Cost of policing the Corrib gas protests

oscarBravo

I see Jerry Cowley is suggesting that Shell should be paying the cost of policing the protests at the Bellanaboy refinery site. I wonder: if I led a group of a couple of hundred protestors to prevent the good people of (say) Mulranny from going about their lawful business, and a large police presence was required to remove us, would he suggest that the Mulranny businesses ought to pay for the police?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]it has emerged that the cost of policing demonstrations at the Corrib gas terminal site has reached €750,000.[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The figure was provided by the Department of Justice in reply to a written Dáil question by the Independent TD, Dr Jerry Cowley, who said that Shell should bear the cost.[/FONT]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1012/corrib.html?rss

lostexpectation

I wonder what it cost to keep those men in jail for 94 days for apparently no good reason, as the position won through? and is yet unfinished, what do you reckon?

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote:

I wonder what it cost to keep those men in jail for 94 days for apparently no good reason...

I don't consider contempt of court "apparently no good reason". There was an extremely lengthy thread on that subject in the past; I don't particularly want to rehash it.

lostexpectation wrote:

...as the position won through? and is yet unfinished, what do you reckon?

I reckon I haven't a clue what you mean.

leeroybrown

As far as I am concerned Shell have every right to protection by the Gardai. While some people might not like it they are within their legal rights to begin work.

gurramok

About protection, not at the detriment of moving gardai from other regions.

Crime-ridden Dublin just lost 45 officers to Corrib, why oh why take them from Dublin?

leeroybrown

gurramok wrote:

About protection, not at the detriment of moving gardai from other regions.

Crime-ridden Dublin just lost 45 officers to Corrib, why oh why take them from Dublin?

There probably wouldn't be enough ordinary Gardai in the west to look after the requirement even if you shut half the stations to move them out there. Dublin has a sizable proportion of the Gardai in the country so it stands to reason that they will have to give up the a sizable percentage of the requirement so as not to drastically reduce the Garda presence in the rest of the country. I'm sure that the Dublin area soaks up Gardai from the rest of the country when it has large requirements for certain protests, events, etc.

lostexpectation

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't consider contempt of court "apparently no good reason". There was an extremely lengthy thread on that subject in the past; I don't particularly want to rehash it. I reckon I haven't a clue what you mean.

ah yes one the roosport 5 got up morning and decided to carry out contempt of court shell had nothing to with it. right

Moriarty

It's great when you're able to dismiss the law when it doesn't agree with you, isn't it?

pete

In the unlikely event that I ever decide I don't approve of civil disobedience it sure as hell won't be because Shell Oil are a bit put out.

oscarBravo

lostexpectation wrote:

ah yes one the roosport 5 got up morning and decided to carry out contempt of court shell had nothing to with it. right

Let me get this clear. I said I didn't want to rehash an old argument, and you decided to rehash it. I said I didn't understand your point in relation to this thread, and you ignored that bit.

Are you interested in discussing this issue, or not?

pete wrote:

In the unlikely event that I ever decide I don't approve of civil disobedience it sure as hell won't be because Shell Oil are a bit put out.

Yet again, I'm at a complete loss as to what the hell point is being made here.

constitutionus

actually why shouldnt shell pay for this? if this was a concert or sporting occasion the promoter would have to pay and i dont see why the irish tax payer should be screwed out of 375k a week to facilitate a foreign multinational who can well afford it. if they want to stop the protesters they should slap a court injunction on em like anyone else, but they dont. i wonder why?

this is a gross abuse of gardai resources. theres more gardai out in ballinaboy for 80 to 150 protesters than there is in the entire tallaght area, a population of 100 thousand people. theres something very sinister in the states handling of this issue.

oh and by the way the report on the radio said the 3/4 s of a million that'll be spent on this by the weekend doesnt include saleries so what does this figure mean. overtime?

oscarBravo

constitutionus wrote:

actually why shouldnt shell pay for this?

Why should anyone have to pay to be allowed to carry out their lawful business?

constitutionus wrote:

if this was a concert or sporting occasion the promoter would have to pay...

A concert or sporting occasion is predicated on the idea of attracting crowds. In other words, the business in question is making its money from the very fact of the sheer numbers of people involved. It's a completely different situation.

constitutionus wrote:

...and i dont see why the irish tax payer should be screwed out of 375k a week to facilitate a foreign multinational who can well afford it.

I don't see why we should be paying it either, but my ire is directed at the people who are creating the necessity for a Garda presence - and that's not Shell.

constitutionus wrote:

if they want to stop the protesters they should slap a court injunction on em like anyone else, but they dont. i wonder why?

I can't speak for Shell, but if I were to speculate I'd guess that it's because the last time they took out an injunction, the people who flouted it managed to end up being perceived, bizarrely, as martyrs.

constitutionus

so your against the democratic right to peacefully protest?

the people have a right to protest and they arent breaking any laws. if they were the whole lot of them wouldve been jailed the first day the gardai came out in force

oscarBravo

constitutionus wrote:

so your against the democratic right to peacefully protest?

What an utterly bizarre and illogical conclusion to draw from my posts.

constitutionus wrote:

the people have a right to protest...

Of course they do.

constitutionus wrote:

...and they arent breaking any laws.

You're absolutely certain of that, are you? The three people arrested this morning were sitting in their front gardens having a cup of tea, were they?

constitutionus wrote:

if they were the whole lot of them wouldve been jailed the first day the gardai came out in force

Of course they would. The Gardaí never, ever, ever use their discretion to avoid inflaming a situation more than absolutely necessary.

Come back to me when you're interested in having a serious discussion.

For those who are: if the Gardaí had acted within their powers and arrested everybody who illegally blocked the public highway, what are the odds we'd now be listening to complaints about heavy-handed policing and jack-booted fascists?

constitutionus

you mean like when the gardai hospitalised two people on the first day?

Sgt. Sensible

oscarBravo wrote:

Yet again, I'm at a complete loss as to what the hell point is being made here.

I suppose it's got something to do with Shell's involvement in environmental destruction and human rights abuses. Ken Saro Wiwa and all that.

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

you mean like when the gardai hospitalised two people on the first day?

I suggest you use the word alledgedly there.
Have the 2 people pressed any charges?

oscarBravo

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I suppose it's got something to do with Shell's involvement in environmental destruction and human rights abuses. Ken Saro Wiwa and all that.

I remain confused.

I'm not a particular fan of Shell. I acknowledge their dismal track record in environmental and human rights issues. What I fail to see is how, exactly, the fact that they're not a paragon of shining virtue means that it's ok to illegally prevent them from carrying out business in this country.

It scares me, frankly, to see the level of support for selective application of the rule of law. Where does it begin and end? If I know that a local businessman beats his wife, is it OK for me to throw a beer keg through his shop window?

Just so we're clear: anyone who answers "yes" to the previous question isn't someone I have enough in common with to continue a rational discussion. To those who would answer "no", but who would support the actions of the protesters in Erris: where does the line get drawn, and by whom?

constitutionus

please point out which laws are being broken. you may assert that this protest is illeagal but that doesnt make it fact

Rules of the road.Were the protesters herding cattle? They're entitled to stop the traffic if they are herding cattle.

constitutionus

Tristrame wrote:

Rules of the road.Were the protesters herding cattle? They're entitled to stop the traffic if they are herding cattle.

you know that for fact? or is it just opinion? if true the gardai are negligent in their duty. some how i dont think over 100 gardai would do that no matter how "discreet" they are

by the way ive noticed weve wandered off thread, the purpose of this was to cover the unjustifiable waste of money thats being used in this situation. can someone please get back to that instead of protester bashing?

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

you know that for fact? or is it just opinion?

Go open your rules of the road booklet,its there in black and white.

by the way ive noticed weve wandered off thread, the purpose of this was to cover the unjustifiable waste of money thats being used in this situation. can someone please get back to that instead of protester bashing?

Leave the moderating to the moderators thank you.

constitutionus

:rolleyes: you mean the one thats out of date? obviously no one here genuinely wants to discuss this issue if the mods cant even abide by their own standards so good bye. its no wonder the standards of this forum has slipped, do us all a favor and lock the thread now

Sleepy

constitutionus, to be fair, you're talking out of your arse here. Were the protesters merely exercising their right to peaceful protest there would be:

a) no need for a police prescence
b) no arrests being made
c) no prevention of people carrying out legal work in their place of employment

and ergo, no need to waste taxpayers money on the fact that a group of people don't agree with the law of the land.

If my house is broken into tonight and I call the cops should I have to pay them to come out and arrest the burglar?

How about if someone decides that Microsoft's software is evil incarnate and prevents their employees from entering their offices? Should Microsoft foot the bill for their actions?

Sure, Shell have been linked to some extremely unpleasant actions abroad but our legal system has judged what they're doing here to be legal.

Rebeller

Is it right that we the taxpayers (those of us here who pay their taxes of course:D ) should pay for the overtime and other expenses involved in policing the corrib pipeline protests?

NO!

The argument that shell have a right to proceed with their business unimpeded as they have used all "legal" channels (planning etc) holds little weight in my opinion.

Yes shell used the normal legal channels (planning process) to obtain permission to proceed with their development. Yes they are acting within the "law" and the protestors are breaking it.

However, let's not forget that Shell also used the laws of the Nigerian state to have Ken Saro-Wiwa arrested and ultimately executed for his actions in protesting their activities in the Niger-Delta region of Nigeria. Mr. Saro-Wiwa technically broke the laws of the Nigerian state with his actions. However, does that mean that he did not have the right to act as he did. He saw an injustice and protested against it. He might have been acting "illegally" but he most certainly was not acting wrongly or in a morally incorrect manner.

It is the duty of every citizen to protest whenever he or she experiences or witnesses injustice. This duty exisst even where such protest brings you in conflict with the laws of the state. Indded, it is often throigh such conflict that true justice is found. The state is not meant to be a removed closed shop of elites locked away in the Dail, but instead a representation of the best interests of the Irish people.

Questions need to be asked not only about the decision to proceed with a environmentally destructive, dangerous onshore option with little if any economic benefits for the local and national economy, but also about the significant changes made to the 1976 gas act by the then Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources Ray Burke. We all know about him don't we!!!

Shell is under no obligation to employ local labour (those employed now will not be replaved by Irish on the rig when it comes on stream). Shell can write off the development costs of the project against tax (yes we will be subsidising their little business venture for years to come) and is not required to pay royalties to the Irish state/people for the taking of our resource (gas). What's more, we will be obliged to purchase our own gas on the open market at full market value.

So, no, it is not right that we provide a free private security force so that shell can rape our resources and endanger the people in the vicinity of the pipeline.

Their protest is right, just and brave. The law can be used to both free AND oppress. This is clearly a case of the latter.

The resident "the law is always right" nazis here may disagree, but the law need not always be obeyed if you have a strong moral and ethical belief that breaking it is the right course of action.

The protests must continue but the specnind on policing has to stop.

lostexpectation

oscarBravo wrote:

I remain confused.

I'm not a particular fan of Shell. I acknowledge their dismal track record in environmental and human rights issues. What I fail to see is how, exactly, the fact that they're not a paragon of shining virtue means that it's ok to illegally prevent them from carrying out business in this country.

It scares me, frankly, to see the level of support for selective application of the rule of law. Where does it begin and end? I

12 random members of the public on a jury said its lawful to hammer a USAF plane on the way to occupation BOO! scary ain't it.

Villain

I see a leading member of the protest group hit the ground in an incident this morning when 30 Gardai tried to contain 150 protestors, she has been taken to hospital with head injuries, didn't sound too serious.

Gardai have to uphold the law of the land I accept and support that 100%, people have the right to protest peacefully without causing an obstruction I 100% support that too.

However I don't think the Gardai are been consistent in the manner in which they deal with different incidents. Take for example when the Taxi drivers decided to bring Dublin City Center to a standstill I didn't see the Gardai enforcing the law then. I also don't think Gardai from Limerick should be heading up the country to ensure Shell workers can make it to work when areas like Moyross are in desperate need of law and order.

mountainyman

oscarBravo wrote:

Why should anyone have to pay to be allowed to carry out their lawful business?

Actually it is normal practise to charge for police protection. At least in the case of protests arising from industrial action. Therefore while you may disagree with this policy; it is the norm and it is odd that this pattern has been altered.

It is unclear why the government are backing Shell so enthusiastically. I would have thought this was a political disaster waiting to happen.

It is clear that the protestors are not breaking the law by protesting; were they the number of arrests would be higher.

MM

Villain

Don't banks now have to pay for Garda and Army Escorts which they use when moving cash? Not exactly relative but maybe wirth noting in the discussion.

Sgt. Sensible

oscarBravo wrote:

It scares me, frankly, to see the level of support for selective application of the rule of law. Where does it begin and end? If I know that a local businessman beats his wife, is it OK for me to throw a beer keg through his shop window?

Just so we're clear: anyone who answers "yes" to the previous question isn't someone I have enough in common with to continue a rational discussion. To those who would answer "no", but who would support the actions of the protesters in Erris: where does the line get drawn, and by whom?

Ghandeh wrote:

You clearly don't understand what civil disobedience is. Can you think of a single situation where you would find it acceptable to break the law in a peaceful manner to protest against something? Anyone who answers "no" to this question isn't someone I have enough in common with to continue a rational discussion. If the answer is "yes", then it scares me quite frankly to see how some people can be scared by the level of support for the selective application of the rule of law, yet agree with the selective application of the law when it suits them.

Sleepy wrote:

Sure, Shell have been linked to some extremely unpleasant actions abroad but our legal system has judged what they're doing here to be legal.

Osama Bin Laden has been linked to some extremely unpleasant actions abroad but if he turned up here and opened a school or something he should be allowed as he hasn't done any bad guy type things here.

Sleepy

Not really worth discussing as it's an entirely different issue irish1. The banks are paying for security services, the Guards in this case are protecting the right of private citizens of this country to carry out their profession.

If there's an impropriety on Shell's part with the on-shore plant, the course for protest is to do it in the courts, by lobbying TD's or holding demonstrations outside the Dail.

Rebeller, you seem to have an incredibly naieve viewpoint on this. You seem to want the right to act illegaly and not have the police do their job in preventing you from doing so? I'm sure there are plenty of other's in this country who want the same thing: we call them criminals.