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

The Corinthian

Boggle wrote:

Volkswagen also. There used to be a flaw on the old beetle, whereby the glovebox could pop open in a crash this possibly decapitating people. After a cost benefit analysis it was decided that it would cost more to recall than it would cost in lawsuits so they left it out there.

Probably because they calculated that to be decapitated by the glove-box one would have to be blowing the driver at the time.

It might explain the crash though...

TC
If only the rep system was still in force

murfie

At the end of the day, these five men broke the law and are in contempt before the highest court in the land. Not only that but the protests have put 300 people out of work and the majority of these would be local workers. The town of bellmullet has also really benifited from the presence of the workers being there, as alot of new people have rented and bought houses on the understanding the work would be there on the gas field for the future period.

The pipe will be running at under half its capacity and is designed in such a way that if anything did go wrong the blast would be forced downwards in the earth.

In my opionion this is all just a compo thing with these five men and its up to themselves on if they get out of jail or not.

DublinWriter

murfie wrote:

At the end of the day, these five men broke the law and are in contempt before the highest court in the land.

The law is an ass sometimes, and not all laws are 'good' laws, or are interpreted in a 'good' way. Would you have felt the same way about those who broke the Penal laws in the 19th Century?

murfie wrote:

The pipe will be running at under half its capacity and is designed in such a way that if anything did go wrong the blast would be forced downwards in the earth.

The gas being piped is lighter than air and if you did JC Physics you'd realise that it will travel upwards.

murfie wrote:

In my opionion this is all just a compo thing with these five men and its up to themselves on if they get out of jail or not.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It's all about Shell saving money by putting a refining facility on-shore instead of off.

All right thinking people should BOYCOTT SHELL NOW.

The Corinthian

DublinWriter wrote:

All right thinking people should BOYCOTT SHELL NOW.

Why does the term fanatic spring to mind whenever someone starts talking about "right thinking people"?

bonkey

DublinWriter wrote:

The gas being piped is lighter than air and if you did JC Physics you'd realise that it will travel upwards.

I did Intercert physics (pre JuniorCert) and I know that gas being lighter than air has absolutely nothing to do with the direction of a blast should a pipe rupture, which is the point you were responding to.

I would also point out that even if you are right the threat from gas moving upwards from the pipe is effectively non-existant. There aren't, after all, people living above the pipe.

It's all about Shell saving money by putting a refining facility on-shore instead of off

And they will do so because it is cheaper to build a safe facility onshore than a safe facility offshore....both being cheaper in the long run than unsafe facilities build on- or off-shore (especially in the developed world where compensation claims and cleanup costs would be crippling in comparison to in poverty-stricken nations).

So, it would seem that Shell is trying to build the cheapest safe facility. What then are the grounds for objection, if they are not safety based?

Or is there any credible logic indicatnig that Shell is not persuing the cheapest safe option, but rather also sacrificing safety in the name of profit?

jc

oscarBravo

DublinWriter wrote:

The law is an ass sometimes, and not all laws are 'good' laws, or are interpreted in a 'good' way. Would you have felt the same way about those who broke the Penal laws in the 19th Century?

The only way that argument makes any sense is if you are prepared to argue that the laws relating to contempt of court are morally equivalent to the penal laws. Is that your stated position?

I've noticed it in particular among the "Justice for the Rossport 5" brigade around here - a blatant refusal to separate the two issues at hand. One is that Shell may have nefarious and underhanded motives for their activities. The other is that five men broke the law and are in jail as a result. I had one person say to me last week that Shell shouldn't have any legal rights, and should be drummed out of the country. I'm not a particular fan of Shell, but any campaign to strip any individual, group or company of legal rights is one I'm going to oppose to the limit of my ability.

DublinWriter wrote:

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It's all about Shell saving money by putting a refining facility on-shore instead of off.

That's just one of the issues here, and - as I've said - I'm dismayed at the inability of so many people to distinguish them.

DublinWriter wrote:

All right thinking people should BOYCOTT SHELL NOW.

Why not? I'd have no issue with that. The nice thing about it is, it's legal - and it's very possibly more likely to have the desired effect than the illegal activities of the "Rossport 5".

sceptre

murfie wrote:

and is designed in such a way that if anything did go wrong the blast would be forced downwards in the earth.

I'm not a sciency-knowing guy as a general rule but that sounds a little optimistic to me. I'll happily defer to someone who knows something about forcing explosions downward into the dirt and rock but given that the material for a few miles below the pipeline isn't made of sponge, isn't the best one could say that the main focus of the hypothetical blast could be somewhat absorbed by the earth if it's somehow designed in this way before bouncing upward anyway with some extra dirt involved?

Tuars

DublinWriter wrote:

All right thinking people should BOYCOTT SHELL NOW.

Hasn't Shell's retail business in Ireland just been purchased by a different company? So any boycott isn't going to have much effect.

oscarBravo wrote:

That's just one of the issues here, and - as I've said - I'm dismayed at the inability of so many people to distinguish them.

I'm dismayed at the inability of so many people (e.g. yourself) to notice those that have made the distinction (e.g. myself) .

The major issue for me in this case is the incompetent handling of the QRA by the government. Corporations will do what they do to make money and fair play to them. The state has an obligation to guarantee the safety of the citizens. It has not done so yet in this case.

monument

oscarBravo wrote:

The only way that argument makes any sense is if you are prepared to argue that the laws relating to contempt of court are morally equivalent to the penal laws. Is that your stated position?

I image he means court orders can be used to enforce apparently unjust laws, such as his extreme example of the penal laws. You can’t just bunch all court orders into one, and say, “nobody can argue with court orders”….

Or could you possibly be saying you actually would agree with a court order which enforces the “equivalent to the penal laws”?

Because "no one can argue with a court order no mater what, or no matter how ‘unjust’ the laws it is enforcing" is what I’m getting from you and others here.

Nobody can argue with apartheid, it’s the law! (another extreme example, of course)

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

I image he means court orders can be used to enforce apparently unjust laws, such as his extreme example of the penal laws. You can’t just bunch all court orders into one, and say, “nobody can argue with court orders”….

I don't recall saying that "nobody can argue with court orders". I pointed out that the methods used in this case to argue with the court order were illegal.

Someone said to me the other day that the five men are entitled, due to their concerns for personal safety, to do whatever it takes to prevent the work from going ahead - a common enough view around here. But if they're entitled to ignore a court order, are they entitled to damage equipment belonging to Shell? Torch a Shell employee's car? Kidnap someone? Plant a bomb?

If you feel a law is unjust, you should campaign to change the law, not break it. If the court order was granted on foot of incorrect information, the men should have presented the court with the correct information.

monument

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't recall saying that "nobody can argue with court orders". I pointed out that the methods used in this case to argue with the court order were illegal.

The protest? Now let me think… how many protests over unjust laws (or politician’s actions or directives) in history were deemed "illegal", and such being "illegal" was deemed fine by lots of people at the time... or 'the wrong way about it' by lots of others.... hmm...

So really, it comes down to whether you think the whole thing is unjust or not…

From to Shell carrying out more then preparation work without the correct ministerial order (Monday, the Irish Times), to a private company getting compulsory purchase orders on a non-government project, to having the refinery inshore, to the questionably safety of the pipeline to the inshore refinery, to a Government giving the countries naturally resources away.

oscarBravo wrote:

If you feel a law is unjust, you should campaign to change the law, not break it. If the court order was granted on foot of incorrect information, the men should have presented the court with the correct information.

Unlike some of the people who are (in my view rightly) opposing the destruction of the landscape around the Hill of Tara, not everyone has as deep pockets to dig into to fight governments (and large corporations) in the courts. Wow… doesn’t that mean the courts are unjust?

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

The protest?

We're not talking about protesting, we're talking about engaging in activities that a court had explicitly ordered them not to.

monument wrote:

Now let me think… how many protests over unjust laws (or politician’s actions or directives) in history were deemed "illegal", and such being "illegal" was deemed fine by lots of people at the time... or 'the wrong way about it' by lots of others.... hmm...

So really, it comes down to whether you think the whole thing is unjust or not…

No, monument, it comes down to whether it's ok for individuals to decide whether or not they'll obey the law, and whether or not they should face sanctions for such a decision. It comes down to whether the judiciary should have the power to enforce its rulings.

In fact, what it really comes down to is this: do you feel that obedience of court orders should be optional?

monument wrote:

From to Shell carrying out more then preparation work without the correct ministerial order (Monday, the Irish Times), to a private company getting compulsory purchase orders on a non-government project, to having the refinery inshore, to the questionably safety of the pipeline to the inshore refinery, to a Government giving the countries naturally resources away.

I don't have a problem with any of those issues being raised. I don't have a problem with whatever action is taken to highlight those issues - as long as it's legal.

Why stop at ignoring court orders? Why not start burning stuff? Why not start hurting people? It's a good cause, right?

monument wrote:

Unlike some of the people who are (in my view rightly) opposing the destruction of the landscape around the Hill of Tara, not everyone has as deep pockets to dig into to fight governments (and large corporations) in the courts.

So organise a march, lobby your TD, write to the newspapers... you know, protest. Legally.

monument wrote:

Wow… doesn’t that mean the courts are unjust?

Fine, let's scrap the courts. What do you plan to replace them with?

monument

oscarBravo wrote:

We're not talking about protesting, we're talking about engaging in activities that a court had explicitly ordered them not to.

Yes, we are talking about protesting - they were told to stop their protest at the site entrance.

oscarBravo wrote:

No, monument, it comes down to whether it's ok for individuals to decide whether or not they'll obey the law,

If this doesn’t come down to whether you think the whole thing is unjust or not, when can one be justified to break an unjust law... when the law unacceptable facilitates the endangering of life?

oscarBravo wrote:

So organise a march, lobby your TD, write to the newspapers... you know, protest. Legally. Fine, let's

Yeah, because marches, lobbing TDs, and writing to newspapers really worked in the case of Tara.

oscarBravo wrote:

scrap the courts. What do you plan to replace them with?

Now, where do I even suggest that?

You seam to be unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between all court orders, and say a court order which facilitate, say, apartheid – as an extreme case (again).

And also you seam to be unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between criticism of the courts and a total lack of respect for them. The latter, I certainly do not have, although sadly I cannot say the about our government.

Red Alert

The apartheid comparison is a very valid one indeed. In theory when people such as the Rape Crisis Centre condemn the sentences given to specific persons found guilty of rape, they are just on the borderline of disrespect of the court. Yet some people here think these 5 men should shelve their own principles and allow themselves be pushed around by american investors.

I would point to the example of OPEC, where the Arab countries eventually wised up and began to control their own natural resources. Unless the local people make life hot for the (politically appointed at the behest of the mainly FF/PD justice ministers) judiciary and the establishment TD's there will be no solution. Let's not forget that the local TD's political careers may be seen as a sheddable load by the people in FF/PD - it might be better for one man's career to die etc.

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

Yes, we are talking about protesting - they were told to stop their protest at the site entrance.

They were told not to prevent work being carried out, but did so anyway. They chose not to use any of the legal means of protest available to them, and used one that had been explicitly ruled illegal. This is not about the right to protest.

monument wrote:

If this doesn’t come down to whether you think the whole thing is unjust or not, when can one be justified to break an unjust law... when the law unacceptable facilitates the endangering of life?

In whose opinion? Who gets to make that decision? There's no shortage of people who stupidly believe mobile phone masts are killing them - should they be given the option to ignore the law also?

monument wrote:

Yeah, because marches, lobbing TDs, and writing to newspapers really worked in the case of Tara.

So, you're saying that the only yardstick by which a technique should be judged is its effectiveness? "Whatever it takes", as I mentioned earlier - criminal damage? Assault? Terrorism? Where does the line get drawn?

monument wrote:

Now, where do I even suggest that?

You suggested that the courts are unjust. Why maintain an unjust judicial system?

I notice that yet again there's the veiled suggestion that somehow there must be some sort of pro-multinational bias in the working of the court. I've yet to see any evidence of this, or that the court made its decision on the basis of anything other than the facts at hand.

monument wrote:

You seam to be unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between all court orders, and say a court order which facilitate, say, apartheid – as an extreme case (again).

If you have to try to build an artificial comparison with a severe form of systematic state xenophobia to make your point, maybe your point isn't all that strong to start with. But I'll play along: I'm prepared to acknowledge that courts are capable of enforcing unjust laws. Show me where this court made a factual error with the equivalent moral consequences of apartheid, and I'll concede the point.

monument wrote:

And also you seam to be unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between criticism of the courts and a total lack of respect for them. The latter, I certainly do not have, although sadly I cannot say the about our government.

I'm not the one failing to make that distinction! The courts are big boys and girls, they can handle criticism. What they're not prepared to tolerate, however - and this is my entire point - is contempt.

Obedience of a court order can not be optional in a functioning democracy. If you think that specific point is incorrect, I'd like you to explain how, exactly, a court is supposed to have any meaning if it can't enforce its decisions.

oscarBravo

Red Alert wrote:

The apartheid comparison is a very valid one indeed.

I'd like you to explain to me, like I'm six years old, how there's any comparison whatsoever between apartheid and this case.

Red Alert wrote:

In theory when people such as the Rape Crisis Centre condemn the sentences given to specific persons found guilty of rape, they are just on the borderline of disrespect of the court.

The men are not in jail for saying nasty things about the court, they're in jail for disobeying an explicit order given by the court. Can you see the difference? Can you see why one is perfectly legal, and the other is one of the most serious crimes imaginable?

Red Alert wrote:

Yet some people here think these 5 men should shelve their own principles and allow themselves be pushed around by american investors.

Can you point to a suggestion anywhere in this thread that the men should allow themselves to be pushed around?

monument

oscarBravo, you talk about democracy so highly, so I guess you’ll accept the call of the elected members of Mayo County Council for Shell to abandon the plains for an onshore refinery, and go for the off shore option?

oscarBravo wrote:

In whose opinion? Who gets to make that decision? There's no shortage of people who stupidly believe mobile phone masts are killing them - should they be given the option to ignore the law also?

You replyed to a question here, I'm sorry I had it a bit jumbled up, I'll clarify...

When can one be justified to break an unjust law… possible when the law unacceptable facilitates the endangering of life?

oscarBravo wrote:

In whose opinion? Who gets to make that decision?

That’s a good question. Could you tell me what safety assessment has been done on the pipeline (to the refinery), and what government body or department is willing and able to regulate the pipeline’s standards?

oscarBravo wrote:

There's no shortage of people who stupidly believe mobile phone masts are killing them - should they be given the option to ignore the law also?

Comparing the two isn’t fair, is it?...

We’re talking about the safety a gas project that is non-standard in Europe, if not the world, the safety of which has been questioned people who apparently are oil and gas industry and related experts, a project which is been partly build by Shell who have a history of been linked abuse of both humans, and nature. The Shell who has recently paid a $120m fine for accounting fraud to the SEC, regarding them over estimating their reserves by ‘about 23%’ for between five years – they’re the ones who don’t know what their talking about… no wait, they committed fraud, they lied.

We’re not talking about a mobile phone mast which is accepted as being safe or acceptably safe, and been put up by a company whose greatest ‘crime’ is most likely an apparent case of overcharging their costumers, or something equivalent.

oscarBravo wrote:

If you have to try to build an artificial comparison with a severe form of systematic state xenophobia to make your point, maybe your point isn't all that strong to start with. But I'll play along: I'm prepared to acknowledge that courts are capable of enforcing unjust laws. Show me where this court made a factual error with the equivalent moral consequences of apartheid, and I'll concede the point. I'm not the one failing to make that distinction! The courts are big boys and girls, they can handle criticism. What they're not prepared to tolerate, however - and this is my entire point - is contempt.

I’ll spell it out to you, maybe not like you're six years old, as you ask…

oscarBravo wrote:

I'd like you to explain to me, like I'm six years old, how there's any comparison whatsoever between apartheid and this case.

Apartheid = an extreme example of grounds for breaking the law for ones own rights and safety.

This case = a less extreme case of the same.


In addition, yes, there were people who believed the people who were subject to apartheid didn’t have the right to fight their case.

I'm not comparing the severity, so please don’t continue to elude your self of such.

oscarBravo wrote:

"Whatever it takes", as I mentioned earlier - criminal damage? Assault? Terrorism? Where does the line get drawn?

Apparently, in this case, the line has been drawn where a company is allowed to hand out compulsory purchase orders on a non-government project which unacceptable endangerment of life.

oscarBravo wrote:

I notice that yet again there's the veiled suggestion that somehow there must be some sort of pro-multinational bias in the working of the court. I've yet to see any evidence of this, or that the court made its decision on the basis of anything other than the facts at hand.

I’ve never suggested that the court system has a bias to companies, or “multinational”.

I suggested it had a bias to one with money - where ‘one’ could be a person, group, company (multinational or not), government etc.

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

oscarBravo, you talk about democracy so highly, so I guess you’ll accept the call of the elected members of Mayo County Council for Shell to abandon the plains for an onshore refinery, and go for the off shore option?

What, in everything I've posted in this thread to date, could possibly give you any indication that I would have any issue with such a call? Here's a little clue for you, since you're obviously reading something other than what I'm writing: I have no problem with any form of call, protest, legal action, petition, lawsuit, cake sale or aerial banner-towing that seeks to influence the course of this project, as long as it's legal. Is there anything unclear about that?

monument wrote:

That’s a good question. Could you tell me what safety assessment has been done on the pipeline (to the refinery), and what government body or department is willing and able to regulate the pipeline’s standards?

No, I can't. I can also tell you that the men are in jail not because of their concerns for their safety, but because they broke the law in the pursuit of those concerns.

If I wanted to get picky about it, I'd point out that the works the men sought to prevent are preparatory site works, and no-one has suggested that they were in any danger from those works.

monument wrote:

Comparing the two isn’t fair, is it?...

...but comparing contempt of court to apartheid is?

monument wrote:

We’re talking about the safety a gas project that is non-standard in Europe, if not the world, the safety of which has been questioned people who apparently are oil and gas industry and related experts, a project which is been partly build by Shell who have a history of been linked abuse of both humans, and nature.

No, monument, for the nine hundred and forty seventh time, we're talking about contempt of court. The men are not in jail because of concerns for their safety, they're in jail because they chose an illegal means of pursuing their case.

monument wrote:

The Shell who has recently paid a $120m fine for accounting fraud to the SEC, regarding them over estimating their reserves by ‘about 23%’ for between five years – they’re the ones who don’t know what their talking about… no wait, they committed fraud, they lied.

No argument. But it's not what we're talking about.

monument wrote:

We’re not talking about a mobile phone mast which is accepted as being safe or acceptably safe, and been put up by a company whose greatest ‘crime’ is most likely an apparent case of overcharging their costumers, or something equivalent.

No, and in a sense it doesn't matter which we're talking about, because we're discussing whether it's ok to pursue your concerns in an illegal manner.

You believe the proposed pipeline is unsafe, and as such the law somehow no longer applies. You also have an issue with the company concerned, which also apparently dilutes the relevance of the law. You're taking a subjective, interpretive and emotive view of the case. The court took a factual view (and I'm aware that the facts may have turned out to be inaccurate or incomplete, but that's for another day in court) and as a result you're describing it as unjust.

monument wrote:

I’ll spell it out to you, maybe not like you're six years old, as you ask…

Apartheid = an extreme example of grounds for breaking the law for ones own rights and safety.

This case = a less extreme case of the same.

Unless you can demonstrate that to have obeyed the court order would, on balance of probability, have directly resulted in harm to these men, then the comparison is so flawed as to be fundamentally ridiculous.

Apartheid was a systematic political system whose basic principle was the denial of basic rights to a large group of people. Unless you're prepared to stop dancing around the subject and state that the court in this case has a similarly skewed political agenda, give me a break with the apartheid crap.

monument wrote:

Apparently, in this case, the line has been drawn where a company is allowed to hand out compulsory purchase orders on a non-government project which unacceptable endangerment of life.

Oh look, a non-answer to a difficult question. On a totally separate note, I'd love to see a source for the assertion that any company has ever issued a CPO. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.

monument wrote:

I’ve never suggested that the court system has a bias to companies, or “multinational”.

I suggested it had a bias to one with money - where ‘one’ could be a person, group, company (multinational or not), government etc.

So these men are in jail because they have less money than Shell?

pete

bonkey wrote:

Or is there any credible logic indicatnig that Shell is not persuing the cheapest safe option, but rather also sacrificing safety in the name of profit?

possibly

http://www.shellfacts.com/pdfs/Explosions&fires.pdf

http://www.shellfacts.com/pdfs/Leaks&Spills2.pdf

http://www.shellfacts.com/pdfs/Emissions&Releases.pdf

monument

I am NOT comparing contempt of court apartheid.

oscarBravo wrote:

No, monument, for the nine hundred and forty seventh time, we're talking about contempt of court.

Ok we’ll get down to spelling it out…

As an extreme example, lets say there is an imaginary case of possible contempt of court - the court directs some one not to breaking apartheid related laws... is it ok to break the court order?

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

I am NOT comparing contempt of court apartheid.

No, you're comparing preparatory site works to apartheid.

monument wrote:

As an extreme example, lets say there is an imaginary case of possible contempt of court - the court directs some one not to breaking apartheid related laws... is it ok to break the court order?

I don't know why you insist on arguing this specific case with reference to examples that by your own admission are extreme. Presumably you're waiting for me to say "yes, in that case it would be OK" which you would then use to undermine my argument about the importance of court orders.

What happened in this situation was not a heroic struggle against the very fabric of a fundamentally unjust socio-political regime (unless you want to argue that it was, in which case please feel free to do so instead of waffling on about apartheid). A court ordered people not to prevent a company from carrying out business that, in the view of the court, given the facts to hand at the time, it was legally entitled to carry out.

If you want to argue that the granting of the court order was unjust given information available to the court at the time, work away. Until then, give the apartheid stuff a rest.

monument

oscarBravo wrote:

preparatory site works

As it turns out, Shell have gone past "preparatory site works" as laid out in current ministerial order... although this only really came out in the last day or two to be fair... source:the Irish Times

"Neither construction nor installation of the pipeline by Shell were permissible. Yet the company somehow managed to get a court order restraining others from interfering with what would in fact have been unlawful acts on its part. On those facts alone, it seems to us that the original order should be set aside if it was obtained in error or without the full facts being given to the High Court," Mr Rabbitte said yesterday after a meeting with the men in Cloverhill prison.

This looks like another case of Shell lying.

Oh, and can I your answer as a ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘maybe’ to my question?

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

As it turns out, Shell have gone past "preparatory site works" as laid out in current ministerial order... although this only really came out in the last day or two to be fair... source:the Irish Times ... This looks like another case of Shell lying.

So, Shell seem on the face of it to have done something they were not legally entitled to do. If I compare the ministerial order to apartheid, will that make it OK for Shell to have done this?

Let's have a look at Mr Rabitte's statement, while we're at it:

Neither construction nor installation of the pipeline by Shell were permissible. Yet the company somehow managed to get a court order restraining others from interfering with what would in fact have been unlawful acts on its part.

This is factually incorrect, and utterly disingenuous. The company got a court order restraining others from interfering with what the court decided they were legally entitled to do.

On those facts alone, it seems to us that the original order should be set aside if it was obtained in error or without the full facts being given to the High Court

Nope, not on those facts alone. If the full facts were not available to the High Court, and if they are now available, and if the court decides on the basis of the newly revealed facts that its order is no longer valid, it will set it aside.

The fact that Shell may have done something they were not legally entitled to do is a separate issue from the fact that the five did something the court told them not to do.

monument wrote:

Oh, and can I your answer as a ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘maybe’ to my question?

You can take it whatever way you want. In this context, it was a silly question.

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote:

The company got a court order restraining others from interfering with what the court decided they were legally entitled to do.

From the context in the paper, it sounded more like the court granted an order on what it was led to believe they were legally entitled to do.

If the full facts were not available to the High Court, and if they are now available, and if the court decides on the basis of the newly revealed facts that its order is no longer valid, it will set it aside.

So what you're saying is that whether or not Shell intentionally misled the court has no impact on things whatsoever? If the court makes a decision based on someone lying to it, that decision is still right and proper and should only be set aside, not actually revoked? Is that really how our system works - that those punished under decrees passed only because the law was misled have no right of redress as they in fact haven't been mistreated in any way?

The fact that Shell may have done something they were not legally entitled to do is a separate issue from the fact that the five did something the court told them not to do.

Only if the court is arrogant enough to believe that even when it makes a mistake (because it was actively misled) its enough to say "we won't hold you to the consequences of our mistake any more" rather than "we made a mistake and should never have held you to this in the first place".

Note: I'm not saying Shell did mislead...just that it appears they might have, and that I find it hard to accept that the court can and would simply believe that a decision made on misinformation is retrospectively still considered valid between the time it was granted and the time it was discovered that it should not have been granted in the first place.

If, on the other hand, the court wasn't misled, then I agree with your read on things entirely.

jc

oscarBravo

bonkey wrote:

From the context in the paper, it sounded more like the court granted an order on what it was led to believe they were legally entitled to do.

Right.

bonkey wrote:

So what you're saying is that whether or not Shell intentionally misled the court has no impact on things whatsoever? If the court makes a decision based on someone lying to it, that decision is still right and proper and should only be set aside, not actually revoked? Is that really how our system works - that those punished under decrees passed only because the law was misled have no right of redress as they in fact haven't been mistreated in any way? [...] Only if the court is arrogant enough to believe that even when it makes a mistake (because it was actively misled) its enough to say "we won't hold you to the consequences of our mistake any more" rather than "we made a mistake and should never have held you to this in the first place".

With respect, I think you're still confusing two issues. One is whether the court order should have been issued in the first place, and the other is whether a court order should be obeyed until such time as it is no longer in force.

I've yet to hear it claimed that these men disobeyed the court because the disagreed with the legal or factual basis on which it granted the order; rather that they decided to take the law into their own hands. My point all along is that whatever concerns the men have, this was a step too far.

I'm loath to bring in another analogy into this, because my experience is that an analogy is only a useful means of explaining something to someone who wants to understand it - as John Waters once said, "you can't ever explain anything to people who won't listen to you." That said: imagine a Garda tried to arrest me for something I didn't do. Not agreeing with the basis for the arrest, I resist and assault the Garda. Once it was subsequently demonstrated that I shouldn't have been arrested, does that mean it was OK for me to commit the assault?

bonkey wrote:

Note: I'm not saying Shell did mislead...just that it appears they might have, and that I find it hard to accept that the court can and would simply believe that a decision made on misinformation is retrospectively still considered valid between the time it was granted and the time it was discovered that it should not have been granted in the first place.

Remember, the men are not in jail on foot of the court order, they're in jail because they chose to disobey the court. If the court order is set aside, or revoked, or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that the men disobeyed a court order.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

If the court order is set aside, or revoked, or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that the men disobeyed a court order.

So what you are saying is that it was wrong that they disobeyed the court order.
Ok I see what you are saying there.
However assuming the basis for the order was wrong in the way its alledged-then at the very least, the judge/court was negligent in not establishing the proper facts prior to giving the order.

There could in fact be a mis carriage of justice here in that case entitling the men to compensation for wrongfull imprisonment and morally an apology.

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

However assuming the basis for the order was wrong in the way its alledged-then at the very least, the judge/court was negligent in not establishing the proper facts prior to giving the order.

Not if the court was lied to. A court simply isn't in a position to cross-check every alleged fact laid before it. That's what opposing counsel and perjury laws are for.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

Not if the court was lied to. A court simply isn't in a position to cross-check every alleged fact laid before it. That's what opposing counsel and perjury laws are for.

I'd beg to differ there.Having a copy of a ministerial order in front of me as a judge when deciding on whether or not I should apply a court order arising out of an obstruction to it would not only be prudent it would be a prerequisite.

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

I'd beg to differ there.Having a copy of a ministerial order in front of me as a judge when deciding on whether or not I should apply a court order arising out of an obstruction to it would not only be prudent it would be a prerequisite.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing anymore. My understanding is that the men were told not to obstruct Shell from working on the site, as the ministerial directive entitled them to do.

The men obstructed work on the site. That's why they're in jail. I don't recall hearing that they offered in defence any evidence that Shell was doing anything illegal - such allegations surfaced much later.

If Shell are carrying out work they are not legally entitled to do, they should be prosecuted - it's a separate issue.