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

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote:

Not if the court was lied to.

But do you not see a problem with that line of reasoning?

If a court is lied to, and people subsequently disobey the court order resultant from that lie because they believe the court was wrong to grant it, and the court subsequently figures out that it was wrong to grant it....then what you're effectively saying is that these people should continue to be punished for figuring out the court was wrong in advance of the court doing so.

Don't get me wrong. I believe they should have been imprisoned when they broke the law. However, once the possibility arose that the court had been misled, then I see no justification to delay the resolution of the issue, nor in admitting that the court is not infallible, and in this case screwed up.

I was just reading Peopleware, and an excellent comment about skunkworks projects. These are projects where management can something, but the workers go do it anyway. One manager - faced with the reality that a project he canned had become a skunkworks project and gone on to be a resounding success - handed the team responsible a first "Annual Insubordination Medal". The message was clear - if you are insubordinate, you'd better be right.

I see this case as little different. These people disagreed with a court order. Fine - they were insubordinate to the court. Lock them up. They did so because they believed the order was wrong. Whether or not they why of its wrongness matches the reality isn't really the issue. The issue is that it increasingly appears they were indeed correct in their assessment.

Ultimately, I would have far more respect for a legal system that admitted when it screwed up and which did everything in its power to resolve such events (once a realistic possibility of such was presented) as speedily as possible , as opposed to one which stood on a pedestal acting Catholic Church-esque in its belief in its own infallability, and faulting people for figuring out that it was wrong before it did so itself, or for not failing alongside it.

jc

oscarBravo

jc, I think the difference in our approach to this is the extent to which we see the court as an authority to be obeyed. For me, it's one of the pillars of civilisation. It's like money, or God: it only exists because people believe in it. That's a philosophical discussion, for another day and another board.

I don't buy that this was a timing issue. If it was just a question of these men figuring out the true facts of the case before the court did, then the right thing to do would have been to bring the facts to the attention of the court. Instead they decided to take what amounts to a vigilante approach. That's wrong, and until they apologise for it they're in contempt - whatever the facts of the case. IMO.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

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.

And I'm approaching this now from the angle that the judge may have given a court order without reading or understanding the instructions in the ministerial order.If thats not the case , of course you are right.

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.

As above,I'm questioning the judge for applying an order without reading or understanding what Shell were entitled by the ministerial order to be working on.
That would in my view be a gross neglect of his duties and ergo following on from what bonkey was saying its worse still that if this is being brought to light the judge or the system is keeping these people in jail longer than necessary.
Thats all of course assuming that the ministerial order was not followed correctly,nor read correctly if at all by the judge.

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

That part of it is, but the judges lapse would be very pertinent in that case to I would feel a compensation case by the prisoners and to the injustice of them remaining in prison unnecessarally.
I'd be in fact tempted to question a judges stubborness in that case if he/she was avoiding an expiditious resolution.
My faith in his/her job suitability would be slightly knocked tbh as I would have to ask,how many other cases was there a similar lapse in duties that perhaps we don't know about or will never know about.

monument

oscarBravo wrote:

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

...

oscarBravo wrote:

whatever the facts of the case. IMO.

In that case, I'll take you're answer to the question on my extreme answer as 'no', as in 'no, it would not be all right to ignore a court no matter what'.

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

In that case, I'll take you're answer to the question on my extreme answer as 'no', as in 'no, it would not be all right to ignore a court no matter what'.

Like I said, you can take it whatever way you want, and if you feel that proves some sort of bizarre point, good for you. I think it's pretty obvious that I was talking about this specific case.

monument

I find it bizarre that you can say "whatever the facts of the case", for any case. What cases should ignore the "facts of the case", and what cases should take the "facts" into account?

oscarBravo

I find it bizarre that you can take a few words from a post of mine out of context and ask me to defend them. I don't recall suggesting that the facts of this case should be ignored, and I'm not talking about any other cases.

gregos

I'm sure I'll be wrong about some of this, but let me just see how much of this is correct.

There's gas under Ireland's territorial waters. Private companies may take the gas without paying for it but will pay some taxes on the profits they make from selling the gas our government gave them free of charge. One private foreign company wished to enter the land of some private individuals but those individuals didn't want it to. This private company secured a compulsory purchase order forcing the landowners to give it access to their property. Having refused to comply with an order to facilitate this private foreign company, the landowners are now in jail.

No doubt somebody will correct the bits that are wrong.

monument

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't recall suggesting that the facts of this case should be ignored,

You said... "whatever the facts of the case"

oscarBravo

gregos wrote:

There's gas under Ireland's territorial waters. Private companies may take the gas without paying for it but will pay some taxes on the profits they make from selling the gas our government gave them free of charge. One private foreign company wished to enter the land of some private individuals but those individuals didn't want it to. This private company secured a compulsory purchase order forcing the landowners to give it access to their property. Having refused to comply with an order to facilitate this private foreign company, the landowners are now in jail.

Not too far off, but slightly missing the point of a CPO: once land has been purchased from you, compulsorily or otherwise, it's not your land anymore. Otherwise, that's about the size of it.

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

You said... "whatever the facts of the case"

Yes, I did. In context, I said "...the right thing to do would have been to bring the facts to the attention of the court. Instead they decided to take what amounts to a vigilante approach. That's wrong, and until they apologise for it they're in contempt - whatever the facts of the case."

I didn't suggest that the facts should be ignored. I expressed an opinion that, even taking all the facts into account, the indisputable fact of contempt remains.

iregk

Question, under what orders or circumstances can a CPO be issued. It just seems plain wrong to me that you have this land, regardless of size or how long but its yours end of story and someone just says well were taking and and there is nothing you can do about it. I'm sure there is a lot more to it than that so can someone enlighten me.

gregos

oscarBravo wrote:

Not too far off, but slightly missing the point of a CPO: once land has been purchased from you, compulsorily or otherwise, it's not your land anymore. Otherwise, that's about the size of it.

OK. Let me just check this little bit. If a private foreign company, wants to take gas from beneath our territorial waters without paying for it, it may do so. And if, in the process, it decides to purchase your land against your will, it can do that too. And if you refuse to sell, our courts will jail you. Is that correct?

monument

With the vast majority of the population of Mayo wanting an offshore terminal it looks as if Shell has slightly backed down… http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0804/corrib.html

oscarBravo wrote:

Yes, I did…

I didn't suggest that the facts should be ignored. QUOTE]

Which one is it?

oscarBravo

gregos wrote:

If a private foreign company, wants to take gas from beneath our territorial waters without paying for it, it may do so.

...if the government says it can, then yes, it can. I'm not saying that's a good thing.

gregos wrote:

And if, in the process, it decides to purchase your land against your will, it can do that too.

I'm not sure of the mechanisms involved, but I would imagine that only the state can compulsorily acquire land.

gregos wrote:

And if you refuse to sell, our courts will jail you. Is that correct?

I don't know, but that's not why these men are in jail. Have you read any of this thread?

oscarBravo

monument wrote:

With the vast majority of the population of Mayo wanting an offshore terminal it looks as if Shell has slightly backed down… http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0804/corrib.html

Remains to be seen. I notice the "Rossport 5" aren't giving an inch.

monument wrote:

Which one is it?

Both.

MrPudding

gregos wrote:

There's gas under Ireland's territorial waters. Private companies may take the gas without paying for it but will pay some taxes on the profits they make from selling the gas our government gave them free of charge.

Another interesting point is that under the deal they brokered any expenses they incur are fully tax deductable from whatever tax they do pay. This covers any expense not just those incurred from exploration.

Personnally I find it amusing that Shell will be able to right off the legal expenses from this case against any profit they make from the gas. Classic stuff.

MrP

gregos

oscarBravo wrote:

Have you read any of this thread?

Have you read any of my posts? I did ask to be corrected if I was wrong.

oscarBravo

gregos wrote:

Have you read any of my posts? I did ask to be corrected if I was wrong.

I've read your posts. It looked to me like you were asking rhetorical questions in order to make a point. If your questions are genuine, they will largely be addressed by reading the entire thread. You should probably do that, and then ask about anything that remains unclear.

gregos

oscarBravo wrote:

If your questions are genuine, they will largely be addressed by reading the entire thread. You should probably do that, and then ask about anything that remains unclear.

I will inquire in any way I see fit.



It appears that a compulsory purchase order was obtained by the State to facilitate a private company to enter upon the lands of private individuals. It also appears that the State received nothing in consideration for this service. The consequence is that these individuals, who were party to no contract, are now in jail.

oscarBravo

gregos wrote:

The consequence is that these individuals, who were party to no contract, are now in jail.

Indirectly. It could also be argued that they are in jail as an indirect consequence of being born.

What is indisputable is that they are in jail as a direct consequence of their decision to disobey a court order.

gregos

oscarBravo wrote:

Indirectly. It could also be argued that they are in jail as an indirect consequence of being born..

Ah yes. The Oz argument. The old ones are always the best.

We could dispute the legalities of this forever, and a barren conversation it would be. Shell went to court in defence of their rights, and the court upheld those rights. None of that is in question.

What bothers me is how Shell acquired its rights in the first instance. There appears to be no benefit to the State, and in all likelihood there will be a continuing loss. In view of the fact that Mr Burke has been shown to be thoroughly corrupt, this entire issue needs to be re-examined. If the awarding of the licence is shown to have elements of corruption about it - which is not yet established - that has implications for the court decision. Why? Not because incorrect information was provided to the court, but because the very rights it was asked to protect might well have been granted to the company in a corrupt manner. This would undermine the entire basis of Shell's application to the court.

These men took the law into their own hands without question, and it appears that they are willing to take the consequences. Perhaps in doing so, they will eventually expose a perversion of justice

oscarBravo

gregos wrote:

We could dispute the legalities of this forever, and a barren conversation it would be. Shell went to court in defence of their rights, and the court upheld those rights. None of that is in question.

I'm glad we agree on that much.

gregos wrote:

What bothers me is how Shell acquired its rights in the first instance. There appears to be no benefit to the State, and in all likelihood there will be a continuing loss. In view of the fact that Mr Burke has been shown to be thoroughly corrupt, this entire issue needs to be re-examined.

I wholeheartedly agree that, on the whole, the State is getting a raw deal here. I remain to be convinced that the project should continue at all. But that's not my decision to make; nor is it yours, nor that of the "Rossport 5". It is a decision for our elected representatives, for better or for worse.

gregos wrote:

If the awarding of the licence is shown to have elements of corruption about it - which is not yet established - that has implications for the court decision. Why? Not because incorrect information was provided to the court, but because the very rights it was asked to protect might well have been granted to the company in a corrupt manner. This would undermine the entire basis of Shell's application to the court.

It might well do so, if anyone could actually provide any evidence (let alone proof) that any such corruption took place.

gregos wrote:

These men took the law into their own hands without question, and it appears that they are willing to take the consequences. Perhaps in doing so, they will eventually expose a perversion of justice

Perhaps. A willingness to accept the consequences of one's actions does not, however, necessarily justify those actions. Would it make it OK for me to murder someone as long as I was prepared to serve a life sentence afterwards?

gregos

oscarBravo wrote:

Would it make it OK for me to murder someone as long as I was prepared to serve a life sentence afterwards?

Firstly, I did not argue that accepting the sentence made it OK.

Secondly, murder would be a criminal matter. Disobeying Mr Justice Finnegan is somewhat lower on the scale of heinousness.

bonkey

gregos wrote:

Secondly, murder would be a criminal matter. Disobeying Mr Justice Finnegan is somewhat lower on the scale of heinousness.

Disobeying a Court Order, as issued by a justice may be lower on the scale of heinousness than murder but it is still a criminal matter.

jc

gregos

Sometimes a principled stand is necessary. I don't see much to recommend murder as a principled action. I can imagine disobeying a court order though.