HomeNewsTurf Ban Legislation May Be Invalid

Turf Ban Legislation May Be Invalid

Since the Supreme Court in a 1966 ruling identified Turf as an agricultural product it is legally wrong to define it as a fossil fuel. In its 1966 in the case of the Attorney General v’s William East case number (1966) 100. I. L.R. T4 it clearly identifies turf as an agricultural product where it unambiguously states “Turf is an agricultural product” surely renders the statute banning the sale of turf and any other restrictions on turf completely invalid. The mis-identification of turf as a fossil fuel is strange as it cannot be identified as a fossil fuel by any stretch of the imagination.

Fossil Fuels Come from Fossils

A fossil is defined as the remains or impression of a prehistoric plant or animal embedded in rock and preserved in petrified form. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica “fossil, remnant, impression, or trace of an animal or plant of a past geologic age that has been preserved in Earth’s crust. The complex of data recorded in fossils worldwide—known as the fossil record—is the primary source of information about the history of life on Earth.” We can conclude therefore that a fossil fuel must come from a fossil source which turf is not.

When is a Fuel Not a Fuel

The Halloween Leinster House Legislation banning the sale of turf carefully identifies it as a “solid fuel” despite the media disinformation or just plain stupidity calling it fossil fuel. But then it can only be identified as a “solid fuel” when it is used as a fuel. It can and is being used for numerous other agricultural purposes. The legislation in question is ridiculously ambiguous as its aim is to stop the burning of turf as a fuel, but it does not ban its burning but rather its commercial production and sale. When is any sale not commercial? Get your head around that.

Buying is Banned Burning is not

The burning of turf is not banned but the advertising of it is. The oxymoron of the non-commercial sale of it is restricted but not banned.

  • Suppose I purchase turf from a commercial source for any purpose other than for burning it am I in breach of the act?
  • How can any purchase be defined as non commercial?
  • Supposing that now I have ownership of the turf and I change my mind and burn it which is not in violation of the act where does that leave me?
  • If the sloppy Act is scrutinised I’m sure it will be found to be so full of holes that it rendering it invalid.

Remember that Daniel O’Connell said “A coach and four can be driven through any act of parliament. Burn turf, enjoy the aroma and the ambience and keep warm.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Popular Articles