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

oscarBravo

I realise I'm labouring a point here, but I genuinely feel it's an important one, and one that goes to the heart of law and order in society.

Earthman wrote:

He did comment,he said that it could purge the contempt and that he will hear that case on wenesday.

Right. And until such time as he does, the court order stands, and the men are in contempt of it.

Earthman wrote:

It's a simple enough matter, either the ministerial order was valid or not.

Right. And until such time as a court declares it invalid, it's valid - and a court order on foot of it must be obeyed.

Earthman wrote:

I'd imagine he couldnt deliberate on that untill it comes up for mention ergo he had to say could and not would with respect to the related case of those in jail.But the direct implication of what he said was that if the ministerial order is invalid then it follows that the contempt would be purged.

Yup. And until such time as that happens, they remain in contempt.

Earthman wrote:

If the judge discovers he had no legal basis for ordering those now jailed to comply with an order because the order was arising out of an invalid ministerial order-then the guys are released.
Why that has to wait untill wenesday leaving the current situation to fester is beyond me.

There's a very simple principle involved here. The men disobeyed the court. Even if the ministerial order is shown to have been invalid, they will still have refused to comply with a court order. Whatever the rights and wrongs of any of the processes that led up to the court order, an order was issued and disobeyed.

Earthman wrote:

Judges aren't averse to having hearings in their own living rooms when the need arises to put actual criminals behind bars as opposed to leaving decent people concerned for their own health and safety behind bars when it isnt necessary-thats assuming that the judge agree's that the ministerial order is invalid.

But it is necessary. Even if the ministerial order is shown to be invalid, the men refused to obey a court order. No matter how decent, hard-working and law-abiding they are, that's a serious crime.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

But it is necessary. Even if the ministerial order is shown to be invalid, the men refused to obey a court order. No matter how decent, hard-working and law-abiding they are, that's a serious crime.

Oh I've no truck with the crime-the judge was only doing what the law entitles him to do-he cannot mitigate except within the letter of the law.
However, the judge must have seen the reasoning for the new hearing on the ministerial order when deciding to have one.
We'll see on wenesday, anyway and if they are released then that would vindicate my concern here that there has been an unnecessary delay resulting in people genuinely concerned with their own health and safety remaining in prison unnecessarally.

netwhizkid

This is a disgrace $hell should ran from our shores and given an toe up the you know where. This is another example of the sort of Traitors Fianna Fail are and ever were from the day Michael Collins was shot dead in Dumanway. (not Beal no blath as most people think). This project should be under state control and all profits if any should go to the government coffers (and be used for things like health and affordable homes.) not this multinational who couldnt care less about the mayo people involved in this case. They would have them locked away permanently (if they were left). Bord Gais should be in charge of this and i for one shaln't be pulling up for fuel under a shell canopy ever again anyway. How can the government tell the people of Mayo, they have no control over the matter. It is time this Government took a leaf from Gerhard Shroders book and called election and give the people a chance to elect a new Government sooner than later.
Enda Kenny for Taoiseach !

Regards netwhizkid

Moriarty

netwhizkid wrote:

<snipped boring rant>This project should be under state control and all profits if any should go to the government coffers (and be used for things like health and affordable homes.)

They can't build a swimming pool. How exactly do you expect them to safely extract natural gas from the atlantic seabed, nevermind make a profit?

netwhizkid wrote:

and i for one shaln't be pulling up for fuel under a shell canopy ever again anyway

Aren't you still too young to drive, or am I confusing you with somone else?

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

Oh I've no truck with the crime-the judge was only doing what the law entitles him to do-he cannot mitigate except within the letter of the law.
However, the judge must have seen the reasoning for the new hearing on the ministerial order when deciding to have one.

I'm going to flog this dead horse one more time, because I genuinely think you're completely missing my point.

You're painting a picture of a judge casting about for a mechanism to release these poor unfortunates, and as such you're surprised that he's not doing it sooner. The fact is, they're in prison as a punishment for a crime that is, effectively, unconnected with the validity or otherwise of the ministerial order. The way I see it, if they are released as a result of Wednesday's judgement, it will be because there will be no legal grounds to keep them there - not because the judge will finally have found a way to let them out.

Earthman wrote:

We'll see on wenesday, anyway and if they are released then that would vindicate my concern here that there has been an unnecessary delay resulting in people genuinely concerned with their own health and safety remaining in prison unnecessarally.

They're not remaining in prison unnecessarily, they're remaining in prison because they deliberately and voluntarily chose to break a law. How can I make this clearer?

Concern for health and safety does not entitle one to break the law. The court order didn't bar them from blocking the construction site unless they were concerned for their health; it barred them from blocking the construction site - the end.

It's not Schrodinger's cat that's in jail for contempt. They don't exist in an uncertain state of contempt or non-contempt, which will collapse into a known state on Wednesday. They are in contempt, and on Wednesday they either will continue to be, or cease to be. As long as they're in contempt, they stay jailed.

Am I making sense?

netwhizkid

Originally Posted by Moriarty
Aren't you still too young to drive, or am I confusing you with somone else?

You must be confusing me with some else alright, i am driving as of today and just got insured. Well i think whatever about the government and the swimming fiasco, $hell should be booted out ob the country right now for jailing these people, I would love to see a few of their corporate crooks locked away for a few years.

Regards netwhizkid

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote:

The way I see it, if they are released as a result of Wednesday's judgement, it will be because there will be no legal grounds to keep them there

Thats how I see it too. However, if the judge believes that this is possible / likely, then surely there is an onus on him to allow people to go free as soon as possible?

They're not remaining in prison unnecessarily, they're remaining in prison because they deliberately and voluntarily chose to break a law.

A law that they believed was unjust, and which belief - should their release be granted - would prove to be correct.

There is no benefit to the law in being in any way tardy in correcting its own faults, which is effectively what this action (the release of the men) would be.

The court order didn't bar them from blocking the construction site unless they were concerned for their health; it barred them from blocking the construction site - the end.

But it could turn out to be a court-order which should not have been granted.

It's not Schrodinger's cat that's in jail for contempt. They don't exist in an uncertain state of contempt or non-contempt, which will collapse into a known state on Wednesday. They are in contempt, and on Wednesday they either will continue to be, or cease to be. As long as they're in contempt, they stay jailed.

One could say the same about someone who is having an appeal on a guilty verdict for a crime. They're guilty until the moment that an appeal should reverse the decision...but does that mean that there is no onus to avoid all avoidable tardiness? It is "only" a guilty person's serving of their already-determined guilt which is being prolongued.

However, a reversal of a decision - which I see no difference with the decision that a previous granting of a court order was in error - is an admission that the earlier decision has been shown to have been incorrect.

I would expect the courts - the highest authorities in our land in many ways - to take all possible efforts to ensure that they minimise both the errors made and the effects of those incorrect decisions.

Am I making sense?

Making perfect sense to me...I just see it differently...and have no idea whether its the same way Earthman sees it or not or how the law sees it.

jc

oscarBravo

bonkey wrote:

A law that they believed was unjust, and which belief - should their release be granted - would prove to be correct.

Again, this is confusing two issues: the court order and the ministerial order. Is anyone arguing that it's unjust to jail people for contempt of court?

bonkey wrote:

There is no benefit to the law in being in any way tardy in correcting its own faults, which is effectively what this action (the release of the men) would be.

As above. The jailing of the men will not have been a faulty decision, whether or not granting of the court order is shown to have been.

bonkey wrote:

But it could turn out to be a court-order which should not have been granted.

True, in which case it will be rescinded, and the men will then be free to prevent Shell from carrying out work on their land.

bonkey wrote:

One could say the same about someone who is having an appeal on a guilty verdict for a crime. They're guilty until the moment that an appeal should reverse the decision...but does that mean that there is no onus to avoid all avoidable tardiness? It is "only" a guilty person's serving of their already-determined guilt which is being prolongued.

However, a reversal of a decision - which I see no difference with the decision that a previous granting of a court order was in error - is an admission that the earlier decision has been shown to have been incorrect.

But there is a difference: the reversal of a "guilty" verdict implies that the convictee was not guilty of the original offence, and therefore should not be in jail. If the court decides that the court order should be lifted, it will lift it, but that won't change the fact that the men broke the law while it was in force.

bonkey wrote:

I would expect the courts - the highest authorities in our land in many ways - to take all possible efforts to ensure that they minimise both the errors made and the effects of those incorrect decisions.

Absolutely, but I would argue that the jailing of these men is a consequence not of the court order, valid or otherwise, but of their decision to disobey any court order.

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote:

Absolutely, but I would argue that the jailing of these men is a consequence not of the court order, valid or otherwise, but of their decision to disobey any court order.

But they didn't. Should the ministerial order be judged to be invalid, then these men made a decision to disobey a court order which should never have been issued.

It was issued, but thats no different to the notion that an innocent man should never be found guilty but sometimes is.

Yes, these people broke the law. But they did so because they did not agree the law was just, and should the decision be reversed, the law will be effectively agreeing that the court order was not just.

How can the legal system justify the enforcement of unjust laws? The jailed locals are in contempt of an unjust court order (should that be determined to be the case), not just any court order.

Once the order is known to be unjust, surely the men have to be released, or do you disagree with that idea as well? I don't mean to provoke with that question - the reason I'm asking is because if you don't disagree, then once the real possibility that the law is unjust emerges, what justification is there for not rectifying the mistake with all possible haste?

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Making perfect sense to me...I just see it differently...and have no idea whether its the same way Earthman sees it or not or how the law sees it.

jc

You've summed up my position on it fairly well.

If they are released on wenesday,then the tardiness in allowing them to be in prison several days longer than necessary will be an issue and quite possibly a compensation issue should they wish to persue that angle,thus adding another expense to the state along with the cost of housing them as prisoners in the first place.
Quite apart from that I've already expressed my unease at who was involved with putting this contract together at great loss to the state(it would appear) in the first place-that person being a proven corrupt politician.

oscarBravo

bonkey wrote:

But they didn't. Should the ministerial order be judged to be invalid, then these men made a decision to disobey a court order which should never have been issued.

It was issued, but thats no different to the notion that an innocent man should never be found guilty but sometimes is.

I don't disagree with you, but the whole concept of contempt doesn't allow for personal interpretation of a court's judgements. If the men felt that the court order shouldn't have been issued, then they should have asked for an injunction to prevent work on their land, pending a review of the facts in the case - pretty much what's going to happen next week.

bonkey wrote:

Yes, these people broke the law. But they did so because they did not agree the law was just, and should the decision be reversed, the law will be effectively agreeing that the court order was not just.

How can the legal system justify the enforcement of unjust laws? The jailed locals are in contempt of an unjust court order (should that be determined to be the case), not just any court order.

I'm going to quibble with you over the word unjust. Next week, the court will decide whether to keep the order in place, based on a re-evaluation of the facts on which it based its judgement in the first place. Should it find that the basis for the judgement was unsound - which would almost certainly only result from new facts coming to light - it will do the right thing and reverse the order.

To call the court order unjust implies that there was an error of judgement or of law in the initial granting of the order. I feel it's more accurate to say that, should it be so demonstrated, the order was incorrect.

You say that the men disobeyed the law because they felt the law was unjust - this is the definition of civil disobedience. However, the law they disobeyed was the one that says you have to do what a court tells you. That's not an unjust law per se, and I'd argue that the order was not unjust either, unless someone can show differently (which brings me back to the unsubstantiated allegations of corruption by some earlier posters).

bonkey wrote:

Once the order is known to be unjust, surely the men have to be released, or do you disagree with that idea as well? I don't mean to provoke with that question - the reason I'm asking is because if you don't disagree, then once the real possibility that the law is unjust emerges, what justification is there for not rectifying the mistake with all possible haste?

If the order is shown to be incorrect, then it will be reversed. Should that happen, the men will no longer be in breach of the order, and therefore no longer in contempt, and of course they should be released forthwith.

I strongly maintain that until such time, they are guilty of a wrong and are paying the price they consciously chose to pay for it.

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

Quite apart from that I've already expressed my unease at who was involved with putting this contract together at great loss to the state(it would appear) in the first place-that person being a proven corrupt politician.

Just so we're abundantly clear: despite my vigorous arguments so far, I don't necessarily disagree with many of the points made by those who oppose the gas project.

I do, however, strongly object to the idea that it's ok to take the law into your own hands, whether it's feuding families in Limerick in tit-for-tat killings, or dacent farmers consciously disobeying an explicit court order.

Cork

The Not in My Back Yard campaigning is crazy.

What type of message does this put out for a country dependant on foriegn investment?

The TDs in the Dail were hillarious.

Parish pump politics?

Cork

Cork wrote:

The Not in My Back Yard campaigning is crazy.

why in this case specefically? This forum is not a soapbox, you are meant to be discussing and engaging with the other posters.

What type of message does this put out for a country dependant on foriegn investment?

That we can roll over on our backs and say to the likes of shell rape us? Iirc only 8 people are being employed locally by this operation, whilst 300 or so are shipped in from Scotland to live and work on the platform.Do you know if they will be paying income taxes to the British or Irish exchequer?

The TDs in the Dail were hillarious.

You're talking about berties comments about the wind blowing down the swimming pool roof right ? and not the health worries of people with houses metres away from a pipeline carrying an odourless high pressure poisonous gas?

Parish pump politics?

please explain what you mean there and perhaps give examples of where you have condemned parish pump politics on all sides and not just one

Hotblack Desiato

netwhizkid wrote:

This is another example of the sort of Traitors Fianna Fail are and ever were from the day Michael Collins was shot dead in Dumanway. (not Beal no blath as most people think).

Whatever :rolleyes: Quick history lesson - FF did not exist until several years afterwards. BTW I'm no fan of FF either.

This project should be under state control and all profits if any should go to the government coffers (and be used for things like health and affordable homes.) not this multinational who couldnt care less about the mayo people involved in this case.

But... we don't live in a socialist utopia. Shell paid for the exploration which discovered the gas. Do you think that after they paid for the heavy costs of speculative drilling, they should not benefit from the rare positive result?
The only logical alternative is to have all oil and gas exploration in Irish waters carried out on behalf of the Government. Sorry, but I think we shouldn't spend billions of taxpayers' money on speculative oil and gas drilling with zero guarantee of return.
Without the prospect of making profits, no company will bother drilling in Irish waters. What is the point of having natural resources if no-one can be bothered to spend the money to discover them?

and i for one shaln't be pulling up for fuel under a shell canopy ever again anyway.

You won't have the chance for much longer - they're shortly pulling out of the Irish retail market for unconnected reasons.

How can the government tell the people of Mayo, they have no control over the matter.

Because, within the law, the judge is the master of his court and that is exactly as it should be.
If Bertie or McDowell was interfering with judicial decisions I think it wouldn't be too long before you would be complaining loudly.

axtradub12

I'll say something for the Brits and French,they go out and protest. The Irish, will always be walked on.

Cork

Earthman wrote:

That we can roll over on our backs and say to the likes of shell rape us?

Rape is a crime - The law is there to deal with crime.If you know of any "rape" - please report it to the proper authorities.

But... we don't live in a socialist utopia

We don't. Some people may find that difficult to believe.

This NIMBY atitude is crazy. Landfill dumps, roads etc It is the same old song.

Politicians then get involved for the hope of a few votes.

Gerry Adams had planned to visit the men at Clover Hill prison tomorrow but that has now been ruled out by the Department of Justice - a decision described by Sinn Féin as "bizarre".

Bizarre! Adams trying to get into Clover Hill?

Cork

Cork wrote:

Rape is a crime - The law is there to deal with crime.If you know of any "rape" - please report it to the proper authorities.

I think that you know right well that I was referring to the Rape of our natural resources that the not too squeeky clean Burke arranged for Shell with the state getting practically nothing out of it.

It's rather telling that you've ignored the rest of what I said...

Blackjack

Cork, I assume if this was in your backyard you would not have a problem with it?.

Villain

Well if the Department for Marine and Natural Resources published the Quantified Risk Assessment in full we might have some idea what we'r talking about here.

Cork

Rape of our natural resources

Should the state ignore agreements it has entered into?

The state as well as it's citizens are bound by the law.

Cork, I assume if this was in your backyard you would not have a problem with it?.

If it was granted planning permission and satisfied all health regulation - then I'd have no problem with it.

I personally despire this NIMBY atitude. I have no sympapy for those who ended up in jail.

As a taxpayer - How much are these people costing us?

It is a disgrace. Behavioral Orders as an alternative to prison are badly needed.

Blackjack

Cork, these peoples issues is that they don't wish to blindly accept whatever the Government decree. There was little consultation with the locals on the matter, and by all accounts Ray Burke appears to have been up to his neck (and usual tricks) with this.
Added to this it appears that the minesterial order may have been invalid.

It's not simply a NIMBY attitude. These people are protesting against this for quite some time, it's only now that the issue has been highlighted.
What they are protesting is that this is done inland as opposed to offshore, which is the usual case.

How much this is costing the taxpayer has bugger all to do with this, given that the state appears to have handed over the entire resource to a Large Multinational without much in return. Perhaps Ray made something, but the state made feck all.

Cork

Cork wrote:

Should the state ignore agreements it has entered into?

I see you ignored who negotiated the deal....our squeeky clean politician friend-did he do a good job?

The state as well as it's citizens are bound by the law.

yeah we know that-care to discuss the residents worries? Or if something goes wrong and people are dead then you'll be saying "hail ISO full of Grace Bertie is with you,Blessed arth shell among corporations,Blessed is the fruit of a corrupt politicians negotiations..."
Discuss it Cork rather than giving us soundbytes.

As a taxpayer - How much are these people costing us?

Well if you read the whole thread,it's highly possible that the government has cost us more money unnecessarally if the guys are released on wenesday due to the basis of their imprisonment being wrong...
But I guess I'll get a soundbyte answer from you to that too instead of an actual discussion :rolleyes:

Cork

Earthman wrote:

fruit of a corrupt politicians negotiations

Right. The whole public service was bypassed?

How many people are working in the public service?

Dis this pipe thing not go thru the planning process?

MrPudding

Cork wrote:

Right. The whole public service was bypassed?

Try reading some of the posts. Against the advice of members of the department Ray Burke went into meetings and negotiated the deal by himself and in private. So in answer to your question, yes, with regards to this issue the whole public service was bypassed.

MrP

Cork

Cork wrote:

Right. The whole public service was bypassed?

Yes( well at least the relevant ones were ignored largely,I don't think he probably asked the public servants in the department of justice or education etc :rolleyes: )
Again if you do your homework or even read this thread, Burke was advised against awarding this type of contract by his own officials at the time...but Gubu had the sign off power and use it he did.
We now know he was corrupt in other matters so,I have to say his role in this worries me greatly.
Of course it doesn't worry Bertie-oh no he'd rather brush all that under the carpet...

How many people are working in the public service?

Another Soundbyte-what has that got to do with this other than to reiterate that those who advised against the contract as it was negotiated were ignored.

Dis this pipe thing not go thru the planning process?

I'm sure the residents objected(I don't know but given they are in jail,I'd say they did) but it got them nowhere.
Meanwhile,the health and safety implications were being looked into by a biased company.

Cork

Earthman wrote:

Ye


I'm sure the residents objected(I don't know but given they are in jail,I'd say they did) but it got them nowhere.
Meanwhile,the health and safety implications were being looked into by a biased company.

Shell are a long established company in this country. The technology they intend to use is not not un tested.

Ireland and the EU have safety standards. Many residents of Little island in Cork havd had legitimate concerns about safety - but safety standards are in place.

Gerry Adams had planned to visit the men at Clover Hill prison tomorrow but that has now been ruled out by the Department of Justice - a decision described by Sinn Féin as "bizarre".

Gerry was there today. It made TV3 news. Great coverage for Adams and an election only 2 years away.

We had the Mcguire 7, Bermingham 6, Rossport Five and Guilforford 4.

Let us not even mention the Columbia 3.

Blackjack

Cork wrote:

Shell are a long established company in this country. The technology they intend to use is not not un tested.

Not Not untested?. Doesnt that mean that you are saying it IS untested?.

Cork wrote:

Ireland and the EU have safety standards. Many residents of Little island in Cork havd had legitimate concerns about safety - but safety standards are in place.

Then lets see the Independant report that indicates that all relevant safety concerns have been met, not one produced by a subsidiary of Shell, the long established company.

Cork wrote:

Gerry was there today. It made TV3 news. Great coverage for Adams and an election only 2 years away.

We had the Mcguire 7, Bermingham 6, Rossport Five and Guilforford 4.

Let us not even mention the Columbia 3.

Clutching at straws I see now, deflect the attention away from the issue. Any chance you might comment on Ray Burke's involvement with this?.

Villain

Cork wrote:

Gerry was there today. It made TV3 news. Great coverage for Adams and an election only 2 years away.

We had the Mcguire 7, Bermingham 6, Rossport Five and Guilforford 4.

Let us not even mention the Columbia 3.

Good man Cork, avoid the discussion and the possibility that Mr Corrupt Burke was up to his usual tricks and concentrate on Gerry Adams who actually seems to care about these people. BTW Gerry tried to visit the prison today but was not allowed in because he is not their local political representative. Members of Ogra Sinn Féin have been protesting but I suppose you'd probably be against them as well see here

Cork

I think Adams could spend his time better if he could get the criminal IRA to disappear. It was only last week when the same IRA admited killing a 14 schoolgirl 30 years ago. Still he made TV 3 news.

Then lets see the Independant report that indicates that all relevant safety concerns have been met, not one produced by a subsidiary of Shell, the long established company.

The state has health and safety agencies and it does not rely on privately carried out reports.

There are both Irish and EU standards with regards to heath and safety.