The Rossport 5

KieranusTyranus

Can anyone give a logical reason why these men are in jail. The fact is the Shell pipeline is unsafe and the terminal needs to built offshore. I mean would any of you like the pipeline 70 metres from your home?

I especially want comments from people who disagree to see what ludricrous arguments you have.

oscarBravo

KieranusTyranus wrote:

Can anyone give a logical reason why these men are in jail.

Yes. They disobeyed a court order and have refused to apologise. End of story.

KieranusTyranus wrote:

The fact is the Shell pipeline is unsafe and the terminal needs to built offshore.

That "fact" is (a) disputed and (b) utterly irrelevant to the fact that these men are in jail.

KieranusTyranus wrote:

I mean would any of you like the pipeline 70 metres from your home?

Wouldn't bother me.

KieranusTyranus wrote:

I especially want comments from people who disagree to see what ludricrous arguments you have.

Good to see you're entering into this with an open mind.

jbkenn

KieranusTyranus wrote:

Can anyone give a logical reason why these men are in jail.

Contempt of Court

The fact is the Shell pipeline is unsafe and the terminal needs to built offshore.

I will bow to your superior pipeline engineering and gas distribution skills

I mean would any of you like the pipeline 70 metres from your home?

It would be preferable to the pipeline thats 10 metre from my home.

I especially want comments from people who disagree to see what ludricrous arguments you have.

See above

jbkenn

Mucco

KieranusTyranus wrote:

The fact is the Shell pipeline is unsafe.

Can you send me a few links proving this? Honestly please, I haven't been following the story and want to see why these people choose to stay in prison.

M

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

That "fact" is (a) disputed and (b) utterly irrelevant to the fact that these men are in jail.

In fairness,people with homes within yards of the pipeline are entitled to be concerned when it is higher pressure than existing pipelines in Ireland and worse odourless.

Wouldn't bother me.

Well if I and others started to block a road near me because people on it were travelling too fast and a danger to kids,we would also probably eventually get jail.We might also get ramps, but I'm pretty sure if the council injuncted us to stop, some would feel strongly enough to go to jail over it.You might defend our jailing for the same reasons as you do the jailing of the Rossport people(and you'd have to, to be consistent) but you would be defending something equally as morally dubvious.

Good to see you're entering into this with an open mind.

It's not good to be frank with you to see such a flippant approach to people with principles in my humble opinion.The law may be the law but people are entitled to think it's an ass if they can clearly demonstrate that they feel they are justified in the worries that caused them to flout it.
You haven't to my knowledge shown any justification so far in this or the other thread on this matter strong enough to either placate those worried people that live beside the pipeline or to convince me that their worries aren't genuine.
I've seen plenty of suggestions though that this pipeline is being built on land and the gas being treated onshore because it saves shell money.
Safety Vs money in a big corporation, which do you think would get the most priority? The skeptic in me says the latter.
Kudos to the these Rossport people to be honest for sticking with their principles.The other thing I'd say on the matter is,the longer it goes on,the more damage it does to government parties in the area and thats democracy.
This in my opinion is a case of the law being used as an ass to support a money making proposition to the dtetriment of people who unlike shell have lived all their lives in an area.
The fault is ultimately Ray Burkes,that bastion of non corruptness :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

In fairness,people with homes within yards of the pipeline are entitled to be concerned when it is higher pressure than existing pipelines in Ireland and worse odourless.

From what I understand, it will operate at a slightly higher pressure, while being designed to handle three times the operating pressure. I'm entitled to be concerned about being hit by a meteorite - those things hit the ground all the time, you know! - but I'm not entitled to break the law over those concerns.

Earthman wrote:

Well if I and others started to block a road near me because people on it were travelling too fast and a danger to kids,we would also probably eventually get jail.

What if you prevented a road being opened in case people might travel too fast on it?

Earthman wrote:

It's not good to be frank with you to see such a flippant approach to people with principles in my humble opinion.

I'm being flippant towards the OP, because of the assertion that anyone who disagrees with him must be using "ludicrous arguments".

I may also be seen as flippant towards the jailed men, but I'm blue in the face explaining that their jailing is an entirely and completely separate issue to the safety or otherwise of the gas pipeline, the corruption or otherwise of Ray Burke, or the likelihood of me being hit by a meteorite.

Earthman wrote:

The law may be the law but people are entitled to think it's an ass if they can clearly demonstrate that they feel they are justified in the worries that caused them to flout it.

That's where we'll have to agree to differ. Frankly, I don't think you could be more wrong. Irrespective of your fears, beliefs or convictions, you can't decide which High Court injunctions to obey and which to ignore: that way lies anarchy.

Earthman wrote:

You haven't to my knowledge shown any justification so far in this or the other thread on this matter strong enough to either placate those worried people that live beside the pipeline or to convince me that their worries aren't genuine.

I don't know whether their worries are genuine or not. I personally doubt it, but I also don't see it as relevant to the fact that they are in jail.

Earthman wrote:

Kudos to the these Rossport people to be honest for sticking with their principles.

I have a big problem with that attitude. You're congratulating people for breaking the law, and for refusing to make reparations for doing so (and in this case, the only reparation required is an apology and an undertaking not to do it again).

I've asked this question before: what if they were jailed for burning out machinery on the site? Would you say kudos to the arsonists, at least they have principles? What if they kidnapped a Shell executive? Fair play to the lads, they fairly stuck it to the man that time. What if they brought a shotgun on site, and started picking off workers at random? My goodness, their concerns must be really genuine.

The attitude that contempt of court is somehow a minor misdemeanour, somewhere below parking on a double yellow line, is one that worries me more than any pipeline.

oscarBravo

I missed this the first time around:

Earthman wrote:

...if the council injuncted us to stop, some would feel strongly enough to go to jail over it.You might defend our jailing for the same reasons as you do the jailing of the Rossport people(and you'd have to, to be consistent) but you would be defending something equally as morally dubvious.

I would defend it, and for precisely the same reasons.

When the High Court grants an injunction to one party, preventing another party from acting in a particular way, it's because the injured party has demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction that its rights are being infringed upon.

Now, you can argue - as some around here have - that Shell don't deserve to have any rights. I don't know about you, but I prefer to live in a society where all people and organisations have equal rights under the law. These men had the right to seek to stop Shell using legal mechanisms, and decided - for reasons best known to themselves - to use illegal means instead. Granted, they got the publicity they sought. That's not a good enough reason to excuse their crime, in my view.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

From what I understand, it will operate at a slightly higher pressure, while being designed to handle three times the operating pressure. I'm entitled to be concerned about being hit by a meteorite - those things hit the ground all the time, you know! - but I'm not entitled to break the law over those concerns. What if you prevented a road being opened in case people might travel too fast on it? I'm being flippant towards the OP, because of the assertion that anyone who disagrees with him must be using "ludicrous arguments".

I was referring to flippancy towards those Rossport people not the OP.
As regards the road,it's the same law and if you supported me being in jail for the reason cited it would be in my opinion for equally as morally dubvious a reason as you do these Rosport people.

I may also be seen as flippant towards the jailed men, but I'm blue in the face explaining that their jailing is an entirely and completely separate issue to the safety or otherwise of the gas pipeline,

But would you concede that your zealousness in that is akin to say the zealousness in the Catholic church opposing laws current that they dont like?

the corruption or otherwise of Ray Burke, or the likelihood of me being hit by a meteorit That's where we'll have to agree to differ. Frankly, I don't think you could be more wrong.

Uhm,I think if you go back through history, you will find plenty of people jailed for opposing the force of a law they think is an ass in the way it is being implimented.That is not evidence that the opposers view is wrong in doing so.

Irrespective of your fears, beliefs or convictions, you can't decide which High Court injunctions to obey and which to ignore: that way lies anarchy.

Yes you can by submitting to them and highlighting the ridiculousness of them.It doesnt follow that you should believe that their implimentation or interpretation is right.

I don't know whether their worries are genuine or not. I personally doubt it, but I also don't see it as relevant to the fact that they are in jail. I have a big problem with that attitude. You're congratulating people for breaking the law, and for refusing to make reparations for doing so (and in this case, the only reparation required is an apology and an undertaking not to do it again).

I'm congratulating people for standing up for their principles,thats admirable.As I stated earlier, you will find that many have done so in the past and got an acceptable solution out of it[ without killing people I might add... ]

I've asked this question before: what if they were jailed for burning out machinery on the site? Would you say kudos to the arsonists, at least they have principles? What if they kidnapped a Shell executive? Fair play to the lads, they fairly stuck it to the man that time. What if they brought a shotgun on site, and started picking off workers at random? My goodness, their concerns must be really genuine.

Now it is you that is being completely irrelevant.
We are discussing the Rossport 5's actions here not some hypothetical situation.

The attitude that contempt of court is somehow a minor misdemeanour, somewhere below parking on a double yellow line, is one that worries me more than any pipeline.

Well I suggest that you reexamine that attitude,you dont have to, you're as entitled not to, as we both are to question each others attitudes.
But if you do you might find plenty of existing benefits where laws or situations were changed arising out of peacefull campaigns such as this one.
You might also find that you yourself may have benefited as a result if you look at history.

bonkey

KieranusTyranus wrote:

Can anyone give a logical reason why these men are in jail.

Because they choose to remain there, thus continuing to keep their issue at least somewhat in the public's consciousness (aided and abetted by the likes of yourself this thread).

jc

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

But would you concede that your zealousness in that is akin to say the zealousness in the Catholic church opposing laws current that they dont like?

No. I'm bewildered as to where you're getting that parallel from.

Earthman wrote:

Uhm,I think if you go back through history, you will find plenty of people jailed for opposing the force of a law they think is an ass in the way it is being implimented.

Are you saying that because other people have been jailed for breaking laws they didn't agree with, then it's automatically OK to break a law that you don't agree with? I'm not following your logic here.

Earthman wrote:

That is not evidence that the opposers view is wrong in doing so.

Unless you can show a logical, and preferably legally grounded, basis for stating that these men are justified in choosing not to obey the law, then I still don't get your point.

Earthman wrote:

Yes you can by submitting to them and highlighting the ridiculousness of them.It doesnt follow that you should believe that their implimentation or interpretation is right.

What's ridiculous about someone being jailed for contempt of court? What sanction do you suggest is appropriate for contempt of court? Do you believe that the hysteria surrounding this case should cause the court to rethink their decision on emotive/populist rather than legal grounds? Do you think we should replace the high court with mob rule?

Earthman wrote:

I'm congratulating people for standing up for their principles,thats admirable.As I stated earlier, you will find that many have done so in the past and got an acceptable solution out of it[ without killing people I might add... ]

What you're carefully avoiding saying is that you are drawing a line through the law, saying "it's OK to break these laws on principle, but not these". It's OK to disobey a direct court order, but not to kill. Is it OK to steal? To deface? To threaten?

It's not a flippant question. The answer to the question is an indication of how highly you value obedience to the High Court. It's obvious that you and others consider it unimportant. That's a view that I personally consider dangerous and irresponsible: if you don't respect the power of the court, why in hell would you bother having one?

Earthman wrote:

Now it is you that is being completely irrelevant.
We are discussing the Rossport 5's actions here not some hypothetical situation.

See above. I'm trying to understand how you can consider the High Court - the second-highest judicial body in the state - as something to be dismissed with an airy wave of the hand because its decisions don't suit your agenda. Would you be as quick to dismiss a Court injunction if it was granted to protect your rights?

Earthman wrote:

Well I suggest that you reexamine that attitude,you dont have to, you're as entitled not to, as we both are to question each others attitudes.
But if you do you might find plenty of existing benefits where laws or situations were changed arising out of peacefull campaigns such as this one.
You might also find that you yourself may have benefited as a result if you look at history.

You've utterly avoided my point, which is the most important one of all: if you don't respect the court, why bother having one?

Zaph0d

Maybe Mayo residents should take a less confrontational approach to energy companies while they choose lifestyles utterly dependent on hydrocarbons.

I'm guessing that the problem stems from Shell's failure to bribe the right people appropriately. They should have learnt from the mobile phone networks who are required to solve local, ahem, health concerns with cash when building rural infrastructure.

Where does Ray Burke come into this? Planning permission was granted by ABP in October 2004, long after Rambo's era. Was the original deal his brainchild?

The whole scenario is reminiscent of 'The Wickerman', never a great image for attracting outside investment to a region that is not yet self-sufficient.

Rossport timeline in 'The Western People'
http://archives.tcm.ie/westernpeople/2005/07/08/story26167.asp

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

No. I'm bewildered as to where you're getting that parallel from.

The paralell would be the catholic church would have supported actions against or at least have had little sympathy for people importing condoms and various other contraception devices when they were illegal here.
Similar zealousness.

Are you saying that because other people have been jailed for breaking laws they didn't agree with, then it's automatically OK to break a law that you don't agree with?

Nope,I'm saying that the circumstances surrounding the implimentation of this law were mis managed.

I'm not following your logic here. Unless you can show a logical, and preferably legally grounded, basis for stating that these men are justified in choosing not to obey the law, then I still don't get your point.

you see this is where we disagree.It's not the law we disagree on,it's the circumstances that apply in giving rise to it's implimentation.
You've made it plain,you've little time for the fears of the Rossport people as is your perogative.You've also indicated that you would stand up and defend the jailing of people blocking speeding cars in an estate if they were sent to prison for doing so.
Thats akin in my book to a traffic warden slapping a ticket on a car whilst its driver has gone into a shop for change fopr the parking meter.It's an unreasonable advocacy of the law without recourse to the circumstances.It's a mis management of the circumstances in my view.I'm going to give one example below of what I'd have done subject to Dáil approval and ergo the peoples approval to resolve this situation.The country would be no worse off for it.

What's ridiculous about someone being jailed for contempt of court? What sanction do you suggest is appropriate for contempt of court? Do you believe that the hysteria surrounding this case should cause the court to rethink their decision on emotive/populist rather than legal grounds? Do you think we should replace the high court with mob rule?

Whats ridiculous is that you would rule out all jig room.

What you're carefully avoiding saying is that you are drawing a line through the law, saying "it's OK to break these laws on principle, but not these". It's OK to disobey a direct court order, but not to kill. Is it OK to steal? To deface? To threaten?

No I am absolutely not.
I'm questioning the approach whereby some people would prefer to jail people without looking at other options first when they are otherwise peacefully protesting.

It's not a flippant question. The answer to the question is an indication of how highly you value obedience to the High Court. It's obvious that you and others consider it unimportant. That's a view that I personally consider dangerous and irresponsible:

Where on Earth is it obvious that I consider the court unimportant.What I am saying is that I consider dialog important- (a) in the case of the concerned residents protesting against the speeding motorist-there should be speed bumps before jailing the protesters and (b) in the case of the Rossport people, there should have been a proactive involvement by the government before they let it go as far as it di.They mis managed the situation.
As i stated above theres at least one thing that I would do if confronted with this situation.
If I was Taoiseach in the morning I'd gather my parliamentary party together and get support for a taxing of onshore gas refining facilities.I'd leave off shore ones untaxed.It's not as if we would lose money by this.Shell are still going to charge world prices for the stuff, none of us are at a loss -we have access to our requirements of oil and gas by plenty other means

if you don't respect the power of the court, why in hell would you bother having one? See above. I'm trying to understand how you can consider the High Court - the second-highest judicial body in the state - as something to be dismissed with an airy wave of the hand because its decisions don't suit your agenda.

What agenda? I'm talking about the mis management of the sition that got us to where we are now.

Would you be as quick to dismiss a Court injunction if it was granted to protect your rights?

How is that relevant? Shell actually got the injunction by fowl means,they were carrying out work for which they hadn't permission.I'd like to think that if I was asking the court to uphold my rights that at the time I asked I'd have the rights to uphold in the first place.

You've utterly avoided my point, which is the most important one of all: if you don't respect the court, why bother having one?

Thats probably because you are (a) addressing a point I'm not making-I'm not disputing the courts right to impliment the law.I'm disputing the circumstances that forced it to do so and the consequences, whilst at the same time pointing out that historically this has often happened resulting in benefical changes in the law.
If we were to take your approach and bow down to every corporate fancy just because they can use the law to enforce a contract that one disagree's with , then we'd have a sad unchangeable and ironically unjust world in my humble opinion.

Zaph0d

Zaph0d wrote:

Where does Ray Burke come into this? Planning permission was granted by ABP in October 2004, long after Rambo's era. Was the original deal his brainchild?

Rambo negotiated the original contract with Shell to explore the gas fields.He as you know is a proven corupt politician which doesn't inspre confidence in how he may have negotiated a deal that was of practically zilch benefit to the state.

john_grimm

Are you saying that because other people have been jailed for breaking laws they didn't agree with, then it's automatically OK to break a law that you don't agree with? I'm not following your logic here.

The simple fact of the matter is, no matter what the law is, the people inforcing it and who wrote it are human beings and therefore subject to all kinds of imaginable mistake and corruption.

You seem to think that the law is right regardless of the people or circumstances involved. Laws change and in a few decades time we may look back on some of our laws and ask ourselves how we ever thought that A was right because of B.

I think the vast majority of people have come to the conclusion over the years that the state does whats in the best interests of those who run the state. Not the people of the state. Why should the people of Mayo have no say in something that directly affects them ? And regardless of whether or not you believe it affects them or not is not the point. Why should they not act unlawfully against a situation like this where they have had no say or no means to change it ? And don't bother talking about "lawful" means of changing it. The Irish government is far more akin to the American government then we'd like to believe. If another pipeline was going through Berties back garden we'd soon see the difference in how these instances have being treated.

Unless you can show a logical, and preferably legally grounded, basis for stating that these men are justified in choosing not to obey the law, then I still don't get your point.

Because the law is flawed, the people who uphold the law are flawed and do you honestly expect the law to uphold the rights of a small community equally to what the rich and the state want ?

What you're carefully avoiding saying is that you are drawing a line through the law, saying "it's OK to break these laws on principle, but not these". It's OK to disobey a direct court order, but not to kill. Is it OK to steal? To deface? To threaten?

Its not that long ago that it was legal to have slaves, or illegal to be homosexual or lets go back further, illegal for an Irish Catholic to have an eduation, own property, ...

The Law is flawed and will always be flawed. These men as i see it had little or no choice in what they done and i applaude them for it.

if you don't respect the court, why bother having one?

If the law doesn't treat you equally and puts the agenda of the government and rich ahead of yours why should you respect it ?

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

Nope,I'm saying that the circumstances surrounding the implimentation of this law were mis managed.

With respect, I think you're continuing to make a very big mistake by confusing the background to these men's crime with the consequences of their crime. For whatever reason, they deliberately broke a very important law. That's why they're in jail. They were aware of the consequences of their actions, and chose to do them anyway. They're still in jail because they are refusing point-blank to make reparations for their crime.

Why are the "Rossport Five" still in jail? Because they chose to be there, and continue to choose to remain there.

Earthman wrote:

you see this is where we disagree.It's not the law we disagree on,it's the circumstances that apply in giving rise to it's implimentation.

I've made it clear many, many times that I consider those circumstances irrelevant to the fact that they deliberately chose to break the law and to suffer the consequences.

Earthman wrote:

You've made it plain,you've little time for the fears of the Rossport people as is your perogative.You've also indicated that you would stand up and defend the jailing of people blocking speeding cars in an estate if they were sent to prison for doing so.

That's an entirely typical misrepresentation of my position. I don't believe that anyone should be jailed because of fears for their safety or that of others. I don't believe that anyone should be jailed because of making their views known, whether or not I agree with those views.

I strongly believe that anyone who disobeys a High Court order should be jailed, whatever their reasons for so doing.

Earthman wrote:

Thats akin in my book to a traffic warden slapping a ticket on a car whilst its driver has gone into a shop for change fopr the parking meter.It's an unreasonable advocacy of the law without recourse to the circumstances.

That's a ridiculous analogy. Popping into the shop for change is not exactly on a par with a deliberate and calculated commission of one of the most serious crimes possible.

Earthman wrote:

Whats ridiculous is that you would rule out all jig room.

The High Court granted an injunction. The men disobeyed it.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Court should have, in effect, shrugged and said "arragh it was just a suggestion, work away lads"?

Earthman wrote:

No I am absolutely not.
I'm questioning the approach whereby some people would prefer to jail people without looking at other options first when they are otherwise peacefully protesting.

What "other options" would you suggest the High Court consider, when it just had two fingers stuck up to one of its injunctions?

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. These men chose to avoid the legal and legitimate political avenues that remained open to them, and chose a form of martyrdom instead. And you accuse the Court of not looking at other options?

Earthman wrote:

Where on Earth is it obvious that I consider the court unimportant.

You've repeatedly made it clear that you don't believe these men should have been jailed for contempt. The fact of contempt is not in dispute.

Earthman wrote:

What I am saying is that I consider dialog important (a) in the case of the concerned residents protesting against the speeding motorist-there should be speed bumps before jailing the protesters

We're not talking about being jailed for protesting, we're talking about being jailed for contempt. If people protest against speeding in a legal fashion, there may be a case (and there again there may not) for speed bumps. If they are protesting in a manner which the High Court has enjoined them not to do, they should be jailed.

Earthman wrote:

and (b) in the case of the Rossport people, there should have been a proactive involvement by the government before they let it go as far as it di.They mis managed the situation.

The government had no hand, act or part in these men's decision to break the law.

Earthman wrote:

Shell actually got the injunction by fowl means,they were carrying out work for which they hadn't permission.

As I understand it, the men were not enjoined from preventing specific works on the site which Shell were permitted to carry out; they were enjoined from preventing works on the site. They broke that injunction.

If they had brought an injunction in their turn against illegal work being carried out by Shell instead of acting illegally themselves, I'd have a lot more sympathy for them.

Earthman wrote:

I'd like to think that if I was asking the court to uphold my rights that at the time I asked I'd have the rights to uphold in the first place.

They do have rights, much as some people around here think they shouldn't. The fact that they are guilty of wrongdoings themselves doesn't change the fact that the five acted reprehensibly.

Earthman wrote:

Thats probably because you are (a) addressing a point I'm not making-I'm not disputing the courts right to impliment the law.I'm disputing the circumstances that forced it to do so and the consequences, whilst at the same time pointing out that historically this has often happened resulting in benefical changes in the law.

But the only law we're discussing here is that relating to contempt of court. What beneficial change do you propose to that law?

Earthman wrote:

If we were to take your approach and bow down to every corporate fancy just because they can use the law to enforce a contract that one disagree's with , then we'd have a sad unchangeable and ironically unjust world in my humble opinion.

Please stop misrepresenting me. I'm not talking about corporate fancies, I'm talking about contempt of court. As to using the law to enforce a contract, that's what the law is for.

oscarBravo

john_grimm wrote:

The simple fact of the matter is, no matter what the law is, the people inforcing it and who wrote it are human beings and therefore subject to all kinds of imaginable mistake and corruption.

What mistake - or worse, what corruption - do you feel was involved when these men were jailed for deliberately and calculatedly disobeying a High Court order?

john_grimm wrote:

You seem to think that the law is right regardless of the people or circumstances involved. Laws change and in a few decades time we may look back on some of our laws and ask ourselves how we ever thought that A was right because of B.

Please explain to me what will change in a few decades to make us believe we shouldn't jail people for deliberately and calculatedly disobeying High Court orders?

john_grimm wrote:

I think the vast majority of people have come to the conclusion over the years that the state does whats in the best interests of those who run the state. Not the people of the state.

Given that we're only discussing the actions of the High Court here, I take it you're accusing the Court of acting other than in the interest of the State. I think you're utterly wrong, but I'd be interested to hear your justification for your position.

john_grimm wrote:

Why should the people of Mayo have no say in something that directly affects them ?

Of course they should have a say - I've never said they shouldn't. My position is simply that they don't have any right to disobey the law in the process.

john_grimm wrote:

And regardless of whether or not you believe it affects them or not is not the point.

Correct - their unlawful behaviour and its consequences are the point.

john_grimm wrote:

Why should they not act unlawfully against a situation like this where they have had no say or no means to change it ?

Why should they not act unlawfully? Are you serious? Do you understand why the concept of "lawful" exists? Don't you believe in civilisation?

john_grimm wrote:

And don't bother talking about "lawful" means of changing it.

If it's all the same to you, I will, thanks.

john_grimm wrote:

The Irish government is far more akin to the American government then we'd like to believe. If another pipeline was going through Berties back garden we'd soon see the difference in how these instances have being treated.

This is your basis for selectively ignoring the rule of law? When do I get to decide when the law is insufficient to guarantee my rights, and start committing crimes as and when it suits me?

john_grimm wrote:

Because the law is flawed, the people who uphold the law are flawed and do you honestly expect the law to uphold the rights of a small community equally to what the rich and the state want ?

Given a choice between expecting the law to uphold my rights and allowing people to decide that they don't need no steenkin' laws and do whatever the hell they please, I'm going to choose the law, thanks.

john_grimm wrote:

Its not that long ago that it was legal to have slaves, or illegal to be homosexual or lets go back further, illegal for an Irish Catholic to have an eduation, own property, ...

Straw man. Are you saying that because laws have changed, no existing law has any moral validity?

john_grimm wrote:

The Law is flawed and will always be flawed.

What, specifically, is flawed about the High Court jailing someone who disobeys one of its injunctions?

john_grimm wrote:

These men as i see it had little or no choice in what they done and i applaude them for it.

They had a choice. They made their choice. They accepted in advance the consequences of their choice. No applause here.

john_grimm wrote:

If the law doesn't treat you equally and puts the agenda of the government and rich ahead of yours why should you respect it ?

Why do you say the law doesn't treat them equally? They didn't attempt to use the law to enforce their rights; they chose to use unlawful behaviour instead.

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote:

If people protest against speeding in a legal fashion, there may be a case (and there again there may not) for speed bumps. If they are protesting in a manner which the High Court has enjoined them not to do, they should be jailed.

Actually, whether they protest against speeding in a legal fashion or not has nothing to do with whether or not there is a case for speed-bumps.

Regardless of the legality of the action, the purpose of the action is to highlight the need. In the hypothetical case, it is the need for speed-bumps. In teh R5 case, its the need for something to be done about the pipeline.

In neither case does the legality of the action taken impact on the correctness of their being a need or not. You can't justly decide, for example, that speed-bumps are actually needed, but because people broke the law in getting that need recognised that the bumps won't go in.

I'm willing to bet, incidentally, that were the govt and Shell to decide that the refining would be moved to any of what many bill as safer/preferable locations that the R5 would be only too happy to apologise for acting in contempt of court as soon as they were given the opportunity to do so.

Or am I missing developments in the story?

jc

CaptJack

this country has experienced economic boom in recent yrs, however spiralling wage/energy costs are making us uncompetative.By bringing the gas ashore we can go someway to offsetting the rising wages by using our natural resources...the ill informed opinions of some farmers objecting to the use of their land shouldnt be put before the greater good of the country..


and just so as not to cloud the issue, they are in jail for contempt of court. (note the judiciary is one of the arms of govt, and therefore the state)

they can purge this at any time but choose not to.People do not even know any longer what the issue is, and i'd also like to point out the vandalism and graffitti carried out by the supporters of the Rossport 5 in the area (residential) around Cloverhill prison..

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

With respect, I think you're continuing to make a very big mistake by confusing the background to these men's crime with the consequences of their crime. For whatever reason, they deliberately broke a very important law. That's why they're in jail. They were aware of the consequences of their actions, and chose to do them anyway. They're still in jail because they are refusing point-blank to make reparations for their crime.

And I am here decrying the situation that put them there in the first place as ridiculous.Have you a comment to make on that point yet?

Why are the "Rossport Five" still in jail? Because they chose to be there, and continue to choose to remain there. I've made it clear many, many times that I consider those circumstances irrelevant to the fact that they deliberately chose to break the law and to suffer the consequences. That's an entirely typical misrepresentation of my position. I don't believe that anyone should be jailed because of fears for their safety or that of others.

Actually in this thread you go further than that and disregard their fears

I don't believe that anyone should be jailed because of making their views known, whether or not I agree with those views.

Yeah but these people have no problems submitting to the law, they haven't absconded and gone into hiding, they believe in the right of what they are protesting about.You don't.

I strongly believe that anyone who disobeys a High Court order should be jailed, whatever their reasons for so doing. That's a ridiculous analogy. Popping into the shop for change is not exactly on a par with a deliberate and calculated commission of one of the most serious crimes possible. The High Court granted an injunction. The men disobeyed it.

It's a perfect example of there being no jig room though and you have no jig room in your position.
Have you a comment on how this could have been prevented through comprimise?Other than to repeat the line that you disagree with their concerns?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Court should have, in effect, shrugged and said "arragh it was just a suggestion, work away lads"? What "other options" would you suggest the High Court consider, when it just had two fingers stuck up to one of its injunctions?

I'm suggesting that they shouldn't have been put in the position of being in front of the court at all in this case.
The fact that they were and the avoidable circumstances around it ie the jig room that the government has in the matter adds credence in this particular situation to decrying the assenine way it has been dragged through the courts with the inevitable result.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. These men chose to avoid the legal and legitimate political avenues that remained open to them, and chose a form of martyrdom instead. And you accuse the Court of not looking at other options?

Go back and re read what I said,I am referring to the actions the government could have taken and not the court.It shouldnt have went to court.
There should have been adequate dialog.

You've repeatedly made it clear that you don't believe these men should have been jailed for contempt. The fact of contempt is not in dispute. We're not talking about being jailed for protesting, we're talking about being jailed for contempt.

Yes but look at the why and how in what I'm saying will you please?

If people protest against speeding in a legal fashion, there may be a case (and there again there may not) for speed bumps. If they are protesting in a manner which the High Court has enjoined them not to do, they should be jailed.

Without any jig room or concern for their motives...thought so.
Thats very dictatorial,very unreasonable and devoid of dialog...but carry on.
Imagine the state of chaos we'd have in many circumstances without dialog.

The government had no hand, act or part in these men's decision to break the law. As I understand it, the men were not enjoined from preventing specific works on the site which Shell were permitted to carry out; they were enjoined from preventing works on the site. They broke that injunction.

The government could have intervened before these men decided to do what they did.They could still intervene now to make an onshore facility less viable.

If they had brought an injunction in their turn against illegal work being carried out by Shell instead of acting illegally themselves, I'd have a lot more sympathy for them.

Well that much is obvious,you have so much respect for the law that such a position would be perfect for you,you could justify it as you wouldnt need any jig room to do so,such is the rigidity and immovability and I would contend unreasonableness of your position.

They do have rights, much as some people around here think they shouldn't.

Yeah we know they have rights... as do the government to intervene.The government can't intervene in the judicial decision of course but they can create the circumstances for the Five men to purge their contempt knowing that the ultimate aim of their campaign is sucessfull.
Though maybe theres not enough clout in the constituency for this to happen.
As someone else suggested it might be approached differently if the pipeline was running through a Dublin constituency.

The fact that they are guilty of wrongdoings themselves doesn't change the fact that the five acted reprehensibly.

The fact that they broke the law and that the law must be applied we are not disputing here.
But as for reprehensible, thats subjective.I wouldnt regard parents stopping speeding cars as reprehensible just as I wouldnt regard people feeling that concerned about this pipeline feeling the need to go all the way to jail to reinforce their case as being a reprehensible act.Unlawfull yes obviously-but reprehensible? No certainly not given the circumstances around why they felt the need to go that far and given the lack of jig room used by those in a position to use jig room in order to prevent tit getting this far.
I'd have a dimmer view of the people who let the situation arise in the first place.

But the only law we're discussing here is that relating to contempt of court. What beneficial change do you propose to that law?

I wasn't aware that I was proposing any.I am aware that I'm criticising the situation devoid of jig room that gives us this not so fine example of how it could be used when the circumstances could have been managed such that its use wouldn't have been unnecessary.

Please stop misrepresenting me. I'm not talking about corporate fancies, I'm talking about contempt of court. As to using the law to enforce a contract, that's what the law is for.

How am I misrepresenting you?
You are defending a corporations right to use the law to force through an unpopular pipeline.Thats a fancy of Shell and you are defending their right to do so.You are perfectly entitled to do that and fair play to you for being so litteral and equalitarian in what is a correct approach to the law.
Thats a fact.
I on the other hand am criticising the lack of jig room that has lead to the imprisonment of people with safety concerns.I'm pointing out that sometimes theres more to a situation than siting on a fence and saying the laws the law lads lets not intervene before during or after to resolve a situation.
I'm not advocating disrespect for the law,I'm advocating either intervention before it comes to the situation that the law has to be used and or a change in the law if either is warranted.

bonkey wrote:

Actually, whether they protest against speeding in a legal fashion or not has nothing to do with whether or not there is a case for speed-bumps.

Regardless of the legality of the action, the purpose of the action is to highlight the need. In the hypothetical case, it is the need for speed-bumps. In teh R5 case, its the need for something to be done about the pipeline.

In neither case does the legality of the action taken impact on the correctness of their being a need or not. You can't justly decide, for example, that speed-bumps are actually needed, but because people broke the law in getting that need recognised that the bumps won't go in.
I'm willing to bet, incidentally, that were the govt and Shell to decide that the refining would be moved to any of what many bill as safer/preferable locations that the R5 would be only too happy to apologise for acting in contempt of court as soon as they were given the opportunity to do so.

Or am I missing developments in the story?

jc

Yup I'd say thats their position allright.It's their principals that they are defending.They are actually yielding to the implimentation of the law to reinforce their point.
Thats a common enough tactic and I'd judge its reprehensibility if any on whether I thought they had a genuine case or not and I think they do.
If it was some other case and there was to my eyes no case or very little case to what they went to jail for then I'd take a different view of their tactic.I'd have seen that there was probably no jig room and no legitimate comprimise.

Unfortunately both sides that can take action here to relieve the situation ( Shell or the Govt )may be very stubborn for differing reasons whereas the protesters would have to just give up otherwise which they may end up having to do I don't know at this stage.

MrPudding

CaptJack wrote:

By bringing the gas ashore we can go someway to offsetting the rising wages by using our natural resources...the ill informed opinions of some farmers objecting to the use of their land shouldnt be put before the greater good of the country..

How does this work? It is not *our* natural resources. The gas belongs to Marathon or Shell. Do you have any information to suggest we, the Irish Nation, will get this gas any cheaper than we do any other gas?

MrP

CaptJack

well mr pdding , the voice of gombeenism is alive in you....

1)marathon have nothing to do with the corrib gas field

2)we'd benefit from cheaper gas prices as the gas is brought ashore here and isnt imported a pipeline running thru 14 other countries (all the non eu ones tax it on the way here)thereby leading to reduced transport/tax costs you imbecile

3)by granting exploration licences and ownership of finds to oil companies, ireland avoids the cost of oil/gas exploration.each well costs an average €20mil to exploit.most turn up too small an amount of fuel to make it viable to bring ashore.if we were to conduct our own oil/gas exploration, we would have an annual budget deficit of hundreds of millions.There is no incentive for oil companies to risk so much money without the promise of significant rewardsthe state makes its money by way of corporation tax/export levies/and increased PAYE due to the extra jobs created (not just in the immediate production area, but job creation resulting in lower fuel costs)

Sadly most of those expressing opinions on the matter are as i said previously ill informed, without much knowledge in the 2 fields of importance here , ie economics (on the financial side), and petro-chemical engineering (on the technical side)

Perhaps the most pathetic arguement is the contradictory one that this is unsafe (prove it), while in the same breath saying this has never been done before.If it hasnt been done before, there would be no evidence to support claims that it is unsafe.
If it as been done before , then it is not unique, and has obviously worked well else where.Time for the gombeens to stop trying to hold back the country for the good of some small thinking rural backwater which is over represented and under educated

CaptJack

CaptJack wrote:

well mr pdding , the voice of gombeenism is alive in you....

2 week ban

oscarBravo

bonkey wrote:

Actually, whether they protest against speeding in a legal fashion or not has nothing to do with whether or not there is a case for speed-bumps.

Regardless of the legality of the action, the purpose of the action is to highlight the need. In the hypothetical case, it is the need for speed-bumps. In teh R5 case, its the need for something to be done about the pipeline.

In neither case does the legality of the action taken impact on the correctness of their being a need or not. You can't justly decide, for example, that speed-bumps are actually needed, but because people broke the law in getting that need recognised that the bumps won't go in.

I have only one argument with all of the above: "the purpose of the action is to highlight the perceived need."

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

And I am here decrying the situation that put them there in the first place as ridiculous.Have you a comment to make on that point yet?

What put them there in the first place was their contempt for the court.

Earthman wrote:

Actually in this thread you go further than that and disregard their fears

I don't disregard them, I disagree with them. There are some idiots out there that think they're being slowly killed by overhead powerlines, but I don't personally accept that all 220kV lines should be buried as a result.

Earthman wrote:

Yeah but these people have no problems submitting to the law, they haven't absconded and gone into hiding, they believe in the right of what they are protesting about.You don't.

If they're so happy to accept the consequences of their actions, why are we still talking about the alleged injustice of their imprisonment?

Earthman wrote:

It's a perfect example of there being no jig room though and you have no jig room in your position.

Clear this up for me: are you suggesting that they should not have been jailed for contempt?

I don't think so. It seems instead that you're suggesting that the Court shouldn't have granted the injunction in the first place. Given that the Court operates on the basis of law, can you demonstrate how they failed in law in the granting of the injunction?

Earthman wrote:

Have you a comment on how this could have been prevented through comprimise?Other than to repeat the line that you disagree with their concerns?

I reject the premise that everyone's perspective on every situation must be taken into account.

I'm afraid of being hit by a meteorite. I demand that the government build a roof over the country. I'm prepared to go to jail on foot of my concerns. Can I take it you'll be campaigning on my behalf?

Earthman wrote:

I'm suggesting that they shouldn't have been put in the position of being in front of the court at all in this case.

Are you suggesting that Shell shouldn't have sought the injunction? They were entirely within their rights to do so.

Earthman wrote:

The fact that they were and the avoidable circumstances around it ie the jig room that the government has in the matter adds credence in this particular situation to decrying the assenine way it has been dragged through the courts with the inevitable result.

The result was not inevitable: the men could have chosen not to break the law.

I don't know what jig room you think the government has. Are you suggesting they should have swept aside the years of due process through the planning system, because of the concerns of five men?

Earthman wrote:

Go back and re read what I said,I am referring to the actions the government could have taken and not the court.It shouldnt have went to court.

It went to court because Shell took it to court, as they are entitled to do. Shell sought an injunction because these men were infringing on their rights.

Earthman wrote:

Without any jig room or concern for their motives...thought so.
Thats very dictatorial,very unreasonable and devoid of dialog...but carry on.
Imagine the state of chaos we'd have in many circumstances without dialog.

So you are suggesting that the High Court shouldn't automatically jail people for contempt. I can't accept that. If the Court can't decisively punish disobedience of its orders, it might as well fold its tent and go home.

Earthman wrote:

The government could have intervened before these men decided to do what they did.They could still intervene now to make an onshore facility less viable.

Again, you are working on the basis that an onshore facility is a bad thing. What makes you (or these five men) better qualified to decide that than An Bord Pleanála?

Earthman wrote:

Well that much is obvious,you have so much respect for the law that such a position would be perfect for you,you could justify it as you wouldnt need any jig room to do so,such is the rigidity and immovability and I would contend unreasonableness of your position.

Wow. That has the be the first time I've ever seen respect for the law portrayed as somehow a bad thing.

Earthman wrote:

Yeah we know they have rights... as do the government to intervene.The government can't intervene in the judicial decision of course but they can create the circumstances for the Five men to purge their contempt knowing that the ultimate aim of their campaign is sucessfull.

Once again, this presupposes that the five's campaign is automatically justified. I don't accept this premise.

Earthman wrote:

The fact that they broke the law and that the law must be applied we are not disputing here.

On the contrary, you are.

Earthman wrote:

But as for reprehensible, thats subjective.I wouldnt regard parents stopping speeding cars as reprehensible ...

Stopping speeding cars by standing by the road with placards - no. Stopping speeding cars by slashing their tyres, though?

As I've said, I have no issue with the right to protest, even when I feel that the subject of the protest lacks validity. I don't accept that there's any excuse for criminality in protesting, and I don't accept that a government has to interfere with the planning process because five men really, really want it to.

Earthman wrote:

How am I misrepresenting you?

Like this:

Earthman wrote:

You are defending a corporations right to use the law to force through an unpopular pipeline.

That's a blatantly emotive interpretation of my position. Shell have been granted the right to construct this pipeline. Popular or unpopular (a divided issue in its own right), they are legally entitled to construct it. They're not using the law to "force" it through, they're using the law to prevent people from infringing on their legal right to do what they've been given permission to do.

Earthman wrote:

I'm not advocating disrespect for the law,I'm advocating either intervention before it comes to the situation that the law has to be used and or a change in the law if either is warranted.

What you're refusing to consider is the possibility that it may not be appropriate to intervene in a situation.

Ajnag

Wow, and you think rising prices at the pump would make people a little more cynical and less sympathic to shell.

In the face of record profits, they are here refusing to disolve the injunction and running a cost saving excersise of all things!
Hows about the impact on the property prices of local residents? Who will compensate them for that?
And why not just have a shoreline refinary rather then striping an area of blanket bog and passing an untested pipeline close to residential areas?

And how's about the fact that in the face of rising oil costs, Discovery and explotation of our offshore fields is about to get a hell of alot more economical to exploit, and yet no one is willing to discuss nationalisation of unsold blocks or even starting to make a little profit from our own resourses?

I dunno? Is it cos many dont wanna be on the same side as some of the dumbass alt groups that have hopped on this bandwagon?
Well guess what I dont wanna be either, But Id like to think I know what good business sense should be on the part of government.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

What put them there in the first place was their contempt for the court.

Who's disputing that? I've pointed out that the situation shouldn't have been allowed to develop to that.

I don't disregard them, I disagree with them.

I know you disagree with them on the method they've chosen to highlight their case.I'd have some difficulty with accepting that you don't disregard them given that you diss their concerns.It is conceivable that people have a higher safety requirement that you.

There are some idiots out there that think they're being slowly killed by overhead powerlines, but I don't personally accept that all 220kV lines should be buried as a result.

Have people gone to jail over that and the relevance to the Rossport peoples concerns are? And exactly how unique is this pipeline situation vis a vis the amount of overhead powerlines we have?

If they're so happy to accept the consequences of their actions, why are we still talking about the alleged injustice of their imprisonment?

Because there is a difference between there being an injustice and there being a law broken.The injustice to them is clearly that the pipeline is going close to their houses.

Clear this up for me: are you suggesting that they should not have been jailed for contempt?

What is the point of that question? Haven't I said all along that I'm not disputing the law,you already know this,I've said it several times so we are back to you showing no jig room at all.You're only interest here is in the law and not in a pragmatic comprimise it would seem.

I don't think so. It seems instead that you're suggesting that the Court shouldn't have granted the injunction in the first place. Given that the Court operates on the basis of law, can you demonstrate how they failed in law in the granting of the injunction? I reject the premise that everyone's perspective on every situation must be taken into account.

Here you are on about the law again when I'm talking about the situation that brought the law into the equasion.The Rossport 5 fervently disagree with the pipeline being near houses such that they are willing to be jailed for their efforts.They aren't running away from the law.
You seem to be completely missing the thrust of my concern.

I'm afraid of being hit by a meteorite. I demand that the government build a roof over the country. I'm prepared to go to jail on foot of my concerns. Can I take it you'll be campaigning on my behalf?

Thats about as ridiculous as suggesting that parents breaking the law stopping speeding cars in an estate is reprehensible

Are you suggesting that Shell shouldn't have sought the injunction? They were entirely within their rights to do so.

Now this is funny because later in the reply you are suggesting that I am misrepresenting you by saying that you are defending Corporations rights.You are and furthermore,I've praised you for doing so.

The result was not inevitable: the men could have chosen not to break the law.

I really do suggest that you go back and reread the thread, because I've said over and over again that I'm not disputing the law, and the Rossport 5 never hid from the inevitable effects of the law.My beef is with how there was not suffecient dialog to avoid these guys feeling the need to have no other recourse but to go to jail for their concerns.

I don't know what jig room you think the government has. Are you suggesting they should have swept aside the years of due process through the planning system, because of the concerns of five men?

As you know theres more than 5 men supporting the concerns of these people.

It went to court because Shell took it to court, as they are entitled to do.

yeah I know...theres no need to state the obvious

Shell sought an injunction because these men were infringing on their rights. So you are suggesting that the High Court shouldn't automatically jail people for contempt. I can't accept that.

Again you are labouring under a misconception that I wouldnt uphold the law.I wont repeat it agin for you where I'm coming from here,it's all in black and white several times already...

If the Court can't decisively punish disobedience of its orders, it might as well fold its tent and go home.

Oh there you go again...(I'm not talking about what the court should do, thats not the issue here)

Again, you are working on the basis that an onshore facility is a bad thing. What makes you (or these five men) better qualified to decide that than An Bord Pleanála?

You are ignoring the issues around the group that investigated the safety issues there.

Wow. That has the be the first time I've ever seen respect for the law portrayed as somehow a bad thing.

for the umpteenth time,it's not the law I'm discussing.

Once again, this presupposes that the five's campaign is automatically justified. I don't accept this premise.

Fine you don't have to-perhaps you should start a campaign to keep the Rossport 5 in?

On the contrary, you are.

I'm as entitled to support their concerns as any and I think I'm in good company.

Stopping speeding cars by standing by the road with placards - no. Stopping speeding cars by slashing their tyres, though?

you're argument is getting ridiculous again and irrelevant.

As I've said, I have no issue with the right to protest, even when I feel that the subject of the protest lacks validity.

Thats one nubb of your argument here alright, you think the pipeline is safe.

I don't accept that there's any excuse for criminality in protesting,

Thats the other nubb of it-no jig room...At no point are you willing to accept that there is an alternative way or that there was.

and I don't accept that a government has to interfere with the planning process because five men really, really want it to.

Theres more than 5 men disliking this pipeline.

Like this: That's a blatantly emotive interpretation of my position. Shell have been granted the right to construct this pipeline. Popular or unpopular (a divided issue in its own right), they are legally entitled to construct it. They're not using the law to "force" it through, they're using the law to prevent people from infringing on their legal right to do what they've been given permission to do.

Theres no need to tell me the obvious,I know what day of the week it is, just as I accept what shell are legally entitled to do.

What you're refusing to consider is the possibility that it may not be appropriate to intervene in a situation.

You have got that bit half right.
I've said all through this thread and it's only kind of half got through to you now at this stage that the government should have and still can take action to diffuse this situation.That could vary from on the one hand taxing the onshore facility forcing Shell to opt for the off shore, to something as simple as offering to buy the peoples houses.
In other words I put dialog before stonewalling.

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

Who's disputing that? I've pointed out that the situation shouldn't have been allowed to develop to that.

What you've singularly failed to do is point out exactly how you feel this situation could have been prevented.

Earthman wrote:

I know you disagree with them on the method they've chosen to highlight their case.I'd have some difficulty with accepting that you don't disregard them given that you diss their concerns.It is conceivable that people have a higher safety requirement that you.

I've gone to some lengths to illustrate my position on their concerns. Once again, I feel I'm arguing at something of a disadvantage here, as you seem to feel that their perception of danger is somehow validated, despite any real evidence to the contrary.

I can't prove the proposed pipeline is safe. That said, I'm prepared to accept that if An Bord Pleanála feel it's OK, then it's probably OK. Do you have a comparable basis for feeling that it's unsafe?

Earthman wrote:

Have people gone to jail over that and the relevance to the Rossport peoples concerns are? And exactly how unique is this pipeline situation vis a vis the amount of overhead powerlines we have?

The relevance is that you're citing unsubstantiated concerns for safety. Uniqueness doesn't necessarily come into it.

Earthman wrote:

Because there is a difference between there being an injustice and there being a law broken.The injustice to them is clearly that the pipeline is going close to their houses.

There are pipelines close to houses all over this country. What makes these people so special as to be exempt from proximity to pipelines?

Earthman wrote:

What is the point of that question? Haven't I said all along that I'm not disputing the law,you already know this,I've said it several times so we are back to you showing no jig room at all.You're only interest here is in the law and not in a pragmatic comprimise it would seem.

But you are disputing the law. You're suggesting that the High Court should think about the circumstances surrounding someone's decision to ignore one of their orders. How can you pragmatically compromise on a decision not to obey a High Court injunction?

Earthman wrote:

Here you are on about the law again when I'm talking about the situation that brought the law into the equasion.The Rossport 5 fervently disagree with the pipeline being near houses such that they are willing to be jailed for their efforts.They aren't running away from the law.
You seem to be completely missing the thrust of my concern.

By the same token, you're completely avoiding those aspects of the argument that don't suit your position.

Are you suggesting that a gas pipeline shouldn't be run within 70 metres of a private dwelling? If so, it's time to shut down Bord Gáis. Maybe you reckon that there should be a limit on the gas pressure that should be run within 70 metres of a private dwelling? Funny that such limit should fall within the small margin that exists between existing pipelines and this proposed one.

My point is: the competent authorities have decided that this pipeline is safe. What makes you so sure they are wrong?

Earthman wrote:

Thats about as ridiculous as suggesting that parents breaking the law stopping speeding cars in an estate is reprehensible

But we're not talking about stopping speeding cars, we're talking about illegally preventing a road from being built on the off-chance that cars might just possibly break the speed limit despite the fixed speed cameras that will be installed.

Earthman wrote:

Now this is funny because later in the reply you are suggesting that I am misrepresenting you by saying that you are defending Corporations rights.You are and furthermore,I've praised you for doing so.

...and now you're misrepresenting me again. I've never claimed not to be defending corporations' rights.

Earthman wrote:

I really do suggest that you go back and reread the thread, because I've said over and over again that I'm not disputing the law, and the Rossport 5 never hid from the inevitable effects of the law.My beef is with how there was not suffecient dialog to avoid these guys feeling the need to have no other recourse but to go to jail for their concerns.

I'm confused. You seem to feel that the single most important concern here should be to prevent the incarceration of these men. It seems to me that this concern arises solely out of an identification with their beliefs, rather than a general principle.

Earthman wrote:

As you know theres more than 5 men supporting the concerns of these people.

True, and by any measure, they're in a minority. Most people who've had CPOs issued would be happy to take the money. Most Rossport residents want to see the gas coming ashore. Most Irish people want an indiginous gas supply.

How many people do you need onside before your irrational concern becomes valid?

Earthman wrote:

yeah I know...theres no need to state the obvious

It seems to me that it's absolutely necessary to state the obvious. This whole debate is a classic example of rhetoric versus logic.

Earthman wrote:

Fine you don't have to-perhaps you should start a campaign to keep the Rossport 5 in?

I don't need to. The Court is perfectly capable, and uniquely entitled, to do so. What I am entitled to do is express my support for the rule of law.

Earthman wrote:

you're argument is getting ridiculous again and irrelevant.

As soon as I drift remotely close to the bone, I'm being ridiculous.

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck: you're consistently defending the "right" of these men to break the law as long as it's on principle. As soon as I draw a parallel that includes a more concrete law than you perceive contempt of court to be, you run and hide behind the unfair analogy defence.

It's clear to me that you consider contempt of court to be some kind of minor misdemeanour. I think that's an utterly demented attitude in any self-respecting civilised society, where it should be considered somewhere barely short of treason.

Let's be clear: I honestly believe the courts should have broad latitude in the interpretation of most laws. Contempt of court is one of the very, very few utterly monchrome legal issues. If you don't agree, then we have fundamentally different views on how society should function.

Earthman wrote:

Thats one nubb of your argument here alright, you think the pipeline is safe.

I think that, on balance of probability, it's a ****load more likely that it's safe than that it's unsafe. Maybe you've seen evidence to the contrary that - for reasons of your own - you've chosen not to share with An Bord Pleanála, but for now I'm siding with those who have done the research rather than the superstitious minority.

Earthman wrote:

Thats the other nubb of it-no jig room...At no point are you willing to accept that there is an alternative way or that there was.

This process has been ongoing for the better part of ten years. Call me naive, but I'm willing to accept that there's a reasonable chance that what's currently on offer is the best alternative.

Earthman wrote:

Theres more than 5 men disliking this pipeline.

See above.

Earthman wrote:

Theres no need to tell me the obvious,I know what day of the week it is, just as I accept what shell are legally entitled to do.

You say this, and yet the entire thrust of your argument is that it should never have come to this.

Either you're being inconsistent, or you're going back even further: you're suggesting that Shell shouldn't have been allowed to be in a position where they were legally entitled to obtain this injunction. This implies that you don't believe they should have been granted permission to build this pipeline.

I ask again: what qualifies you more than An Bord Pleanála to come to this conclusion?

Earthman wrote:

You have got that bit half right.
I've said all through this thread and it's only kind of half got through to you now at this stage that the government should have and still can take action to diffuse this situation.That could vary from on the one hand taxing the onshore facility forcing Shell to opt for the off shore, to something as simple as offering to buy the peoples houses.
In other words I put dialog before stonewalling.

You're still missing my point. Your point seems to be that dialog is more important than conflict, whatever the cost; that government should do whatever it takes to allay any and all concerns, however irrational or inconceived, rather than allow any of its citizens to make the rash and immoderate decision to break the law and face incarceration.

I don't buy into that. I figure that if a citizen is determined to go against the overwhelming force of science and politics and champion a (relatively) unpopular cause to the point of embracing imprisonment, then the gates of Cloverhill are wide open. In fact, I think I'd be thinking strongly about billing them for the accomodation.

bonkey

So is it just me, or did the OP just start this thread maknig vaguely insulting comments about those on one side of the argument and then just walk away from the discussion?

jc

bonkey

Ajnag wrote:

how's about the fact that in the face of rising oil costs, Discovery and explotation of our offshore fields is about to get a hell of alot more economical to exploit,

How do you make that out chief? Rising oil costs are not going to have a significant impact on the cost of gas unless the increasing demand for gas outstrips the increasing supply.

Also, discovery costs aren't the problem. They're relatively cheap. The problem is drilling - wells cost an absolute bucket, and until you've got it drilled you won't know what the yield from it will be. Furthermore, the yield which is gotten from any well is also dependant on the expertise of and technology available to those doing the drilling.

and yet no one is willing to discuss nationalisation of unsold blocks or even starting to make a little profit from our own resourses?

Nationalisation has already been peripherally discussed here. My stance, which I believe I gave previously, is that it doesn't make sense. More correctly...no-one who is proposing it has shown in anything more detailed than "if we nationalised we'd make money just like Norway does." as to how it would work.

The problem with nationalisation is that once you nationalise the resource, none of the big players are gonna help you set yourself up as competition to themselves.

The likes of Shell and Statoil are more than willing to pay millions for exploratory drilling as long as they're drilling for themselves. I don't believe any of the big players actually "contract out" their services to drill for oil or gas that someone else will then get to take out of the ground. Nope...these guys spent large amounts of money and investing in experience in order to use it for their own benefit and no-one elses.

So, for us to nationalise the resource, we would need to develop expertise in field-location, drilling, platform-construction, extraction, and so on and so forth. Could we afford the up-front costs? Could we even acquire the expertise? Can anyone supporting the notion of nationalisation supply a credible, knowledgeable and informed/researched answer?

Nationalisation aside, could we have struck a better deal? Perhaps. But...and this is the kicker...there doesn't appear to have been a bidding war, nor does there appear to have been much of Shell begging us to be let in. I suspect that we struck the deal we did because we were given little more than a "take it or leave it" offer. Gas is not in short supply in the same sense oil is. There's plenty of it out there, and we know where a lot of it is. Its just more expensive to transport....but once costs rise above a certain point, its cheaper to transport than to produce locally.

So Shell may well have been in a situation where if we wanted to take a percentage, or where we were refusing to allow whatever tax-breaks that they would have found the offer not sufficiently worthwhile.

Would leaving our gas in the ground and importing gas to meet our needs be preferable to having the situation we have at the moment?

And one last question....

Why this natural resource? Why don't we nationalise our spring water? Our stone quarries? Our fishing grounds? Why should the government own this resource and make direct profit from it when most/all of our other resources are left for private industry to profit from and then pay tax on said profit?

jc

Ajnag

How do you make that out chief?

Well in the face of rising oil costs wont alternative energy sources become more attractive no? Your absoloutly correct in terms of supply and demand of gas and its price, but your analysis is confined just to gas and not the energy market in general. As the price of Oil increases, so dos inflation http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1569321,00.html

This will guarentee an increased demand in gas, and those who exploit gas resources will be free to and be expected by their shareholders to increase margins based on the realitys of the market at the time. Frankly I dont expect any cheap alternatives to oil to be available in the short term, This further improves the prospects of increasing gas prices.

Also of crucial note in this reguard, is dispeling the notion that renewables will be of good value, Namely because cost of production of renewable technologys will also increase with oil. Not many seem to acknowledge this, when in fact it is something to note in terms of value of investment.

Furthermore, the yield which is gotten from any well is also dependant on the expertise of and technology available to those doing the drilling.

Quite alot of which I presume is available on the open market, through consultantcy and specialist firms. Outsourcing has become quite the trend, but I concede this is a point I could do with knowing more on.

Now about nationalisation....
First up, dont have any preconceptions about my attitude to nationalisation, I am not a socialist or statist. Im quite happy to have goverment utilise the private market when it can return me and the Irish tax payers better value, But I dont think the norms of other forms of nationalisation apply to this case.

Just to take a few points:

Why this natural resource? Why don't we nationalise our spring water? Our stone quarries? Our fishing grounds? Why should the government own this resource and make direct profit from it when most/all of our other resources are left for private industry to profit from and then pay tax on said profit?

Ok, fair point but dont we already tend to nationalise certain resources as well, why havent we privatised water, cultural resources or other parts of infrastructure?
Clearly because goverment has to provide public services and resources. Social and physical infrastructure so to say. Now is there any good reason not to have govt exploit what may become a lucretive form of income?(ok, ok.. Beauracracy, Polictical cronyism, corruption, party politics etc etc ). Isnt it at least worth an analysis if its worth taking such action, especially it have good potential for returns. Afaik the current conditions for explotiation were set when the future potential of our offshore reserves werent all that viable and we needed private investment and exploration. Times and circumstances change, Arent we the Irish tax payer entitled to ongoing review and change of policy? If not to nationalise, at least to start making a profit.

Its funny you mention tax in your example, because one of the grating issues in this for me is that under the current terms is that all tax can be writen off on development and equipment costs afaik, so once again, this is an area where this issue is not comparable to other forms of private industry. Also, given that the company's involved are free to outsource work, and sell the gas on the international market, the benefits of allowing these companys to exploit our national resources are increasingly non profitable to Irish people and business. Afaik, the rossport development has not employed more then a handfull of locals.
What would be the results were we to carry out a cost/benefit analysis?

And all thats before I even mention the political side of things in this debate....

I think Ive addressed most of the points you raised, but just to comment on this as well:

Could we afford the up-front costs? Could we even acquire the expertise? Can anyone supporting the notion of nationalisation supply a credible, knowledgeable and informed/researched answer?

Well, I gotta wonder how the us proposed to nationalise Iraqi resources while getting private companys to do the drilling, but seeing as its Oil thats a bit of a silly question. But, I have mentioned that the resources are available to do the work, question is Is it worth it, and the awnser is that even if it isnt now, It will be based on current energy market trends, Now if we're go the private route..fine, but I want our pound of flesh..thats just my Pov. Also, Tony O'Reilly can afford to drill via providense resources, you telling me the govt couldnt afford it?

Which make's once again ask, why outside the intrest groups no-one is really intrested in making shell work for their profits and pay for our facilitation of their business intrests. If only people apply such blase attitudes to their own private business's the country mightnt be such a rip off. :rolleyes:

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

What you've singularly failed to do is point out exactly how you feel this situation could have been prevented. I've gone to some lengths to illustrate my position on their concerns. Once again, I feel I'm arguing at something of a disadvantage here, as you seem to feel that their perception of danger is somehow validated, despite any real evidence to the contrary.

I have.I've said the government could take action varying from a change in tax laws to buying peoples houses.As regards their fears.It's a great unknown as a pipeline such as this is such a rarity but I can see their concerns given the lack of a decent track record of running an odourless higher pressure pipeline this close to houses.

I can't prove the proposed pipeline is safe.

And you can't accept the residents and their supporters concerns either.Fair enough we disagree on that.

That said, I'm prepared to accept that if An Bord Pleanála feel it's OK, then it's probably OK. Do you have a comparable basis for feeling that it's unsafe?

I know that the original people that compiled the safety report and which Bord Pleanala looked at were part owned by Shell.

The relevance is that you're citing unsubstantiated concerns for safety. Uniqueness doesn't necessarily come into it.

Oh but it does,just like the residents blocking the speeding cars,they're not willing to take a risk either.

There are pipelines close to houses all over this country. What makes these people so special as to be exempt from proximity to pipelines?

It's odourless untreated gas.Theres no smell if it leaks.The pipelines in the rest of the country are completely different as you well know from the other thread and presumably from the public domain knowledge of this issue.

But you are disputing the law. You're suggesting that the High Court should think about the circumstances surrounding someone's decision to ignore one of their orders. How can you pragmatically compromise on a decision not to obey a High Court injunction? By the same token, you're completely avoiding those aspects of the argument that don't suit your position.

Please re read my posts.
Thats the third or fourth time you've said I've said something I've not said...
I've suggested that there was a mis management of circumstances that led the guys going all the way to court with their concern and taking the legal medicine.
Are you going to continue to repeat something that I've not said.It looks silly if you do because what I said is here in black and white.

Are you suggesting that a gas pipeline shouldn't be run within 70 metres of a private dwelling? If so, it's time to shut down Bord Gáis. Maybe you reckon that there should be a limit on the gas pressure that should be run within 70 metres of a private dwelling? Funny that such limit should fall within the small margin that exists between existing pipelines and this proposed one.

I'm suggesting that odourless untreated gas shouldn't.The higher pressure of it is an allied concern.

My point is: the competent authorities have decided that this pipeline is safe. What makes you so sure they are wrong?

Have they,Was the report done by a company shell had a hand in or not?Was the government caught out by that conflict of intererst or not?

But we're not talking about stopping speeding cars, we're talking about illegally preventing a road from being built on the off-chance that cars might just possibly break the speed limit despite the fixed speed cameras that will be installed.

Well thats just laughable.I brought it up as being a similar paralell and now you are trying to tell me that theres speed camera's galore in housing estates...Theres hardly enough in the country to cover a few major roads never mind estates.

...and now you're misrepresenting me again. I've never claimed not to be defending corporations' rights. I'm confused.

I merely pointed out that you did when you said you didn't.I also pointed out that I've no truck with you doing that.

You seem to feel that the single most important concern here should be to prevent the incarceration of these men. It seems to me that this concern arises solely out of an identification with their beliefs, rather than a general principle.

With respect thats not true.I've said over and over again that my primary concern is dialog and that I think the concerns of local residents should be listened to.I'd be protesting myself if someone wanted to put the highest pressure in the country odourless untreated gas pipeline beside my house.I'd also be annoyed that this was being done because it was the corporations cheapest oiption and that they couldn't care less about the fears of the people who oppose themThe people from Shell wont have to live beside it.

True, and by any measure, they're in a minority. Most people who've had CPOs issued would be happy to take the money.

I somehow doubt that.

Most Rossport residents want to see the gas coming ashore.

Theres a split in the community alright but theres no evidence to suggest that those who are concerned about this pipeline are in the minority in the area.

Most Irish people want an indiginous gas supply.

Well I'd imagine they do,but if you wanted to put the highest pressure odourless gas pipeline near their house,you would hear noises.

How many people do you need onside before your irrational concern becomes valid? It seems to me that it's absolutely necessary to state the obvious. This whole debate is a classic example of rhetoric versus logic. I don't need to. The Court is perfectly capable, and uniquely entitled, to do so. What I am entitled to do is express my support for the rule of law. As soon as I drift remotely close to the bone, I'm being ridiculous.

Your whole argument is based on two things seemingly (1) the law which I never disputed and ergo the only reason you could possibly have to keep bringing it up in the way that you do is you have little to say on the matter without it.We know that the law was applied.What I'm talking about is how to reach a comprimise and not the intricacies of the law.

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck: you're consistently defending the "right" of these men to break the law as long as it's on principle. As soon as I draw a parallel that includes a more concrete law than you perceive contempt of court to be, you run and hide behind the unfair analogy defence.

You are bringing in a completely unrelated analogy which because it's unrelated isnt an analogy at all.
You want to ask me(or anyone) to what lenghts would one go to continue supporting someone ie after what point does their action become unacceptable.
Thats a misdirection tool in a debate the purpose of which is to avoid the issues being discussed.
You are using it here to attempt to take away from my poiint regarding a peacefull blocking of a road illegal by asking what if vandalism was involved...
I'm comparing like with like,you are attempting to get a "non like with like" for the purposes of misdirection-that won't wash here with me in this discussion as I see it for what it is.
You've also used that tool for the past number of pages by repeating ad nauseum that the law was broken when that was never the issue that I was discussing here, nor was it something that I thought shouldnt be applied.

It's clear to me that you consider contempt of court to be some kind of minor misdemeanour. I think that's an utterly demented attitude in any self-respecting civilised society, where it should be considered somewhere barely short of treason.

See above,I don't but I respect those involved for feeling the need to have to go that far to enhance their point,to highlight their fears when politicians conveniently ignore an awkward issue instead of attempting realistically to resolve it.

Let's be clear: I honestly believe the courts should have broad latitude in the interpretation of most laws. Contempt of court is one of the very, very few utterly monchrome legal issues. If you don't agree, then we have fundamentally different views on how society should function.

You'll never choose to understand my viewpoint here will you? even though several pages back I've accepted yours on the law.Sometimes there are principals and genuine fears that people will consider worth fighting for.Sometimes the circumstances around those fears will be suffeciently ignored that the peacefull campaigners will end up in jail at the hands of decisions instigated by those who have something to lose out of a compromise.

Maybe you've seen evidence to the contrary that - for reasons of your own - you've chosen not to share with An Bord Pleanála, but for now I'm siding with those who have done the research rather than the superstitious minority.

Yeah you've made a call there alright just like you did in the parents that stop speeding cars example.Statistically there might be no deaths in their road either but that doesn't mean they should be maligned when they would be willing to go to jail to make the road safer.Thats your perogative.

This process has been ongoing for the better part of ten years. Call me naive, but I'm willing to accept that there's a reasonable chance that what's currently on offer is the best alternative.

With respect the length of it's ongoingness and the scope for solutions are separate.The fact of the matter is that there are workable compromises that are being ignored for the sake of profit.