and the Climate change act.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1002901821713860

Here's Ciaran O'Hare bragging about the "16 year crusade" to stop the A5 from going ahead, and proudly brandished a badge made 16 years ago to object to the A5. Over 50 people have died on the A5 since 2006. He says we should "applaud his clients tenacity" and that they will continue to object to the A5 going ahead. I don't know the man personally but if I did I would make it my business to tell him that he's a f**king disgrace.

Defending his actions by hiding behind the old "everyone's entitled to a defence" card is bullshit. If a serial killer had killed 50 people in Tyrone and Derry since 2006 would you happily get him off because imprisoning him broke some minor addendum to the Climate Change act?

[Armagh18]

John Hamilton Hassard; Robin Bruce; Carol Porter; Robert McKean; David Peoples; Wildridge Coote; Derick Donnell; David Brush; and Victor Brush

The names of the objectors, uh. I wonder how many will be down to see Tyrone vs Dublin or maybe their just sad Derry fans

What I find unforgivable is that Ciaran O'Hare represented these lads and Justice McAlinden sided with them. Not that it's surprising, these ambulance chasing pricks would sell their soul for a half-crown.

Why is it unforgivable? Ciaran is certainly not an ambulance chaser, he like most in the profession represents clients without fear or favour. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and to have their case presented in the best possible way. That's a prerequisite of any democratic society. Like doctors will treat the patient in front of them it's not a lawyers job to assess the moral makeup of a client or only take on cases when we agree with the client's point of view.

As for Mr Justice McAlinden, what was he to do ignore the law and make an exception because of his personal views on the matter?  No point in having a justice system if that was the approach to take.

Mc Alinden made his money prosecuting Personsal Injury claims. That makes him an ambulance chasing p***k in my book. I'm sure the objectors were delighted to have a judge well versed in letting the rights of the individual ride roughshod over the interests of society.

O'Hare is a shil for bigoted protestants who want to prevent their land being used for a road linking two parts of the Republic of Ireland irrespective of how many lives their protests may cost. They placed him front and centre because he's a Catholic who provides a convenient figleaf to disguise their naked bigotry. He's either a naïve idiot for not recognising this or he knew exactly what they were at and went along with it because the price was right. The grounds on which he argued are so spurious that I've yet to see any media outlet or post here clearly explain what the issue is. Some watery shite about human rights and the Climate change act.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1002901821713860

Here's Ciaran O'Hare bragging about the "16 year crusade" to stop the A5 from going ahead, and proudly brandished a badge made 16 years ago to object to the A5. Over 50 people have died on the A5 since 2006. He says we should "applaud his clients tenacity" and that they will continue to object to the A5 going ahead. I don't know the man personally but if I did I would make it my business to tell him that he's a f**king disgrace.

Defending his actions by hiding behind the old "everyone's entitled to a defence" card is bullshit. If a serial killer had killed 50 people in Tyrone and Derry since 2006 would you happily get him off because imprisoning him broke some minor addendum to the Climate Change act?

Whats that old quote about the law being an ass? Very true in this case.

[Champion The Wonder Horse]

I was along the A5 today, the bit between Omagh and Aughnacloy. Saw one of the worst bits of driving I've ever experienced. This driver decided to pass me and two cars in front of me just as the climbing lane coming past Garvaghy ended. Not sure how he managed to get back on his own side without causing a crash. He got to the Ballygawley roundabout exactly two cars ahead of me.

[David McKeown]

John Hamilton Hassard; Robin Bruce; Carol Porter; Robert McKean; David Peoples; Wildridge Coote; Derick Donnell; David Brush; and Victor Brush

The names of the objectors, uh. I wonder how many will be down to see Tyrone vs Dublin or maybe their just sad Derry fans

What I find unforgivable is that Ciaran O'Hare represented these lads and Justice McAlinden sided with them. Not that it's surprising, these ambulance chasing pricks would sell their soul for a half-crown.

Why is it unforgivable? Ciaran is certainly not an ambulance chaser, he like most in the profession represents clients without fear or favour. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and to have their case presented in the best possible way. That's a prerequisite of any democratic society. Like doctors will treat the patient in front of them it's not a lawyers job to assess the moral makeup of a client or only take on cases when we agree with the client's point of view.

As for Mr Justice McAlinden, what was he to do ignore the law and make an exception because of his personal views on the matter?  No point in having a justice system if that was the approach to take.

Mc Alinden made his money prosecuting Personsal Injury claims. That makes him an ambulance chasing p***k in my book. I'm sure the objectors were delighted to have a judge well versed in letting the rights of the individual ride roughshod over the interests of society.

O'Hare is a shil for bigoted protestants who want to prevent their land being used for a road linking two parts of the Republic of Ireland irrespective of how many lives their protests may cost. They placed him front and centre because he's a Catholic who provides a convenient figleaf to disguise their naked bigotry. He's either a naïve idiot for not recognising this or he knew exactly what they were at and went along with it because the price was right. The grounds on which he argued are so spurious that I've yet to see any media outlet or post here clearly explain what the issue is. Some watery shite about human rights and the Climate change act.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1002901821713860

Here's Ciaran O'Hare bragging about the "16 year crusade" to stop the A5 from going ahead, and proudly brandished a badge made 16 years ago to object to the A5. Over 50 people have died on the A5 since 2006. He says we should "applaud his clients tenacity" and that they will continue to object to the A5 going ahead. I don't know the man personally but if I did I would make it my business to tell him that he's a f**king disgrace.

Defending his actions by hiding behind the old "everyone's entitled to a defence" card is bullshit. If a serial killer had killed 50 people in Tyrone and Derry since 2006 would you happily get him off because imprisoning him broke some minor addendum to the Climate Change act?

So your complainant is people who get injured shouldnt claim or be represented?

As for O'Hare I don't know him personally but he's been a leading solicitor in Judicial Review for decades defending the rights of a wide variety of people from all sides of the community.  I doubt his religion had anything to do with why he was chosen by these people and his views may or may not accord with those but thats irrelevant.  Solicitors have a clear mandate to represent all (save in limited circumstances).

You say the grounds are spurious but yet you then admit you dont know what they are because the media haven't explained them clearly.  The Judgement itself whilst lengthy does a very good job of summarising them.

In effect the two key issues were the law (the climate change act, not some minor amendment to it) required the Department of Infrastructure to assess and consult on the impact the building of the road would have on the legally binding commitment that Stormont had made to ensuring they could meet carbon neutrality goals.  The problem was despite knowing the law and being reminded of it by the Planning Appeals Committee the Department decided to ignore their legal obligations and proceed regardless. This had to be reviewed on an annual basis the only attempt to pay even lip service to this legal obligation was issued last week.

The second issue is that everyone has a qualified right under the Human Rights Act to peaceful enjoyment of their property.  That right can be interfered with as it has been for the AA5A members but it can only be done if certain criteria are met.  Namely the interference must be justifiable and proportionate. The public need to build the A5 was considered as making the interference justifiable if proportionate.  The department could not and did not identify how long the interference was to take place for so it was impossible to assess if it was proportionate.   

In respect of your last question the role of a lawyer is to ensure a fair trial.  There is no justification for the state with all its resources not doing things properly.  If they fail to then their failings should not be visited on individuals.

None of the above should be taken as my views on the issue.  I am disgusted by the very obvious failings of the department in this case.  I want them to go and do things properly and get the road built.  If they do that then I am confident that the advice the AA5A would receive from any solicitor they approach is that their case does not have a reasonable prospect of success.   

[Milltown Row2]

Whether you like what result came about, the blame like Casement and I'm sure others is completely down to how it's been planned, and planned badly it seems.

Giving off about people making a living of peoples mistakes misses the point entirely.

Do it right, then there's no case to answer

[trileacman]

John Hamilton Hassard; Robin Bruce; Carol Porter; Robert McKean; David Peoples; Wildridge Coote; Derick Donnell; David Brush; and Victor Brush

The names of the objectors, uh. I wonder how many will be down to see Tyrone vs Dublin or maybe their just sad Derry fans

What I find unforgivable is that Ciaran O'Hare represented these lads and Justice McAlinden sided with them. Not that it's surprising, these ambulance chasing pricks would sell their soul for a half-crown.

Why is it unforgivable? Ciaran is certainly not an ambulance chaser, he like most in the profession represents clients without fear or favour. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and to have their case presented in the best possible way. That's a prerequisite of any democratic society. Like doctors will treat the patient in front of them it's not a lawyers job to assess the moral makeup of a client or only take on cases when we agree with the client's point of view.

As for Mr Justice McAlinden, what was he to do ignore the law and make an exception because of his personal views on the matter?  No point in having a justice system if that was the approach to take.

Mc Alinden made his money prosecuting Personsal Injury claims. That makes him an ambulance chasing p***k in my book. I'm sure the objectors were delighted to have a judge well versed in letting the rights of the individual ride roughshod over the interests of society.

O'Hare is a shil for bigoted protestants who want to prevent their land being used for a road linking two parts of the Republic of Ireland irrespective of how many lives their protests may cost. They placed him front and centre because he's a Catholic who provides a convenient figleaf to disguise their naked bigotry. He's either a naïve idiot for not recognising this or he knew exactly what they were at and went along with it because the price was right. The grounds on which he argued are so spurious that I've yet to see any media outlet or post here clearly explain what the issue is. Some watery shite about human rights and the Climate change act.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1002901821713860

Here's Ciaran O'Hare bragging about the "16 year crusade" to stop the A5 from going ahead, and proudly brandished a badge made 16 years ago to object to the A5. Over 50 people have died on the A5 since 2006. He says we should "applaud his clients tenacity" and that they will continue to object to the A5 going ahead. I don't know the man personally but if I did I would make it my business to tell him that he's a f**king disgrace.

Defending his actions by hiding behind the old "everyone's entitled to a defence" card is bullshit. If a serial killer had killed 50 people in Tyrone and Derry since 2006 would you happily get him off because imprisoning him broke some minor addendum to the Climate Change act?

So your complainant is people who get injured shouldnt claim or be represented?

As for O'Hare I don't know him personally but he's been a leading solicitor in Judicial Review for decades defending the rights of a wide variety of people from all sides of the community.  I doubt his religion had anything to do with why he was chosen by these people and his views may or may not accord with those but thats irrelevant.  Solicitors have a clear mandate to represent all (save in limited circumstances).

You say the grounds are spurious but yet you then admit you dont know what they are because the media haven't explained them clearly.  The Judgement itself whilst lengthy does a very good job of summarising them.

In effect the two key issues were the law (the climate change act, not some minor amendment to it) required the Department of Infrastructure to assess and consult on the impact the building of the road would have on the legally binding commitment that Stormont had made to ensuring they could meet carbon neutrality goals.  The problem was despite knowing the law and being reminded of it by the Planning Appeals Committee the Department decided to ignore their legal obligations and proceed regardless. This had to be reviewed on an annual basis the only attempt to pay even lip service to this legal obligation was issued last week.

The second issue is that everyone has a qualified right under the Human Rights Act to peaceful enjoyment of their property.  That right can be interfered with as it has been for the AA5A members but it can only be done if certain criteria are met.  Namely the interference must be justifiable and proportionate. The public need to build the A5 was considered as making the interference justifiable if proportionate.  The department could not and did not identify how long the interference was to take place for so it was impossible to assess if it was proportionate.   

In respect of your last question the role of a lawyer is to ensure a fair trial.  There is no justification for the state with all its resources not doing things properly.  If they fail to then their failings should not be visited on individuals.

None of the above should be taken as my views on the issue.  I am disgusted by the very obvious failings of the department in this case.  I want them to go and do things properly and get the road built.  If they do that then I am confident that the advice the AA5A would receive from any solicitor they approach is that their case does not have a reasonable prospect of success.   

I never said people shouldn't be represented or claim. I simply believe that the the solicitors who pursue these claims are typically grubby, money grabbing pricks.

You've given 2 minor issues that McAlinden and O'Hare seized on to delay the A5. Not telling someone how long it takes to build a road is not a human right that supercedes someone else's right to life. Should McAlinden or O'Hare have a brother, sister, father or daughter killed on the A5 in the next few years I wonder will they reflect on the decision to delay the A5 and think "yeah I was dead right to stop that road being built". In fact I'll go one further. The next time a life is lost on the A5 McAlinden and O'Hare should show up at the wake and give this washy legalistic bullshit a tryout. I'm sure it sounds very clever to them reciting tracts about "justifiable interference" in the comfort of a courtroom, I'd like to see these 2 pricks try it out in the real world, you know the one that has deal with the consequences of their selfish actions. O'Hare can bring along his little AA5A badge and wave it around the room at the relatives of the deceased like he did last week.

[David McKeown]

John Hamilton Hassard; Robin Bruce; Carol Porter; Robert McKean; David Peoples; Wildridge Coote; Derick Donnell; David Brush; and Victor Brush

The names of the objectors, uh. I wonder how many will be down to see Tyrone vs Dublin or maybe their just sad Derry fans

What I find unforgivable is that Ciaran O'Hare represented these lads and Justice McAlinden sided with them. Not that it's surprising, these ambulance chasing pricks would sell their soul for a half-crown.

Why is it unforgivable? Ciaran is certainly not an ambulance chaser, he like most in the profession represents clients without fear or favour. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and to have their case presented in the best possible way. That's a prerequisite of any democratic society. Like doctors will treat the patient in front of them it's not a lawyers job to assess the moral makeup of a client or only take on cases when we agree with the client's point of view.

As for Mr Justice McAlinden, what was he to do ignore the law and make an exception because of his personal views on the matter?  No point in having a justice system if that was the approach to take.

Mc Alinden made his money prosecuting Personsal Injury claims. That makes him an ambulance chasing p***k in my book. I'm sure the objectors were delighted to have a judge well versed in letting the rights of the individual ride roughshod over the interests of society.

O'Hare is a shil for bigoted protestants who want to prevent their land being used for a road linking two parts of the Republic of Ireland irrespective of how many lives their protests may cost. They placed him front and centre because he's a Catholic who provides a convenient figleaf to disguise their naked bigotry. He's either a naïve idiot for not recognising this or he knew exactly what they were at and went along with it because the price was right. The grounds on which he argued are so spurious that I've yet to see any media outlet or post here clearly explain what the issue is. Some watery shite about human rights and the Climate change act.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1002901821713860

Here's Ciaran O'Hare bragging about the "16 year crusade" to stop the A5 from going ahead, and proudly brandished a badge made 16 years ago to object to the A5. Over 50 people have died on the A5 since 2006. He says we should "applaud his clients tenacity" and that they will continue to object to the A5 going ahead. I don't know the man personally but if I did I would make it my business to tell him that he's a f**king disgrace.

Defending his actions by hiding behind the old "everyone's entitled to a defence" card is bullshit. If a serial killer had killed 50 people in Tyrone and Derry since 2006 would you happily get him off because imprisoning him broke some minor addendum to the Climate Change act?

So your complainant is people who get injured shouldnt claim or be represented?

As for O'Hare I don't know him personally but he's been a leading solicitor in Judicial Review for decades defending the rights of a wide variety of people from all sides of the community.  I doubt his religion had anything to do with why he was chosen by these people and his views may or may not accord with those but thats irrelevant.  Solicitors have a clear mandate to represent all (save in limited circumstances).

You say the grounds are spurious but yet you then admit you dont know what they are because the media haven't explained them clearly.  The Judgement itself whilst lengthy does a very good job of summarising them.

In effect the two key issues were the law (the climate change act, not some minor amendment to it) required the Department of Infrastructure to assess and consult on the impact the building of the road would have on the legally binding commitment that Stormont had made to ensuring they could meet carbon neutrality goals.  The problem was despite knowing the law and being reminded of it by the Planning Appeals Committee the Department decided to ignore their legal obligations and proceed regardless. This had to be reviewed on an annual basis the only attempt to pay even lip service to this legal obligation was issued last week.

The second issue is that everyone has a qualified right under the Human Rights Act to peaceful enjoyment of their property.  That right can be interfered with as it has been for the AA5A members but it can only be done if certain criteria are met.  Namely the interference must be justifiable and proportionate. The public need to build the A5 was considered as making the interference justifiable if proportionate.  The department could not and did not identify how long the interference was to take place for so it was impossible to assess if it was proportionate.   

In respect of your last question the role of a lawyer is to ensure a fair trial.  There is no justification for the state with all its resources not doing things properly.  If they fail to then their failings should not be visited on individuals.

None of the above should be taken as my views on the issue.  I am disgusted by the very obvious failings of the department in this case.  I want them to go and do things properly and get the road built.  If they do that then I am confident that the advice the AA5A would receive from any solicitor they approach is that their case does not have a reasonable prospect of success.   

I never said people shouldn't be represented or claim. I simply believe that the the solicitors who pursue these claims are typically grubby, money grabbing pricks.

You've given 2 minor issues that McAlinden and O'Hare seized on to delay the A5. Not telling someone how long it takes to build a road is not a human right that supercedes someone else's right to life. Should McAlinden or O'Hare have a brother, sister, father or daughter killed on the A5 in the next few years I wonder will they reflect on the decision to delay the A5 and think "yeah I was dead right to stop that road being built". In fact I'll go one further. The next time a life is lost on the A5 McAlinden and O'Hare should show up at the wake and give this washy legalistic bullshit a tryout. I'm sure it sounds very clever to them reciting tracts about "justifiable interference" in the comfort of a courtroom, I'd like to see these 2 pricks try it out in the real world, you know the one that has deal with the consequences of their selfish actions. O'Hare can bring along his little AA5A badge and wave it around the room at the relatives of the deceased like he did last week.

You've also made clear that you think counsel are as well.

They aren't minor issues either they are significant pieces of legislation enacted by Stormont or Parliament respectively. If they are to be ignored as you advocate for then its up to Stormont or Parliament to say so.  Until such times its clear that the fiasco was caused by the Department not complying with the law.  They have access to significant resources to ensure that doesn't happen but on this occasion they failed.

Also its not the not telling them how long something is going to take that is the issue, its the failure to be able to satisfy the interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property is proportionate and necessary.  The length of time involved is a factor in that. 

Easier to blame and personally attack the named lawyers I guess than to address those ultimately responsible.   

[OakLeaf]

Easier to blame and personally attack the named lawyers I guess than to address those ultimately responsible.   

There's no question that the department have monumentally fucked this up. However I'd also question the motives of this group taking the action. It's almost certain that this road will be built as planned, sooner or later. This group most likely knows that. The question i have is, what is their long term aim by delaying its construction? They're not the first group to have land vested to build a road. I think it's rather naive to think that there's no vindictive motive involved here.

[Milltown Row2]

Easier to blame and personally attack the named lawyers I guess than to address those ultimately responsible.   

There's no question that the department have monumentally fucked this up. However I'd also question the motives of this group taking the action. It's almost certain that this road will be built as planned, sooner or later. This group most likely knows that. The question i have is, what is their long term aim by delaying its construction? They're not the first group to have land vested to build a road. I think it's rather naive to think that there's no vindictive motive involved here.

Do you know many land owners, farmers? Their land is their kingdom and giving it up, even a small part of it will bring out the worst in them, no doubt the tag of the road to Dublin would have been a huge factor in this, also the disruption to their coming and going, the one thing we can all agree on it has nothing to do with the environment to these boyos, as being green isn't top of their list.

Would be speaking to a lot of farmers, and they are cute hoors too, and if there is a buck to be had they'll see it out, so possibly the compensation to their loss of land will push up also

[OakLeaf]

Do you know many land owners, farmers?

Would be speaking to a lot of farmers, and they are cute hoors too, and if there is a buck to be had they'll see it out, so possibly the compensation to their loss of land will push up also

I grew up on a farm and I still own a few fields, so yes I know how farmers operate

I think there's probably two elements to this. One is likely holding out so that the vesting price goes up (which it has massively in this past few years), and the second is pure unadulterated bigotry. I know a lot of unionist farmers, and much as they try to hide it, they are some of the most bigoted people you could meet.

[marty34]

Apart from the names mentioned, is that the full squad of who's holding it up?

Or are there others also in the AA5A and these ones are just the public face?

The road will be built. As others said, just need to tidy things up (from the judge's summary) and go again. It'll take time and unfortunately, more lives will be lost in the meantime but hopefully this will make sure everything is done right the next time.

Must have been a tough day for the families of lost loved ones when the announcement was made. Feel for them. 

[trileacman]

Easier to blame and personally attack the named lawyers I guess than to address those ultimately responsible. 

There's no question that the department have monumentally fucked this up. However I'd also question the motives of this group taking the action. It's almost certain that this road will be built as planned, sooner or later. This group most likely knows that. The question i have is, what is their long term aim by delaying its construction? They're not the first group to have land vested to build a road. I think it's rather naive to think that there's no vindictive motive involved here.

Do you know many land owners, farmers? Their land is their kingdom and giving it up, even a small part of it will bring out the worst in them, no doubt the tag of the road to Dublin would have been a huge factor in this, also the disruption to their coming and going, the one thing we can all agree on it has nothing to do with the environment to these boyos, as being green isn't top of their list.

Would be speaking to a lot of farmers, and they are cute hoors too, and if there is a buck to be had they'll see it out, so possibly the compensation to their loss of land will push up also

No harm but the farmers get fucked over by compulsory purchase order. They are forced to sell an asset they did not wish to sell and then the government taxes them on that sale. There are some reliefs available but not enough.

It's like the government forcing you to sell your house and then telling you that you owe them 25% of the sale price because you've made a profit.