Cost of policing the Corrib gas protests

Rebeller

Moriarty wrote:

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?

I am one of those who seems to be suffering from a dose of your "inconsistencyitis".

However, there is a clear consistency in my stance. My views in both cases are based on the notion of what is morally and ethically right. As I've stated previously in this thread, the law is not the be-all-and-end-all of justice. The law can be (and often is) an ass!!

The Iraq crusade would have been wrong whether International Law permitted it or not. Are you not aware of the recent reports putting the death toll from the invasion at almost three quarters of a million people?

War is never justified, is NEVER acceptable (whether legal or not) when it leads to the deliberate and clearly avoidable deaths of even one innocent non-combatant.

Bush, and his poodle Blair might claim that "their" (I didn't see them on the front line) cause was just. However, history and common sense will show otherwise.

Illegality is not always wrong, just as legality is not always right.

Moriarty

My point was that you would be acting inconsistently if you were protesting about the war in Iraq on the grounds that it was illegal while saying that under other circumstances - circumstances in which you find the law inconvenient - it's acceptable, neigh your duty, to break the law.

Rebeller wrote:

War is never justified, is NEVER acceptable (whether legal or not) when it leads to the deliberate and clearly avoidable deaths of even one innocent non-combatant

I disagree.

FYI

If Shell were to pay for it they could write off the cost against tax. We would still be paying for it.

Rock Climber

Moriarty wrote:

My point was that you would be acting inconsistently if you were protesting about the war in Iraq on the grounds that it was illegal while saying that under other circumstances - circumstances in which you find the law inconvenient - it's acceptable, neigh your duty, to break the law.

Rebeller wrote:

War is never justified, is NEVER acceptable (whether legal or not) when it leads to the deliberate and clearly avoidable deaths of even one innocent non-combatant

Moriarty wrote:

I disagree.

Good post Moriarty,Good post nail on head.


As for War,I dont see how any war could avoid innocent deaths so thats a pacifist approach by Rebeller and for another thread.

Sgt. Sensible

Moriarty wrote:

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?

Equating some pushing and shoving (at worst) with the Iraq thing. Hmmm.

Worst argument ever.

Unless overnight the Shell protesters suddenly began bombing thousands of people to death, igniting bloody sectarian conflict, turning Mayo into a magnet for terrorists and prompting the bombing of trains and buses throughout Europe.

I dodged the train fare last night. This is illegal. Not exactly Srebrenica, 9/11 or Iraq, but illegal nonetheless. This might be a little difficult for some people to understand but in the real world some crimes are considered to be more serious than others.

I've noticed there's an interesting overlap between those who support the carnage in Iraq and those who oppose protests of practically any kind. I wonder how they square that circle in their little minds?

mountainyman

oscarBravo wrote:

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?

If the protestors are breaking the law why are they not being arrested? I have asked this question repeatedly.

If they were breaking the law they would all be arrested.
They are not all being arrested.
Therefore they are not breaking the law.

Therefore the paralell universe you speak of is this one. It is curious that you are unable to see this.

It is normal (as anyone with a basic grasp of the law is aware) to charge for Police protection. The caselaw relates to industrial disputes but I see no reason why this should be different.

Also I note that the 'scabs' and 'scumbags' who are building the plant are complaining about verbal abuse. Well I'm sorry but that is not violence.

MM

Moriarty

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

stuff

If people are going to campaign strongly and over a number of years due to something being illegal, as many did over the Iraq war, it would probably be fair to say that they hold the rule of law in high regard. One would imagine that that would include not supporting those who deliberately set out to break important laws such as contempt of court.

Unless of course they were looking for any excuse they could find which could be used to advance their political cause. But I would never suggest such a thing.

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

I've noticed there's an interesting overlap between those who support the carnage in Iraq and those who oppose protests of practically any kind. I wonder how they square that circle in their little minds?

I wouldn't be one of those people. I couldn't give a toss if they protested or not. If they want to, work away. I haven't felt the need to go protesting about things, but if others do that's fine with me. What I find suspect is the continuing quick-step around the law and other issues by those who claim to be holding the moral high ground in all of this. They're no better than the worst the 'other side' has to offer. As such, they're added to my little real life 'ignore list' of morons and rabble rousers.

Villain

mountainyman wrote:

If the protestors are breaking the law why are they not being arrested? I have asked this question repeatedly.

If they were breaking the law they would all be arrested.
They are not all being arrested.
Therefore they are not breaking the law.

Therefore the paralell universe you speak of is this one. It is curious that you are unable to see this.

It is normal (as anyone with a basic grasp of the law is aware) to charge for Police protection. The caselaw relates to industrial disputes but I see no reason why this should be different.

Also I note that the 'scabs' and 'scumbags' who are building the plant are complaining about verbal abuse. Well I'm sorry but that is not violence.

MM

They could be charged with breach of the peace charges I'm sure but just because the Gardai are needed to "control" the protestors doesn't mean people are breaking the law.

The concerns the people of Rossport have need to be addressed, tax payers money can't be paid out forever to ensure shell workers can do their work. However I'm not sure what can be done, Peter Cashell's wasn't able to find any middle ground.

In relation to the support the protestors have I think somebody (here or on a radio program) mentioned that not everyone from the area was opposed to the terminal being built onshore, I would point out that anyone I have heard from the area that isn't opposed has gone onto say that if their house was near the terminal or gas line they would be against it.

Its that good auld Irish thinking of "its ok if its not in my back yard", I mean how many people honestly could say that if this gas line was passing by their family home they wouldn't protest against it? I'm sure we will see simalar issues when we get incinerators been built here, I mean the government seem in favour of incineration (I think?) but McDowell doesn't want it in his back yard.

oscarBravo

mountainyman wrote:

If they were breaking the law they would all be arrested.

I saw someone drop litter on the street yesterday. He wasn't arrested. Therefore, he wasn't breaking the law.

In your parallel universe.

mountainyman wrote:

Also I note that the 'scabs' and 'scumbags' who are building the plant are complaining about verbal abuse. Well I'm sorry but that is not violence.

On the contrary, it could very well be considered assault.

mountainyman

I am unsure of the relevance of the litter comparison. Are you saying that the corrib protestors are breaking the law but this is no more important than a single incident of littering.

An insult is not violence and assault does not necessitate violence, you are only showing yourself up.

MM

oscarBravo

mountainyman wrote:

I am unsure of the relevance of the litter comparison. Are you saying that the corrib protestors are breaking the law but this is no more important than a single incident of littering.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Read it again.

Hogmeister B

To be honest i'm more concerned that the resources of the irish people were sold for a pittance, at practically no benefit to us, to a company which carries out actions abroad that are at best immoral, than the cost of bodily assaulting peaceful protesters.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

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.

Interesting link that, but it relates to a very different situation-A once off protest that was always easily resolvable unlike this on go-ing one that seems to be only resolvable from the protesters point of view by moving the gas refining out to sea.

You'd have some argument if you were comparing like with like, ie an ongoing protest/blockade with an ongoing protest/blockade-but you aren't.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

Interesting link that, but it relates to a very different situation-A once off protest that was always easily resolvable unlike this on go-ing one that seems to be only resolvable from the protesters point of view by moving the gas refining out to sea.

You'd have some argument if you were comparing like with like, ie an ongoing protest/blockade with an ongoing protest/blockade-but you aren't.

Breach of the law is breach of the law whether it happens on a daily basis or a once off occasion. I stated that I accepted the situations were different but the main principle remains, the Gardai are enforcing the law in Rossport to facilitate a multi-national company in the building of a gas terminal but they failed to act when Taxi drivers brought certain areas of the city to a standstill. The laws in both cases are the same the actions of the Gardai are different that was my point.

PS. People should have a read of that debate it was of the best ones in the Dail in years.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Breach of the law is breach of the law whether it happens on a daily basis or a once off occasion. I stated that I accepted the situations were different but the main principle remains, the Gardai are enforcing the law in Rossport to facilitate a multi-national company in the building of a gas terminal but they failed to act when Taxi drivers brought certain areas of the city to a standstill. The laws in both cases are the same the actions of the Gardai are different that was my point.

PS. People should have a read of that debate it was of the best ones in the Dail in years.

But you accept that the situations were different.A once off protest as opposed to an ongoing law breaking?
One lot of protesters stopped soon when talked to...whereas Rossport have no intentions of stopping despite being talked to ad nauseum.
Jail or arrests for a 1 or 2 day protest when a chat would work would be overkill No? as opposed to appropriate action for intransigent continous law breaking.
.

You are not comparing like with like.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

But you accept that the situations were different.A once off protest as opposed to an ongoing law breaking?
One lot of protesters stopped soon when talked to...whereas Rossport have no intentions of stopping despite being talked to ad nauseum.
Jail or arrests for a 1 or 2 day protest when a chat would work would be overkill No? as opposed to appropriate action for intransigent continous law breaking.
.

You are not comparing like with like.

I 100% accept the situations are different but the laws that were breached by the taxi drivers for that day were the same yet the actions of the Gardai were different. I also agree that there was a much better chance of resolving those issues than there is in Rossport but would you not agree that tax payers money and Garda resources could be better used than facilitating Shell?

Gardai controlling protestors in Rossport aren't going to resolve the issues.

I would agree with you on the cost of the policing but regard comparing the 2 unlikes as comparing the reasonable with an unreasonable.
However I'm not convinced anymore of the legitimacy of the protestors worries.

Sgt. Sensible

Moriarty wrote:

If people are going to campaign strongly and over a number of years due to something being illegal, as many did over the Iraq war, it would probably be fair to say that they hold the rule of law in high regard. One would imagine that that would include not supporting those who deliberately set out to break important laws such as contempt of court.

Unless of course they were looking for any excuse they could find which could be used to advance their political cause. But I would never suggest such a thing.



I wouldn't be one of those people. I couldn't give a toss if they protested or not. If they want to, work away. I haven't felt the need to go protesting about things, but if others do that's fine with me. What I find suspect is the continuing quick-step around the law and other issues by those who claim to be holding the moral high ground in all of this. They're no better than the worst the 'other side' has to offer. As such, they're added to my little real life 'ignore list' of morons and rabble rousers.

I'm not terribly sure what offences the Shell protesters are supposed to have committed but are you seriously suggesting that whatever they are, they're on a par with the Iraq thing? If so, it's an irrational position. Many of the eejits who supported the Iraq war are also rabid anti-IRA types. That's always been fair enough to me because the situations are utterly incomparable on just about every level.

oscarBravo wrote:

I saw someone drop litter on the street yesterday. He wasn't arrested. Therefore, he wasn't breaking the law.

Did a garda actually see the litter being dropped?

mountainyman

oscarBravo wrote:

No, that's not what I'm saying. Read it again.

Are you then saying that the Gardai are refusing to do their job?

MM

mountainyman

Hogmeister B wrote:

To be honest i'm more concerned that the resources of the irish people were sold for a pittance, at practically no benefit to us, to a company which carries out actions abroad that are at best immoral, than the cost of bodily assaulting peaceful protesters.

The actions of Shell abroad are not relevant. Arguably the whole oil business is immoral. The real problem is that the deal was done by a minister known to be corrupt and it is a bizarre deal.

MM

oscarBravo

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Did a garda actually see the litter being dropped?

Does that have a bearing on the legality of the action?

mountainyman wrote:

Are you then saying that the Gardai are refusing to do their job?

Only if their job is to unconditionally arrest every person who has ever been suspected of any crime under any circumstances ever, no matter what the consequences. Are you saying that's their job?

mountainyman

I am not sure what you are driving at. Are you saying that the actions of the protestors are illegal but no legal remedy exists to deal with them.

It is different from throwing paper on the ground because of the protestors visible recidivism.

The protestors are breaking the law every day (according to Oscar Bravo - I dispute that they are breaking the law at all.) If someone is breaking the law continuously and won't stop they should be arrested.

MM

oscarBravo

mountainyman wrote:

I dispute that they are breaking the law at all.

You don't believe it's an offence to deliberately obstruct a public highway?

Avns1s

Of course the protesters are acting illegally. But what can the Gardai do, put them all in Castlerea? Then you have helped them achieve their aim of making themselves martyrs for their cause. My opinion is that they should be locked up.

As someone who is from the region, I am appaled at:
1. The amount of airtime that these clowns have received.
2. The way this carry-on portrays the region and its people to those outside, particularly potential investors in job creation projects.
3. The cost of trying to ensure that the workers can go about their business through the need for such a level of Garda presence.
4. The distraction of the Gardai from other duties which could be equally or indeed more important.
5. The actions of the people themselves who should be in lines for Oscars for their performances.
6. The actions of the TD's especially the independent bandwagon jumpers who arrived there today. Not to mention the strange Doctor!!
7. The way Sinn Fein has also jumped on the bandwagon.
8. The intimidation meted out by the protestors to local people who dont actively support their position, to visitors to the area and to others outside who are in positions of authority.

I'm sure I could go on for quite a while longer but I think my point is made.

Not often that I find myself agreeing with Noel Dempsey (in fact, I think he's an idiot of the highest order most of the time!) but he's absolutely right when he said that it was easier to get Adams talking to Paisley that the protestors talking to shell.

If any of the protestors read this, Cop (pardon the pun) yourselves on. You've made your point! Now go home and stop wasting our hard earned money on this ridiculous tirade of abuse which is only serving to alienate you from the rest of the county, country and indeed your own neighbours.

Akrasia

mountainyman wrote:

The actions of Shell abroad are not relevant. Arguably the whole oil business is immoral. The real problem is that the deal was done by a minister known to be corrupt and it is a bizarre deal.

MM

Hold on, why aren't the actions of Shell abroad relevant?

If I go on holidays and murder someone and come back, it that ok because it happened in a different country?

This is the problem with big corporations, nobody holds them accountable.

mountainyman

Akrasia wrote:

Hold on, why aren't the actions of Shell abroad relevant?

If I go on holidays and murder someone and come back, it that ok because it happened in a different country?

This is the problem with big corporations, nobody holds them accountable.

Because it is the politics of self perception and not the politics of achievement.
Shell has never murdered anyone. That's a fact. Decisions have been taken by people which have led to the deaths of other people. Focus on those people.

MM

mountainyman

oscarBravo wrote:

You don't believe it's an offence to deliberately obstruct a public highway?

I dispute that they are deliberately obstructing a public highway. If they were how would the 'scumbags' be getting into work?

If they are breaking the law arrest them.
It is not for Gardai to decide how the law is to be applied. If that is what the Gardai are doing at Rossport they should all be sacked and lose their pensions.
But it isn't and if it is why?


MM

oscarBravo

mountainyman wrote:

I dispute that they are deliberately obstructing a public highway. If they were how would the 'scumbags' be getting into work?

When you quote the word 'scumbag', are you quoting someone? If so, whom? Or are you trying to somehow dilute the effect of an offensive remark you're coining yourself?

To answer the question: the 'workers' are getting into work because the Gardaí have been removing the protestors from the public highway, and working to prevent them blocking it again. If there were no Gardaí, the protestors would be blocking the highway and preventing people from carrying out their lawful employment.

mountainyman wrote:

If they are breaking the law arrest them.

I'm pretty sure you're being deliberately obtuse, but: the Gardaí are preventing the protestors from breaking the law. Most people would consider that good policing. I feel that fines would be an effective approach, but operational policing decisions are not my remit - or yours.

mountainyman wrote:

It is not for Gardai to decide how the law is to be applied. If that is what the Gardai are doing at Rossport they should all be sacked and lose their pensions.

If it's not the job of the police to decide how to police, who's job is it?

mountainyman

oscarBravo wrote:

When you quote the word 'scumbag', are you quoting someone? If so, whom? Or are you trying to somehow dilute the effect of an offensive remark you're coining yourself?

It was given as an example of the non non-violence of the protesors. The 'scabs' and 'scumbags' working on the plant were upset because they were being described as 'scabs' and 'scumbags'.
So I am quoting 5-7 live. Some Daniel O'Donnel sounding guy was the reporter.

oscarBravo wrote:

If it's not the job of the police to decide how to police, who's job is it?

When David Norris went to the supreme court one of the Judges remarked that it was the job of the police to enforce the law as it exists and not to decide which laws to enforce.
The law is laid down by the legislature. The police are junior Civil Servants their role is to enforce the laws the legislature has laid down. It is the role of the legislature to decide which laws to enforce all of them

oscarBravo

mountainyman wrote:

It was given as an example of the non non-violence of the protesors. The 'scabs' and 'scumbags' working on the plant were upset because they were being described as 'scabs' and 'scumbags'.
So I am quoting 5-7 live. Some Daniel O'Donnel sounding guy was the reporter.

Can we take it that you agree that they are, indeed, 'scabs' and 'scumbags', given that you've repeatedly parrotted these insults?

mountainyman wrote:

When David Norris went to the supreme court one of the Judges remarked that it was the job of the police to enforce the law as it exists and not to decide which laws to enforce.
The law is laid down by the legislature. The police are junior Civil Servants their role is to enforce the laws the legislature has laid down. It is the role of the legislature to decide which laws to enforce all of them

With respect, that's a naive and simplistic view (not that of the SC judge, but your interpretation of it).

Let's go back to my littering example. Suppose a Garda had seen the 'scumbag' in question dropping the litter, and instead of arresting him, he'd threatened to do so unless the 'scumbag' picked up the litter and disposed of it properly. Would you feel the Garda was failing to do his job, by preventing crime instead of mindlessly enforcing it? Do you feel that mindless zero-tolerance enforcement would lead to a better society?