Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

123578

Comments

  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Hayte wrote: »
    Occam's Razor is the idea that if there are multiple competing evidentiary theories, then the one that makes the fewest new assumptions is more likely to be correct.

    Occam's Razor is not a substitute for evidence. Furthermore, the simplest theory isn't usually correct because its simple. It is usually correct because it makes the least new assumptions but dropping Occam's Razor is still predicated on having a coherent, logical theory supported by evidence to begin with.

    Now I know you can do better than this because I've seen you make logical and coherent arguments on this forum many times. What I don't understand is why you can't seem to do it here.
    I'll spell it out for you, although I'm at a loss as to why I should have to.

    The state has spent more than €14m policing an ongoing protest. The logical explanation is that €14m worth of policing resources are required to allow a company to go about its lawful business, and that in the absence of that policing spend, the company would be prevented from going about its lawful business. Preventing a company from going about its lawful business is unlawful.

    MadsL has obliquely suggested that the state has spent this large sum on policing the protests not because there is any unlawful activity to police, but simply to justify Garda overtime. He adduces no evidence for this suggestion.

    Of these two explanations for the policing bill, I chose the one that objectively makes sense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    Simple solution, bill the protesters


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'll spell it out for you, although I'm at a loss as to why I should have to.

    The state has spent more than €14m policing an ongoing protest. The logical explanation is that €14m worth of policing resources are required to allow a company to go about its lawful business, and that in the absence of that policing spend, the company would be prevented from going about its lawful business. Preventing a company from going about its lawful business is unlawful.

    MadsL has obliquely suggested that the state has spent this large sum on policing the protests not because there is any unlawful activity to police, but simply to justify Garda overtime. He adduces no evidence for this suggestion.

    Of these two explanations for the policing bill, I chose the one that objectively makes sense.


    Just because it makes sense, don't expect him/her to accept it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 485 ✭✭Hayte


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The state has spent more than €14m policing an ongoing protest. The logical explanation is that €14m worth of policing resources are required to allow a company to go about its lawful business, and that in the absence of that policing spend, the company would be prevented from going about its lawful business. Preventing a company from going about its lawful business is unlawful.

    No that is not a logical explanation. It is logical only if Shell is fair and just in its dealings because that is the essence of our legal system. Compulsory acquisition of privately owned land by the state for another's private use is extremely contentious and has the potential to be extremely unfair to the people who must surrender their property for the use of another, even if they don't want to.

    You keep talking about lawful business as if going about lawful business cannot be objectionable in any way but just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right or fair. This has already been explained as civil disobedience being part of the process of overturning unjust law. You haven't contested this. I was careful to make a distinction between civil disobedience and criminality and in the case of Maura Harrington admitted that the use of violence exposed her to criminal prosecution and made her much less effective as a civil disobedient.

    Unless you want to argue that violence or any other criminal behaviour is characteristic of the shell to sea protesters, I don't see how you can tar the entire movement by association, just like you can't tar any protest movement for getting black bloc'ed. I don't see anyone claiming that civil disobedience is itself criminal or that it should be prevented. Or is that what you are suggesting? Are you suggesting that peaceful protest has limits if the cost to the state is great enough?

    I guess it depends on your definition of peaceful protest and what constitutes criminal violence?
    MadsL has obliquely suggested that the state has spent this large sum on policing the protests not because there is any unlawful activity to police, but simply to justify Garda overtime. He adduces no evidence for this suggestion.

    Of these two explanations for the policing bill, I chose the one that objectively makes sense.

    If you reduce the scope of the issue down to 2 choices, both of which are ridiculous and unsupported by any evidence, then of course the least ridiculous one wins.

    Occam's Razor is not a substitute for evidence.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Hayte wrote: »
    It is logical only if Shell is fair and just in its dealings because that is the essence of our legal system.
    If someone has been treated objectively unfairly or unjustly by Shell, they have recourse to the courts.
    Compulsory acquisition of privately owned land by the state for another's private use is extremely contentious and has the potential to be extremely unfair to the people who must surrender their property for the use of another, even if they don't want to.
    Compulsory acquisition of property is enshrined in the Constitution. If you have a problem with compulsory acquisition of property, campaign for a constitutional amendment, and be prepared to convince people that the right to prvivate property always trumps the common good.
    You keep talking about lawful business as if going about lawful business cannot be objectionable in any way but just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right or fair. This has already been explained as civil disobedience being part of the process of overturning unjust law.
    What unjust law is in the process of being overturned through the ongoing civil disobedience in Erris?
    Unless you want to argue that violence or any other criminal behaviour is characteristic of the shell to sea protesters...
    Nicely reframed.

    I've already explained that the purpose of the policing is to allow a company to go about its lawful business. You seem to believe that you have countered that argument with a vague suggestion that because some people consider that lawful business unjust or unfair, that the police force of this country should stand aside and allow the protesters to unlawfully prevent that lawful work from being carried out.

    Now, either you're proposing that the police should never intervene in any situation where a company is being prevented from carrying out its lawful work, or you're proposing that the police shouldn't intervene in this particular situation where a company is being prevented from carrying out its lawful work, just because you personally happen to agree with such prevention.

    Which is it?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The state has spent more than €14m policing an ongoing protest.

    Nope. They spent €9.1 million on Garda overtime and allowances at the site. They spent €4.7 million on travel and subsistence payments to gardaí.

    In my view these costs would be incurred regardless of the nature of the protest, as the State has chosen to police this protest as heavily as it has done.

    You seem to be ascribing ALL of the costs to the behaviour of the protesters; as does Shatter "He said this was because some of the protesters had engaged in acts of public disorder and damaged property"

    I would be curious to see a statistical breakdown of the volume that was public disorder = refusing to do what a Garda tells you to do and damaged property = locking on to bulldozers and the like.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MadsL wrote: »
    In my view these costs would be incurred regardless of the nature of the protest, as the State has chosen to police this protest as heavily as it has done.
    So if the nature of the protest was one person quietly holding up a sign by the side of the road leading to the refinery, there would still have been €14m spent on policing it?

    I have trouble believing that you believe that.
    You seem to be ascribing ALL of the costs to the behaviour of the protesters...
    You seem to believe that the Minister for Justice is spending tens of millions of taxpayers' money to send Gardaí on jollies to northwest Mayo to police a protest that doesn't actually need any policing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    So if the nature of the protest was one person quietly holding up a sign by the side of the road leading to the refinery, there would still have been €14m spent on policing it?

    I have trouble believing that you believe that.

    You seem to believe that the Minister for Justice is spending tens of millions of taxpayers' money to send Gardaí on jollies to northwest Mayo to police a protest that doesn't actually need any policing.


    I'm not arguing the extremes, you seem to be Oscar. I'm not saying there would be NO expense as a result of the protest, what I'm questioning is the notion that 14m is the direct result of protest when I have shown most of it is subsistence, travel and expenses.

    What if the State didn't pay to clear protesters off a public road and instead just escorted them to ensure no breach of the peace?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MadsL wrote: »
    I'm not arguing the extremes, you seem to be Oscar. I'm not saying there would be NO expense as a result of the protest, what I'm questioning is the notion that 14m is the direct result of protest when I have shown most of it is subsistence, travel and expenses.
    Well, let's argue the extremes for the purpose of illustration. If there had never been a protest at all - or, let's say, my example of a single person quietly holding up a sign by the side of the road - what would the cost of policing the protest have been?
    What if the State didn't pay to clear protesters off a public road and instead just escorted them to ensure no breach of the peace?
    Why wouldn't the state clear protesters off the road? They're on the road for the explicit purpose of preventing a company from going about its lawful business. Why would the Gardaí escort people who are preventing a company from going about its lawful business?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Video from Mayo, disgraceful behavior by the Gardai. These guys are out of control, no wonder there is resentment towards them. Imagine having to live around there!

    Mans window smashed and he is threatened by gardai.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndjJodItl30


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    20Cent wrote: »
    Video from Mayo, disgraceful behavior by the Gardai. These guys are out of control, no wonder there is resentment towards them. Imagine having to live around there!

    Mans window smashed and he is threatened by gardai.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndjJodItl30

    you fail to say that he is completly uncooperative with several Garda requests - to open his window (ok broken) to open his door, to pull off the road, to produce his licence

    Got of lightly IMO


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    20Cent wrote: »
    Video from Mayo, disgraceful behavior by the Gardai.
    I figured it wouldn't be long before that video got a mention here.

    That episode could have easily been averted by the simple expedient of opening the car door. If I was stopped by a Garda and my window wasn't working, I don't think I'd be so pig-ignorant as to shout through a closed window at them. I'd probably give a slightly less confrontational answer than "I'm going about my business", while I was at it.
    These guys are out of control, no wonder there is resentment towards them. Imagine having to live around there!
    I do live here. I get stopped by the Guards from time to time, answer their questions in a polite and helpful manner, and bear no resentment towards them.

    Contrary to S2S propaganda, the vast majority of Mayo people have no issue with the Guards, and don't consider them "out of control".


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    From the guy stopping to the window being forced open is less than a minute. Thought gards were trained not to lose their temper and deal with situations. No wonder its costing a fortune if their arresting people in situations like this.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    20Cent wrote: »
    From the guy stopping to the window being forced open is less than a minute.
    From the guy stopping to the guy being on his way would have been less than thirty seconds if he had handled the situation like a grown-up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    20Cent wrote: »
    From the guy stopping to the window being forced open is less than a minute. Thought gards were trained not to lose their temper and deal with situations. No wonder its costing a fortune if their arresting people in situations like this.

    so you agree that he failed several times to do what he was asked at a Garda checkpoint - simple things like pulling off the road, producing your licence, opening your window

    He was a trouble seeking clown


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    so you agree that he failed several times to do what he was asked at a Garda checkpoint - simple things like pulling off the road, producing your licence, opening your window

    He was a trouble seeking clown

    He couldn't open the window, if he opened the door they would have probably attacked him. Being rude is not illegal yet, the garda reaction was totally over the top they didn't even take a minute to talk to him, threatening to pepper spray someone who is of no danger to them. Disgraceful behavior by the Gardai acting like police state bullies in that episode.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Meanwhile, nineteen protesters are facing 80 charges in Belmullet district court this week.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    20Cent wrote: »
    He couldn't open the window, if he opened the door they would have probably attacked him.
    That's blatant defamation. You have absolutely no evidence to support an outrageous accusation like that.

    I realise it suits your narrative to believe that the poor people of Mayo are downtrodden under the jackbooted heel of a fascist police force, but it's insulting and offensive to those of us who don't whole-heartedly swallow every shred of S2S propaganda to have you repeatedly tell us that you know better than we do what's going on around here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    20Cent wrote: »
    He couldn't open the window, if he opened the door they would have probably attacked him. Being rude is not illegal yet, the garda reaction was totally over the top they didn't even take a minute to talk to him, threatening to pepper spray someone who is of no danger to them. Disgraceful behavior by the Gardai acting like police state bullies in that episode.

    Ah seriously now - have a word with yourself

    What is your patetic excuse for him not pulling into the left hand side of the road as he was clearly signalled to by the BanGarda??


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's blatant defamation. You have absolutely no evidence to support an outrageous accusation like that.

    I realise it suits your narrative to believe that the poor people of Mayo are downtrodden under the jackbooted heel of a fascist police force, but it's insulting and offensive to those of us who don't whole-heartedly swallow every shred of S2S propaganda to have you repeatedly tell us that you know better than we do what's going on around here.

    The angry tone from the gard, aggressive approach, the forcing of the window within seconds, the drawn baton. Once out of the car he's threatened with pepper spray! I think I'd keep the door closed myself. Maybe if they took a more patient less aggressive approach it would be better.

    Being stopped at roadblocks, ordered to produce ID, aggressive manner, sounds pretty police state like to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    20Cent wrote: »
    The angry tone from the gard, aggressive approach, the forcing of the window within seconds, the drawn baton.
    All of which are a direct result of his refusal to open the door.
    I think I'd keep the door closed myself.
    Do you drive? Have you ever been stopped at a Garda checkpoint, and taken the shirty attitude that he did? How'd it work out for you?
    Maybe if they took a more patient less aggressive approach it would be better.
    Maybe if he took a more cooperative, less confrontational attitude the situation wouldn't have arisen.
    Being stopped at roadblocks, ordered to produce ID, aggressive manner, sounds pretty police state like to me.
    Being stopped at roadblocks and asked for ID happens all the time. This isn't a police state, so stop the nonsense, please.

    As for the aggressive manner, he was uncooperative. He brought the aggression on himself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    All of which are a direct result of his refusal to open the door. Do you drive? Have you ever been stopped at a Garda checkpoint, and taken the shirty attitude that he did? How'd it work out for you? Maybe if he took a more cooperative, less confrontational attitude the situation wouldn't have arisen. Being stopped at roadblocks and asked for ID happens all the time. This isn't a police state, so stop the nonsense, please.

    As for the aggressive manner, he was uncooperative. He brought the aggression on himself.

    No never been stopped at a checkpoint or asked for ID. I'd definitely ask why though if I were.
    They could have waited more then 1 minute to start smashing the window, the Gard at the end sounds hysterical doesn't give the guy a chance to do or even say anything. They took no time to assess the situation. If they had taken a few more minutes it could have all been avoided. Very bad pr for the gardai in the area totally over the top reaction. No wonder locals are installing cameras in their cars for protection. If it wasn't filmed no one would believe it.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    20Cent wrote: »
    No never been stopped at a checkpoint or asked for ID. I'd definitely ask why though if I were.
    You're required to stop at the direction of a Garda. You're also required to produce a driving licence on request. These are covered under the Road Traffic Acts. It's also something you're supposed to know if you're a driver.
    They could have waited more then 1 minute to start smashing the window...
    How long do you suppose is reasonable for a Garda to stand around twiddling his thumbs while a driver refuses to open a door or window, refuses to produce ID when required to do so, and refuses to pull in to the side of the road when directed to do so?

    Are you, at any point, going to acknowledge that the entire situation would have been avoided if the driver had handled it with a modicum of cop-on? Or would that be too much at odds with your narrative?
    No wonder locals are installing cameras in their cars for protection.
    Locals are not installing cameras in their cars. It seems that some locals, who are determined to provoke conflict with Gardaí for reasons of their own, are leaving their phones recording in order to produce videos that certain credulous people will lap up because it reinforces their existing beliefs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    20Cent wrote: »
    From the guy stopping to the window being forced open is less than a minute. Thought gards were trained not to lose their temper and deal with situations. No wonder its costing a fortune if their arresting people in situations like this.

    Its about 2 minutes actually - in that 2 minutes he acted in a completly irrational manner - by not opening his door, not producing his licence and clearly not pulling off the road as he was requested by 2 Gardai to do. In fact he can be heard saying no when asked to pull in

    A trouble maker by any stretch of the imagination - how anybody can defend him is incomprehensible to me. but I suppose that is why the country is overrun with scumbags


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're required to stop at the direction of a Garda. You're also required to produce a driving licence on request. These are covered under the Road Traffic Acts. It's also something you're supposed to know if you're a driver. How long do you suppose is reasonable for a Garda to stand around twiddling his thumbs while a driver refuses to open a door or window, refuses to produce ID when required to do so, and refuses to pull in to the side of the road when directed to do so?

    Are you, at any point, going to acknowledge that the entire situation would have been avoided if the driver had handled it with a modicum of cop-on? Or would that be too much at odds with your narrative? Locals are not installing cameras in their cars. It seems that some locals, who are determined to provoke conflict with Gardaí for reasons of their own, are leaving their phones recording in order to produce videos that certain credulous people will lap up because it reinforces their existing beliefs.

    I think more than a minute for sure anyway. The guy could have been a bit quicker to cooperate (20 seconds) but the reaction of the gardai is way over the top. He could have been deaf or many other reasons for the delay for all they knew. Smashing the window first and asking questions later, people are innocent until proven guilty in this country even in Mayo. The guy in the vid is a local apparently. Lucky he did record the incident because anyone hearing it would think it unbelievable.

    Can you even acknowledge that the Gardai were too quick to use violence when there was no threat to themselves?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    20Cent wrote: »
    I think more than a minute for sure anyway. The guy could have been a bit quicker to cooperate (20 seconds) but the reaction of the gardai is way over the top. He could have been deaf or many other reasons for the delay for all they knew. Smashing the window first and asking questions later, people are innocent until proven guilty in this country even in Mayo. The guy in the vid is a local apparently. Lucky he did record the incident because anyone hearing it would think it unbelievable.

    Can you even acknowledge that the Gardai were too quick to use violence when there was no threat to themselves?

    you have given absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why he did not comply with repeated requests from the Gardai to pull into the side, produce his licence or open his door to them

    how are they to even know that he was no threat to them?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    20Cent wrote: »
    I think more than a minute for sure anyway.
    Ninety seconds? Half an hour? A month?
    The guy could have been a bit quicker to cooperate (20 seconds) but the reaction of the gardai is way over the top.
    The guy refused point blank to cooperate at all. He deliberately provoked a confrontation.
    Smashing the window first and asking questions later...
    Questions were asked before the window was smashed. Are you so utterly steeped in your narrative that you've already mentally edited out every part of the video that doesn't support it?
    ...people are innocent until proven guilty in this country even in Mayo.
    Leaving aside the snide and patronising attitude to the county I live in, proving people guilty is the role of the courts. If you believe that the Gardaí shouldn't be allowed to arrest people until after they've been convicted in court... well, I have no idea what to do with that, to be honest.
    Can you even acknowledge that the Gardai were too quick to use violence when there was no threat to themselves?
    Thought experiment for you. Well, not for you, but for anyone who's actually got a remotely open mind on the subject.

    Imagine you're driving along some evening, and you're stopped at a mandatory alcohol testing checkpoint. You refuse to open the window or unlock the door. You refuse to produce a driver's licence. You refuse to pull over to the side of the road, and remain in place blocking traffic.

    What do you suppose is the appropriate course of action for the Gardaí to take?

    If I had been in his situation, my window wouldn't have been broken and I wouldn't have been arrested. Why do you suppose that is?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    you have given absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why he did not comply with repeated requests from the Gardai to pull into the side, produce his licence or open his door to them

    how are they to even know that he was no threat to them?

    Was he asked to show id can't hear it. Also that might take more than a few seconds to get his wallet or wherever he keeps it. They give him no time to respond before forcing the window then smashing it. Since when does hesitating to respond to a garda allow them to respond with violence.

    He was inside a car with the window and door closed. How could he be a threat to them. Even when the door was opened they straight away threaten him with pepper spray!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    20Cent wrote: »
    Was he asked to show id can't hear it. Also that might take more than a few seconds to get his wallet or wherever he keeps it. They give him no time to respond before forcing the window then smashing it. Since when does hesitating to respond to a garda allow them to respond with violence.

    He was inside a car with the window and door closed. How could he be a threat to them. Even when the door was opened they straight away threaten him with pepper spray!

    You are surely trolling


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Imagine you're driving along some evening, and you're stopped at a mandatory alcohol testing checkpoint. You refuse to open the window or unlock the door. You refuse to produce a driver's licence. You refuse to pull over to the side of the road, and remain in place blocking traffic.

    What do you suppose is the appropriate course of action for the Gardaí to take?

    If I had been in his situation, my window wouldn't have been broken and I wouldn't have been arrested. Why do you suppose that is?

    Where does he refuse to open the door or window? They didn't even give him a chance to respond. The gardai should spend more than a few seconds assessing the situation before smashing the window in on top of him. From the video he didn't pull over to the side for them fair enough that might annoy them but no excuse for such excessive violence.

    Because your window isn't broken?


Advertisement