Cost of policing the Corrib gas protests

Sleepy

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

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.

Sgt. Sensible, is there an outstanding warrant for Shell's arrest in a country we have an extradition agreement with? You're not exactly comparing like with like.

mountainyman

Sleepy wrote:

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.

This is accurate. However the normal practise is to charge for policing in the case of industrial disputes.

MM

mountainyman

Sleepy wrote:

If there's an impropriety on Shell's part with the on-shore plant, the course for protest is ... holding demonstrations outside the Dail.

I am unsure of the distinction between demonstrating outside the Dail and demonstrating outside Shell's plant. Indeed if the protestors are acting illegally the Gardai are remiss in not arresting them. If they are acting legally and given the low number of arrests we must assume that they are the point above makes no sense. Certainly clarification is needed.

MM

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

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.

Well The taxi drivers did that once or twice and not every other day unlike the Rossport protesters so there is a marked difference.

Villain

I accept and agree Rock Climber but the Gardai did allow them to do so.

My point simply was the Law of the land has to be upheld but it has to be equal and consistent.

Rock Climber

Did the taxi drivers sit down on the road and block it? or just drive slow up it hooting horns?
Thats a demonstration and common its not a wholesale regular day on day disruption.
Two completely different things.

The_Minister

mountainyman wrote:

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

They are allowed protest outside, and are allowed to ask people not to go inside, but they are not allowed physically stop others from going about their business.

Villain

I think you'll find the Taxi Drivers brought the city center to a halt, causing an obstruction to traffic and therefore breaking the law.

Instant Karma

Rules (Laws) are for the obedience of fools, and the guidence of wise men.

I don't know who said that but I like it.

Rock Climber

irish1 wrote:

I think you'll find the Taxi Drivers brought the city center to a halt, causing an obstruction to traffic and therefore breaking the law.

I think you'll find that its not illegal for a convoy of cars to drive slowly up a street on a once off basis or once every couple of months as part of a demonstration.

Villain

Rock Climber wrote:

I think you'll find that its not illegal for a convoy of cars to drive slowly up a street on a once off basis or once every couple of months as part of a demonstration.

Have a read here (http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-00/22nov/sect4.htm) and I think you will find the Minister and Gardai dealth with the situation a bit different than what is happening in Rossport.

I accept the situation is slightly different but it seems the Gardai imo aren't consistent when dealing with situations like this.

Rebeller

Sleepy wrote:

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.

Sleepy, it is you who is the naive one.

Nowhere in my post did I suggest a free-for-all in relation to the law. I expressd the view that enforcing the "law" does not automatically equate to enforcing what is right or proper.

Many laws are enacted not to protect the greater good but to serve the interests of an immoral selective group.

By your standards those who acted against the laws of the Third Reich by marrying "impure" races, or aiding jews in escaping the nightmare that was the Nazi state were criminals. They broke the laws of that state after all.

Nelson Mandela and all those who campaigned against apartheid in South Africa and were imprisioned and killed for their troubles were also criminals according to your definition.

If you honestly believe that this State's legislative and judicial system can on its own be used to stop shell you are either extremely naive or far removed from the reality of the big bad old world.

Yes, modern legal jurisprudence affords pretty much the same legal rights to artifical corporations as it does to human beings. However, to suggest that an artifical creation whose sole purpose is the furtherance of profit at any cost should be entitled to the same protection as living breathing human beings is itself a criminal belief.

It might be a cliche, but the slogan "people before profits" has a definite relevance to this issue

Wake up boy!! NO legal niceties can justify what Shell is doing.

Sleepy

Rebeller, there is no point of having laws unless they're applied across the board. To argue that we have a 'duty' to disobey the law whenever it goes against our morality is to argue for anarchism. Should we turn a blind eye were one of the abuse victims of the Catholic Church to go on a rampage murdering his abuser and all of those who covered up for him? My own moral compass tells me that yes we should, however my intelligence tells me better: that we can't allow laws to be contravened because one person (or a minority of the people) in a country disagree with them.

For a more apropriate comparison: were I to blocade the driveways of the houses of these protestors because I feel they're wasting tax-payers money and prevent them from leaving their homes to go protest about this, I would be breaking the law and should be arrested for the same. Should they then have to pay the police to come out and arrest me?

I'm not particularly pro-Shell (tbh, I couldn't give a frack whether they build the pipeline on land, at sea or not at all), but afaic, in this case it is the protesters who are costing Irish taxpayers the money, not Shell.

Sgt. Sensible

Sleepy wrote:

Rebeller, there is no point of having laws unless they're applied across the board. To argue that we have a 'duty' to disobey the law whenever it goes against our morality is to argue for anarchism.

I doubt you realise it, but you've justified some of the most appalling crimes in history with that limp wristed namby pamby reactionary rubbish. I don't know if you care about anything but if you do, one day you might actually be required to stand up for it. And what will you do then.

Worst. Generation. Ever. Sad.


Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it. ~Albert Einstein

It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. ~Voltaire

Ordinarily, a person leaving a courtroom with a conviction behind him would wear a somber face. But I left with a smile. I knew that I was a convicted criminal, but I was proud of my crime. ~Martin Luther King, Jr., March 22, 1956

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. ~Bishop Desmond Tutu

Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. ~Oscar Wilde

mike65

I wonder did school teacher Maura Harrington have permission for a day off?

Mike.

oscarBravo

As I have since the beginning, I'm noticing some interesting aspects to this debate.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that there exists the concept of civil disobedience. Absolutely; but it's ridiculous to assume that anyone involved in civil disobedience is necessarily in the right. It's also naive in the extreme to expect the agencies of the state to look at a protest and say "oh look, civil disobedience. Well, we'd best sit back and let them get on with it, so."

There is a suggestion that Shell is such a satanic force, beyond the power even of governments to reign it in, that the only possible path to salvation is one of lawbreaking. Like it or not, that way does lie anarchy. What if I decided that the protesters are the real force of evil, and must be stopped at all costs? What if I came to the conclusion that the Gardaí are an ineffectual force in this dispute - they've only arrested three people, for Christ's sake! - and led an even bigger mob up there to take the law into my own hands?

Finally, I'd make the point that even the protesters themselves seem confused as to what they're campaigning for. Is this a safety issue? Is it a local jobs issue? Is it a question of our natural resources being plundered by foreign corporations? Is it, as seems to be the case on this thread, that if it's something Shell want, then they're opposed to it (whatever it is, and whether or not it conveys a benefit to us) on basic principle?

oscarBravo

Rebeller wrote:

NO legal niceties can justify what Shell is doing.

Which is what, precisely?

mountainyman

Sleepy wrote:

I'm not particularly pro-Shell (tbh, I couldn't give a frack whether they build the pipeline on land, at sea or not at all), but afaic, in this case it is the protesters who are costing Irish taxpayers the money, not Shell.

The protestors are not breaking the law and it is normal to charge businesses for police protection.

MM

oscarBravo

mountainyman wrote:

The protestors are not breaking the law and it is normal to charge businesses for police protection.

Now I'm really confused. If the protestors are not breaking the law, what does the business need protection from?

In which parallel universe is it lawful to attempt to prevent someone from carrying out their lawful business?

Sgt. Sensible

oscarBravo wrote:

It has been repeatedly pointed out that there exists the concept of civil disobedience. Absolutely; but it's ridiculous to assume that anyone involved in civil disobedience is necessarily in the right.

If anybody here assumed any such thing, I missed it. Is this a strawman?

It's also naive in the extreme to expect the agencies of the state to look at a protest and say "oh look, civil disobedience. Well, we'd best sit back and let them get on with it, so."

Arresting or moving people engaging in non violent civil disobedience is to be expected. Hospitalising them in the process is unacceptable.

There is a suggestion that Shell is such a satanic force, beyond the power even of governments to reign it in, that the only possible path to salvation is one of lawbreaking. Like it or not, that way does lie anarchy.

Why would corrupt regimes want to 'reign in' corporations which prop them up and supply them with arms and intelligence to combat dissidents? Nigeria got kicked out of the commonwealth and had international loans suspended for the executing Ken Saro Wiwa and 8 others, however, nothing has happened to Shell or other companies like Chevron for their involvement in human rights abuses and environmental destruction yet. Allowing companies like Shell to get away with that sort of stuff has led in fact to what you call 'anarchy'. Being in favour of stronger environmental and human rights regulations for corporations is not 'anarchy'.

What if I decided that the protesters are the real force of evil, and must be stopped at all costs? What if I came to the conclusion that the Gardaí are an ineffectual force in this dispute - they've only arrested three people, for Christ's sake! - and led an even bigger mob up there to take the law into my own hands?

If your conscience tells you to bring a mob up to hassle protesters and help Shell then go for it I say.

oscarBravo

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Arresting or moving people engaging in non violent civil disobedience is to be expected. Hospitalising them in the process is unacceptable.

What was that about straw men? I refuse to accept the description "non-violent" when applied to the recent protests. You are aware that one of those hospitalised in recent days was a Garda, right? And that one of yesterday's arrests was for assault?

Your "non-violent" protestors seem very fond of pushing and shoving. Do they have to be actually armed before you'll consider them violent?

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Being in favour of stronger environmental and human rights regulations for corporations is not 'anarchy'.

Correct. The assumption that laws don't apply to you is anarchy.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

If your conscience tells you to bring a mob up to hassle protesters and help Shell then go for it I say.

My conscience tells me not to take any action I'm not prepared to pay the price for. That means that if and when I feel strongly enough about a company's actions to prevent them lawfully carrying out their business, I'll be prepared to go to jail as a result. It means that if I ever decide to take an axe to a warplane, I'll be prepared to pay the cost of repairs. It certainly won't lead to me creating a situation where a large Garda presence is required to apply the rule of law, and then whining that someone else isn't paying the overtime bill.

I mean, seriously. Do you actually think the government should intervene, call off the Garda protection, allow the protestors to prevent work on the site, and - when challenged - shrug, and say "it's an evil corporation, there's nothing we can do"?

oscarBravo

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

If your conscience tells you to bring a mob up to hassle protesters and help Shell then go for it I say.

I just thought some more about this. That's a pretty strange position to take. Are you seriously unconditionally supporting any position anyone takes, as long as it's what their conscience tells them?

Sgt. Sensible

oscarBravo wrote:

What was that about straw men? I refuse to accept the description "non-violent" when applied to the recent protests. You are aware that one of those hospitalised in recent days was a Garda, right? And that one of yesterday's arrests was for assault? Your "non-violent" protestors seem very fond of pushing and shoving. Do they have to be actually armed before you'll consider them violent?

I'll reserve judgment til I see some reports from reliable sources about what's actually happening. I only support civil disobedience and non violent tactics in this case.

Correct. The assumption that laws don't apply to you is anarchy.

I assume no such thing. Another strawman.

My conscience tells me not to take any action I'm not prepared to pay the price for. That means that if and when I feel strongly enough about a company's actions to prevent them lawfully carrying out their business, I'll be prepared to go to jail as a result. It means that if I ever decide to take an axe to a warplane, I'll be prepared to pay the cost of repairs. It certainly won't lead to me creating a situation where a large Garda presence is required to apply the rule of law, and then whining that someone else isn't paying the overtime bill.

That's more in line with my way of thinking, except for the bit about paying to fix warplanes, when a jury said it's ok to smash them. But are the protesters so dangerous that they need a larger police presence than Moyross? Are they ninjas?

I mean, seriously. Do you actually think the government should intervene, call off the Garda protection, allow the protestors to prevent work on the site, and - when challenged - shrug, and say "it's an evil corporation, there's nothing we can do"?

I don't think you understand my position to be honest, probably at least partly my fault since I don't have time to give as much detail as I'd like.

Sgt. Sensible

oscarBravo wrote:

I just thought some more about this. That's a pretty strange position to take. Are you seriously unconditionally supporting any position anyone takes, as long as it's what their conscience tells them?

In a way yes. Stand up, be counted and deal with the consequences.

John_C

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

It has been repeatedly pointed out that there exists the concept of civil disobedience. Absolutely; but it's ridiculous to assume that anyone involved in civil disobedience is necessarily in the right.

If anybody here assumed any such thing, I missed it. Is this a strawman?

You seem to assume it here:

If your conscience tells you to bring a mob up to hassle protesters and help Shell then go for it I say.

And again here:

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Are you seriously unconditionally supporting any position anyone takes, as long as it's what their conscience tells them?

In a way yes. Stand up, be counted and deal with the consequences.

Rebeller

oscarBravo wrote:

Which is what, precisely?

Cynically using the legal mechanisms of the Irish state to push through a project that will cause untold environmental and social devastation to the local community.

You may think it is a bit conspiracy theoryish but when changes were made to the Gas Act in 1987 by Ray Burke the scene was being set for what we are now witnessing.

Promises were made at the time which are now being fulfilled. The question is what was offered/given at that time to those involved in the changes to the exploration regime?

There are many examples of corporations using the laws of a state to pursue a suspect agenda. Ireland being a somewhat democratic country in the northern hemisphere, with a certain amount of accountability, Shell cannot simply steamroll in and use the same brute force thuggish tactics it would use in South America say or Africa.

Instead we have both the government of the day and shell acting out their pre-prepared roles in a drama that was probably written in the eighties.

What is worrying about this particular case is the level of media management of the subject that is taking place. The government does not want this to become a major issue as it may lead to serious questions being asked about that decision taken in 1987.

Instead it is better to paint a picture of a hardline group of nutters who are acting against the wishes of the local community and who are simply opposed to "progress"

I admire and support their actions as their willingness to have an opinion and act on their beliefs is a quality sorely lacking in this nation.:mad:

nacho libre

Moriarty wrote:

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

Are you talking about lord goldsmith's advice to Tony Blair concerning the legality of the Iraq war?

Rebeller

nacho libre wrote:

Are you talking about lord goldsmith's advice to Tony Blair concerning the legality of the Iraq war?

gurramok

Back to the OP statement, according to the paper today, the cost to the taxpayers of the policing is skyrocketing.(including hotel bills for gardai!)

Gardai are given bonuses of €100 a day as well as overtime and regular pay.

McDowell confirmed that overtime payments amounted to €675,639 upto last Wednesday and may reach €750,000 today!

Its a great message to criminals in Dublin knowing that 45 fewer Gardai are available to catch them

Moriarty

nacho libre wrote:

Are you talking about lord goldsmith's advice to Tony Blair concerning the legality of the Iraq war?

Intresting that that should be mentioned. I imagine that there's quite an overlap between those that protested against the Iraq war due partially to it being illegal and those that support the illegal activities of the shell protesters.

I wonder how they square that little circle in their minds?