Shell meets Boards.ie - a protest? (naive rant herewithin)

RE*AC*TOR

landser wrote:

so, by your logic, if the law fails to agree with your opinion, the law is obviously wrong and you are then justified in breaking the laws of the state in pursuing an illegal protest against their decision and if you are punished by that state for that protest this only enforces your opinion that the state was wrong in the first place becuase it is wrong again in punishing you??!!

hmmm, i see...

Ok let me be clear - i am not trying to question the law of Contempt of Court. Try to look at the bigger picture here. I am sayign that these men were right to break that law in an act of Civil Disobedience in the face of goverment corruption and disregard for public safety.

It is up to us (should we choose) to voice our concerns at these issues.

Meh

I don't know about the rights and wrongs of the pipeline itself, but it seems self-evident to me that Shell, a private company, should not be allowed use private land without the consent of the landowners. Seizing private land for public projects like roads is one thing, seizing it for the use of a private company is unacceptable. If Shell can't get the consent of the farmers who own the land, then that's Shell's problem.

As for the other points, civil disobedience is a valid form of protest, but don't whine when you suffer the consequences of that disobedience. If you're willing to break the law (for whatever reason), you shouldn't act all surprised when you get jailed.

egan007

What the hell is wrong with you people - this is not a Contempt of Court issue.
A profit hungry company has put your fellow country men in Jail because they got in their way.

Take any route you want - add all the bells and whistles - but this is the bottom line.

Take a step back and use your brain - Just tink about it and who shell are.

You don't have to be right all the time - the MAN can be wrong you know

steviec

Getting themselves arrested seems like a good tactic to me. They've brought the media's attention to whats going on and it means the government are more likely to give it more discussion. Going the legal route wouldn't have got them anywhere.

I don't know enough details yet to say who's right or wrong in the case but I can definitely see the reasoning of the farmers, if they believe their right then turning themselves into Martyrs is probably one of the better ways to get their point across.

whippet

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Ok let me be clear - i am not trying to question the law of Contempt of Court. Try to look at the bigger picture here. I am sayign that these men were right to break that law in an act of Civil Disobedience in the face of goverment corruption and disregard for public safety.

It is up to us (should we choose) to voice our concerns at these issues.

is there any proof of corruption, if so please share it with us otherwise that is a slanderous statement.

I would have more confidence in shell operating an inland refinery than anything that would be run by the public sector or have you another alternative?

Maybe the government decided that the tax breaks were an adaquate trade off for the employment that will be generated and all other ancillary economic benefits to the area. Government are always being accused of not supporting industry in the regions, when they do they are corrupt! logical.

Also could you please substanciate the statement about shell not employing local workers.

For the record, I have no affilliation with government, shell or any other interested party, I just can't stand unfounded 'protesting for the sake of protesting' and 'fight the system' hysteria.

egan007

whippet wrote:

is there any proof of corruption, if so please share it with us otherwise that is a slanderous statement. .

Are you seroius?
How about this for a believeable scenario - of the top of my head.

Oil is staying up -that's a fact it's not going to go down - there is just not enough left.
People will soon start complaining about the high price and suggest that the gov reduce duty on fuel. The gov can't win here as If they do they will face a back lash from the green side, they will also suffer from reduced revenue.

A 'gentlemans' agreement between the biggest oil company and the irish government to 'keep stable' fule prices in the Irish market for - say 10 years. in return you get your purchase orders.

Is that so unbelieveable?

Indeed a statement like yours 'is there any proof of corruption' is very naieve

RE*AC*TOR

whippet wrote:

is there any proof of corruption, if so please share it with us otherwise that is a slanderous statement.

:eek: you have got to be joking me? The state - with no interest in this development (ie we get no money back from giving away our asset) GIVES Shell our gas, and over 400 acres of Coilte land for nothing.

Oh and by the way, they also run fund-raisers for and are donators to Fianna Fáil. But that's not related.

I've already mentioned Ray Burke and the changing of tax and royalty laws for these companies. I assume you know who Ray Burke is, and I don't need to go any further? To suggest that he might be involved in shenaningans would not be a stretch.

whippet wrote:

I would have more confidence in shell operating an inland refinery than anything that would be run by the public sector or have you another alternative?

Shell only has responsibility to its shareholders. A public sector company would have responsibility to all of us. Another alternative seeing as how we are getting nothing from this would be to leave the gas where it is for now, until we have a competent government to properly manage it.

whippet wrote:

Maybe the government decided that the tax breaks were an adaquate trade off for the employment that will be generated and all other ancillary economic benefits to the area. Government are always being accused of not supporting industry in the regions, when they do they are corrupt! logical.

maybe? yeah - maybe they did. No 1 I think they would be hugely undervaluing the asset and No 2 I'm not naive enough to believe that. In the face of all the tribunals and all the revelations of corruption - why do people have such a hard time believing that the government might be selling us off to whomever lines THEIR pockets?

whippet wrote:

Also could you please substanciate the statement about shell not employing local workers.

its fairly moot in regard to the larger picture - but here you go anyway...

indymedia wrote:

The deal is the pipelines after the refinery, running to Dublin and Scotland, will be constructed by the state, that is, Bord Gais, while a good deal of infrastructure, new roads and bridges is already being built by the state, i.e. Mayo County Council. Some of the gas, that which is not exported, will then be purchased back by the state.

These companies have a track record of not employing Irish rig workers.

whippet wrote:

For the record, I have no affilliation with government, shell or any other interested party, I just can't stand unfounded 'protesting for the sake of protesting' and 'fight the system' hysteria.

or perhaps your cynicism is so strong that you cannot see that this really is an injustice. Sometimes the system is wrong.

landser

Meh wrote:

I don't know about the rights and wrongs of the pipeline itself, but it seems self-evident to me that Shell, a private company, should not be allowed use private land without the consent of the landowners. Seizing private land for public projects like roads is one thing, seizing it for the use of a private company is unacceptable. If Shell can't get the consent of the farmers who own the land, then that's Shell's problem.

.

this is the purpose of a Compulsory Purchase Order, otherwise one person could hold up projects of national importance. While it may a private developer, the pipeline is seen as a benefit to the state (whether you agree with this statement or not is not relevant to the function of a CPO) therefore approval for the CPO is given. there is noting novel about CPO's for private firms.


AS for Reactor, I have looked at the "big picture", but you've missed my point. Furether to that, just because you think it's wrong, doesn't mean that it is. as said supra, the pro's and anti's are split pretty evenly in mayo, and a handful of protestors is hardly indicative of a major opposition to the project.

btw, i think i know you, your first name isn't "Over" by any chance

Meh

landser wrote:

this is the purpose of a Compulsory Purchase Order, otherwise one person could hold up projects of national importance. While it may a private developer, the pipeline is seen as a benefit to the state (whether you agree with this statement or not is not relevant to the function of a CPO) therefore approval for the CPO is given. there is noting novel about CPO's for private firms.

But any and every private development could be argued as a "benefit to the state". So what you're effectively arguing is that people should only be allowed own property at the pleasure of property developers.

RE*AC*TOR

landser wrote:

this is the purpose of a Compulsory Purchase Order, otherwise one person could hold up projects of national importance. While it may a private developer, the pipeline is seen as a benefit to the state (whether you agree with this statement or not is not relevant to the function of a CPO) therefore approval for the CPO is given. there is noting novel about CPO's for private firms.

It is novel - it is the 1st time in the history of the state that a private firm has been awarded one. It was awarded in error (at best) or in gross corruption (at worst) as I have yet to see an argument as to how it best serves the state in the absence of tax or royalties, apart from a few jobs.

landser wrote:

AS for Reactor, I have looked at the "big picture", but you've missed my point. Furether to that, just because you think it's wrong, doesn't mean that it is. as said supra, the pro's and anti's are split pretty evenly in mayo, and a handful of protestors is hardly indicative of a major opposition to the project.

btw, i think i know you, your first name isn't "Over" by any chance

if you think I have missed your point, perhaps you could argue/explain it better. I took time and effort to clarify myself - you could at least do the same instead of making silly jokes.

whippet

reactor .. I have no doubt we have and had corrupt officials, however you have not indicated or substanciated any wrong doing.

Shell oil's primary responsibility it to shareholders, however shareholders only benefit when oil and gas refinerys work properly etc .. not when they explode, leak raw materials. If any pubilc sector was involved in this it would be an unmitigated disaster, leading to massive cost over runs, shoddy work (similar to the national aquatic centre) etc .. that would not be the solution. In theory the pubilc sector is there to serve the pubilc, whereby in practice the public sector serves to create work for itself and maintain its own inflated cost base.

the quotes you are using from indymedia are hearsay and have no back up as far as I can see, indymedia is not a reliable source of objective reference as they are the extreme in 'anti capitalism'.

Have you asked why shell have not gone off shore with this project? obviously there would inherant dangers there and it is much safter to do it onland.

I am cynical, I am a capitalist (as in I support free trade no communisim or extreme socialism). I have not gotten off the fence on this argument yet as I don't have a convincing argument from either side and I don't know enough about it.

I am sure that the jailbirds have been compensated nicely for the land that was 'purchased' not stolen.

egan007

Whippet - what position do you hold in the Dail?

oscarBravo

egan007 wrote:

What the hell is wrong with you people - this is not a Contempt of Court issue.

On the contrary, this is a contempt of court issue.

egan007 wrote:

A profit hungry company has put your fellow country men in Jail because they got in their way.

A court put them in jail. Companies - "profit hungry" or otherwise (is their another kind?) - have no power to do so.

RE*AC*TOR

whippet wrote:

reactor .. I have no doubt we have and had corrupt officials, however you have not indicated or substanciated any wrong doing.

in the absence of a reason FOR this pipeline and current deal, and in light of past-performance - this is my opinion.

whippet wrote:

Shell oil's primary responsibility it to shareholders, however shareholders only benefit when oil and gas refinerys work properly etc .. not when they explode, leak raw materials.

not true, shareholders benefit when shell makes money. Say it costs Shell x amount to put in place certain safety procedures. If x is more than the likely amount they will lose due to leaks, explosions etc - do you think they will do it (be honest here).

whippet wrote:

If any pubilc sector was involved in this it would be an unmitigated disaster, leading to massive cost over runs, shoddy work (similar to the national aquatic centre) etc .. that would not be the solution. In theory the pubilc sector is there to serve the pubilc, whereby in practice the public sector serves to create work for itself and maintain its own inflated cost base.

Maybe so - but that again goes back to this governement and their management of public sector projects. Either way giving away the family jewels is not the way to go.

whippet wrote:

the quotes you are using from indymedia are hearsay and have no back up as far as I can see, indymedia is not a reliable source of objective reference as they are the extreme in 'anti capitalism'.

That may be true. Most of the facts are in the public domain though. The nationality of the rig workers I haven't found elsewhere - so you can take it as you will. Largely speaking its not one of the major points in any case.

whippet wrote:

Have you asked why shell have not gone off shore with this project? obviously there would inherant dangers there and it is much safter to do it onland.

Its cheaper to build on land. Its probably safer for Shell workers on land. Did you ever consider if something cannot be done safely - then perhaps it shouldn't be done. I for one would not be happy living on top of a high-pressure pipeline of odorless gas, run by a company with a track record of environmental destruction.

whippet wrote:

I am cynical, I am a capitalist (as in I support free trade no communisim or extreme socialism). I have not gotten off the fence on this argument yet as I don't have a convincing argument from either side and I don't know enough about it.

ok Mr Capitalist - you are the chairman of a company - lets call it The State PLC. You have an asset worth x euro, do you:
(a) sell the asset at market value
(b) use the asset for the benefit of the company
(c) give the asset away

be careful what you answer - future employers may be watching.

whippet wrote:

I am sure that the jailbirds have been compensated nicely for the land that was 'purchased' not stolen.

and you were doing so well up until that point.....

Villain

I can't understand how Shell were allowed to use Compulsory Purchase orders to take control of these farmers land. This is a private investment been made by Shell, the Government aren't getting anything apart from a few quid in tax from this project. I support these men and I believe the people who granted this planning permission and CPO's are a disgrace to this state. We only need to look at the deaths of 2 young poeple in America to see what risks this kind of project present.

Meh

whippet wrote:

I am a capitalist

I'm surprised to hear a capitalist arguing against the right to own private property.

I am sure that the jailbirds have been compensated nicely for the land that was 'purchased' not stolen.

Clearly they haven't been compensated enough, since they're still objecting.

toiletduck

Meh wrote:

Clearly they haven't been compensated enough, since they're still objecting.

since a lot of people here are throwing around accusations of corruption between the government and shell, i throw in my own little theory with absolutely no evidence: The farmers wanted more money, they decided the best way to get more would be to protest on safety grounds, bring in enviromentalists etc. and generally keep annoying the authorithies until they get a bigger pay-off to cease. As i said no evidence, like the rest of the accusations banded around here but plausible since we all know farmers (like the rest of us!) like to get as much as they can outta the gov.

Stabshauptmann

seamus wrote:

Yerp. This has nothing to do with how Shell are a big evil corporation, and these guys are just salt-of-the-earth farmers, trying to make a living even though they're awful poor and just decent guys. :rolleyes:

They broke the law, they were jailed. Shocking.

Nelson Mandela broke the law and was jailed. Good enough for the malcontent!!

These men went to court against the legal team of a wealthy multi national company. They lost.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

I can't understand how Shell were allowed to use Compulsory Purchase orders to take control of these farmers land.

They weren't.

The Department of the Marine used CPOs to ensure that the project - which was deemed to be of significant National interest - would go ahead.

it would be little different to (say) the government securing land and then allowing a toll-road to be built on it rather than building a public road there themselves. Whether or not this has happened in the past, I can't see it as being a conceptual problem, but rather a question of whether or not this move (the Shell one) is in the national interest.

This is a private investment been made by Shell, the Government aren't getting anything apart from a few quid in tax from this project.

A few quid? That would be like me saying there's a tiny bit of opposition to the project, yes? I mean, if you don't want accuracy to play a part in the discussion, thats fine, but I don't see how it helps you.

I believe the people who granted this planning permission and CPO's are a disgrace to this state.

Tell me...what should have been done? More importantly, why wasn't it done? Most importantly, can you answer these questions without using vagaries and supposition. (i.e., can you do it without suggesting that brown envelopes changed hands, but rather by proving they did - if brown envelopes are yoru reasoning of choice....I'm not saying they are).

Generally speaking, one would have to wonder what our govt stands to gain sucking up to Shell, which seems to be the only obvious reason they'd sell us down the Swanee like people are suggesting. Were they bought out? Are they just deliberately trying to ruin our country because they hate us? There has to be some reason, and surely this is what we should be looking for? But all I hear is baseless cries of corruption and incompetence.

We only need to look at the deaths of 2 young poeple in America to see what risks this kind of project present.

I thought this kind of project was supposed to be the first of its kind in the world?

Have the people opposing this been misleading us, and in fact there's been an overland pipe for untreated gas already built elsewhere in the world?

Or when you say "this kind of project", are you talking about something other than this kind of project?

jc

RE*AC*TOR

bonkey wrote:

They weren't.

The Department of the Marine used CPOs to ensure that the project - which was deemed to be of significant National interest - would go ahead.

it would be little different to (say) the government securing land and then allowing a toll-road to be built on it rather than building a public road there themselves. Whether or not this has happened in the past, I can't see it as being a conceptual problem, but rather a question of whether or not this move (the Shell one) is in the national interest.

As you know despite the ridiculously good deal NTR got with the toll roads, the state does collect tax from them and gets a tidy amount of money. This is not the case for this project. If there is a national interest in this project I've yet to here a cogent arguement as to why. The only real reason I have heard is that it will create some jobs. However, I would be interested to see if someone can propose that this is a fair trade off for a gas field. This is not the international norm - neither the deal (no tax/royalties) not the type of refinery (on land) are normal.

A few quid? That would be like me saying there's a tiny bit of opposition to the project, yes? I mean, if you don't want accuracy to play a part in the discussion, thats fine, but I don't see how it helps you.

What earnings do the state stand to gain from this then? I would agree that "a few quid" is about all if any that they will get.

Tell me...what should have been done? More importantly, why wasn't it done? Most importantly, can you answer these questions without using vagaries and supposition. (i.e., can you do it without suggesting that brown envelopes changed hands, but rather by proving they did - if brown envelopes are yoru reasoning of choice....I'm not saying they are).

Generally speaking, one would have to wonder what our govt stands to gain sucking up to Shell, which seems to be the only obvious reason they'd sell us down the Swanee like people are suggesting. Were they bought out? Are they just deliberately trying to ruin our country because they hate us? There has to be some reason, and surely this is what we should be looking for? But all I hear is baseless cries of corruption and incompetence.

Judging on past-performance I don't think cries of corruption are baseless. In the absence of a reason why they would give shell this deal - you cannot blame us for jumping to such a conclusion.

I thought this kind of project was supposed to be the first of its kind in the world?

Have the people opposing this been misleading us, and in fact there's been an overland pipe for untreated gas already built elsewhere in the world?

Or when you say "this kind of project", are you talking about something other than this kind of project?

jc

there are overland pipes - most usually in the desert.

Villain

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Nelson Mandela broke the law and was jailed. Good enough for the malcontent!!

These men went to court against the legal team of a wealthy multi national company. They lost.

The only law they have broken is contempt of court and there in jail, the 17 year old that was the ring leader in that gang rape had 36 convinctions and was free to carry out this terrible act.

egan007

oscarBravo wrote:

On the contrary, this is a contempt of court issue. A court put them in jail. Companies - "profit hungry" or otherwise (is their another kind?) - have no power to do so.

OMG is indirect in your limited dictionary - wood.... trees...... :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

The only law they have broken is contempt of court and there in jail

What sanction do you suggest is appropriate for contempt of court? A stern talking-to? An aggressive finger-wagging?

If contempt of court does not result in a prison sentence, then the concept of contempt becomes utterly meaningless, and - by extensions - so do the courts. Unless you want to live in some sort of anarchic wasteland, you have to recognise the importance of severely punishing contempt of court.

oscarBravo

egan007 wrote:

OMG is indirect in your limited dictionary - wood.... trees...... :rolleyes:

You didn't use the word indirect. Even if you had, it wouldn't have made your point any more valid.

These people were ordered by a court not to do something. They did it - now they're in jail. That's the way the system works.

Why did the court order them not to do it? Because Shell asked them to. Why did Shell take the case to court? Because they felt that their rights were being impinged upon by the actions of these people, and they used lawful means to get redress. The court agreed that Shell were in the right, and issued a court order.

If Shell had decided to retaliate by, I dunno, parking oil tankers across these farmers' driveways, and the farmers got a court order demanding that they desist - would you argue that the Shell people involved shouldn't go to jail if they continued the retaliation? Or is it a case that you've decided the law shouldn't apply to these people because you happen to agree with their cause?

Tuars

Why are Shell being allowed to progress with this work when they haven't yet received Ministerial consent? Noel Dempsey must await the Health and Safety report before he gives consent. This report is not yet ready.

As far as I know the hearings relating to this do not take place until September. So why is the work progressing?

It seems to me like there's one law for Shell and another law for the farmers and Shell are using the Irish courts as hired goons to enforce their bully boy tactics.

[Edit: the report has been received by the Minister but is not yet in the public domain. Public consultation is supposed to take place in Autumn. So why are these people in jail now and why is work progressing if the hearings have not yet taken place?]

egan007

oscarBravo wrote:

You didn't use the word indirect. Even if you had, it wouldn't have made your point any more valid.

These people were ordered by a court not to do something. They did it - now they're in jail. That's the way the system works.

Why did the court order them not to do it? Because Shell asked them to. Why did Shell take the case to court? Because they felt that their rights were being impinged upon by the actions of these people, and they used lawful means to get redress. The court agreed that Shell were in the right, and issued a court order.

If Shell had decided to retaliate by, I dunno, parking oil tankers across these farmers' driveways, and the farmers got a court order demanding that they desist - would you argue that the Shell people involved shouldn't go to jail if they continued the retaliation? Or is it a case that you've decided the law shouldn't apply to these people because you happen to agree with their cause?

You have no problem intrepreting the law ill give you that.
"Because they(shell) felt that their rights were being impinged upon by the actions of these people"

The farmers also felt their rights were being infringed upon - and they clearly were, in the form of compulsory purchase orders.
The court does not get it right all the time hence their protest.
Sure - the way is to take it to court, but don't tell me for a second that Shell v the farmers is a level playing field in the courts. Big business pays for big solicitation - they pay to win.
Justice and the law.

whippet

has anyone got any idea how much more than the 'market value' the farmers got for their land?

Tuars

whippet wrote:

has anyone got any idea how much more than the 'market value' the farmers got for their land?

I think this is a bit of a red herring since their opposition is based on health and safety issues rather than compensation.

As I noted above, the health and safety issues have not yet been addressed in a satisfactory manner (unless you count the report by a company half-owned by Shell, which was paid for by the government).

oscarBravo

Tuars wrote:

Why are Shell being allowed to progress with this work when they haven't yet received Ministerial consent?

That's a good question. It strikes me as a question that would have been taken into account in any court action. In fact, it strikes me as a perfectly good mechanism for preventing Shell from carrying out any works on these farmers' lands, if it as clear-cut as you make out.

So why did these farmers break the law?

Tuars wrote:

It seems to me like there's one law for Shell and another law for the farmers and Shell are using the Irish courts as hired goons to enforce their bully boy tactics.

Let me get this straight: are you openly accusing the courts of corruption? Because that's what it looks like to me. Feel free to clarify if I'm wrong.

oscarBravo

egan007 wrote:

You have no problem intrepreting the law ill give you that.

Interpreting the law is the exclusive domain of the courts - a fact that many arguing here would rather ignore.

Or were you suggesting that I'm misinterpreting the law? If you feel I have, please feel free to correct me.

egan007 wrote:

The farmers also felt their rights were being infringed upon - and they clearly were, in the form of compulsory purchase orders.

If they "clearly were", why not take a case instead of breaking the law?

Unless, of course, by "rights" you mean "what I feel I'm entitled to" as opposed to "what the law says is right". You don't have a right not to have your land compulsorily purchased - that's why it's called "compulsory".

egan007 wrote:

The court does not get it right all the time hence their protest.

If a court doesn't get to decide what is and isn't legal, who does? Joe Higgins? The Mob?

Not in my democracy, thanks.

egan007 wrote:

Sure - the way is to take it to court, but don't tell me for a second that Shell v the farmers is a level playing field in the courts. Big business pays for big solicitation - they pay to win.
Justice and the law.

Another veiled hint that the courts are corrupt. If you're so sure Shell bought this case, why not point out where in law the court went wrong?