Shell to Sea versus the Gardaí

Ronan|Raven

mike65 wrote:

The Garda should take the names of everyone there and see if they are collecting dole, if so they should seeking employment rather than travelling wesht for a spot of agitation. If they are in gainful employment does thier employer know they took the day off?

Mike.

Some of them wouldnt know "gainful employment" if it bit them in the ass. I'm surprised the wasters from the SWP are not down for week in the west as well.

pete

mike65 wrote:

The Garda should take the names of everyone there and see if they are collecting dole, if so they should seeking employment rather than travelling wesht for a spot of agitation.

Speaking as an ex-dept social welfare employee, I can assure you that the Department does not require its clients to spend every waking hour jobhunting, nor does it require that the unemployed be kept under curfew in their own area.

It does require them to be available for work though.

pete

Tristrame wrote:

It does require them to be available for work though.

Being in location B rather than location A on a given day does not preclude one from being "available for work", the definition of which is:

welfare.ie wrote:

Available for Work

This means that:

* you are available for full-time work and,
* you are willing and able to accept a suitable offer of work immediately.

The whole "Some of them are unemployed, therefore they shouldn't be there" argument is a total red herring. In fact, one might go as far as to say it's equivalent to attacking the poster not the post .

Chakar

I believe the whole Shell to Sea campaign is a campaign of mass civil disobedience as it has been hijacked by anarchists, socialists and Sinn Fein wanting to capitalise in electoral gains.Sinn Fein especially hyped up the campaign with their merchandising of badges, pins, leaflets and stuff.I reckon more people will be arrested as it just cannot keep going on.

I have looked at the facts surrounding the whole campaign and I have to say the campaign it is without any basis whatsoever apart from the assertion "I don't want it in my backyard" syndrome which has afflicted people ranging from developments such as a recycling plant to shopping centres.

Chakar

Akrasia

Chakar wrote:

I believe the whole Shell to Sea campaign is a campaign of mass civil disobedience as it has been hijacked by anarchists, socialists and Sinn Fein wanting to capitalise in electoral gains.

Anarchists want to capitalise on electoral gains?
wow, you really have an informed belief there.

Sinn Fein especially hyped up the campaign with their merchandising of badges, pins, leaflets and stuff.I reckon more people will be arrested as it just cannot keep going on.

Sinn fein have a minimal role in this campaign. Have you heard a single sinn fein politician electioneering based on this campaign? have you heard a single shell to sea activist publicly promoting sinn fein?

I have looked at the facts surrounding the whole campaign and I have to say the campaign it is without any basis whatsoever apart from the assertion "I don't want it in my backyard" syndrome which has afflicted people ranging from developments such as a recycling plant to shopping centres.

Chakar

yeah right.

redspider

The situation as it stands is that the Gardai are assisting people get to their place of work, on the site. However, the Shell-to-Sea campaign and others dont agree with this. Whilst it would be unacceptable imo for the protestors to block roads and stop people from going to work that are not related to this issue/project, it would seem to be reasonable for them to block the workers on this site, and that is all that is being done.

Look at it this way, if there was an unofficial strike on somewhere, would the Gardai go there and 'run the gauntlet' by helping those that are willing to work force their wat through the pickets/protests? No, they dont. So then why should they do it for Shell? Clearly it is a political issue and one which the Government is trying to force on the people.

So, what should have happened? Day 1, the workers arrive for work and are blocked from doing so by a peacful protest. The workers call the Gardai and say they are being obstucted. The Gardai come along, ask the protestors to move, etc, and when they dont, ARREST the individuals and CHARGE them with something. There should be NO battoning, no pushing of cars/vans, etc. No escalation. I have not heard of any arrests, have you? There should be 100's of arrests you would think before battoning.

But from a Government perspective, whats needed is to alleviate the problem and convince the populace at large. Likewise, the Shell-to-Sea campaign need to do that too, and it would also be of interest to hear in depth from those that have attempted to mediate, and from Shell. Then the public at large can judge. At the moment, all the issues dont seem to be fully outlined and debated at large, and the status quo is division. If we have an 80/20 situation, one way or the other, then we could at least give it some degree of democratisation/"mandate".

bonkey wrote:

Last time I checked, it was possible to protest at teh side of the road so that motorists could see you, see what you're protesting about, and not be blocked. They want to cause disruption to highlight their case.

Yes, it is possible to protest and not block the road. People can protest at home and stay silent, and no-one would notice. Wake Up, people have been protested by blocking/disrupting roads/traffic since time immemorial. The Gardai 'blue flue' protest blocked roads, the recent Taxi one did the same 'effectively' reducing O'Connell street to 2 lanes in total and causing jams, etc, preventing people from getting to their work, home, etc.

If anything, the campaign has only targeted to disrupt those workers that are directly involved in the issue, and not those not involved, unlike the Blue Flue 'strike', the Taxi protest, the you-name-it protest, etc, etc, which block all and sundry.

I have not heard all the details of the issue(s). My understanding is that an off-shore terminal could be built instead but it would cost Shell more money, in the region of 100 million or something or perhaps less. But given that Shell make billions of profit each year, this should be well within their scope of capital investment.

That aside, should the Gardai resources be dedicated to helping Shell so much? They have less presence in the troubled areas in Limerick so this seems to me to be a show of force and politicking rather than being usefully deployed.

By the way, is the Rossport issue now solved? Or is that 'on hold'.

Redspider

pete

pete wrote:

Being in location B rather than location A on a given day does not preclude one from being "available for work", the definition of which is:

I think you'll find (and you should know) that a clerical officer in the DFSW has the option to disagree with you.
At the very least,an unemployed person who is away from their abode should inform the department that they are taking one of their allowed holidays.

The whole "Some of them are unemployed, therefore they shouldn't be there" argument is a total red herring. In fact, one might go as far as to say it's equivalent to attacking the poster not the post .

I disagree strongly.
I pay my taxes which pays unemployed people so they can lawfully go about looking for work.
Unless they are on one of their holidays (which I very much doubt) they are not doing that which they are being paid by the state to do,if they are in Ballinaboy protesting.
Worse than that, they are breaking the law by blocking the road if thats what they are doing in ballinaboy and they are making benefit wrongfully of my taxes to do so.

Akrasia

Most of the people there are not unemployed. Most of them are locals, and of the people that travelled down, most of them took a day off work to be there.

If you want to complain about wasting tax payers money, you should focus your attention on the massive oppressive gardai presence. The amount of overtime these guys are making for the few weeks they have been there is probably more than the entire yearly income for someone on social welfare.

There have been protests on that road every morning for 2 months organised and carried out by local people. The behaviour of the Gardai has been shameful throughout. The scene from RTE news showing the gardai throw a protester head first into a ditch on the side of the road has been a regular occurrence on the road to the terminal site. Gardai have been regularly assaulting local people just for standing on the side of the road.

Here is a report from a named individual posted on Indymedia

It is becoming obvious that at a number of locations on Friday morning, the policing of events was marked by incidents where individuals involved in peaceful protests were assaulted by members of the Gardaí.

It is imperative that all such assaults are brought to the attention of the Garda Síochána Complaints Board (see link below) before somebody is more severely injured.

At the Lennon's Quarry protest, I and up to 20 others witnessed a protestor being assaulted by three individuals in full view of several gardaí. They did nothing, refused to detain the three involved in the assualt and permitted them leave the area.

They refused the victim medical assistance and with some reluctance gave their names. The senior officer at the scene threatened the victim by saying, and I quote, 'I'll ****ing kick your head in next' and denied knowing the identity of the chief assailant, despite the fact that both men are neighbours.

In a later incident, 20 protestors were illegally detained in a field after being thrown down an embankment through a barbed wire fence. One attempted to escape but was severely beaten by three Gardaí along the main Bangor-Belmullet road before being dragged down the side road by the neck and thrown back into the field. A garda sergeant wiped the victim's blood from his hand on the back of the victim's jacket before he, the victim, was thrown back into the field. He was hospitalised.

Two people have since come forward who witnessed this assualt from behind the ditch. Three gardaí took apart (including the sergeant) and as cars approached the latter was heard to say 'Hold on lads, civilians'. He, on several occasions, told his colleagues to administer 'more pain, lads, more pain'.

Turner

This protest is not one bit peaceful, it may have been at the start with alot of rosary saying and sitting down.

Using a 2 tonne vehicle as a battering ram is downright dangerous and is definitely not peaceful.

On the news there was a man pictured grappling with a garda who had him in a headlock. He escapes from the Garda and immediately goes into an interview with RTE about how it is a peaceful protest on health and safety grounds!

People will get hurt if they chose to take part in basically what is a riot, the gardai are allowed use necessary force and i believe they are doing it very effectively a t the moment with minimal injuries being inflicted. You saw on the news that batons were being aimed at limbs (and not heads) which is what they are deisgned for.

The Gardai have the option of trained public order units, dog units and water cannons but they continue to put their unprotected uniformed members at great risk of injury every day so as not to escalate the situation and escalate injuries received on both sides.

It is a little unfair though to expect unprotected uniformed gardai to take this every day. It is their place of work and should be a safe enviroment...the same as any employee in Ireland can reasonably expect.

I can see this escalating further and it is the protesters who will force an increase in violence.

As many people have said the Gardai are bound by law to enforce it. Preventing the free passage of people going to work is against the law and force may be used to prevent this.

Akrasia

Chief--- wrote:

This protest is not one bit peaceful, it may have been at the start with alot of rosary saying and sitting down.

Using a 2 tonne vehicle as a battering ram is downright dangerous and is definitely not peaceful.

On the news there was a man pictured grappling with a garda who had him in a headlock. He escapes from the Garda and immediately goes into an interview with RTE about how it is a peaceful protest on health and safety grounds!

People will get hurt if they chose to take part in basically what is a riot, the gardai are allowed use necessary force and i believe they are doing it very effectively a t the moment with minimal injuries being inflicted. You saw on the news that batons were being aimed at limbs (and not heads) which is what they are deisgned for.

The Gardai have the option of trained public order units, dog units and water cannons but they continue to put their unprotected uniformed members at great risk of injury every day so as not to escalate the situation and escalate injuries received on both sides.

It is a little unfair though to expect unprotected uniformed gardai to take this every day. It is their place of work and should be a safe enviroment...the same as any employee in Ireland can reasonably expect.

Well there's a balanced and reasonable position. The police peacefully batoned unarmed protesters.
The protesters violently 'rammed' the Gardai with a car that was moving at 1 mph at most and the police were 'restrained' when they broke the ribs and thumbs of protesters, gave at least one person concussion and put 2 of them in hospital.

The Public order unit (riot police) were there in Bellanaboy on friday. They were on stand by in case there was a genuine riot. They were not needed because the protesters were at no point any threat to the safety of the gardai who you have so much sympathy for. If the protesters were so violent as you claim, why did the riot police stay in their Bus?

I can see this escalating further and it is the protesters who will force an increase in violence.

As many people have said the Gardai are bound by law to enforce it. Preventing the free passage of people going to work is against the law and force may be used to prevent this.

The protesters will force an escalation of violence from the police? Are you listening to yourself? They are supposed to keep the peace, not escalate violence. The Gardai have the power to arrest, they do not have the right to assault peaceful protesters. they are only allowed to use reasonable force and then only in defence of themselves or others. What they did on friday, and on numerous other occasions over the last 2 months, was nothing other than state thugary. They have been doing their research, they know how shell expects the local police force to respond to threats to their profits.

A Dub in Glasgo

No matter what the police do, there will always be people who can see them do no wrong.

bonkey

redspider wrote:

Yes, it is possible to protest and not block the road. People can protest at home and stay silent, and no-one would notice. Wake Up, people have been protested by blocking/disrupting roads/traffic since time immemorial.

Wake up? I'm sorry, but I don't accept alternatives being ineffectual as a reason to make breaking the law acceptable. I do not accept others having broken the law for this reason in the past as a reason to make breaking the law acceptable.

If you as a protestor choose to break the law to make your protest, then you should expect to be held accountable for breaking the law. If you as a policeman break the law in how you remove the protestors, you should equally be held accountable for breaking the law.

That people have been protesting in this manner for time beyond counting doesn't make it acceptable. If it did, then the police breaking such protests using extreme force should also be acceptable on the grounds of it being a well-established practice that's been used for, oh, some similarly long period of time.

Same for effect. I don't see anyone here saying "well, if the police couldn't clear it up effectively within the law, then its ok for them to step outside the law". But when it comes to protestors...suddenly the law is supposed to play second fiddle to getting the job done?

I'm not buying it.

The Gardai 'blue flue' protest blocked roads, the recent Taxi one did the same 'effectively' reducing O'Connell street to 2 lanes in total and causing jams, etc, preventing people from getting to their work, home, etc.

And by your logic, all of these were good and reasonable things. Indeed, your logic would suggest that you supported the police when they went out on blue flue, because hey....breaking the law to protest is all good. Right?

I have not heard all the details of the issue(s).
...
That aside, should the Gardai resources be dedicated to helping Shell so much?

I'd suggest that until you've heard all the details of the issues, you're not in a position to meaningfully ask that question.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

No matter what the police do, there will always be people who can see them do no wrong.

And vice versa...

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

If you want to complain about wasting tax payers money, you should focus your attention on the massive oppressive gardai presence. The amount of overtime these guys are making for the few weeks they have been there is probably more than the entire yearly income for someone on social welfare.

Take off your blinkers and you'll see the cost is directly the blame of the unreasonable protestors.
If there were no Gardaí there, people would be unlawfully prohibited from going to their place of work.

A Dub in Glasgo

Tristrame wrote:

And vice versa...

I don't disagree with that

constitutionus

Tristrame wrote:

Take off your blinkers and you'll see the cost is directly the blame of the unreasonable protestors.
If there were no Gardaí there, people would be unlawfully prohibited from going to their place of work.

acutally it think you'll find its bertie ahern who violated standard practice and decided to waive the cost for the police to shell in what he called was "the best interests of the irish people". so our taxpayers money is being spent cause bertie thinks we should. any other government would charge shell

pete

Tristrame wrote:

I think you'll find (and you should know) that a clerical officer in the DFSW has the option to disagree with you.

Perhaps they might, but Clerical Officers are not Deciding Officers (or at least they weren't the last time I checked) and as such, have no role to play in assessing the validity or eligibility of a claim. If the customer does not agree with the (actual) Deciding Officer's decision, there is a comprehensive appeals process which would adhere to the regulations regarding qualifying criteria as I've set them out.

At the very least,an unemployed person who is away from their abode should inform the department that they are taking one of their allowed holidays.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I doubt you're alone in thinking this way, but as far as I'm aware no such restrictions on the freedom of movement of the unemployed within the State are in place.

Decades ago, there was a requirement to sign on 5 days a week to prove one's availability for work on each specific day, but as the profile of the workforce (and by extension, the unemployed) changed, this was relaxed to weekly signing, then monthly. I believe it's now once every two months, depending on the individual's circumstances (say, in the case of casual workers), although I could be wrong on that.

The regulations covering the allowed two weeks "holidays" are there for a number of reasons. By filling in a "holiday form", the claimant may miss a designated signing-on appointment. The claimant to leave the country (for two weeks) but still be considered to be available for work within the state. Perhaps most importantly for the customer, an approved holiday form enables the claimaint to be paid in advance. The 'holiday form' procedures were only ever seen as necessary for trips of one or two week's duration.

On the other hand, if an unemployed person chose to temporarily relocate to Galway in order to facilitate their participation in a protest, all they need do is notify the local social welfare office of the change of address & their claim would be transferred to that office. They would then be free to attend whatever meetings, rallys or protests they chose to, provided of course that they still met the three qualifying criteria (fit for work, genuinely seeking work & available for work).

A couple of hours attending a meeting / rally / protest could not reasonably be seen as being a breach of any of these criteria - you might as well tell the unemployed not to go window shopping, because they should be available for & seeking work at every available opportunity!

However, as I understand the regulations (at least the ones in effect over the course of my 4 years working at the coalface in a social welfare office), being part of some kind of permanent protest would mean one was no longer available for work. Think Greenham Common, living in a tree outside an embassy or chaining oneself to railings.

I disagree strongly.
I pay my taxes which pays unemployed people so they can lawfully go about looking for work.

1. Whatever about those on Unemployment Assistance, recipients of Unemployment Benefit have paid their own taxes and social welfare contributions - that's how they qualified for Unemployment Benefit in the first place!

2. The unemployed are not "paid" to seek work - they receive an income support from the State because they are unemployed. In order to receive said support, they must be meet the qualifying criteria (see above) - how you or I think they should be spending their time has no bearing on their qualifying for payment.

Unless they are on one of their holidays (which I very much doubt) they are not doing that which they are being paid by the state to do,if they are in Ballinaboy protesting.

Once again: they are not paid to seek work; they are free to move around the State as they see fit.

Worse than that, they are breaking the law by blocking the road if thats what they are doing in ballinaboy and they are making benefit wrongfully of my taxes to do so.

Being a criminal is not grounds for disallowance of a social welfare claim.


I should qualify all of this by saying that it's quite a long time since i worked for the (then) Department of Social Welfare, so some things may have changed. I'm open to correction on any points.

oscarBravo

redspider wrote:

...it would seem to be reasonable for them to block the workers on this site...

Why would that be reasonable? If I developed a grudge against your employer, and consequently prevented you from going to work, would you consider that reasonable?

redspider wrote:

My understanding is that an off-shore terminal could be built instead but it would cost Shell more money, in the region of 100 million or something or perhaps less. But given that Shell make billions of profit each year, this should be well within their scope of capital investment.

My understanding is that the principal objection to the offshore terminal is that it would be a much more hazardous workplace - a "health and safety" issue that the protestors don't seem to want to take into account.

oscarBravo

constitutionus wrote:

acutally it think you'll find its bertie ahern who violated standard practice and decided to waive the cost for the police to shell in what he called was "the best interests of the irish people". so our taxpayers money is being spent cause bertie thinks we should. any other government would charge shell

I've asked the question in a previous thread - why should Shell pay for protection from lawbreakers? Perhaps the inhabitants of Moyross should be paying for extra policing?

Blackjack

oscarBravo wrote:

My understanding is that the principal objection to the offshore terminal is that it would be a much more hazardous workplace - a "health and safety" issue that the protestors don't seem to want to take into account.

I would have thought their Principal objection was the 100 Million cost. Does not deter them from Planting Rigs in the not quite so calm North Sea and other areas when if comes to Health and Safety.

A Dub in Glasgo

oscarBravo wrote:

I've asked the question in a previous thread - why should Shell pay for protection from lawbreakers? Perhaps the inhabitants of Moyross should be paying for extra policing?

What is your view on this type of thing?

pete

pete wrote:

Perhaps they might, but Clerical Officers are not Deciding Officers (or at least they weren't the last time I checked) and as such, have no role to play in assessing the validity or eligibility of a claim. If the customer does not agree with the (actual) Deciding Officer's decision, there is a comprehensive appeals process which would adhere to the regulations regarding qualifying criteria as I've set them out.

Your description of the process is clear enough but doesnt remove the fact that unemployed people on a protest arent making themselves available for work and arent doing what they are supposed to be doing(searching for work) if they are at Ballinaboy unless they are on a declared holiday.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I doubt you're alone in thinking this way, but as far as I'm aware no such restrictions on the freedom of movement of the unemployed within the State are in place.

Of course an unemployed person has as much right as anyone else to go where they like when they like,but that does not proclude them from facing the consequences which could be a sanction of their subsidy from the Department.

On the other hand, if an unemployed person chose to temporarily relocate to Galway in order to facilitate their participation in a protest, all they need do is notify the local social welfare office of the change of address & their claim would be transferred to that office. They would then be free to attend whatever meetings, rallys or protests they chose to, provided of course that they still met the three qualifying criteria (fit for work, genuinely seeking work & available for work).

You'd be confident that an unemployed person would inform the department of a temporary move for that protest? I wouldn't.

A couple of hours attending a meeting / rally / protest could not reasonably be seen as being a breach of any of these criteria - you might as well tell the unemployed not to go window shopping, because they should be available for & seeking work at every available opportunity!

Not like and like by a long shot.

1. Whatever about those on Unemployment Assistance, recipients of Unemployment Benefit have paid their own taxes and social welfare contributions - that's how they qualified for Unemployment Benefit in the first place!

Well its all one pool and I'd rather my percentage of it wasnt going to fraud.What you wish for yours is what you wish.

2. The unemployed are not "paid" to seek work - they receive an income support from the State because they are unemployed. In order to receive said support, they must be meet the qualifying criteria (see above) - how you or I think they should be spending their time has no bearing on their qualifying for payment.

In other words they are paid to seek work.

Once again: they are not paid to seek work; they are free to move around the State as they see fit.

Once again they are paid to seek work,they wouldnt be paid if they weren't seeking work.The fact that the payment provides for them whilst out of work is immaterial to what it is subsidising them to do.They couldnt do it without it unless they have savings/redundancy or whatever and that would/could run out leaving most in the need for the subsidy.

Being a criminal is not grounds for disallowance of a social welfare claim.

Well my point would be that,it would be rich for them to be protesting the use of Taxpayers monies to keep them from blocking the road if they are there whilst being subsidised for doing something that they are supposed to be doing but not doing ie looking for work.

pete

Tristrame wrote:

Your description of the process is clear enough but doesnt remove the fact that unemployed people on a protest arent making themselves available for work and arent doing what they are supposed to be doing(searching for work) if they are at Ballinaboy unless they are on a declared holiday.

No offence, Tristrame, but you're just wrong. Notwithstanding its change of name from "Unemployment Assistance" to "Job Seekers Allowance" last month (ref: Social Welfare Law Reform & Pensions Act 2006), being on UA and doing stuff other than looking for a job 24/7 are not mutually exclusive.

The concept of a "declared holiday" doesn't really exist as such. It's not like applying for a day's leave from work, and considering people now only actually have to present themselves to sign on once every four weeks it's not hard to see why.

What is in place is a reasonable mechanism to facilitate unemployed people to take a 1 or 2 week holiday without them being automatically disqualified for not being resident in the state, or otherwise unavailable for work.

There's a pretty comprehensive explanation of UA here, with more on Oasis.

Of course an unemployed person has as much right as anyone else to go where they like when they like,but that does not proclude them from facing the consequences which could be a sanction of their subsidy from the Department.

What sanction, and on what basis? (Based in fact, not opinion, preferably.)

You'd be confident that an unemployed person would inform the department of a temporary move for that protest? I wouldn't.

Completely irrelevant - the point is that they can move to Galway if they so wish.

Not like and like by a long shot.

Why not? Because you say so?

So, just to clarify - by your logic, the unemployed are either spending every waking hour looking for a job or else they're not and should be disqualified.

So if Joe Dole goes into town tomorrow morning, rather than scouring the classifieds looking for a job, then that's ok, but if Joe Dole goes to a protest tomorrow morning, rather than scouring the classifieds looking for a job, then that's not ok?

Well its all one pool and I'd rather my percentage of it wasnt going to fraud.What you wish for yours is what you wish.

Fraud? Where?

In other words they are paid to seek work.

No, they are "paid" to exist between jobs, the understanding being that they will make reasonable efforts to seek work while not unreasonably turning down reasonable offers of employment. Don't believe me? Lets ask a man not known for being a soft touch:

Charlie McCreevy, Oireachtas Debate, 1992 wrote:

The underlying purpose of the unemployment assistance scheme, which is a means-tested social assistance scheme, is to assist people who are out of work by ensuring that they have an income which is in line with their needs as determined by legislation.

Once again they are paid to seek work

Incorrect. See above McCreevy quote if you still don't believe me.

,they wouldnt be paid if they weren't seeking work.

Correct, this being one of the basic qualifying criteria.

The fact that the payment provides for them whilst out of work is immaterial to what it is subsidising them to do.

Incorrect. See above McCreevy quote.

They couldnt do it without it unless they have savings/redundancy or whatever and that would/could run out leaving most in the need for the subsidy.

If by "do it" you mean "exist" then yes.

Well my point would be that,it would be rich for them to be protesting the use of Taxpayers monies to keep them from blocking the road if they are there whilst being subsidised for doing something that they are supposed to be doing but not doing ie looking for work.

Hang on - are you objecting because they're not looking for work, or because they're not available for work? Not that it matters, since you've yet to show how standing on a road in Galway for a couple of hours in the early morning either prevents one from applying for a job or accepting one if offered.

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote:

Why would that be reasonable? If I developed a grudge against your employer, and consequently prevented you from going to work, would you consider that reasonable?

This is why we have courts. You might very well think it reasonable to block your employers workplace on the basis of a grudge, And if that happens, you should be arrested and released on bail and allowed to pursue the matter through an independent court arbitration system. In the case of the Friday protests, The gardai did not arrest a single person, they just assaulted them in a blatant abuse of uniform, and it was calculated, by those in control, to achieve immediate objectives with the lowest level of long term consequences. If all these people were acting so illegally, why were they not arrested? We abolished corporal punishment decades ago, and centuries ago we collectively decided that people had a right to a fair hearing above any arbitrary summary judgement as decided on by a power hungry uniformed officer of the state.

My understanding is that the principal objection to the offshore terminal is that it would be a much more hazardous workplace - a "health and safety" issue that the protestors don't seem to want to take into account.

The primary argument against the offshore terminal is that it is 'uniquely uneconomically viable' The only arguments that have been put forward by shell are 'Either you do it our way, or we won't do it at all' which is more than enough to scare off lunatic right wingers (including the government). But it is not their real position. If we refuse to allow them to build their on-shore terminal (which is well within our rights as a sovereign nation), they would not abandon their project. They have an extremely cushy deal.
If we had a government with even a tiny bit of dignity, they would call Shell's bluff and refuse their on-shore terminal and if Shell still refuse to move their refinery offshore, they should allow the corrupt Ray Burke/Frank Fahey contract to lapse and then nationalise the resources that we now know are there with obvious benefits for the entire nation.

Akrasia

Tristrame wrote:

Your description of the process is clear enough but doesnt remove the fact that unemployed people on a protest arent making themselves available for work and arent doing what they are supposed to be doing(searching for work) if they are at Ballinaboy unless they are on a declared holiday.Of course an unemployed person has as much right as anyone else to go where they like when they like,but that does not proclude them from facing the consequences which could be a sanction of their subsidy from the Department.
You'd be confident that an unemployed person would inform the department of a temporary move for that protest? I wouldn't.
Not like and like by a long shot.
Well its all one pool and I'd rather my percentage of it wasnt going to fraud.What you wish for yours is what you wish.
In other words they are paid to seek work.


Once again they are paid to seek work,they wouldnt be paid if they weren't seeking work.The fact that the payment provides for them whilst out of work is immaterial to what it is subsidising them to do.They couldnt do it without it unless they have savings/redundancy or whatever and that would/could run out leaving most in the need for the subsidy.
Well my point would be that,it would be rich for them to be protesting the use of Taxpayers monies to keep them from blocking the road if they are there whilst being subsidised for doing something that they are supposed to be doing but not doing ie looking for work.

So basically, If I'm unemployed and My mother dies suddenly, I have no right to go to her funeral, Or if I'm unemployed and I get sick and have to spend a week in hospital, I should be docked that week in UA because I'm unavailable for work. Or how about if I'm unemployed and someone buys me a ticket to a performance by my favourite musician for my birthday, I shouldn't be allowed to go because I have to be 100% of the time waiting by the phone in case someone calls me to offer me a job. Should I also leave all my shopping and doctors appointments until after 6pm too? after all, I should be looking for a job for a full 38 hours a week in order to earn my full €165 pw fortune from the government. (that €4.30 an hour is such a privilege, how dare an unemployed person abuse it.)

pete

Akrasia wrote:

Or if I'm unemployed and I get sick and have to spend a week in hospital, I should be docked that week in UA because I'm unavailable for work.

Actually, yes. You're unavailable for work therefore you don't qualify, so its off to the local community welfare officer with you for a Supplementary Welfare Allowance payment.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

So basically, If I'm unemployed and My mother dies suddenly, I have no right to go to her funeral, Or if I'm unemployed and I get sick and have to spend a week in hospital, I should be docked that week in UA

Stop coming up with the dramatic.
Thats not what I said at all and you should know it.
A medical cert is a legitimate excuse not to be looking for work or for time off a job as is a close family death or even a friend.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making.

pete

Before I start on this Reply,I think it's important to note,we are discussing a hypothetical here as none of us actually knows whether there are unemployed people protesting at Ballinaboy.We are commenting on the rights/wrongs of them doing so and in relation to mike65's post.

pete wrote:

No offence, Tristrame, but you're just wrong. Notwithstanding its change of name from "Unemployment Assistance" to "Job Seekers Allowance" last month (ref: Social Welfare Law Reform & Pensions Act 2006), being on UA and doing stuff other than looking for a job 24/7 are not mutually exclusive.

The concept of a "declared holiday" doesn't really exist as such. It's not like applying for a day's leave from work, and considering people now only actually have to present themselves to sign on once every four weeks it's not hard to see why.

What is in place is a reasonable mechanism to facilitate unemployed people to take a 1 or 2 week holiday without them being automatically disqualified for not being resident in the state, or otherwise unavailable for work.

There's a pretty comprehensive explanation of UA here, with more on Oasis.

You've again given me no reason to back up your assertion that UB or UA is not a subsidy for job seeking.

What sanction, and on what basis? (Based in fact, not opinion, preferably.)

Well if you're not available for work and swanning off on a protest somewhere(as distinct from being on holiday or sick) that would disqualify you from UA would it not?
If you are on UB for more than a few months and were left off from a low paying job,your contributions may not exceed your claims and ergo you are swanning off on someone elses tax money.

Completely irrelevant - the point is that they can move to Galway if they so wish.

Convenient of you to say that isn't it,I asked you do you think they'd inform Welfare that they were going down to Ballinaboy for the day and you say it's irrelevant.It's not.

Why not? Because you say so?

Because taking a Bus away from your home area to swan off for a day protesting would be so much effort than doing what is a normal every day thing like shopping.
As I say you are not comparing like with like.

So, just to clarify - by your logic, the unemployed are either spending every waking hour looking for a job or else they're not and should be disqualified.

Not every waking minute,just a reasonable proportion of the working day/week.If not they are being subsidised for doing something which they are not.

So if Joe Dole goes into town tomorrow morning, rather than scouring the classifieds looking for a job, then that's ok, but if Joe Dole goes to a protest tomorrow morning, rather than scouring the classifieds looking for a job, then that's not ok?

Joe Dole could maintain he was shopping and could maintain he was looking for work that day.Spending the whole of it at the side of the Road in Ballinaboy,he could not.
So there is a significant difference.
One is ok and the other is taking the mick.

Fraud? Where?

UA. (note again, this is all hypothetical as neither you or I know if there were/are unemployed people down there in Ballinaboy-we're just speculating on the rights and wrongs of it , in relation to mike65's post)

No, they are "paid" to exist between jobs, the understanding being that they will make reasonable efforts to seek work while not unreasonably turning down reasonable offers of employment. Don't believe me? Lets ask a man not known for being a soft touch: Charlie MCCreevy said...

Ie another one of the myriad of ways you can say , they're being subsidised to look for work.Isn't language great.

Incorrect. See above McCreevy quote if you still don't believe me.

Your McCreevy quote only says the same thing as me in a different way.So I am correct.

If by "do it" you mean "exist" then yes.

Which is why they get a subsidy to look for suitable work.

Hang on - are you objecting because they're not looking for work, or because they're not available for work? Not that it matters, since you've yet to show how standing on a road in Galway for a couple of hours in the early morning either prevents one from applying for a job or accepting one if offered.

It's quite simple-being there you are not available for work and being there you are not actively looking for work.
As for a few hours,that would depend on where you came from and how many protest days you attended.
This roadside party has been going on a long time now.
If an unemployed person was there for the entire, they're not unemployed,they're closer to being a professional protester.
But then this is hypothetical as we don't know the occupations of the protesters.

verbatim

Akrasia wrote:

The protesters violently 'rammed' the Gardai with a car that was moving at 1 mph at most and the police were 'restrained' when they broke the ribs and thumbs of protesters, gave at least one person concussion and put 2 of them in hospital.

Half the people injured at the protest were Gardai. Just why did one of your mates assault a female Garda giving her a head injury? Peaceful my arse!