Movie "The Pipe" about Shell to Sea" showing in Model this week.

itac

Danny DeVito obviously caught it when he was over here...posted this on twitter
"Ok,would you fine folks just see the Documentary Pipe example of the attacks peeps face protecting their livelihood n W Ireland from Shell O"

red sean

Took a trip over there a couple of years ago to see for myself what was happening. You can't trust what you see on tv or read in the papers on a subject as volitile as this. Was'nt very impressed by the large contingent of "crusties" who had arrived from abroad to help the 'Shell to sea' campaign. These permanent protestors, who go from country to country supposedly saving the planet while living off the backs of honest workers (dole), give no credibility to any campaign. The locals should have told them to sling their hook at the outset and then they would have had a greater chance of national solidarity in their aims.
The biggest crooks involved in all this anyway were Ahern, Cowan and associates who gave it all away for free.

T runner

Fingers McGee wrote: »

I fail to see how a pipeline can be toxic......

The Raw unrefined gas inside it the pipeline can be.

I knew very little about the whole thing except what was on the news at the height of the trouble, and I didn't care much for it, passing it off as a bunch of hippie who want to stand in the way of progress.

I dont blame you thats the way it was reported. The state and the state broadcaster were adamently behind "progress" in this one.

I have no knowledge of any European laws that were breached or the physical intimidation that took place.

There was a European Law protecting taht beach as a place of natural beauty/importance. In the film two guys travelled to Europe to make their case and were sucessful in doing so.

The scene where the Gardai and securty guards lined up to protect the work on the beach occurred after the government were informed of the legal status i.e. without a doubt the government were knowingly taking the side of Shell against the side of Law.

AS I said, in Nigeria in the similar situation the Nigerian army massacred protesters. (posssibly some of the same shell security were present there?)

In fact, the only physical intimidation I saw was the lady who went on hungar strike abusing someone at the Shell to sea campaign meeting.

Did you not see the garda sargeant indiscriminately striking the legs of random people with his baton?

The physical intimidation was described, not caught on camera.
Other intimidation included security guards continuously pointing binnoculars at houses. Not as physical but intimidation, non the less and caught on camera.

Kristopherus wrote: »

That film is nothing more than blatant Shell to Sea propaganda. What most of the posters here may not know is that the fiml-maker is a nephew of the Mr O'donnell, the fisherman who has been waging his own war against the agencies of the state. Hence the easy access to close up filming the sea scenes. All not as innocent as it may seem.

There is a rule on this forum about attacking the post not the poster.
This should apply to this film. Attack the substance of the film NOT who made it (is he really his nephew anyway?).

Gipo3 wrote: »

It is a Gas pipeline, or did you see the film?

Nice work detective! Youll notice that i am the OP of this thread and i have actually described scenes from teh movie in post 11.

(That means Ive probably seen it...). Have you read the thread?



Any comment on the substance of the film or have you taken your skills of detection to another case?

Buford T Justice

T runner wrote: »

The Raw unrefined gas inside it the pipeline can be.

As dangerous as overhead electricity cables? Don't get me wrong, sure, there's a risk, but with anything there is always a risk.

Crossing the road, driving your car etc........

Wouldn't the gas be safe within the line unless it was damaged, much the same as driving a car would be until it was crashed etc....

T runner wrote: »

Did you not see the garda sargeant indiscriminately striking the legs of random people with his baton?

I did, but I didn't see the context of why it happened. We don't know how long that standoff was going on for that day, or how violent (or not) the crowds had become before that happened, or whatever other mitigating factors there were (if any). They only chose to show that section of it, imo in order to give an unbalanced view.

T runner wrote: »

The physical intimidation was described, not caught on camera.
Other intimidation included security guards continuously pointing binnoculars at houses. Not as physical but intimidation, non the less and caught on camera.

Described yes, but by people who had a vested interested in exaggerating the situation to their advantage. I'm not saying this happened, but surely you can appreciate the possibility of it happening. That's what i think anyway.

T runner

Fingers McGee wrote: »

As dangerous as overhead electricity cables? Don't get me wrong, sure, there's a risk, but with anything there is always a risk.

Crossing the road, driving your car etc........

Wouldn't the gas be safe within the line unless it was damaged, much the same as driving a car would be until it was crashed etc....

First of all the pipe is going through an area of unstable wet bog.
This means it will move over time as the bog does. If there is a leak it is not just your metaphorical car driver who will be killed, but everyone on the road.

A more suitable metaphor might be driving a car at speed packed with dynamite over a moving road. If the car crashes then everyone in teh neighbourhood gets hurt. Would you bring up your child near such a danger?
No? Then why should they have to!

I did, but I didn't see the context of why it happened. We don't know how long that standoff was going on for that day, or how violent (or not) the crowds had become before that happened, or whatever other mitigating factors there were (if any). They only chose to show that section of it, imo in order to give an unbalanced view.

Sorry but thats not true. We saw a passive crowd of ordinary folk (including middle aged women standing on one side of the road. To move them 1 foot (unnecessarily) this thug was swinging his baton indiscriminately.

It wasnt an organised move by a group of gardai. It was the violent act of one man.

Described yes, but by people who had a vested interested in exaggerating the situation to their advantage. I'm not saying this happened, but surely you can appreciate the possibility of it happening. That's what i think anyway.

Different people described the intimidation. Are you sugegsting tehy are all lying?

Also as ive already pointed out Shells buddies the Nigerian army have body bagged thousands of citizens in Delta province in Nigeria. Perhaps tehse deaths were staged to make Shell look bad?

Shell have form for this type of thing. This is what they do in tehse situations.
They buy people off and when taht doesnt work they intimidate them.

Youve stated already taht you dont know much about thsi situation. If tahst the case then why are you taking a side against the local people and for Shell. Why not be neutral?

Buford T Justice

T runner wrote: »

Sorry but thats not true. We saw a passive crowd of ordinary folk (including middle aged women standing on one side of the road. To move them 1 foot (unnecessarily) this thug was swinging his baton indiscriminately.

Again, my point being that we don't know what went on in the hours before the incident that was filmed. Anything could have gone that brought about that sort of behavior.

I don't know what went on, but I still suspect that its not as clear cut as the film portrays. Worth considering imo.

T runner wrote: »

Different people described the intimidation. Are you sugegsting tehy are all lying?

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that its not beyond the realm of possibility that this community would exaggerate the situation as they have a vested interest in spinning that kind of story.

T runner wrote: »

Youve stated already taht you dont know much about thsi situation. If tahst the case then why are you taking a side against the local people and for Shell. Why not be neutral?

I'm not taking any sides. I gave my opinion on the film as I saw it. I drew some conclusions from it, which i said here.

Again, I'm not taking any sides here. I'm just pointing out that its possible that the community have exaggerated stories to suit their own agenda, and imo the film is certainly not balanced in that regard. It seems one sided to me.

What I would like, is for a film of the sort to be made which was balanced, and shared both sides of the story equally. That way, people could make up their minds on evidence given to them, and not from a one sided film that it was.

Iorras55

Fingers McGee wrote: »

I'm not taking any sides. I gave my opinion on the film as I saw it. I drew some conclusions from it, which i said here.

What I would like, is for a film of the sort to be made which was balanced, and shared both sides of the story equally. That way, people could make up their minds on evidence given to them, and not from a one sided film that it was.

Oh help!!, some the users of this boards.ie are so dense or just trying to stir up lies to cause doubt in the minds of others. Richie O'Domhnaill is no relation whatsoever to Pat O'Donnell. Richie is a nephew of a man who lives a couple of miles around the peninsula from where these incidents took place. He and his brother often live with their uncle. I sympathise to some degree with the poster who says that he came here and some of the 'crusties' (that seemed to be his name for short-term protesters who come for a weeks or a weekends holiday) should be sent packing - its not only you they occasionally drive mad!

As for the Gardai, I've said it before - it was never them all. But, there was certainly that gang of violent bullies and they terrorised, beat and bruised many innocent locals and genuine protesters in an utterly unacceptable way. It's no skin off my nose if you don't believe it. the problem might be that if they get away with it because some people on here try to defend them, it might be you or your children or your loved ones inadvertently get on the wrong end of their baton wielding next time if they decide to try to protest any kind of wrong done to them!

Many documentaries have been made. Maybe this one will meet your criteria above. I've posted the link before but you obviously didn't get it. It's an hour long - award winning also (2009). The name of this one is PIPE DOWN.

http://www.vimeo.com/8668733/PIPE DOWN

Buford T Justice

Iorras55 wrote: »

Oh help!!, some the users of this boards.ie are so dense or just trying to stir up lies to cause doubt in the minds of others. Richie O'Domhnaill is no relation whatsoeve.............................time if they decide to try to protest any kind of wrong done to them!

FFS!
Who am I defending here? Read my posts again. I have not said that anyone is right or wrong. I simply said that the film seems one sided, and the people against the project seem hypocritical at times, by using the laws to their advantage when it suits them, and hiding behind them when it also suits.

Its worth considering that there are two sides to every story, and one should not believe chapter and verse what is being said by the people from either one of those sides.

Iorras55 wrote: »

the problem might be that if they get away with it because some people on here try to defend them, it might be you or your children or your loved ones inadvertently get on the wrong end of their baton wielding next time if they decide to try to protest any kind of wrong done to them!

That's you're argument? Is that really the best you can do? You might have just said Won't someone please think of the children!!! Somehow i doubt that my opinion here would be the result of an Garda Siochána 'getting away' with something.

What is wrong with people these days, when you can't have a discussion about anything without someone resorting to petty insults.
Just because someone doesn't see you're point of view, doesn't make them dense, and tbh, saying that lowers the tone of you're point.

Can you remind me what lies I'm spouting here, because I can't think of any, and I've re-read my posts.

Oh, I did get the link before and I loaded the film, but I obviously had something else to do, so I didn't get a chance to watch it.


P.S. Its quite easy to tell where you're from too.

Iorras55

Fingers McGee wrote: »

FFS!
Who am I defending here? Read my posts again. I have not said that anyone is right or wrong.

I apologise if you thought what I wrote applied specifically to you. It didn't. You were'nt the only one posting comments! Please don't take things personally as I can assure you they were not meant that way - no need to read your posts again to see what I took offence to. I didn't!

T runner

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Again, I'm not taking any sides here. I'm just pointing out that its possible that the community have exaggerated stories to suit their own agenda, and imo the film is certainly not balanced in that regard. It seems one sided to me.
.

And im asking you are the communities of the Delta Provence in Nigeria exaggerating from their body bags as a result of this company's behaviour?

These stories corroborate eachother and are corroborated by peoples experiences of Shell in other countries. We all saw Shell security men aiming binoculars persistently into peoples houses. This is intimidation.

If you have any evidence to show that their testimony is exaggerated or in that case why their lies dont contradict eachother then lets here it.

I dont believe you are being neutral. Every one of your ideas: gas pipe not really dangerous, locals exaggerating seems to cast doubt on the local community NOT on shell.

As you say you dont know much about it therefore your opinion is not informed.

Buford T Justice

T runner wrote: »

And im asking you are the communities of the Delta Provence in Nigeria exaggerating from their body bags as a result of this company's behaviour?

All due respect, but how the fuck would I know? I'm not talking about Nigeria, I'm talking about the west of Ireland.

T runner wrote: »

I dont believe you are being neutral. Every one of your ideas: gas pipe not really dangerous, locals exaggerating seems to cast doubt on the local community NOT on shell.

Fair enough, don't believe me. Thats you're prerogative.

For the record, I didn't say it wasn't dangerous, I asked the question about how dangerous it could be in relative comparison, ie, car crash, electricity cable falling down etc..... There is a difference.

So, instead of me having to prove anything, can you provide any unequivocal evidence that would prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is absolutely no possibility that anyone in that film would have a vested interested in exaggerating statements that they made on that film?

I'm sure there's a possibility that they would.

T runner wrote: »

As you say you dont know much about it therefore your opinion is not informed.

Doesn't make me any less entitled to it though.

Iorras55

Fingers McGee wrote: »

All due respect, but how the fuck would I know? I'm not talking about Nigeria, I'm talking about the west of Ireland.

You've hit the nail on the head actually probably without realising it. The people who are working for Shell (attendees at the many Oral Hearings over the years here), are mostly foreigners and not a single one of them local to this area in the west of Ireland. To them, North West Mayo might as well be Nigeria. They treat the people with the same distain and arrogance. Their goal is to fill their own pockets. They lie with the greatest of ease and then they tell you,if you speak to them later about it, that, sorry, it is their job.

If the people of Ireland don't protest, they'll soon learn the truth when Shell or other similar corporations come into their area! It will be too late then, the precedents will be set in stone! Protect and excuse the corporations at your peril! History will record this sorry event! Little point apologising to future generations on your deathbed!:rolleyes::rolleyes: