The Corrib gas project should be suspended

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

There should have been arrests, I don't know why there wasn't but they were lucky. But how do you propose they deal with them, they weren't going to just be arrested, they were resisting and not cooperating with the Gardai.

Because when you are arrested but haven't broken any laws, you can charge the arresting officer with false imprisonment. That may be the reason.

Edit: False imprisonment is a common-law felony btw. Doesn't look great on a CV after being sacked from the Garda Siochana.

NewVision

humanji wrote: »

The post is a bit difficult to read, so sorry if I'm assuming you mean something different.

You don't seem to understand that we have a contract with them. You can't just blackmail someone into changing it. If the minister decides to pause all processing to pressure Shell into renegotiating, Shell will tell him to f*ck right off. They'll take a tiny financial hit, but we won't be able to get anyone else to process the gas as Shell are still contracted to do it.

If we break the contract, we'll be sued. Other multinationals will run a mile from us because we can't be trusted. Those who will come to Ireland will enforce draconian deals that will make the Corrib gas field look like the deal of the century, and we'll be forced to accept because we won't have a choice.

The same I think of you, not understanding me.

The minister wouldn't break the contract, he would make use of it.

That gas is too valuable as it wouldn't be recoverd under just fairer circumstances.

oscarBravo

demonspawn wrote: »

No, I don't know differently. That's why I avoid spouting baseless speculation.

Ah, I see. In which case, your very next post will contain documentary evidence for this claim, I assume:

demonspawn wrote: »

Some people got fat brown envelopes for that deal with Shell and the Gardai are there to make sure Shell don't have to come back looking for those envelopes. Simple as.

demonspawn wrote: »

Why wasn't she charged? Probably because there was no evidence whatsoever that she actually drove into the cordon.

Apart from, you know, the video evidence and the testimony from the Gardaí who did so.

Well please try to restrain yourself from dragging this conversation down to a mud slinging match. Everyone else has done so up to now. If you have an argument, present it in a respectable fashion. It's called common courtesy.

If you have a problem with a post, report it. Read the charter before you post again - that's a moderator instruction.

NewVision

Winner - Best Feature Documentary - Waterford Film Festival 2009:

=> http://vimeo.com/8668733

demonspawn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, I see. In which case, your very next post will contain documentary evidence for this claim, I assume:

Some people got fat brown envelopes for that deal with Shell and the Gardai are there to make sure Shell don't have to come back looking for those envelopes. Simple as.

15 years of tribunals to investigate ministerial corruption and two words, Anglo Irish, says my post isn't baseless speculation.

Apart from, you know, the video evidence and the testimony from the Gardaí who did so.

In all fairness, there is no video evidence of her actually driving through the cordon. There is a video of her in the car then a shot of the cordon. Then there is a shot of Gardai smashing up the car like gorillas. Hell, I'll even post the video again. Please tell me at what point you see the vehicle moving forward through the cordon. I know it's difficult with the bulls**t commentary in the background. Surely with all those Gardai and video cameras someone got a good shot of her actually moving the vehicle forward through the cordon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz0zYd93nfo

And I won't bother reporting posts. I'll just finish this discussion with you.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

Because when you are arrested but haven't broken any laws, you can charge the arresting officer with false imprisonment. That may be the reason.

Edit: False imprisonment is a common-law felony btw. Doesn't look great on a CV after being sacked from the Garda Siochana.

Yet you said this in an earlier post

The Gardai can arrest anyone for disobeying an order to disperse, as these protesters were clearly doing.

So you acknowledge they were breaking the law and should have been arrested, then you say they shouldn't be?

oscarBravo

demonspawn wrote: »

15 years of tribunals to investigate ministerial corruption and two words, Anglo Irish, says my post isn't baseless speculation.

I'll take that as a "no" to the documentary evidence, then.

You're speculating as to the motives of the government and Shell; I'm speculating as to the motives of the protesters. I guess we'll call it quits.

In all fairness, there is no video evidence of her actually driving through the cordon.

I've seen video of her doing so. I don't have time to look for it, but it's out there. It's generally accepted that she did it. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue that she didn't; you clearly had no idea about the incident prior to this thread.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So you acknowledge they were breaking the law and should have been arrested, then you say they shouldn't be?

Clearly, Shell to Sea are incapable of wrongdoing.

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So you acknowledge they were breaking the law and should have been arrested, then you say they shouldn't be?

If they were breaking the law then they should have been arrested. If they were not arrested then it stands to reason that they were not breaking the law. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

Edit: Now I don't know if these protesters were actually given an order to disperse so I can't say if they were definitely breaking the law. All I can see is gorilla Gardai swinging batons and kicking faces.

Jeboa Safari

They were given an order to disperse, they refused to do with it, and yes they should have been arrested, I don't know why they weren't, but just because they weren't arrested doesn't mean they weren't breaking the law. Theres a reason the Gardai had to bad charge them, they didn't just decide to baton charge them for no reason. Maybe it was the most effective way of dealing them? And if you look at the video, you'll see the Gardai marching towards them, why didn't the protesters move off then, instead of staying there resisting the Gardai?

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

They were given an order to disperse, they refused to do with it, and yes they should have been arrested, I don't know why they weren't, but just because they weren't arrested doesn't mean they weren't breaking the law. Theres a reason the Gardai had to bad charge them, they didn't just decide to baton charge them for no reason. Maybe it was the most effective way of dealing them? And if you look at the video, you'll see the Gardai marching towards them, why didn't the protesters move off then, instead of staying there resisting the Gardai?

Ah, so you were there were you? You heard Gardai give the order to disperse? Gee, what are we even discussing this for when you were actually there! We can all just take your word for it then.

Have you ever seen the movie Gandhi? You know that scene where the workers kept walking towards the line of policemen with batons, and they kept getting beaten down time and time again? Some people value justice over their own personal safety. Crazy, I know.

lugha

Might I ask you demonspawn, or anyone else, can you outline how protest should work? If a project of any kind has been authorised in a democratic state but a minority have reservations about it, should that minority be allowed to impede and endlessly frustrate the project?

Can I organise a peaceful protest to prevent my neighbour building a house or the local council building a civic amenity because I may have some fears or reservations about it. Do you think I should be able to expect that the Gardai would not interfere and allow my attempt to frustrate the project to continue indefinitely as long as my protest is peaceful?

Or here’s a pickle for you. If I disapprove of S2S, which I do, could I organise a peaceful protest preventing them obstructing the public roads and hence the Shell project?

humanji

NewVision wrote: »

The same I think of you, not understanding me.

The minister wouldn't break the contract, he would make use of it.

That gas is too valuable as it wouldn't be recoverd under just fairer circumstances.

You're not getting what I'm saying. You can't just blackmail a company to do your bidding. He can only stop the precessing under certain circumstances. If he's doing so unfairly, then he can be held accountable, and the Irish taxpayer pays for that.

If he stops it, Shell will just stop processing. They won't change the contract because they have no need to. The minister can't stop the processing indefinitely without good reason, so it would become clear very quickly that he is being underhanded.

Also, I find it ironic that you complain about government corruption causing the problem and you think corruption will get us out of it.

FlutterinBantam

demonspawn wrote: »

Ah, so you were there were you? You heard Gardai give the order to disperse? Gee, what are we even discussing this for when you were actually there! We can all just take your word for it then.

Have you ever seen the movie Gandhi? You know that scene where the workers kept walking towards the line of policemen with batons, and they kept getting beaten down time and time again? Some people value justice over their own personal safety. Crazy, I know.

Some people are not taken by a group of activists who have nothing better to do than waste taxpayer's money.

My advice to these people wold be:

Listen pal, get a job and when you are a taxpayer and contributer to the state, rather than someone who is dependent, maybe I might , I say again, might, listen to you.

demonspawn

lugha wrote: »

Or here’s a pickle for you. If I disapprove of S2S, which I do, could I organise a peaceful protest preventing them obstructing the public roads and hence the Shell project?

Go for it man, if you feel that strongly about it. Neo-Nazis and the KKK hold demos all the time in the U.S. and there's always a counter-demo by people who disagree with them. It's called democracy.

demonspawn

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Some people are not taken by a group of activists who have nothing better to do than waste taxpayer's money.

How are they wasting taxpayer's money? Did they invite the Gardai down there to crack their skulls? I doubt that very much. If anyone's wasting taxpayer money it's Shell.

My advice to these people wold be:

Listen pal, get a job and when you are a taxpayer and contributer to the state, rather than someone who is dependent, maybe I might , I say again, might, listen to you.

So now you know me and the people involved in this discussion? You know for a fact I don't have a job? That's very presumptuous of you. Oh, and I really couldn't care less if you listen to me or not. You obviously have a much higher opinion of yourself than I do.

lugha

demonspawn wrote: »

Go for it man, if you feel that strongly about it. Neo-Nazis and the KKK hold demos all the time in the U.S. and there's always a counter-demo by people who disagree with them. It's called democracy.

I don't mean a demo just to show my dissent. I mean actively preventing S2S activists from taking to the roads to impede workers from exercising their rights.
Leaving aside the practical difficulties of this, would you object on principle?

demonspawn

lugha wrote: »

I don't mean a demo just to show my dissent. I mean actively preventing S2S activists from taking to the roads to impede workers from exercising their rights.
Leaving aside the practical difficulties of this, would you object on principle?

Well I'm not sure what you could do to stop them, short of laying hands on them which I'm pretty sure is illegal.

No, I wouldn't object at all as some of the protesters are just bats**t crazy, saying all fossil fuel extraction should be stopped immediately. That's not realistic whatsoever. I'm afraid some of these guys do live in fantasy land.

Edit: And here's the thing. I'm not for these protesters per say, I'm against the murderous bastards who run the Shell corporation and the muppets in government that did business with them. I'm also against police brutality.

sceptre

demonspawn wrote: »

So now you know me and the people involved in this discussion? You know for a fact I don't have a job? That's very presumptuous of you. Oh, and I really couldn't care less if you listen to me or not. You obviously have a much higher opinion of yourself than I do.

I think if you read what the guy said, you'll find that he was aiming his comment squarely at the protesters. Not at you. The trouble with being on a high horse sometimes is that it's hard to see the ground at one's feet. Now, you may or may not agree with his views on the protesters. Difference of opinion is one of the main reasons this forum exists. But taking comments personally when they're not directed at you isn't - save it for the ones that are.

Personally I find this "pal, friend, buddy" stuff to be plain idiotic and probably an attempt to inflame. I give it no credence, I offer it no sympathy, it makes me think less of the people who use it here as it's never meant as a conciliatory gesture. However, limit your outrage to the comments directed at you please, you'll have a better day and a longer life if you do.

Now, if you have comments on this post, send them to me via PM please. Reporting comments you find offensive is enough without acting as your own vigilante and replying in kind to what you think you see as well.

/mod

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

Ah, so you were there were you? You heard Gardai give the order to disperse? Gee, what are we even discussing this for when you were actually there! We can all just take your word for it then.

Have you ever seen the movie Gandhi? You know that scene where the workers kept walking towards the line of policemen with batons, and they kept getting beaten down time and time again? Some people value justice over their own personal safety. Crazy, I know.

No of course I wasn't there, I wouldn't want to associate myself with a group of rent-a-mob trouble making unlawful group of eco-warriors. If you read any of the reports, in the mainstream media, not the left wing biased indymedia or shell to seas site, they report that they were asked to clear the road.

lugha

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm not for these protesters per say, I'm against the murderous bastards who run the Shell corporation and the muppets in government that did business with them. I'm also against police brutality.

These “muppets” are democratically elected. If the people of Mayo genuinely had a grievance with this project, surely they would have returned the one TD (who always struck me as a thoroughly decent and honourable fellow) to the Dail?

And you have evaded the substantial point in my first post. If a project has been properly sanctioned in a democratic country, where is the moral justification for a minority seeking to thwart its progress, even in a peaceful fashion? Or would you criticise protestors who act in such a way?

demonspawn

lugha wrote: »

These “muppets” are democratically elected. If the people of Mayo genuinely had a grievance with this project, surely they would have returned the one TD (who always struck me as a thoroughly decent and honourable fellow) to the Dail?

And you have evaded the substantial point in my first post. If a project has been properly sanctioned in a democratic country, where is the moral justification for a minority seeking to thwart its progress, even in a peaceful fashion? Or would you criticise protestors who act in such a way?

If someone was trying to build a potentially lethal gas pipe through my back garden, I don't give a damn if I was the only one out there. I'd still be protesting. And when I say potentially lethal, I mean quite possible lethal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents#Nigeria

Note how many explosions in Nigeria were caused by "thieves", and how many in the U.S. were caused by faulty equipment. :rolleyes:

Edit: The explosion in Nigeria back in '98 was particularly devastating. 1200 dead, not sure how many injured. Can you possibly imagine what that was like? One minute everything's ok, then the next minute....BOOM...everyone around you is dead.

sesna

demonspawn wrote: »

If someone was trying to build a potentially lethal gas pipe through my back garden, I don't give a damn if I was the only one out there. I'd still be protesting. And when I say potentially lethal, I mean quite possible lethal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents#Nigeria

Note how many explosions in Nigeria were caused by "thieves", and how many in the U.S. were caused by faulty equipment. :rolleyes:

Edit: The explosion in Nigeria back in '98 was particularly devastating. 1200 dead, not sure how many injured. Can you possibly imagine what that was like? One minute everything's ok, then the next minute....BOOM...everyone around you is dead.

The pipeline has been deemed safe by Advantica and meets highest international standards, and Shell still moved it back further and reduced pressure further as compromise. The new proposal has the pipeline at over 230 meters from the nearest house. It could could be 10 miles away and you would still whine and moan about it.

Pipelines run much closer to peoples houses all over Holland (less than a few meters).

Perhaps you should protest against oil tankers driving through Belmullet/Erris area too lest one of them lose control and crash into a house with a resultant explosion, or even better declare the airspace overhead a no-fly zone in case a transatlantic plane crashes.

demonspawn

sesna wrote: »

Potentially lethal? The pipeline has been deemed safe by Advantica, and Shell still moved it back further and reduced pressure further. The pipeline could be 10 miles away and you would still whine and moan about it.

Pipelines run much closer to peoples houses all over Holland (less than a few meters) without disaster.

Perhaps you should protest against oil tankers driving through Belmullet/Erris area too lest one of them lose control and crash into a house with a resultant explosion, or also close the airspace overhead as a transatlantic plane may crash into one of your houses also.

Did you even look at the number of accidents in the U.S.? If you wanna gamble with your life so some greedy multinational can make a few billion more then that's your choice. Don't expect others to share your attitude.

demonspawn

hehe I Googled "Shell accidents" and this is what I came up with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell_safety_concerns

Good old Shell, trying to cover up the sins of the past. And you want these scumbags pumping our gas out of the ocean? I know wiki isn't a great source of info but just goes to show the lengths at which Shell will go to keep their misdeeds a secret. They don't have an issue with just one or two things, they want the entire article deleted.

sesna

demonspawn wrote: »

Did you even look at the number of accidents in the U.S.? If you wanna gamble with your life so some greedy multinational can make a few billion more then that's your choice. Don't expect others to share your attitude.

I looked up car accidents too and got an awful shock. We should protest against automobiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_died_in_road_accidents and thats just "notable" people.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

If someone was trying to build a potentially lethal gas pipe through my back garden, I don't give a damn if I was the only one out there. I'd still be protesting. And when I say potentially lethal, I mean quite possible lethal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents#Nigeria

Note how many explosions in Nigeria were caused by "thieves", and how many in the U.S. were caused by faulty equipment. :rolleyes:

Edit: The explosion in Nigeria back in '98 was particularly devastating. 1200 dead, not sure how many injured. Can you possibly imagine what that was like? One minute everything's ok, then the next minute....BOOM...everyone around you is dead.

Maybe we should ban aeroplanes aswell.
Can you possibly imagine what its like? One minute everythings ok, then BOOM, theres a plane crashed into your house

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft

demonspawn

Ok, well it's fairly obvious where this discussion is going and I really don't intend on going there. I've made my point, supported my case as best I could, and now I'm gonna go eat hamburgers. Good day.

lugha

demonspawn wrote: »

If someone was trying to build a potentially lethal gas pipe through my back garden, I don't give a damn if I was the only one out there. I'd still be protesting. And when I say potentially lethal, I mean quite possible lethal.

Yes, potentially. Great word. I have a gas pipe coming in to my house servicing various appliances, which is potentially lethal. You remind me of the perpetually studies reported in newspapers that your health might be enhanced / diminished if you do / don’t do X or Y :rolleyes:.

One of the dafter aspects of this whole saga was the number of times you hear people bleating on about the size of pipes and the pressure in them and how it was 10 times the pressure in some other pipe, etc. etc. all the while cheerfully ignoring the obvious truth that most of us, myself firmly included, are in way qualified to make a direct assessment of how dangerous a pipe is or is not.

But if there was a pipe somewhere near my house (it won’t be in anyone’s back garden) and ascertained that it poses an unacceptable risk (by canvassing the views of an impartial expert ) and I failed to persuade the authorities of this, then I would, with reluctance and resentment move me and my family away from the area. That few, if any, have taken this course of action suggests to me that they don’t take their family’s safety as seriously as I do, or more likely, they do see the risk much as I do, as being negligible.

sesna

demonspawn wrote: »

Ok, well it's fairly obvious where this discussion is going and I really don't intend on going there. I've made my point, supported my case as best I could, and now I'm gonna go eat hamburgers. Good day.

The lady at the last Bord Pleanalá forum who declared her interest as "supporting Mother Earth" would be very upset over that.

Also, I might add the protesters insisted on Irish translators for the duration of the forum over several weeks which cost the taxpayer a further 2,000 euro per day.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

How are they wasting taxpayer's money? Did they invite the Gardai down there to crack their skulls? I doubt that very much. If anyone's wasting taxpayer money it's Shell.

They're wasting taxpayers money by their hostile and intimidating tactics, which require the Gardai to protect Shells workers. Irish people, trying to make a living, paying taxes, unlike alot of the protesters. They also attack Shells private property. They're a disgrace.