Shell to Sea versus the Gardaí

Vainglory

ixtlan wrote:

I will be very interested in watching any footage available of this incident.

I can't at the moment comment on the conduct of the gardai. However nobody seems to be disputing the fact that a car was pushed at a garda cordon. If true this is very serious escalation.

It always seems to be the case that people seek to justify a wrongdoing by stating what the other side is doing. This was always Sinn Fein's response to IRA atrocities... look what the army/police have done. The reality is that it's possible for both sides to be wrong.

The gardai have to maintain the rule of law. They also have to maintain their discipline.

For their part the protestors have the right to protest, and if they feel strongly enough let them break the law, and face the courts. If public opinion swings massively in their favour maybe the law will be changed. However the guards have to follow the law.

While a protest is peaceful, I can consider supporting it. By all means sit down, allow yourself to be dragged away and arrested. Do not resist arrest. Once people start pushing cars at guards however, regardless of anything the guards did, those protesters have lost any chance of me supporting them, and I suspect any chance of getting national public opinion on their side.

What I really want is lots and lots of cameras, on the guards side and the protesters side. People may be less inclined to scream obsenities when their rantings are broadcast on TV or the internet.

Ix.

So shouldn't they have been arrested then, rather than batoned and thrown into ditches?

mountainyman

r3nu4l wrote:

I am both complacent and unbiased.

Do you think it's not possible to be both? Is that beyond your simple level of comprehension?

I don't accept that you are unbiased and in this matter I do not accept that it is possible to be both.
To be complacent about the police batoning protestors off the road implies a personality that is unquestioning of authority and highly conformist.
To such a personality the protestors must be wrong if only because they are questioning authority.

r3nu4l wrote:

As for Ray Burke (he has been convicted of filing false tax returns which is corrupt I agree!), was the issue of the initial license ever proven to be invalid? I suppose that's the real point I was trying to make. Thanks for [strike]playing into my hands[/strike] helping me get there, you're too kind.

If a group of corrupt politicians refuse to enact normal legal standards for the prosecution of political corruption that does not mean that corruption does not take place.

Ray Burke was corrupt. The Flood Tribunal reported in 1992 that he had received corrupt payments. All of his actions which rebound to the benefit of big business must now be revisited.
Certain sorts of people will always assume that authority is honest and benevolent, as Burke has not been proven guilty in a court of law (in other words a verdict issued by a higher authority) they are unwilling to countenance the reality that he was pervasively corrupt.

MM

mountainyman

Jip wrote:

Everyone harks on about Shell exploiting Irelands natural resources. What most people seem to forget, or largely ignore, is the fact the the government didn't come along and say to Shell "hey, here you go, there's a gas field off the cost of Mayo, it's all yours for a small sum.".

The likes of Shell and other such companies can spend millions and years in trying to find gas and oil without success and are taking a risk in their investments. The state probably makes more money than the exploration companies in a large amount of exploration licences handed out.

Yeah but if all we are getting out of it is 30 jobs (or whatever) than why not leave it in the sea. The scots have a pipeline into the north and we can just buy it from them. We aren't going to get any special deals from Shell.

MM

r3nu4l

mountainyman wrote:

I don't accept that you are unbiased and in this matter I do not accept that it is possible to be both...

...MM

MM, that's cool, I'm not asking you to accept it, your entitled to your views etc. but to think you know what's going on in my head shows a sense of massively inflated ego and delusions of grandeur.

As it happens, I'm not a conformist or unquestioning of authority, I wasn't there and didn't see what happened and unlike the OP I'm not going to jump to conslusions...either way! If you don't like that, that's your tough luck, you can rant and rave all you like, Let me spell it out for you...I...don't...care! I hope that clears things up for you.

mountainyman

r3nu4l wrote:

MM,...I...don't...care! I hope that clears things up for you.

Then why engage in this discussion.

MM

Vegeta

mountainyman wrote:

Then why engage in this discussion.

MM

well i think he has highlighted the very valid point that a lot of people are just shooting their mouth off with no evidence or clue what truly happened this morning.

newby.204

Ill lay it out very simple for you tree huggin hippies(get a haircut:D ), if you break the law and test the patience of people with batons when they nicely asked you to FUkc off home to your solar panneled houses with your compost heap out the back, then your playing with fire.

On a more serious point the gardai have more important things to be worrying about these days, you know those gang wars and all, so dealing with you lot a little "heavy handedly", so they can get on dealing with real issues like 5 year olds gettin shot in the middle of a housing estate and tiger kidnappings on postal worker, well its just fine with me.

r3nu4l

mountainyman wrote:

Then why engage in this discussion.

MM

My issue and the reason for my entering the discussion was to highlight the clear but unstated bias of the OP's post.

The poster stated that a protestor was 'thrown' into a ditch and implied (thus allowing the inferrence) that it was the Gardaí who did this...without citing a source.

That's the issue I have, lots of wild statements with no credible sources or backup. Hence my entering the discussion. I couldn't care less if it's a discussion on the price of cabbages but I do care when unfounded and unproven accusations are made. That's all

sovtek

Jip wrote:

From RTENews (or are they unreliable because they're in the pocket of big business too ?)


Poor innocent Maura, just sitting in her van and was attacked for no good reason. BTW, I thought schools were back off midterm or is this poor unfortunate still off "sick" and the rest of us suckers are paying for her.

Where's Cartman when you need them, goddamn hippies.

So teachers aren't allowed to participate in political activism? I just heard Mcdowell smearing teachers on the radio....sounds familiar.

ixtlan

Vainglory wrote:

So shouldn't they have been arrested then, rather than batoned and thrown into ditches?

Perhaps. I can't fairly comment on the garda conduct, as I have not seen it. Certainly if the protesters were sitting down, or standing up but not moving then yes, they should have been dragged away quietly and possibly arrested.

However if they were pushing forward against a cordon, and the guards have to follow the rule of law and not let them get through, then things get somewhat grey. A certain amount of force may be justifiable. Which is why I would like to have lots and lots of cameras in place to keep both sides in check.

I am sort of commenting blindly here. The gardai may have done wrong. They may have been heavy-handed. And if so they should face the law themselves. However it's clear that the protestors did wrong, and they should face the law. One does not have to choose one side. Both may be wrong.

Ix.

r3nu4l

sovtek wrote:

So teachers aren't allowed to participate in political activism? I just heard Mcdowell smearing teachers on the radio....sounds familiar.

If she has taken holiday time or unpaid leave to do so then that's okay by me

What was McD smearing them with? Chocolate, butter...oil? geddit? I'll get my coat...

sovtek

ixtlan wrote:

I can't at the moment comment on the conduct of the gardai. However nobody seems to be disputing the fact that a car was pushed at a garda cordon. If true this is very serious escalation.

Yes it's a serious allegation and had it happened then the people involved should be arrested. However it's also likely that pushing a car at Guarda was in self defense or it was provocatuers. Both situations have occured many times in the past few years.
It still doesn't let the police off the hook if they used violence against peaceful protestors.

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

This would suggest to me that it is most certainly not the only way that they can protest. They want to cause disruption to highlight their case. The basic complaint seems to be that they should be allowed to do this, but its wrong for them to be the ones subjected to disruption.

Beating someone and throwing them in a ditch is not merely "disruption". It's also illegal.

Turner

It is very unfair that uniformed gardai are placed at the site every morning in what is now turning into riotous behaviour. They have very little protection against what is a very violent and hostile crowd.

It is high time that the public order unit that was seen at the Love Ulster parade and the George Bush visit are deployed before more members of the Gardai get injured enforcing the rule of law.

sovtek wrote:

It still doesn't let the police off the hook if they used violence against peaceful protestors.

The Gardai are allowed use force, it is not illegal for them to do so.

sovtek

r3nu4l wrote:

If she has taken holiday time or unpaid leave to do so then that's okay by me

What was McD smearing them with? Chocolate, butter...oil? geddit? I'll get my coat...

That's her business...and it's a testimony to McDowells weak stance on this subject.

sovtek

Chief--- wrote:

It is very unfair that uniformed gardai are placed at the site every morning in what is now turning into riotous behaviour. They have very little protection against what is a very violent and hostile crowd.

It is high time that the public order unit that was seen at the Love Ulster parade and the George Bush visit are deployed before more members of the Gardai get injured enforcing the rule of law.



The Gardai are allowed use force, it is not illegal for them to do so.

Enforcing the law does not involve breaking the law. It is illegal to use force against someone that is not posing a threat.

Akrasia

Chief--- wrote:

It is very unfair that uniformed gardai are placed at the site every morning in what is now turning into riotous behaviour. They have very little protection against what is a very violent and hostile crowd.

well that's very orwelian of you. The police have batons, protesters have their voice. Police have a bus full of riot police, protesters don't. Police have the power of arrest, Protesters have the likelyhood of being arrested

The police are the ones assaulting the protesters, not the other way around.

It is high time that the public order unit that was seen at the Love Ulster parade and the George Bush visit are deployed before more members of the Gardai get injured enforcing the rule of law.

and how many gardai have been injured so far?

The Gardai are allowed use force, it is not illegal for them to do so.

the gardai are allowed to use reasonable force as a last resort.

mike65

Lunchtime news report http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2190738.smil

"in the most serious worsening..." The cops should arrest the newsreader for that syntax.

Slightly suprised (though maybe I should'nt be) that the cops did'nt have shields, they could have formed a wall to push the prostesters back hence lessening the need for the batton.

Mike.

verbatim

sovtek wrote:

Beating someone and throwing them in a ditch is not merely "disruption". It's also illegal.

Theres nothing illegal about the gardai trying to uphold the rule of law. I used to have sympathy for the Rossport campaign, but that ended when the extreme left moved in and took over. The same small group of people seem to be involved in every anti-establishment protest from Shannon airport to anti-globalisation etc...

And pushing a car/van at gardai is a very serious and violent escalation to the protest. I hope the protesters involved are sent to prison for a very long time.

r3nu4l

sovtek wrote:

That's her business...and it's a testimony to McDowells weak stance on this subject.

If she has taken paid time off work that is not either holiday or sick leave then it is the business of the children and parents of children at the school where she teaches and the business of the school authorities and taxpayer. So it's not just her business I'm afraid.

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

Beating someone and throwing them in a ditch is not merely "disruption". It's also illegal.

As were some of the actions of the protestors.

This is what I'm driving at. People seem to be suggesting that if you're protesting and you break the law, its unfair for the law to hold you accountable....what is important is why you did what you did, and not whether or not you acted within the law.

As soon as there's the slightest hint that those opposing your protest (corporation, police, whoever) may have broken the law, however, then apparently all that matters is that the law was broken.

If there are reasons to believe the police broke the law, I want it investigated. If they are found to have broken the law, I want them punished. But here'[s the thing - I want the exact same standards applied to the protestors.

I am not buying into this apparent notion of the noble, righteous citizen fighting against the corrupt, bordering-on-inhumane police. I am equally not suggesting that its the noble police-force are being maligned by a bunch of self-serving trouble-makers.

I'm suggesting only that there are double standards being applied, rather than each side being held to a common standard.

Which also means, for the record, that I don't buy into some daft notion that the police should be held more accountable because of their position, or rather that the public are less accountable for their law-breaking than the police.

Arguing that breaking the law is the only (effective/reasonable) way to protest is ludicrous. Its no more reasonable an argument than saying breaking the law is the only (effective/reasonable) way for the police to protect themselves. If both sides acted in breach of the law, condemn both sides. If neither did, then accept that neither did. But this demonisation of one side for breaking the law whilst arguing that the others kinda were only doing what was necessary....sorry...gonna be a while before I buy into that one.

sovtek

verbatim wrote:

Theres nothing illegal about the gardai trying to uphold the rule of law.

The gardai have laws governing their behavior just as the general population does. If they break those laws, regardless of the general public breaking the law...then they aren't upholding the rule of law they are breaking it.

And pushing a car/van at gardai is a very serious and violent escalation to the protest. I hope the protesters involved are sent to prison for a very long time.

One wonders if that happened before or after they beat someone and threw them in a ditch or if those people were agent provocateurs.

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

As were some of the actions of the protestors.

That is irrelevant in regards to Gardai breaking the law. Even if someone pushed a car at the gardai they still have to use restraint and cannot beat someone.

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

The police have batons, protesters have their voice.

Ah. So the teacher wasn't in a van being pushed at the police. She was in a voice that was being raised at the police.

That changes everything.

Police have the power of arrest, Protesters have the likelyhood of being arrested

Protestors have the likelihood of being arrested for acting in breach of the law. You seem to be (once again) suggesting that it should be ok to break the law (at least certain laws) when you believe in what you're doing.

sovtek wrote:

One wonders if that happened before or after they beat someone and threw them in a ditch or if those people were agent provocateurs.

One does indeed wonder.

It hasn't stopped some from condemning them apparently without this information.

We don't know who started it, and are effectively being asked on the basis of it being the common folk against The Man that obviously the police must be in the wrong.

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

That is irrelevant in regards to Gardai breaking the law. Even if someone pushed a car at the gardai they still have to use restraint and cannot beat someone.

I responded to a post which pointed out only that one side may have acted illegally. My response was that this is true of both sides and I want both sides treated the same.

Your response is that its irrelevant what the other side may have done, one side has to be held accountable for its actions.

Apparently the only difference between our positions is that I've said your stance should apply to both sides, whilst thus far you've only said it about the police.

Do you disagree that the protestors should also be held accountable for the legality or otherwise of their actions? Because we seem to be in agreement about how the police should be treated if they broke the law, but you seem to feel the need to refocus our attention on them in response to my post saying we should treat both equally under the law.

Heinrich

http://www.bhopal.net/index.php

This is the stuff of big corporations when the thing goes pear shaped. Do we need this Corrib Gas? How much will it cost us and how much can we buy?

Money talks...

civdef

However it's also likely that pushing a car at Guarda was in self defense

LOL, brilliant.

Enforcing the law does not involve breaking the law. It is illegal to use force against someone that is not posing a threat.

Eh no. If someone is blocking the road, for example, and is being arrested for doing not moving on when told to do so, then force can be legally used to do so (very difficult to cuff someone and put them into a van without using some force).

r3nu4l

civdef wrote:

LOL, brilliant.

Wasn't it?..."Well your honour, in order to defend myself from a brutal assault by the oppressive totalitarian forces I grabbed the nearest car and started pushing it towards them. This seemed like a reasonable course of action at the time."

Yup, I can see that standing up in court alright...

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

As were some of the actions of the protestors.

This is what I'm driving at. People seem to be suggesting that if you're protesting and you break the law, its unfair for the law to hold you accountable....what is important is why you did what you did, and not whether or not you acted within the law.

I'm not

As soon as there's the slightest hint that those opposing your protest (corporation, police, whoever) may have broken the law, however, then apparently all that matters is that the law was broken.

Because blocking a road and beating someone, especially by the very people that are suppose to uphold the law is a more serious crime and has wider implications.

If there are reasons to believe the police broke the law, I want it investigated. If they are found to have broken the law, I want them punished. But here'[s the thing - I want the exact same standards applied to the protestors.

I have no problem with that. It says something, though, that McDowell is smearing a teacher that was involved and not more concerned with his police force possibly breaking the law.

I am not buying into this apparent notion of the noble, righteous citizen fighting against the corrupt, bordering-on-inhumane police. I am equally not suggesting that its the noble police-force are being maligned by a bunch of self-serving trouble-makers.

I'm suggesting only that there are double standards being applied, rather than each side being held to a common standard.

Which also means, for the record, that I don't buy into some daft notion that the police should be held more accountable because of their position, or rather that the public are less accountable for their law-breaking than the police.

It's not daft to expect the gardai to be held to a higher standard as it's their job to uphold the rule of law. Again I'm not saying that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

Arguing that breaking the law is the only (effective/reasonable) way to protest is ludicrous.

Its not the only way but I will not agree with you that passive resistance is not a legitimate way to protest.

Its no more reasonable an argument than saying breaking the law is the only (effective/reasonable) way for the police to protect themselves. If both sides acted in breach of the law, condemn both sides. If neither did, then accept that neither did. But this demonisation of one side for breaking the law whilst arguing that the others kinda were only doing what was necessary....sorry...gonna be a while before I buy into that one.

I'm not demonising anyone. It may very well be that the protestors pushed a car at gardai without provocation. I seriously doubt it however as I've seen too many instances of the gardai along with other european police agencies using provocative actions against peaceful protestors to not be suspect from the onset. I will not condemn protestors breaking the law in a peaceful manner, it's known as passive resistance and I believe it to be legitimate.
It is also the responsibility for the police to protect the right to protest, therefore attacking or provoking protestors is not the same as protestors using passive resistance.
Furthermore protestors also have the right to protect themselves from violence and the gardai have responsibility for keeping the peace.

Vegeta

sovtek wrote:

I'm not demonising anyone. It may very well be that the protestors pushed a car at gardai without provocation. I seriously doubt it however as I've seen too many instances of the gardai along with other european police agencies using provocative actions against peaceful protestors to not be suspect from the onset. I will not condemn protestors breaking the law in a peaceful manner, it's known as passive resistance and I believe it to be legitimate.
It is also the responsibility for the police to protect the right to protest, therefore attacking or provoking protestors is not the same as protestors using passive resistance.

You have to be kidding. That's an oxymoron, breaking the law in a peaceful manner, you should do stand up.

What a joke and disgusting attitude to have.

You're basically saying protesters should get special treatment, so much for equal rights.

I am 100% with bonkey on this one, both sides should get whats coming to them

EDIT: If they were truly protesting "peacefully" why is the garda presence needed