Shell to Sea versus the Gardaí

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

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.

And if that didn't work (as I believe it wouldn't), we'd then get to hear the likes of yourself complain about how irreperably stupid, corrupt and idiotic our government were that they couldn't make a viable business out of a nationalised resource.

I wonder if, at that point, we'd see you posting about how our government should :

- leave the stuff in the ground. Sure its horrible to the environment any which way.
- sell it to a private concern who would develop it privately, but not be spelled Shell.

pete

Tristrame wrote:

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

Well that's a bit rich now, isn't it. If my referencing sources like welfare.ie, Oasis.gov.ie and a Charlie bloody McCreevy speech isn't enough for you then I don't know what else I could reasonably be expected to do. How about you reciprocate and give some reason to support your assertation? Something other than your own opinion, please. You know - facts, verifiable sources, that sort of thing.

As I've said before, I'm open to correction on anything I've posted. (note: "you're wrong because I say so" does not count as a correction)

Well if you're not available for work

Says who? You, or the social welfare regulations i've highlighted and linked to on a number of occasions?

and swanning off on a protest somewhere(as distinct from being on holiday or sick) that would disqualify you from UA would it not?

To the best of my knowledge, it would not (subject to the clarifications in my previous posts re: making oneself unavailable eg by being a permanent part of a permanent protest). Unless you've got information that says otherwise I see no reason to revise my interpretation.

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.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. Also, "swanning off" does not appear in any social welfare regulations I've ever seen.

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.

Of course its irrelevant - the point is the unemployed are just as free to move to wherever they please within the state as you or I (subject to their not deliberately moving to a location which would have no possibilities of finding employment, i believe), not whether or not an unnamed individual may or may not have notified the department of an actual change of residence!!!!

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.

In your opinion. But it's not your opinion (or mine) that counts - its the regulations.

You seem to be missing the point that sometimes people might be in a position to do things because they're unemployed, rather than being unemployed because they do these things.

In my own experience I'm not aware of anyone being ruled as unavailable for work or otherwise disqualified on a given day simply because they attended a meeting, gathering or protest (held within the state).

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.
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.

You're effectively that the unemployed should either limit themselves to jobseeking, or to some other activity you agree with. If one takes an absolutist view of the qualifying criteria then your position might be tenable. However the regulations themselves use phrases like "reasonable efforts" - hardly conducive to one seeking to take a black or white position.

Our hypothetical Joe Dole's presence in Location B today has zero impact on the job applications he made yesterday, nor does it prevent him from taking up an offer of employment should one arise. Should he refuse a reasonable offer of employment, or should he cease making reasonable efforts to seek employment, then he is in breach of the regulations and should be disqualified, but the simple fact of being at a protest on a given day is no more reason for disqualification than being at the beach on that same day.

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)


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

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

uhhh sorry, but i can't see the bit that says "we're paying them to look for work".

'Genuinely seeking', 'available for' and 'fit for' work are the defining conditions of unemployment for the purposes of identifying who is or isn't entitled to the specific income support defined in legislation as UA / JSA. But this does not change the underlying purpose of the payment - that is, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to enable those unfortunate enough to be out of work to have enough money to survive.

That they continue to make themselves available for, and that they continue to seek work are the recipients end of the bargain. If one does not qualify for UA (for whatever reason) there are other income supports available. For example, should someone be found not to meet one of the above conditions, they are no longer entitled to UA. But the State doesn't just cut off all income at this point - an individual disqualified from UA / JSA can still make a claim for Supplementary Welfare Allowance from their health board (albeit payable at a lower rate than that which they would have received on UA, iirc). At no time does the State says "You MUST look for work or starve".

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

Please provide a source for this statement as I am genuinely curious to know if the underlying ethos has been revised along with the name.

Until I see different, my 4 years of actual real life, dept social welfare employee, first-hand, employment exchange experience trumps your "because i say so". (If it turns out that you're actually a PO in DSW policy unit, well then that's different!)

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.

But what we do know are the regulations governing qualification for UA / JSA (aka: the facts) and i fail to see how they provide a basis for your statements.

Here are some examples from my own first hand experience:

Taking classes = unavailable for work
Being a carer = unavailable for work
Refusing to take a job because you're minding a child = unavailable for work
Doing voluntary work = unavailable for work

Sitting in a park = available for work
Sitting at home = available for work
Being in Galway = available for work

Apologies if this post is a bit fractured and reads like it was written in chunks over a 4 hour period.... that would be because it was.

Actually now that i've typed all that, i have to say it wouldn't surprise me one bit if our glorius leaders had moved the goalposts in the intervening years since i left social welfare.

edit: Also, and this is speaking generally, I wonder how our constitutional rights regarding "free assembly" conflicts with the availability for work issue...

The Constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) guarantees your right in Ireland to assemble or meet peacefully and without weapons. This right is limited by legislation to protect public order and morality. The law prevents or controls meetings that are calculated or designed to cause a riot or breach of the peace.

There are other limitations on your freedom of assembly. You cannot meet on private property without the consent of the owner - that is trespass. Parades and processions are not illegal but it is a public nuisance to obstruct a highway. You may not hold a procession or meeting within one-half mile of the Oireachtas (Irish houses of parliament) when it has been prohibited by the Gardai or you have been asked to disperse.

constitutionus

Tristrame wrote:

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.

actualy once again your wrong, force majour is givin at the pleasure of your employer. you dont have a legal entitalment to attend the funeral of your parents or friends. you really should investigate this stuff

Manic Moran

The protesters violently 'rammed' the Gardai with a car that was moving at 1 mph at most

When an item that weighs in at a ton plus meets something light, soft and squishy like a Garda, even at only 1mph, that item will win. If the only way to stop the vehicle and get the person out is to smash the windows in and drag her out, then it still applies.

NTM

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

actualy once again your wrong, force majour is givin at the pleasure of your employer. you dont have a legal entitalment to attend the funeral of your parents or friends. you really should investigate this stuff

What are you on about??
No employer or Department that I'm aware of would refuse leave to attend the funeral of a parent.The department might even give you a funeral grant.

pete wrote:

Well that's a bit rich now, isn't it. If my referencing sources like welfare.ie, Oasis.gov.ie and a Charlie bloody McCreevy speech isn't enough for you then I don't know what else I could reasonably be expected to do. How about you reciprocate and give some reason to support your assertation? Something other than your own opinion, please. You know - facts, verifiable sources, that sort of thing.

I don't have to as you've done it for me.Everything you've referenced points to the payments being a subsidy for seeking a job when you don't have one.Thats what I've stated it is,and thats what you've ironically stated it is as well whether you like it or not.
How much clearer do you want it?

pete wrote:

pedanticism and stuff etc etc....

This is not the thread to be asking a heap of what if this,what if that etc etc vis a vis whether it means you are a job seeker or not.
It's a thread about the Gardaí and Ballinaboy.
The only relevance here is on the side issue of whether its right or not for someone on the dole to be spending their time on a protest as opposed to looking for work.
You can argue all you like as to the rights and wrongs of that,I'll still be of the view that it is wrong as the unemployed person is in receipt of a subsidy to be looking for work and not protesting well away from where they can work.

A Dub in Glasgo

Tristrame wrote:

The only relevance here is on the side issue of whether its right or not for someone on the dole to be spending their time on a protest as opposed to looking for work.
You can argue all you like as to the rights and wrongs of that,I'll still be of the view that it is wrong as the unemployed person is in receipt of a subsidy to be looking for work and not protesting well away from where they can work.

Surely that view can be applied to a myriad of activities that unemployed people do that falls outwith your view of what entails 'looking for work'.

I was made redundant last year and was signing on for 5 months. In that time, I managed to sit my way through plenty of my DVDs during the day with the surround sound system turned up loud. Be an unpaid chauffeur for my wife to go shopping (window). Pick the kids up from School & nursery. Visit plenty of the free museums & galleries in Glasgow. Take day trips to Edinburgh, Stirling & Loch Lomond.

In between all that, I also managed to browse the job sites/job publications, apply for jobs, brush up my CV, brush up my interview technique and attend interviews when called. 'Looking for work' is not a 24 hour/7 days a week activity you know.

Edit. When I eventually got a job, I was working 220 miles from where I lived!

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Surely that view can be applied to a myriad of activities that unemployed people do that falls outwith your view of what entails 'looking for work'.

I was made redundant last year and was signing on for 5 months. In that time, I managed to sit my way through plenty of my DVDs during the day with the surround sound system turned up loud. Be an unpaid chauffeur for my wife to go shopping. Pick the kids up from School & nursery. Visit plenty of the free museums & galleries in Glasgow. Take day trips to Edinburgh, Stirling & Loch Lomond.

In between all that, I also managed to browse the job sites/job publications, apply for jobs, brush up my CV, brush up my interview technique and attend interviews when called. 'Looking for work' is not a 24 hour/7 days a week activity you know.

Good for you.

What I'm getting at all the time here is,that I'm pretty sure if someone told the dept of SW that they were going to be spending a few or many or any days protesting at Ballinaboy,what would you think the department would make of it? They wouldn't be saying fire ahead.
I know they could be doing it without telling the Department and get away with it.But not if they told them.
It would be a self declaration of unavailability for work during the working day and a day not spent looking for work.
The other issue I'm getting at is that as a taxpayer I dont want to be subsidising any UA beneficiaries to be spending the day swanning around Ballinaboy causing more of my tax Euro's to be spent keeping them from breaking the law.

Of course I'm not even mentioning the fact that theres so much work available in this country at the moment, that anyone fit enough to be shouting and roaring like I saw on the news the other evening,yet unemployed and joining in the pushing the van morally should be working at anything rather than codding the taxpayer into subsiding law breaking.

bonkey

Heh...taking an interesting side angle...

If there were unemployed on the protest, and Shell offered them a job....can they refus?

oscarBravo

Blackjack wrote:

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.

I'm open to correction, but I don't think any of the North Sea rigs are refineries; they are drilling platforms that deliver oil to onshore refineries.

oscarBravo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

What is your view on this type of thing?

It really is a fundamentally different set of circumstances. Cash in transit is an extremely high-value, high-risk target for armed criminals. There is an absolute requirement to defend against these armed criminals with armed protection. Such armed protection pretty much can't exist in this country, so the protection has to come from the army, and the banks are paying what they would have to pay a private armed security firm, were such a firm to be allowed to exist.

The fact that the banks are paying for this protection is not proof that Shell should pay for Garda protection, any more than the fact that the Beckhams pay for bodyguards means that I should have to pay the Gardaí to protect me from assault.

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote:

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.

OK - so you agree the protestors should be arrested and charged for preventing people from going to work?

Akrasi wrote:

If all these people were acting so illegally, why were they not arrested?

I'd love to know that too.

Your question is phrased in such a way as to imply that they were not behaving illegally, so let me put the question to you again - if I blocked a road to prevent you from going to work, would you consider that illegal? If I pushed a van at you, would you consider that assault? Is there a particular speed the van would have to be doing before you would be concerned about it?

Blackjack

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm open to correction, but I don't think any of the North Sea rigs are refineries; they are drilling platforms that deliver oil to onshore refineries.

Where is the Kinsale Gas refined?.

Manic Moran

oscarBravo wrote:

I'd love to know that too.

There is a school of thought that says that arrests should only be made when there are no lesser options available. (I'm not saying that the Gardai have such a policy, but other organisations do). There are advantages for both the police and the transgressors: The police are burdened with less work, and the transgressors don't end up with an arrest record or have to spend a few hours of their day in a holding cell.

NTM

oscarBravo

Blackjack wrote:

Where is the Kinsale Gas refined?.

Good point - it seems to happen offshore. I can't find exact details of the difference between the two operations. Can anyone explain why the Corrib field would be uniquely economically unviable to refine offshore compared to Kinsale?

Manic Moran

oscarBravo wrote:

Good point - it seems to happen offshore. I can't find exact details of the difference between the two operations. Can anyone explain why the Corrib field would be uniquely economically unviable to refine offshore compared to Kinsale?

Apparently, Kinsale gas isn't actually refined. As I hunt around, Kinsale Alpha is described has having a compression and dehydration process, but from that point until it enters the Bord Gais network there is no refining. The Petro/chem websites are claiming that the gas at Corrib is 'similar' to Kinsale's, but not identical. Perhaps that field needs refining and Kinsale's doesn't?

NTM

Blackjack

Manic Moran wrote:

Apparently, Kinsale gas isn't actually refined. As I hunt around, Kinsale Alpha is described has having a compression and dehydration process, but from that point until it enters the Bord Gais network there is no refining. The Petro/chem websites are claiming that the gas at Corrib is 'similar' to Kinsale's, but not identical. Perhaps that field needs refining and Kinsale's doesn't?

NTM

I highly doubt that somehow. How would they add the smell, to highlight it's presence to us? .

banaman

Aside from the rights and wrongs of Shell and a citizen's right to peaceful protest(I presume we still have that right in our democracy).

Why should it be acceptable for any group to physically attack another unarmed group merely because the latter are exercising a right in a way the former object to?

This was unprovoked agrression by the agents of the State, presumably acting on orders from someone with authority) on citizens of the State. If the Chinese or Iranian police had done this and been filmed we would have heard outcry from far and wide.

Citizens in democracies have rights. These rights are supposed to be guaranteed in law. These laws are supposed to be impartially maintained and enforced by the police.

If the police are used to intimidate those who's actionbs the state dislikes but which are not illegal then its ceases to be a true free democracy.
It becomes closer to a police state.

What ever happened to the notion of policing by consent?
Remember the miner's stike in the UK? Arhtur Scargill told no lies and Tatcher and her backers got everything they wanted. Blair is very much a child of Thatcherism.

I thought Garda Siochana meant keeper of the peace. Strange irony there I think.

panda100

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.

sovtek wrote:

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

Funniest thing ive ever read on boards. She was driving a car towards a group of individuals with the intent of causing harm. She should be arrested in my honest opinion. How can shell protestors still say they are holding a peacful protest when one of their leaders is encouraging this type of behaviour.

sovtek wrote:

and how many gardai have been injured so far

Actually in indymedia there is many pictures of guards with bloody noses etc and on TV3 I could clearly see blood from many gardai

'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'

I couldnt agree more with this. I have written on indymedia numerous times asking how they feel these violent protests are helping their cause and all I ever get is a tirade of insults. If the shell to sea campaigners keep up these protest they are losing the support of Irish people and the only way they will win this battle is with the help of the Irish poeple. Bertie ,the goverment and shell dont give a crap about these ineffective protests or somone falling into a ditch on the rossport roadside. All he cares about is votes and to do this he needs to keep the Irish people happy. So if Ireland get behind the Rossport campaign Bertie will be moved to do something about it.



.

Manic Moran

panda100 wrote:

She was driving a car towards a group of individuals with the intent of causing harm.

In fairness, it wasn't with the intent of causing harm. If she really wanted to ram a few Gardai, she could have just put her foot down. It was done with the intent of civil disobedience.

NTM

inchbyinch

Hi all reading this with interest.

Just a quick point on the difference between the terminal in Kinsale and the proposed terminal in Mayo.

The terminal on the alpha platform processes the gas (decompresses it, takes any impurities such as dirt from the drilling process out of it and drys it out) and then pipes the gas to shore. there is an odour added to this then for safety when it comes ashore.

In Mayo there will be a submersed drilling unit (1500ft below sea level) and the gas will be brought to shore where the same process will be carried out. the odour will then be put into the gas before it enters the high pressure gas network.

Putting the odour in at high pressure is seen as over kill, and is normally carried out before gas is delivered to towns and factories.

The reason there are differences is that the kinsale platform operates on the continental shelf at a depth some where in the region of 300ft where as the corrib gas field is just of the shelf at the afore mention depth of 1500ft! It would not be viable for anyone to operate a platform at in those conditions. It is at best an infant technology!

Blackjack wrote:

I highly doubt that somehow. How would they add the smell, to highlight it's presence to us? .

The reason the odour is added is for safety and exactly that so that people will be aware of it. Natural gas is odourless

Hope this answers some questions!
Inchy

Blackjack

inchbyinch wrote:

Hi all reading this with interest.

Just a quick point on the difference between the terminal in Kinsale and the proposed terminal in Mayo.

The terminal on the alpha platform processes the gas (decompresses it, takes any impurities such as dirt from the drilling process out of it and drys it out) and then pipes the gas to shore. there is an odour added to this then for safety when it comes ashore.

In Mayo there will be a submersed drilling unit (1500ft below sea level) and the gas will be brought to shore where the same process will be carried out. the odour will then be put into the gas before it enters the high pressure gas network.

Putting the odour in at high pressure is seen as over kill, and is normally carried out before gas is delivered to towns and factories.

The reason there are differences is that the kinsale platform operates on the continental shelf at a depth some where in the region of 300ft where as the corrib gas field is just of the shelf at the afore mention depth of 1500ft! It would not be viable for anyone to operate a platform at in those conditions. It is at best an infant technology!

The reason the odour is added is for safety so that people will be aware of it.

Hope this answers some questions!
Inchy

Any links to that?. I'm a bit surprised at he depth, and if you're speaking about depth of water to sea floor, then I would really like to see some proof of that.

inchbyinch

Apologies it's 1150ft(355m) aprox.(The last post was straight from memory) But I know thats an average figure on the website, I've seen a 3d graphic of the site and some of the well heads are below that again.

The gas itself is between 11,000 and 13,000 ft below sea level.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/corrib/corrib2.html

its pretty amazing stuff but thats only if your an engineering geek!!

secret_squirrel

Blackjack wrote:

Any links to that?. I'm a bit surprised at he depth, and if you're speaking about depth of water to sea floor, then I would really like to see some proof of that.

its 355m approx 1050ft.

from the site here


Edit : SNAP - I win!

Blackjack

thanks for the replies. Surely there are examples of these in this depth (1164 ft) of water and greater?.

civdef

Why should it be acceptable for any group to physically attack another unarmed group merely because the latter are exercising a right in a way the former object to?

It wouldn't be acceptable to attack a group who were just exercising their rights but..they weren't.

If the police are used to intimidate those who's actionbs the state dislikes but which are not illegal then its ceases to be a true free democracy.
It becomes closer to a police state.

Blocking a public road and refusing to desist from doing so is illegal.

sovtek

panda100 wrote:

Funniest thing ive ever read on boards. She was driving a car towards a group of individuals with the intent of causing harm. She should be arrested in my honest opinion. How can shell protestors still say they are holding a peacful protest when one of their leaders is encouraging this type of behaviour.

It's quite possible that those individuals were chucking people in ditches just prior and beating people with batons. I haven't seen the footage myself but I can easily imagine the scenario I proposed. I've seen that played out a few times already.
Can you imagine that someone might want to put a van between themselves and some cultchies swinging batons.
Police coming in and beating people might have something to do with it not being peaceful anymore. If it was peaceful before the garda arrive and then they started beating people then you can't put the blame on the protestors. How can McDowell keep his job if he condones this type of behavior from the guards?

'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'

So how does that defeat their purpose. Shell coming in and taking more than they give back is a major issue raised by protestors. That's an issue that the anti-globalisation movement are highlighting all the time.
I don't suppose you could imagine that people who oppose multinational corporations (especially ones who have been complicit in state murder in other parts of the world) taking resources from the people of one country might apply that to any corporation doing the same in someone elses country. One might also oppose their respective country also being complicit in a war to control the resources of someone elses country and possibly for the benefit of the same multinational corporation.

I couldnt agree more with this. I have written on indymedia numerous times asking how they feel these violent protests are helping their cause and all I ever get is a tirade of insults. If the shell to sea campaigners keep up these protest they are losing the support of Irish people and the only way they will win this battle is with the help of the Irish poeple. Bertie ,the goverment and shell dont give a crap about these ineffective protests or somone falling into a ditch on the rossport roadside. All he cares about is votes and to do this he needs to keep the Irish people happy. So if Ireland get behind the Rossport campaign Bertie will be moved to do something about it.

Bertie should give a crap when people are pushed into ditches and if he doesn't then there all the more reason to make a stink about it.

sovtek

civdef wrote:

It wouldn't be acceptable to attack a group who were just exercising their rights but..they weren't.

...and it's still not acceptable to attack them.

Blocking a public road and refusing to desist from doing so is illegal.

...but it's still not violent and it's not an excuse for violence against them.

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

...but it's still not violent and it's not an excuse for violence against them.

I don't think anyone has suggested on this thread that the police were correct to beat up the protestors. Well, maybe one or two have, but they're certainly not the main body of content in this thread.

Peolpe have questioned the allegations regarding what really happened. They've said that the police were correct and within their rights to break up the protest. They've said that the protestors were also acting illegally and should also be held accountable for their actions.

Some (myself amongst them) have said that if they stepped beyond the bounds of what is acceptable in the execution of their duty, then they should be held to task bearing in mind that allegations <> proof.

Where the whole punch-and-judy seems to be coming from is that enough posters on both sides won't accept that both criticisms are potentially true and valid :

- the protestors were acting in an illegal manner
- the police were acting in an illegal manner

To be honest, this is beginning to sound like a carbon-copy of a Palestine/Israel discussion, where tyopically only the tiny minority are willing to stand up and say "both sides are in the wrong", where most people want to stand on their soap-box of focussing only on the wrongness of whoever they don't support in this case.

As with the Palestinians in such a discussion, the protestors here seem to be getting more of the "but they sorta had a good reason to break the law, so its not really the same" line of so-called logic.

And for the record...going back to something that was mentioned in response to one of my earlier threads - no I do not accept that the police be held more accountable for their actions because its their job. The implication of this is that the average Joe may not always be held accountable for breaking the law and I do not accept this. Police can be help accountable 100% of the time, but no more. For that to be more accountable than a member of the public is merely a clever way of saying that Joe Q Sixpack should be allowed to break the law without recrimination in certain cases.

Find the details, punish the guilty.

Who's side anyone is on has nothing to do with it.

A Dub in Glasgo

bonkey wrote:

And for the record...going back to something that was mentioned in response to one of my earlier threads - no I do not accept that the police be held more accountable for their actions because its their job. The implication of this is that the average Joe may not always be held accountable for breaking the law and I do not accept this. Police can be help accountable 100% of the time, but no more. For that to be more accountable than a member of the public is merely a clever way of saying that Joe Q Sixpack should be allowed to break the law without recrimination in certain cases.

Fine sentiment regarding the accountability of state forces & Joe Public. Unfortunately, I think the reality is totally different wrt state forces.

Rock Climber

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

state forces.

Yeah Disband the Gardaí !

They're not accountable, they do what they like,theres never a tribunal,theres no inspectorate being set up.
People at large are telling their T.D's they're not happy with them,they only serve one community.
SF will never join the Gardaí board as the people of Moyross won't accept their juridiction...

Oh wait...















:rolleyes: