€14.56m Spent so far (Not including basic wages) on policing 'Shell to Sea'

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

OK, so the fact that Govt failed to require a Environmental Impact Assessment correctly means they are entirely blameless, and Shell constructing without planning permission means they are blameless too.

A wider point is that the Irish Govt signed the Aarhus Convention over ten years ago but have inadequately transposed this into Irish Law. This would have meant that projects like this would have required, by law, community participation in the planning process. This would have prevented Shell showing up and simply announcing 'this is where the pipeline will run'.

Shell and the Govt by the way they approached this caused the level of protests and local sentiment. That doesn't give carte blanche to protesters, but I do understand the anger, and treating protesters the way they have been treated doesn't exactly help either.

The accusation that there have been massive breaches of environmental law has been flung around a few times along with the implication that Shell wouldn't have got permission if there hadn't been those breaches.

I have read quite a bit of stuff now and I can see nothing anywhere to suggest anything other than minor technical breaches of a non-substantive nature. Can someone on this thread point to the parts of the legislation that are deficient and the amount of remedial work needed to make them compliant or is it just a slogan?

I include compliance with Aarhus and EU directives in this query. All of the court challenges have failed and in the one that was settled the State made a statement (which would have been part of the settlement agreement with An Taisce) that there was nothing wrong with the Shell permission. In fact despite the decision being described as a victory for An Taisce earlier in this thread, Shell to Sea regard it as a defeat.

http://www.shelltosea.com/content/rossport-residents-say-taisce-%E2%80%98undermined%E2%80%99-them


Right, I have found a Dail question to the Minister in which he says we have implemented the Convention. It looks like they are doing a few final checks before they formally ratify it - that is normal.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/11/24/00136.asp

It also seems that the changes required were minimal and fairly technical in nature.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0020/print.html

Copy of the Envronmental Act mentioned is attached. It seems to do a lot of things including increasing the plastic bag levy but from my reading of it, anything that might be considered as relating to the Directives or Aarhus is minimal change. Can somebody who believes that there are massive breaches of environmental law taking place please provide some evidence of same as all I can find from the source is evidence that Ireland is largely compliant and that breaches are minor and/or technical.

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

Right, I have found a Dail question to the Minister in which he says we have implemented the Convention. It looks like they are doing a few final checks before they formally ratify it - that is normal.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/11/24/00136.asp

Briefly, Are you aware that Ireland signed Aarhus in 1998? You regard carrying out 'a few final checks' - for the last fourteen years as normal???

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

Can somebody who believes that there are massive breaches of environmental law taking place please provide some evidence of same as all I can find from the source is evidence that Ireland is largely compliant and that breaches are minor and/or technical.

You are kidding right? Ireland has been referred over and over by the EU; this was in the news 3 days ago...
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/government-faces-4m-fine-for-failing-to-implement-eu-directives-184165.html

The European Commission is seeking to levy a once-off fine of €4m against the Government for its failure to ensure that proper environmental assessments are being carried out on Irish farming and fish farming projects

Environment: Commission takes Ireland back to court over septic tanks and asks for a fine
A year and a half after a previous Court ruling, Ireland has still not adopted the necessary measures to ensure that septic tanks go through adequate checks and inspections in order to protect human health and the environment. On the recommendation of Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik, the Commission is therefore referring Ireland back to the EU Court of Justice and asking the Court to impose a lump-sum fine of €2.7 million and a daily penalty payment of € 26,173.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/592&format=HTML
The European Commission is taking Ireland back to the European Court of Justice, with the possibility of fines, for failing to implement an earlier ruling on quality standards for shellfish waters on the Irish coast. The Commission proposes to ask the Court to impose a lump-sum fine of over €3.8 million and a daily penalty payment of nearly €40,000.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1647&format=HTML

Environment: Commission seeks fines against Ireland for not adopting legislation to protect countryside heritage

The European Commission is taking Ireland back to the European Court of Justice for failing to implement an earlier ruling concerning developments that may harm the natural and man-made heritage of the countryside. Two years after the judgment, Ireland has still not adopted legislation to address the issue. On the recommendation of Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik, the Commission is referring the case back to Court and asking it to impose a lump-sum fine of more than €4000 per day for the period between the first Court ruling and the second Court ruling and a daily penalty payment of more than €33,000 per day for each day after the second Court ruling until the infringement ends.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/168&format=HTML

Environment: Commission asks Ireland to comply with court ruling on waste, welcomes closure of two other cases
The European Commission is asking Ireland to comply with a ruling by the EU's Court of Justice regarding waste disposal. While good progress has been made in some instances, more action is needed in areas such as construction waste and end-of-life vehicles. If the necessary actions were not taken, the Commission may take Ireland back to Court and request financial penalties. The Commission welcomed measures taken by Ireland to comply with a Court ruling on the protection of certain vulnerable areas and Natura 2000 sites, as well as environmental impact assessments, and has closed infringement cases on both topics.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1257&format=HTML

Ireland: Commission sends final warning over four breaches of environmental law; closes two cases
The European Commission is sending a final warning to Ireland over four cases where it has failed to comply with European Court of Justice rulings concerning illegal development and developments that may harm the natural and man-made heritage of the countryside, access to the Irish courts and protection of marine mammals. If the necessary steps are not taken, the Commission could refer the cases back to the Court and ask for fines to be imposed.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/313&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The Europa site searched on Ireland +court +environment gives 136,000 results.

Ireland has an absolutely woeful record in environmental protection.

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

So the state, for no particularly good reason, has decided to use a totally peaceful protest as an excuse to pay out millions in Garda overtime?

I think it's clear we have no basis for a sensible discussion here. Nice talking with you.

Define peaceful, because we appear to have a difference of opinion on that. Do feel that the law should allow a right to protest or not?

tayto lover

MadsL wrote: »

Are you for real? Garda overtime is only famous, besides these women aren't gonna push themselves over...

The Garda have now purchased Dr. Who's "Tardis" so the expense will drop from now on.

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

Briefly, Are you aware that Ireland signed Aarhus in 1998? You regard carrying out 'a few final checks' - for the last fourteen years as normal???

You do know the difference between signature of an international treaty and ratification of an international treaty.


http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=faq.details&fid=38

some information on the difference in respect of the Hague Convention.

http://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/status-of-signature-and-ratification

Look at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, time between signature and ratification.

I could give you many more examples of a delay between signature and ratification if you want. The US has signed the Kyoto Protocol but never ratified it.

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

You are kidding right? Ireland has been referred over and over by the EU; this was in the news 3 days ago...
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/government-faces-4m-fine-for-failing-to-implement-eu-directives-184165.html

The European Commission is seeking to levy a once-off fine of €4m against the Government for its failure to ensure that proper environmental assessments are being carried out on Irish farming and fish farming projects

Environment: Commission takes Ireland back to court over septic tanks and asks for a fine
A year and a half after a previous Court ruling, Ireland has still not adopted the necessary measures to ensure that septic tanks go through adequate checks and inspections in order to protect human health and the environment. On the recommendation of Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik, the Commission is therefore referring Ireland back to the EU Court of Justice and asking the Court to impose a lump-sum fine of €2.7 million and a daily penalty payment of € 26,173.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/592&format=HTML
The European Commission is taking Ireland back to the European Court of Justice, with the possibility of fines, for failing to implement an earlier ruling on quality standards for shellfish waters on the Irish coast. The Commission proposes to ask the Court to impose a lump-sum fine of over €3.8 million and a daily penalty payment of nearly €40,000.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1647&format=HTML

Environment: Commission seeks fines against Ireland for not adopting legislation to protect countryside heritage

The European Commission is taking Ireland back to the European Court of Justice for failing to implement an earlier ruling concerning developments that may harm the natural and man-made heritage of the countryside. Two years after the judgment, Ireland has still not adopted legislation to address the issue. On the recommendation of Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik, the Commission is referring the case back to Court and asking it to impose a lump-sum fine of more than €4000 per day for the period between the first Court ruling and the second Court ruling and a daily penalty payment of more than €33,000 per day for each day after the second Court ruling until the infringement ends.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/168&format=HTML

Environment: Commission asks Ireland to comply with court ruling on waste, welcomes closure of two other cases
The European Commission is asking Ireland to comply with a ruling by the EU's Court of Justice regarding waste disposal. While good progress has been made in some instances, more action is needed in areas such as construction waste and end-of-life vehicles. If the necessary actions were not taken, the Commission may take Ireland back to Court and request financial penalties. The Commission welcomed measures taken by Ireland to comply with a Court ruling on the protection of certain vulnerable areas and Natura 2000 sites, as well as environmental impact assessments, and has closed infringement cases on both topics.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1257&format=HTML

Ireland: Commission sends final warning over four breaches of environmental law; closes two cases
The European Commission is sending a final warning to Ireland over four cases where it has failed to comply with European Court of Justice rulings concerning illegal development and developments that may harm the natural and man-made heritage of the countryside, access to the Irish courts and protection of marine mammals. If the necessary steps are not taken, the Commission could refer the cases back to the Court and ask for fines to be imposed.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/313&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The Europa site searched on Ireland +court +environment gives 136,000 results.

Ireland has an absolutely woeful record in environmental protection.

Given the detailed nature of environmental law, I see nothing in these that shows a disregard for the environment. The setting of thresholds, the ability to cost-effectively access the courts, these are technical measures. Some of the others relate to Court judgments where the state thought in good faith it was in compliance but a Court ruled otherwise.

As far as I can see, these are all relatively minor technical matters and have no bearing on whether the Shell development as currently being carried out is legal or not.

most other EU countreis have similar outstanding issues.

Hayte

oscarBravo wrote: »

So the state, for no particularly good reason, has decided to use a totally peaceful protest as an excuse to pay out millions in Garda overtime?

I think it's clear we have no basis for a sensible discussion here. Nice talking with you.

You are begging the question. Premise: the gardai get paid millions in overtime. Conclusion: therefore the protesters must not be peaceful.

I acknowledged that Maura Harrington was not a peaceful protester. By all accounts she was something of a firebrand. I made a case for the idea that civil disobedience must be protected as a means of correcting unjust law and government policy, as long as it is a public, non violent, conscientious breach of those laws. If so, I believe an argument can be made that the only direct victim is the protester who suffers as a result of an unjust law. I don't see a case being made that civil disobedience is itself criminal.

But the next question is - how much of the Shell to Sea protest movement is like Maura Harrington? How many of protestors are not civil disobedients worthy of protection due to the use of violence?

I ask this because it seems as if the entire movement is being tarred with the same brush. Where a minority group of unruly protesters comes to symbolize all protesters (i.e. black bloc).

for a summary of some of the environmental impact and safety issues, I've found this to be one of the more substantial third party reports. I'd like to see the planning documentation and reports commissioned by Shell if at all possible, but I'm not sure where to look.

If theres one thing I get from that article, it is the necessity of local objection. Because if you don't object, you don't even need to imagine the clusterf*** that would have been built. It lists what outcomes are possible if the local population did not have a say in reshaping the route of the pipeline.

Godge

Hayte wrote: »

for a summary of some of the environmental impact and safety issues, I've found this to be one of the more substantial third party reports. I'd like to see the planning documentation and reports commissioned by Shell if at all possible, but I'm not sure where to look.

If theres one thing I get from that article, it is the necessity of local objection. Because if you don't object, you don't even need to imagine the clusterf*** that would have been built. It lists what outcomes are possible if the local population did not have a say in reshaping the route of the pipeline.

If there are two things I check with third party reports to discover relevance it is (1) date and (2) background and previous publications. In relation to your report, the following is the information:

(1) 2008
(2) see below, can't find any other publications by Kat Salter, I will let posters draw their own conclusions based on their backgrounds.

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

You do know the difference between signature of an international treaty and ratification of an international treaty.

Patronise much?

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/AarhusMap.html

Of 45 states signing only 3 of the original signatories have failed to ratify - Switzerland (canton system makes it very difficult) Iceland (I believe Iceland made the final step in 20 October 2011) and Ireland - notably and shamefully the only EU state that has failed to ratify.

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

Patronise much?

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/AarhusMap.html

Of 45 states signing only 3 of the original signatories have failed to ratify - Switzerland (canton system makes it very difficult) Iceland (I believe Iceland made the final step in 20 October 2011) and Ireland - notably and shamefully the only EU state that has failed to ratify.

wow, 45, and nobody outside of the Eurasian landmass, really a wothwhile worldwide treaty.


Like a nuclear ban treaty without Russia, US, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iran and North Korea, what use is an environmental treaty without China, India, US, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Mexico and sub-Saharan countries. All of the fuss over Aarhus is a fuss about very little.

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

wow, 45, and nobody outside of the Eurasian landmass, really a wothwhile worldwide treaty.


Like a nuclear ban treaty without Russia, US, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iran and North Korea, what use is an environmental treaty without China, India, US, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Mexico and sub-Saharan countries. All of the fuss over Aarhus is a fuss about very little.

It was a EU based treaty that is spreading in adoption, are you just trying to be provocative?

Point I am making is that Ireland is the only EU country to have failed to ratify it after 14 years. Are you disputing that?

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

most other EU countreis have similar outstanding issues.

Oh, well because you say so. Let's not let any facts obscure our view...



Figure 1: Total number of EU environmental infringement proceedings (under Articles 258 and 260 TFEU) open against each EU Member State as at the end of 2007 and 2009. Member States ranked from highest number of open cases to lowest using the figures for 2009. Based on European Commission 2008 and European Commission 2010.





Figure 2: Number of EU environmental infringement proceedings open under Article 260 TFEU (proceedings for fines to enforce earlier ECJ judgment) against EU Member States as at the end of 2007 and 2009. Member States ranked from highest number of open cases to lowest using the figures for 2009. Based on European Commission 2008 and European Commission 2010.

In other words, of the 27 EU Member States, not only did Ireland have the third highest total number of EU environmental cases to defend at the end of 2009, it was the worst performer by some distance in terms of meeting its obligations after a breach had been confirmed by the ECJ.

Given Ireland’s relative size, these figures are staggering. As the European Commission points out, Germany and Ireland are two exceptions to the general rule that larger Member States typically have a larger caseload, the former having many fewer cases than one would expect, the latter many more (European Commission 2010). But more worrying than the bare statistics is the year-on-year trend. For the period to the end of 2007 - shortly after the Fianna Fáil/Green Party coalition came to power - Ireland was dealing with 34 environmental infringement cases overall (still 34 at the end of 2009), and 10 cases at the second stage (14 cases at the end of 2009, 12 now). In contrast, most of the other generally poor environmental performers have improved their positions over the same period. Italy, for example, has cut its overall caseload from 60 cases at the end of 2007 to 35 cases at the end of 2009; at the second stage (proceedings for fines), its caseload has halved from 18 cases to 9 over the same period.

Source - Andrew Jackson, Department of Geography, TCD - Atlas (2010), TCD’s annual Geographical Journal.

Cited at http://www.irishenvironment.com/irishenvironment/articles/Entries/2010/6/1_Andrew_L.R._Jackson,_The_Emerald_Isle_Irelands_environmental_compliance_record_in_cross-EU_terms.html

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

It was a EU based treaty that is spreading in adoption, are you just trying to be provocative?

Point I am making is that Ireland is the only EU country to have failed to ratify it after 14 years. Are you disputing that?

Spreading in adoption? After 14 years they still haven't managed to get any significant country outside of EU influence to sign the thing?

MadsL

Spreading in adoption? After 14 years they still haven't managed to get any significant country outside of EU influence to sign the thing?

Good strawman, now let's get back to discussing Ireland's record on compliance with EU Environmental Law and the fact that they are the only EU state not to have ratified.

joela

Hayte

If you go to www.mayococo.ie and use the search function for Corrib Gas Pipeline a whole host of documents are returned e.g. http://www.mayococo.ie/Planning/CorribGasOnshoreUpstreamPipeline/Environmental%20Monitoring%20Programme%20July%202011/EMP_Main%20Document.pdf and http://www.mayococo.ie/Planning/CorribGasOnshoreUpstreamPipeline/Offshore%20Supplementary%20Update%20Report%202010/2010%20Technical%20Appendices/Appendix%207-1%20Offshore%20Pipeline%20Survey%20Report%202007.pdf

Hayte

joela wrote: »

Hayte

If you go to www.mayococo.ie and use the search function for Corrib Gas Pipeline a whole host of documents are returned e.g. http://www.mayococo.ie/Planning/CorribGasOnshoreUpstreamPipeline/Environmental%20Monitoring%20Programme%20July%202011/EMP_Main%20Document.pdf and http://www.mayococo.ie/Planning/CorribGasOnshoreUpstreamPipeline/Offshore%20Supplementary%20Update%20Report%202010/2010%20Technical%20Appendices/Appendix%207-1%20Offshore%20Pipeline%20Survey%20Report%202007.pdf

Thanks. One of the good things about a 1.5 hour commute into and out of work is having 3 hours of reading time every day. Woot

joela

Well there is plenty there I can tell you!! Enjoy

oscarBravo

Hayte wrote: »

You are begging the question. Premise: the gardai get paid millions in overtime. Conclusion: therefore the protesters must not be peaceful.

Occam's Razor in action. If you have a simpler explanation for why the state feels the need to spend millions on policing a protest, I'm all ears.

Hayte

oscarBravo wrote: »

Occam's Razor in action. If you have a simpler explanation for why the state feels the need to spend millions on policing a protest, I'm all ears.

Occam's Razor is the idea that if there are multiple competing evidentiary theories, then the one that makes the fewest new assumptions is more likely to be correct.

Occam's Razor is not a substitute for evidence. Furthermore, the simplest theory isn't usually correct because its simple. It is usually correct because it makes the least new assumptions but dropping Occam's Razor is still predicated on having a coherent, logical theory supported by evidence to begin with.

Now I know you can do better than this because I've seen you make logical and coherent arguments on this forum many times. What I don't understand is why you can't seem to do it here.

oscarBravo

Hayte wrote: »

Occam's Razor is the idea that if there are multiple competing evidentiary theories, then the one that makes the fewest new assumptions is more likely to be correct.

Occam's Razor is not a substitute for evidence. Furthermore, the simplest theory isn't usually correct because its simple. It is usually correct because it makes the least new assumptions but dropping Occam's Razor is still predicated on having a coherent, logical theory supported by evidence to begin with.

Now I know you can do better than this because I've seen you make logical and coherent arguments on this forum many times. What I don't understand is why you can't seem to do it here.

I'll spell it out for you, although I'm at a loss as to why I should have to.

The state has spent more than €14m policing an ongoing protest. The logical explanation is that €14m worth of policing resources are required to allow a company to go about its lawful business, and that in the absence of that policing spend, the company would be prevented from going about its lawful business. Preventing a company from going about its lawful business is unlawful.

MadsL has obliquely suggested that the state has spent this large sum on policing the protests not because there is any unlawful activity to police, but simply to justify Garda overtime. He adduces no evidence for this suggestion.

Of these two explanations for the policing bill, I chose the one that objectively makes sense.

rodento

Simple solution, bill the protesters

Godge

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll spell it out for you, although I'm at a loss as to why I should have to.

The state has spent more than €14m policing an ongoing protest. The logical explanation is that €14m worth of policing resources are required to allow a company to go about its lawful business, and that in the absence of that policing spend, the company would be prevented from going about its lawful business. Preventing a company from going about its lawful business is unlawful.

MadsL has obliquely suggested that the state has spent this large sum on policing the protests not because there is any unlawful activity to police, but simply to justify Garda overtime. He adduces no evidence for this suggestion.

Of these two explanations for the policing bill, I chose the one that objectively makes sense.

Just because it makes sense, don't expect him/her to accept it.

Hayte

oscarBravo wrote: »

The state has spent more than €14m policing an ongoing protest. The logical explanation is that €14m worth of policing resources are required to allow a company to go about its lawful business, and that in the absence of that policing spend, the company would be prevented from going about its lawful business. Preventing a company from going about its lawful business is unlawful.

No that is not a logical explanation. It is logical only if Shell is fair and just in its dealings because that is the essence of our legal system. Compulsory acquisition of privately owned land by the state for another's private use is extremely contentious and has the potential to be extremely unfair to the people who must surrender their property for the use of another, even if they don't want to.

You keep talking about lawful business as if going about lawful business cannot be objectionable in any way but just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right or fair. This has already been explained as civil disobedience being part of the process of overturning unjust law. You haven't contested this. I was careful to make a distinction between civil disobedience and criminality and in the case of Maura Harrington admitted that the use of violence exposed her to criminal prosecution and made her much less effective as a civil disobedient.

Unless you want to argue that violence or any other criminal behaviour is characteristic of the shell to sea protesters, I don't see how you can tar the entire movement by association, just like you can't tar any protest movement for getting black bloc'ed. I don't see anyone claiming that civil disobedience is itself criminal or that it should be prevented. Or is that what you are suggesting? Are you suggesting that peaceful protest has limits if the cost to the state is great enough?

I guess it depends on your definition of peaceful protest and what constitutes criminal violence?

MadsL has obliquely suggested that the state has spent this large sum on policing the protests not because there is any unlawful activity to police, but simply to justify Garda overtime. He adduces no evidence for this suggestion.

Of these two explanations for the policing bill, I chose the one that objectively makes sense.

If you reduce the scope of the issue down to 2 choices, both of which are ridiculous and unsupported by any evidence, then of course the least ridiculous one wins.

Occam's Razor is not a substitute for evidence.

oscarBravo

Hayte wrote: »

It is logical only if Shell is fair and just in its dealings because that is the essence of our legal system.

If someone has been treated objectively unfairly or unjustly by Shell, they have recourse to the courts.

Compulsory acquisition of privately owned land by the state for another's private use is extremely contentious and has the potential to be extremely unfair to the people who must surrender their property for the use of another, even if they don't want to.

Compulsory acquisition of property is enshrined in the Constitution. If you have a problem with compulsory acquisition of property, campaign for a constitutional amendment, and be prepared to convince people that the right to prvivate property always trumps the common good.

You keep talking about lawful business as if going about lawful business cannot be objectionable in any way but just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right or fair. This has already been explained as civil disobedience being part of the process of overturning unjust law.

What unjust law is in the process of being overturned through the ongoing civil disobedience in Erris?

Unless you want to argue that violence or any other criminal behaviour is characteristic of the shell to sea protesters...

Nicely reframed.

I've already explained that the purpose of the policing is to allow a company to go about its lawful business. You seem to believe that you have countered that argument with a vague suggestion that because some people consider that lawful business unjust or unfair, that the police force of this country should stand aside and allow the protesters to unlawfully prevent that lawful work from being carried out.

Now, either you're proposing that the police should never intervene in any situation where a company is being prevented from carrying out its lawful work, or you're proposing that the police shouldn't intervene in this particular situation where a company is being prevented from carrying out its lawful work, just because you personally happen to agree with such prevention.

Which is it?

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

The state has spent more than €14m policing an ongoing protest.

Nope. They spent €9.1 million on Garda overtime and allowances at the site. They spent €4.7 million on travel and subsistence payments to gardaí.

In my view these costs would be incurred regardless of the nature of the protest, as the State has chosen to police this protest as heavily as it has done.

You seem to be ascribing ALL of the costs to the behaviour of the protesters; as does Shatter "He said this was because some of the protesters had engaged in acts of public disorder and damaged property"

I would be curious to see a statistical breakdown of the volume that was public disorder = refusing to do what a Garda tells you to do and damaged property = locking on to bulldozers and the like.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

In my view these costs would be incurred regardless of the nature of the protest, as the State has chosen to police this protest as heavily as it has done.

So if the nature of the protest was one person quietly holding up a sign by the side of the road leading to the refinery, there would still have been €14m spent on policing it?

I have trouble believing that you believe that.

You seem to be ascribing ALL of the costs to the behaviour of the protesters...

You seem to believe that the Minister for Justice is spending tens of millions of taxpayers' money to send Gardaí on jollies to northwest Mayo to police a protest that doesn't actually need any policing.

MadsL

So if the nature of the protest was one person quietly holding up a sign by the side of the road leading to the refinery, there would still have been €14m spent on policing it?

I have trouble believing that you believe that.

You seem to believe that the Minister for Justice is spending tens of millions of taxpayers' money to send Gardaí on jollies to northwest Mayo to police a protest that doesn't actually need any policing.

I'm not arguing the extremes, you seem to be Oscar. I'm not saying there would be NO expense as a result of the protest, what I'm questioning is the notion that 14m is the direct result of protest when I have shown most of it is subsistence, travel and expenses.

What if the State didn't pay to clear protesters off a public road and instead just escorted them to ensure no breach of the peace?

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

I'm not arguing the extremes, you seem to be Oscar. I'm not saying there would be NO expense as a result of the protest, what I'm questioning is the notion that 14m is the direct result of protest when I have shown most of it is subsistence, travel and expenses.

Well, let's argue the extremes for the purpose of illustration. If there had never been a protest at all - or, let's say, my example of a single person quietly holding up a sign by the side of the road - what would the cost of policing the protest have been?

What if the State didn't pay to clear protesters off a public road and instead just escorted them to ensure no breach of the peace?

Why wouldn't the state clear protesters off the road? They're on the road for the explicit purpose of preventing a company from going about its lawful business. Why would the Gardaí escort people who are preventing a company from going about its lawful business?

20Cent

Video from Mayo, disgraceful behavior by the Gardai. These guys are out of control, no wonder there is resentment towards them. Imagine having to live around there!

Mans window smashed and he is threatened by gardai.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndjJodItl30

Tipp Man

20Cent wrote: »

Video from Mayo, disgraceful behavior by the Gardai. These guys are out of control, no wonder there is resentment towards them. Imagine having to live around there!

Mans window smashed and he is threatened by gardai.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndjJodItl30

you fail to say that he is completly uncooperative with several Garda requests - to open his window (ok broken) to open his door, to pull off the road, to produce his licence

Got of lightly IMO

oscarBravo

20Cent wrote: »

Video from Mayo, disgraceful behavior by the Gardai.

I figured it wouldn't be long before that video got a mention here.

That episode could have easily been averted by the simple expedient of opening the car door. If I was stopped by a Garda and my window wasn't working, I don't think I'd be so pig-ignorant as to shout through a closed window at them. I'd probably give a slightly less confrontational answer than "I'm going about my business", while I was at it.

These guys are out of control, no wonder there is resentment towards them. Imagine having to live around there!

I do live here. I get stopped by the Guards from time to time, answer their questions in a polite and helpful manner, and bear no resentment towards them.

Contrary to S2S propaganda, the vast majority of Mayo people have no issue with the Guards, and don't consider them "out of control".

20Cent

From the guy stopping to the window being forced open is less than a minute. Thought gards were trained not to lose their temper and deal with situations. No wonder its costing a fortune if their arresting people in situations like this.

oscarBravo

20Cent wrote: »

From the guy stopping to the window being forced open is less than a minute.

From the guy stopping to the guy being on his way would have been less than thirty seconds if he had handled the situation like a grown-up.

Tipp Man

20Cent wrote: »

From the guy stopping to the window being forced open is less than a minute. Thought gards were trained not to lose their temper and deal with situations. No wonder its costing a fortune if their arresting people in situations like this.

so you agree that he failed several times to do what he was asked at a Garda checkpoint - simple things like pulling off the road, producing your licence, opening your window

He was a trouble seeking clown

20Cent

Tipp Man wrote: »

so you agree that he failed several times to do what he was asked at a Garda checkpoint - simple things like pulling off the road, producing your licence, opening your window

He was a trouble seeking clown

He couldn't open the window, if he opened the door they would have probably attacked him. Being rude is not illegal yet, the garda reaction was totally over the top they didn't even take a minute to talk to him, threatening to pepper spray someone who is of no danger to them. Disgraceful behavior by the Gardai acting like police state bullies in that episode.

oscarBravo

Meanwhile, nineteen protesters are facing 80 charges in Belmullet district court this week.

oscarBravo

20Cent wrote: »

He couldn't open the window, if he opened the door they would have probably attacked him.

That's blatant defamation. You have absolutely no evidence to support an outrageous accusation like that.

I realise it suits your narrative to believe that the poor people of Mayo are downtrodden under the jackbooted heel of a fascist police force, but it's insulting and offensive to those of us who don't whole-heartedly swallow every shred of S2S propaganda to have you repeatedly tell us that you know better than we do what's going on around here.

Tipp Man

20Cent wrote: »

He couldn't open the window, if he opened the door they would have probably attacked him. Being rude is not illegal yet, the garda reaction was totally over the top they didn't even take a minute to talk to him, threatening to pepper spray someone who is of no danger to them. Disgraceful behavior by the Gardai acting like police state bullies in that episode.

Ah seriously now - have a word with yourself

What is your patetic excuse for him not pulling into the left hand side of the road as he was clearly signalled to by the BanGarda??

20Cent

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's blatant defamation. You have absolutely no evidence to support an outrageous accusation like that.

I realise it suits your narrative to believe that the poor people of Mayo are downtrodden under the jackbooted heel of a fascist police force, but it's insulting and offensive to those of us who don't whole-heartedly swallow every shred of S2S propaganda to have you repeatedly tell us that you know better than we do what's going on around here.

The angry tone from the gard, aggressive approach, the forcing of the window within seconds, the drawn baton. Once out of the car he's threatened with pepper spray! I think I'd keep the door closed myself. Maybe if they took a more patient less aggressive approach it would be better.

Being stopped at roadblocks, ordered to produce ID, aggressive manner, sounds pretty police state like to me.

oscarBravo

20Cent wrote: »

The angry tone from the gard, aggressive approach, the forcing of the window within seconds, the drawn baton.

All of which are a direct result of his refusal to open the door.

I think I'd keep the door closed myself.

Do you drive? Have you ever been stopped at a Garda checkpoint, and taken the shirty attitude that he did? How'd it work out for you?

Maybe if they took a more patient less aggressive approach it would be better.

Maybe if he took a more cooperative, less confrontational attitude the situation wouldn't have arisen.

Being stopped at roadblocks, ordered to produce ID, aggressive manner, sounds pretty police state like to me.

Being stopped at roadblocks and asked for ID happens all the time. This isn't a police state, so stop the nonsense, please.

As for the aggressive manner, he was uncooperative. He brought the aggression on himself.

20Cent

oscarBravo wrote: »

All of which are a direct result of his refusal to open the door. Do you drive? Have you ever been stopped at a Garda checkpoint, and taken the shirty attitude that he did? How'd it work out for you? Maybe if he took a more cooperative, less confrontational attitude the situation wouldn't have arisen. Being stopped at roadblocks and asked for ID happens all the time. This isn't a police state, so stop the nonsense, please.

As for the aggressive manner, he was uncooperative. He brought the aggression on himself.

No never been stopped at a checkpoint or asked for ID. I'd definitely ask why though if I were.
They could have waited more then 1 minute to start smashing the window, the Gard at the end sounds hysterical doesn't give the guy a chance to do or even say anything. They took no time to assess the situation. If they had taken a few more minutes it could have all been avoided. Very bad pr for the gardai in the area totally over the top reaction. No wonder locals are installing cameras in their cars for protection. If it wasn't filmed no one would believe it.

oscarBravo

20Cent wrote: »

No never been stopped at a checkpoint or asked for ID. I'd definitely ask why though if I were.

You're required to stop at the direction of a Garda. You're also required to produce a driving licence on request. These are covered under the Road Traffic Acts. It's also something you're supposed to know if you're a driver.

They could have waited more then 1 minute to start smashing the window...

How long do you suppose is reasonable for a Garda to stand around twiddling his thumbs while a driver refuses to open a door or window, refuses to produce ID when required to do so, and refuses to pull in to the side of the road when directed to do so?

Are you, at any point, going to acknowledge that the entire situation would have been avoided if the driver had handled it with a modicum of cop-on? Or would that be too much at odds with your narrative?

No wonder locals are installing cameras in their cars for protection.

Locals are not installing cameras in their cars. It seems that some locals, who are determined to provoke conflict with Gardaí for reasons of their own, are leaving their phones recording in order to produce videos that certain credulous people will lap up because it reinforces their existing beliefs.

Tipp Man

20Cent wrote: »

From the guy stopping to the window being forced open is less than a minute. Thought gards were trained not to lose their temper and deal with situations. No wonder its costing a fortune if their arresting people in situations like this.

Its about 2 minutes actually - in that 2 minutes he acted in a completly irrational manner - by not opening his door, not producing his licence and clearly not pulling off the road as he was requested by 2 Gardai to do. In fact he can be heard saying no when asked to pull in

A trouble maker by any stretch of the imagination - how anybody can defend him is incomprehensible to me. but I suppose that is why the country is overrun with scumbags

20Cent

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're required to stop at the direction of a Garda. You're also required to produce a driving licence on request. These are covered under the Road Traffic Acts. It's also something you're supposed to know if you're a driver. How long do you suppose is reasonable for a Garda to stand around twiddling his thumbs while a driver refuses to open a door or window, refuses to produce ID when required to do so, and refuses to pull in to the side of the road when directed to do so?

Are you, at any point, going to acknowledge that the entire situation would have been avoided if the driver had handled it with a modicum of cop-on? Or would that be too much at odds with your narrative? Locals are not installing cameras in their cars. It seems that some locals, who are determined to provoke conflict with Gardaí for reasons of their own, are leaving their phones recording in order to produce videos that certain credulous people will lap up because it reinforces their existing beliefs.

I think more than a minute for sure anyway. The guy could have been a bit quicker to cooperate (20 seconds) but the reaction of the gardai is way over the top. He could have been deaf or many other reasons for the delay for all they knew. Smashing the window first and asking questions later, people are innocent until proven guilty in this country even in Mayo. The guy in the vid is a local apparently. Lucky he did record the incident because anyone hearing it would think it unbelievable.

Can you even acknowledge that the Gardai were too quick to use violence when there was no threat to themselves?

Tipp Man

20Cent wrote: »

I think more than a minute for sure anyway. The guy could have been a bit quicker to cooperate (20 seconds) but the reaction of the gardai is way over the top. He could have been deaf or many other reasons for the delay for all they knew. Smashing the window first and asking questions later, people are innocent until proven guilty in this country even in Mayo. The guy in the vid is a local apparently. Lucky he did record the incident because anyone hearing it would think it unbelievable.

Can you even acknowledge that the Gardai were too quick to use violence when there was no threat to themselves?

you have given absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why he did not comply with repeated requests from the Gardai to pull into the side, produce his licence or open his door to them

how are they to even know that he was no threat to them?

oscarBravo

20Cent wrote: »

I think more than a minute for sure anyway.

Ninety seconds? Half an hour? A month?

The guy could have been a bit quicker to cooperate (20 seconds) but the reaction of the gardai is way over the top.

The guy refused point blank to cooperate at all. He deliberately provoked a confrontation.

Smashing the window first and asking questions later...

Questions were asked before the window was smashed. Are you so utterly steeped in your narrative that you've already mentally edited out every part of the video that doesn't support it?

...people are innocent until proven guilty in this country even in Mayo.

Leaving aside the snide and patronising attitude to the county I live in, proving people guilty is the role of the courts. If you believe that the Gardaí shouldn't be allowed to arrest people until after they've been convicted in court... well, I have no idea what to do with that, to be honest.

Can you even acknowledge that the Gardai were too quick to use violence when there was no threat to themselves?

Thought experiment for you. Well, not for you, but for anyone who's actually got a remotely open mind on the subject.

Imagine you're driving along some evening, and you're stopped at a mandatory alcohol testing checkpoint. You refuse to open the window or unlock the door. You refuse to produce a driver's licence. You refuse to pull over to the side of the road, and remain in place blocking traffic.

What do you suppose is the appropriate course of action for the Gardaí to take?

If I had been in his situation, my window wouldn't have been broken and I wouldn't have been arrested. Why do you suppose that is?

20Cent

Tipp Man wrote: »

you have given absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why he did not comply with repeated requests from the Gardai to pull into the side, produce his licence or open his door to them

how are they to even know that he was no threat to them?

Was he asked to show id can't hear it. Also that might take more than a few seconds to get his wallet or wherever he keeps it. They give him no time to respond before forcing the window then smashing it. Since when does hesitating to respond to a garda allow them to respond with violence.

He was inside a car with the window and door closed. How could he be a threat to them. Even when the door was opened they straight away threaten him with pepper spray!

Tipp Man

20Cent wrote: »

Was he asked to show id can't hear it. Also that might take more than a few seconds to get his wallet or wherever he keeps it. They give him no time to respond before forcing the window then smashing it. Since when does hesitating to respond to a garda allow them to respond with violence.

He was inside a car with the window and door closed. How could he be a threat to them. Even when the door was opened they straight away threaten him with pepper spray!

You are surely trolling

20Cent

oscarBravo wrote: »

Imagine you're driving along some evening, and you're stopped at a mandatory alcohol testing checkpoint. You refuse to open the window or unlock the door. You refuse to produce a driver's licence. You refuse to pull over to the side of the road, and remain in place blocking traffic.

What do you suppose is the appropriate course of action for the Gardaí to take?

If I had been in his situation, my window wouldn't have been broken and I wouldn't have been arrested. Why do you suppose that is?

Where does he refuse to open the door or window? They didn't even give him a chance to respond. The gardai should spend more than a few seconds assessing the situation before smashing the window in on top of him. From the video he didn't pull over to the side for them fair enough that might annoy them but no excuse for such excessive violence.

Because your window isn't broken?