€14.56m Spent so far (Not including basic wages) on policing 'Shell to Sea'

Tipp Man · 23-02-2012 7:40pm

MadsL wrote: »

You are being oblique. What does a 'warm welcome?' mean. 'warm and fuzzy'? I'm sorry, I thought we were having a serious debate about civil liberties.

Do you think cops should identify themselves when asked, particularly if taking photographs in a public place?

Likely a gun in your face, but let's consider the likelihood of a stop here having a weapon involved, as my car/truck is considered an extension of my home and I am legally allowed to conceal a weapon in it.

Compare that to the likelihood that the guy in the video is armed or means harm to the Gardai. If the Ban-Garda believes he is a risk, why does she go and stand in front of the car!

Of course having a gun in a car in Ireland is completly unheard of

http://www.clare.fm/news/garda-ombudsman-investigates-newport-shooting

http://www.dublinblog.ie/2007/09/25/garda-motorcyclist-shot-and-injured-on-ossory-road/

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-suspect-list-in-hunt-for-gang-who-shot-garda-1114888.html

Of course they don't need to be confronted by a gun to be killed or injured

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1216/mcloughling.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/drunk-driver-who-killed-garda-gets-seven-years-in-jail-2828367.html

oscarBravo · 23-02-2012 7:40pm

MadsL wrote: »

You are being oblique. What does a 'warm welcome?' mean. 'warm and fuzzy'? I'm sorry, I thought we were having a serious debate about civil liberties.

I'm not sure what we're debating where that video is concerned.

Do you think cops should identify themselves when asked, particularly if taking photographs in a public place?

Yes. I also think that that's the limit of their responsibility to randomers who shove cameras in their faces - they should be under no obligation to answer a bunch of stupid questions about what they're currently doing.

Likely a gun in your face, but let's consider the likelihood of a stop here having a weapon involved, as my car/truck is considered an extension of my home and I am legally allowed to conceal a weapon in it.

Guns aside, the point is that you would be arrested, and - if necessary - forcibly removed from your vehicle. That would be the completely appropriate response on the part of the police to your actions, as it was in this case.

oscarBravo · 23-02-2012 7:48pm

MadsL wrote: »

Asking if this was a reasonable use of resources of police time, I thought was a reasonable question.

Maybe he should have thrown in something truly profound and original, like telling him he should be off catching murderers. That woulda shown him.

If you think there was something noble or admirable about shoving a camera in a police officer's face and asking him questions that he knew the officer wasn't in a position to answer, again we'll have to agree to differ.

MadsL · 23-02-2012 8:00pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe he should have thrown in something truly profound and original, like telling him he should be off catching murderers. That woulda shown him.

If you think there was something noble or admirable about shoving a camera in a police officer's face and asking him questions that he knew the officer wasn't in a position to answer, again we'll have to agree to differ.

What do you find objectionable about filming police whilst they perform their duties?

Do you think there is something 'noble' about a police officer failing to identify himself as such when asked to do so in a public place after threatening to 'confiscate' private property legally held in a public place.

I don't believe that you actually believe that those civil liberties are worth so little.

Also, do you regard it the protesters fault that the Guards spent policing time on taking snaps of protesters for 'intelligence'?

oscarBravo · 23-02-2012 8:05pm

MadsL wrote: »

What do you find objectionable about filming police whilst they perform their duties?

I don't find anything objectionable about that. What I find objectionable is asking stupid smartass questions of the police officers on the video while doing so.

Do you think there is something 'noble' about a police officer failing to identify himself as such when asked to do so in a public place after threatening to 'confiscate' private property legally held in a public place.

I don't think there was anything noble about that conversation from start to finish.

I don't believe that you actually believe that those civil liberties are worth so little.

Don't get me wrong: the guy who made that video has every right to be a prick. I don't believe the police should have in any way acted to prevent him from demonstrating what a prick he was. I still think he's a prick.

Also, do you regard it the protesters fault that the Guards spent policing time on taking snaps of protesters for 'intelligence'?

Well, yes. Intelligence is a fairly important component of policing, and we're back to the question of whether the policing would be necessary if the protests were as law-abiding as the wide-eyed innocent S2S supporters here would have us believe.

MadsL · 23-02-2012 8:25pm

Which question was 'smartass' in your view? I can hear several 'smartass' comment from the Guard (oh, wait...was he a Guard?)

On his Oath perhaps?

16-(1) " I hereby solemnly and sincerely declare before God that _ I will faithfully discharge the duties of a member of the Garda Siochana with fairness, integrity, regard for human rights, diligence and impartially, upholding the Constitution and the Laws and according equal respect to all people, {2005.} {No.20} Garda Siochana Act 2005. While I continue to be a member, I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all my duties according to Law, and I do not belong to, and will not remain a member form, belong to or subscribe to, any Political party or secret society whatsoever.

“The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen”. Constitution of Ireland - Bunreacht na h-Eireann, Article 40.3.1.

Do you see that anonymously threatening a citizen with forfeiture as being consistent with 'defending and vindicating the rights of the citizen'?
Prick or not...

Well, yes. Intelligence is a fairly important component of policing, and we're back to the question of whether the policing would be necessary if the protests were as law-abiding as the wide-eyed innocent S2S supporters here would have us believe.

So your view is that if the protests were law-abiding then there would be no need to spend police time on them, yet here is a law-abiding protest in a public place where resources are being wasted taking snaps. Contradiction, no?

On the guy in the car getting a window smashed, well he is John Monaghan, one of the local protesters. So he may have reason to be fearful. He may also have read the Road Traffic Act which apparently (unless someone corrects me) holds NO provision for a Guard to force you exit the vehicle until they first tell you why you should exit (drunk driving perhaps) or on suspicion of a crime. So it appears he was well within his rights to sit tight until he is informed of why he is being detained.

What concerns me, is that many here seem to be arguing for the rights of AGS over the rights of the private citizen. That strikes me as a very dangerous slope indeed.

Now cue the usual "if you haven't done anything wrong etc etc"

joela · 23-02-2012 10:11pm

20Cent wrote: »

Being a moron isn't illegal and doesn't warrant attack and threats afaik.

Suppose the video speaks for itself. If the gardai were a bit less aggressive maybe they would have the locals onside and we wouldn't have to be spending so much money there.

He was being an absolute twat, his tone of voice left no doubt as to the fact that he was being belligerent. If he spoke to me that way in response to a reasonable query I'd be annoyed and I'm not supposed to be trying to keep law and order in a highly charged situation. Bloody S2S and their bloody pointless propaganda takes attention away from real issues in ireland. Who the eff does that guy think he is? He doesn't represent me or any of the people I know so where does he get off thinking he knows better than the rest of us with regard to the situation in Mayo. Bloody prat and all those S2S populist, dopey, blind to logic and reason followers are detrimental to real activists desperately trying to make a difference to social and environmental issues in Ireland.

joela · 23-02-2012 10:16pm

MadsL wrote: »

Here's the other side of a conversation...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw7iZXty8uY

A small portion of that overtime...

Mads the guy with the camera is being a dick, wtf has that clip got to do with Shell, Corrib and the whole mess? What is the guy shoving himself in the face of gardai doing other than irritating them and putting them on edge. Would you like people following you around and shoving a camera in your face? He is a bloody disgrace, a bully himself and discredits the already blackened copysheet of S2S further.

20Cent · 23-02-2012 10:48pm

joela wrote: »

He was being an absolute twat, his tone of voice left no doubt as to the fact that he was being belligerent. If he spoke to me that way in response to a reasonable query I'd be annoyed and I'm not supposed to be trying to keep law and order in a highly charged situation.

Being a moron a twat or a dick are not illegal. Certainly don't warrant smashing a window beside the guys face and threatening to mace him.

joela wrote: »

Who the eff does that guy think he is? He doesn't represent me or any of the people I know so where does he get off thinking he knows better than the rest of us with regard to the situation in Mayo.

Since he is not claiming to represent you or any of those things the point is mute.

20Cent · 23-02-2012 10:52pm

joela wrote: »

Mads the guy with the camera is being a dick, wtf has that clip got to do with Shell, Corrib and the whole mess? What is the guy shoving himself in the face of gardai doing other than irritating them and putting them on edge. Would you like people following you around and shoving a camera in your face? He is a bloody disgrace, a bully himself and discredits the already blackened copysheet of S2S further.

Do you think a garda threatening to confiscate a camera which he has no right to do is wrong? Garda tried to bully him away but guy stood up for himself fair play to him.

joela · 23-02-2012 10:55pm

20Cent wrote: »

Being a moron a twat or a dick are not illegal. Certainly don't warrant smashing a window beside the guys face and threatening to mace him.

Since he is not claiming to represent you or any of those things the point is mute.

It may not be illegal to be a dick but it certainly is a requirement to comply with a reasonable request from a garda. It is certainly reasonable to produce your licence when it is requested and it would certainly be common courtesy to open your door to speak to someone if your window isn't working.

I think you mean "moot" not "mute" :rolleyes:
It is most certainly not moot as this guy and his compatriots claim to be acting on behalf of Ireland, as a citizen I say they are not acting on my behalf, I do not endorse their actions or condone their behaviour. I believe they have done enormous damage within the area and the community.

joela · 23-02-2012 10:59pm

20Cent wrote: »

Do you think a garda threatening to confiscate a camera which he has no right to do is wrong? Garda tried to bully him away but guy stood up for himself fair play to him.

Fair play for needling a man doing his job, fair play for portraying himself as a pointless twit, fairplay for posting his irrelevant and pointless video on YouTube? The garda has every right to ask that the camera be removed from his face and to ask the guy to go away. I'm not aware of the rights and wrongs in terms of the legality of confiscating the camera but to be honest I'd see nothing wrong with it as what this guy was doing was nothing short of harassment.

20Cent · 23-02-2012 11:03pm

joela wrote: »

It may not be illegal to be a dick but it certainly is a requirement to comply with a reasonable request from a garda. It is certainly reasonable to produce your license when it is requested and it would certainly be common courtesy to open your door to speak to someone if your window isn't working.

I think its reasonable to give someone a few minutes to reply and get their stuff together before smashing the window in on them threatening them with pepper spray and screaming like a lunatic.

joela wrote: »

I think you mean "moot" not "mute" :rolleyes:
It is most certainly not moot as this guy and his compatriots claim to be acting on behalf of Ireland, as I citizen I say they are not acting on my behalf, I do not endorse their actions or condone their behaviour. I believe they have done enormous damage within the area and the community.

Its not practical to have a referendum before every protest. People have the right to protest issues that concern them. Don't hear them claiming to represent Ireland or you.

20Cent · 23-02-2012 11:05pm

joela wrote: »

Fair play for needling a man doing his job, fair play for portraying himself as a pointless twit, fairplay for posting his irrelevant and pointless video on YouTube? The garda has every right to ask that the camera be removed from his face and to ask the guy to go away. I'm not aware of the rights and wrongs in terms of the legality of confiscating the camera but to be honest I'd see nothing wrong with it as what this guy was doing was nothing short of harassment.

I suppose the gardai would love to be able to confiscate cameras, but we still live in a free(ish) country. The gard tries to browbeat the guy at the start. Some people would probably leave it at that but others stand up to intimidation fortunately.

joela · 23-02-2012 11:14pm

20Cent wrote: »

I think its reasonable to give someone a few minutes to reply and get their stuff together before smashing the window in on them threatening them with pepper spray and screaming like a lunatic.

Its not practical to have a referendum before every protest. People have the right to protest issues that concern them. Don't hear them claiming to represent Ireland or you.

What stuff did he need to get together? He could have opened the door and said "the window is broken", he could have pulled over when asked, he could have opened the door when asked again on several occasions to open the window. He was provoking the garda, being a twat, deliberately blocking the road and generally being a pain in the backside.

I hear them consistently claiming that they are getting back Ireland's resources which as a citizen of Ireland I also have a right to endorse or not. What issues are they protesting about? They are a tiny group of deluded people causing a ridiculous amount of trouble for no particular reason. The time for active protest has been and gone, An Taisce have withdrawn all objections with regard to planning and environment so it is really just a bunch of ill-informed troublemakers left spreading their lies and propaganda. Extremism is never good in any form and this group of people have done untold damage to those trying to improve environmental protection in Ireland. Thanks to people like S2S we will always be known as "environmentalists" who say no to everything, have no solutions, are unreasonable and to be largely ignored.

joela · 23-02-2012 11:21pm

20Cent wrote: »

I suppose the gardai would love to be able to confiscate cameras, but we still live in a free(ish) country. The gard tries to browbeat the guy at the start. Some people would probably leave it at that but others stand up to intimidation fortunately.

LMAO, you really don't know the meaning of intimidation if you think that was what the garda was doing, your hero was far more intimidating. Before you quote freedom and the lack thereof in Ireland look around you and then compare yourself to Syria, Saudi, Iran, Russia and even the US. Get a bloody grip and open your eyes to what is really going on.

Why do you support S2S? What do you think they a) hope to achieve, b) are currently achieving? Another question, is it right that these same downtrodden, harassed and intimidated protestors regularly abuse workers on the scheme? In fact threaten, abuse and intimidate some of the people tasked with monitoring the environmental aspects of the work? The same people who have the expertise to report any breaches of environmental compliance, people employed as objective and professional consultants. Is that right? Look to S2S and see who really are the bullies and oppressors trying to brainwash the country into believing lies and propaganda.

20Cent · 23-02-2012 11:38pm

joela wrote: »

LMAO, you really don't know the meaning of intimidation if you think that was what the garda was doing, your hero was far more intimidating. Before you quote freedom and the lack thereof in Ireland look around you and then compare yourself to Syria, Saudi, Iran, Russia and even the US. Get a bloody grip and open your eyes to what is really going on.

Why do you support S2S? What do you think they a) hope to achieve, b) are currently achieving? Another question, is it right that these same downtrodden, harassed and intimidated protestors regularly abuse workers on the scheme? In fact threaten, abuse and intimidate some of the people tasked with monitoring the environmental aspects of the work? The same people who have the expertise to report any breaches of environmental compliance, people employed as objective and professional consultants. Is that right? Look to S2S and see who really are the bullies and oppressors trying to brainwash the country into believing lies and propaganda.

I don't particularly strong opinion on the whole thing. Don't think they are protesting just for the craic though. The deal does seem very dodgy and the Shell have made a dogs dinner of the whole thing at every stage.
Just those two videos show ordinary members of the public being harassed and gardai using unnecessary violence is disturbing. Bulling is wrong whoever does it even those in uniform. Considering my tax money is being used to pay for it.

Scofflaw · 24-02-2012 12:15am

Handbags down, please, ladies. Also, language - half the recent posts appear to consist of 4-letter Anglo-Saxon words.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9 · 24-02-2012 12:17am

Mod

Could posters stop using offensive terms to describe the actions in the video, it isn't helping the discussion.

There is a wider discussion to be had here, we've had 3/4 pages of posters locking horns on the video and it's just going round in circles, better to agree to disagree on that and concentrate on wider issues.

MadsL · 24-02-2012 2:37am

Speaking of the wider issues.....

MadsL wrote: »

What concerns me, is that many here seem to be arguing for the rights of AGS over the rights of the private citizen. That strikes me as a very dangerous slope indeed.

oscarBravo · 24-02-2012 10:22am

The rights of the private citizen have concomitant duties. One of those duties is to cooperate peacefully with the police.

The attitude of "I refuse to respect the police, but I DEMAND that they respect me" is symptomatic of a much more serious slide in society, in my view.

antoobrien · 24-02-2012 11:29am

MadsL wrote: »

What do you find objectionable about filming police whilst they perform their duties?

There have been several cases in the UK of people having camera confiscated over taking pictures of police on duty and/or their patrol cars over the past few years. Apparently the cases have been innocent, but the police apparently have a policy of not allowing photography of on duty police (can't remember why).

Godge · 24-02-2012 12:19pm

antoobrien wrote: »

There have been several cases in the UK of people having camera confiscated over taking pictures of police on duty and/or their patrol cars over the past few years. Apparently the cases have been innocent, but the police apparently have a policy of not allowing photography of on duty police (can't remember why).

So terrorist organisations don't build up intelligence on police activity.

If Tadhg doing that filming had been a man with a Northern accent filming in Castleblaney during the 1980s he would have been due for release a couple of years ago under the Good Friday agreement.

micosoft · 24-02-2012 12:28pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

The rights of the private citizen have concomitant duties. One of those duties is to cooperate peacefully with the police.

The attitude of "I refuse to respect the police, but I DEMAND that they respect me" is symptomatic of a much more serious slide in society, in my view.

+1

People who interpret the law in such a way that would make it impossible to maintain a civic society. Can you imagine if Criminals had the right to photograph and track Gardai? The Gardai are not constitutional lawyers and for the most part want an easy life for themselves and fellow citizens, not stuck out in a bog in Mayo dealing with local Nimbys being deliberately wound up. That some of these people think they are Braveheart fighting the yoke of a totalitarian state shows their limited world knowledge.

There is a group of people in society who have a grossly inflated sense of their rights and importance and who hold everyone but particularly state employees to an extraordinarily high standard of absolute perfection then they apply to themselves. They are happy to use Gas to heat their homes, Fuel for their Car, Mobile Phone, Electricity and all the other conveniences of modern society but never think where it comes from. Somebody has to live beside the dump, power-station, pylon, phone transmitter etc just not me!
Whats really ironic is that included in this bunch of rabble are those that support the right not to have septic tanks inspected and the right to cut turf. Utter hypocrites.

FreudianSlippers · 24-02-2012 1:10pm

MadsL wrote: »

Which question was 'smartass' in your view? I can hear several 'smartass' comment from the Guard (oh, wait...was he a Guard?)

On his Oath perhaps?

16-(1) " I hereby solemnly and sincerely declare before God that _ I will faithfully discharge the duties of a member of the Garda Siochana with fairness, integrity, regard for human rights, diligence and impartially, upholding the Constitution and the Laws and according equal respect to all people, {2005.} {No.20} Garda Siochana Act 2005. While I continue to be a member, I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all my duties according to Law, and I do not belong to, and will not remain a member form, belong to or subscribe to, any Political party or secret society whatsoever.

“The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen”. Constitution of Ireland - Bunreacht na h-Eireann, Article 40.3.1.

Do you see that anonymously threatening a citizen with forfeiture as being consistent with 'defending and vindicating the rights of the citizen'?
Prick or not...

... in so far as is practicable. Furthermore, Shell (which I presume is a registered company in Ireland) and the other citizens who are being disrupted by this protest and the actions of S2S group(s) have an equal right to protection of their personal stated and unenumerated rights as citizens.

On the guy in the car getting a window smashed, well he is John Monaghan, one of the local protesters. So he may have reason to be fearful. He may also have read the Road Traffic Act which apparently (unless someone corrects me) holds NO provision for a Guard to force you exit the vehicle until they first tell you why you should exit (drunk driving perhaps) or on suspicion of a crime. So it appears he was well within his rights to sit tight until he is informed of why he is being detained.

What utter nonsense. Firstly, did he read the Road Traffic ACTS? Road Traffic Act 1961, Road Traffic Act 1968, Road Traffic Act 1994, Road Traffic Act 1995, Road Traffic Act 2002, Road Traffic Act 2003, Road Traffic Act 2004, Road Traffic Act 2006, Road Traffic and Transport Act 2006, Roads Acts 1920 and 1993.

Secondly, once stopped, failure to comply with directions of a member of AGS is an arrestable offence under the Public Order Act 1994. Refusing to exit a vehicle is an offence and if you continue to do so then you are considered to be resisting arrest (even if you later prove that you shouldn't have been arrested).

What concerns me, is that many here seem to be arguing for the rights of AGS over the rights of the private citizen. That strikes me as a very dangerous slope indeed.

What are "rights of AGS"? What are "rights of the private citizen"? What's the difference between a "private citizen" and a citizen?

MadsL · 24-02-2012 9:20pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What utter nonsense. Firstly, did he read the Road Traffic ACTS? Road Traffic Act 1961, Road Traffic Act 1968, Road Traffic Act 1994, Road Traffic Act 1995, Road Traffic Act 2002, Road Traffic Act 2003, Road Traffic Act 2004, Road Traffic Act 2006, Road Traffic and Transport Act 2006, Roads Acts 1920 and 1993.

Secondly, once stopped, failure to comply with directions of a member of AGS is an arrestable offence under the Public Order Act 1994. Refusing to exit a vehicle is an offence and if you continue to do so then you are considered to be resisting arrest (even if you later prove that you shouldn't have been arrested).

I said I was open to correction, but a couple of questions?

Which section of the Road Act requires you to exit the vehicle?

Which section of the Public Order Act means that you have to comply with any instruction of a member of AGS?

My reading of Section 8 is that...

8.—(1) Where a member of the Garda Síochána finds a person in a public place and suspects, with reasonable cause, that such person—

(a) is or has been acting in a manner contrary to the provisions of section 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 or 9 , or

(b) without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, is acting in a manner which consists of loitering in a public place in circumstances, which may include the company of other persons, that give rise to a reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons or the safety of property or for the maintenance of the public peace,

the member may direct the person so suspected to do either or both of the following, that is to say:

(i) desist from acting in such a manner, and

(ii) leave immediately the vicinity of the place concerned in a peaceable or orderly manner.

it only applies in the case of

4. Intoxication in public place..
5. Disorderly conduct in public place..
6. Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in public place..
7. Distribution or display in public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene..
9. Wilful obstruction..

Not, as you seem to be implying whatever a Guard tells you to do something. Now I will concede that a case could be made for Section 9 - however this guy would have gone on his way had he been allowed. Smashing the window seems absurd to enforce section 9 of the Public Order Act.

Waving at someone is not a formal 'direction' as far as I can see under the law.

For example, I once had a row with a Guard who told me to reverse on an active motorway; it was obviously illegal and dangerous and I refused. Should I have been arrested?

MadsL · 24-02-2012 9:56pm

micosoft wrote: »

+1

People who interpret the law in such a way that would make it impossible to maintain a civic society. Can you imagine if Criminals had the right to photograph and track Gardai? The Gardai are not constitutional lawyers and for the most part want an easy life for themselves and fellow citizens, not stuck out in a bog in Mayo dealing with local Nimbys being deliberately wound up. That some of these people think they are Braveheart fighting the yoke of a totalitarian state shows their limited world knowledge.

Unfortunately 'Criminals' don't wear badges. Which leaves the rest of us to decide how much infringement of our freedom we will tolerate in order to catch 'Criminals'.

If you believe that it should be illegal to film the police, perhaps you might ask Rodney King if he subscribes to that viewpoint.

Filming the police in my view serves a civic purpose, and ensures that police worldwide are aware that their actions may be caught on camera and they may be brought to justice just as those involved in the Rodney King case were prosecuted.

Incidentally, 'criminals' do have the right to photograph police. As do 'citizens'.

As for Guards not being lawyers, that does not excuse ignorance of the law on their part, anymore than ignorance of the law is a defence on your part.

oscarBravo · 24-02-2012 11:16pm

MadsL wrote: »

For example, I once had a row with a Guard who told me to reverse on an active motorway; it was obviously illegal and dangerous and I refused. Should I have been arrested?

Leaving aside the fact that, if you were having a conversation with a Guard on an active motorway, normal traffic conditions obviously didn't prevail at the time: I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by coming up with hypothetical situations that are not akin to what happened on the video in question.

Are you going to claim that there was any ambiguity about the direction to pull over that was given twice during that video? Because that's a level of self-deception I'd take for granted from some other posters on this thread, but not from you.

MadsL · 25-02-2012 2:27am

oscarBravo wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that, if you were having a conversation with a Guard on an active motorway, normal traffic conditions obviously didn't prevail at the time: I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by coming up with hypothetical situations that are not akin to what happened on the video in question.

Are you going to claim that there was any ambiguity about the direction to pull over that was given twice during that video? Because that's a level of self-deception I'd take for granted from some other posters on this thread, but not from you.

How can something that happened to me be hypothetical?

The motorway was active in Lanes 3 with a long line on the Hard shoulder and Lane 1, a guard standing behind a parked traffic car in Lane 2 instructed me to reverse back along Lane 2 to join the line in lane 1. No traffic car behind me, and no warnings behind me - an insane direction. Fortunately a gap opened and I was let into the hard shoulder.

Regarding the video - and my last comment on it - If you watch it again, he started pulling over just before the Garda without hi-vis marched over in front of his car.

I'm not claiming ambiguity in the indication to pull in, but it would seem that carries a question about if that is a 'direction' under the meaning of Section 8 of the Public Order Act and therefore an arrestable offence. I accept I may be mistaken - but that is where I'm ascribing the ambiguity.

I also note that Guards have an odd policy of standing in front of vehicles, behaviour I have never seen in other jurisdictions.

oscarBravo · 25-02-2012 2:44am

MadsL wrote: »

How can something that happened to me be hypothetical?

Forgive my sloppy use of language. My point is that the situations are not analogous. If I had been in the situation in the video, I would have pulled over. If you had been in the situation in the video, I'm pretty sure you would have pulled over. Most rational human beings would have pulled over. In fact, most rational human beings - even in Mayo - don't get into these situations at Garda checkpoints.

Shell to Sea protesters, on the other hand, seem to be positively accomplished at getting into confrontational situations with Gardaí.

If you genuinely, hand on heart, would have behaved in the pig-ignorant fashion demonstrated by that driver (and felt that that was the most appropriate behaviour under the circumstances) - fair enough. I sincerely hope you don't get shot by an Albuquerque police officer.

€14.56m Spent so far (Not including basic wages) on policing 'Shell to Sea'

Comments