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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

oil criminals (and government criminals) poison irish people

  • 12-12-2007 11:43pm
    #1
    jessop1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭


    Policing the pollution

    Shocking stuff regarding the poisoning of drinking water in mayo.


Comments

  • #2
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    jessop1 wrote: »
    Policing the pollution

    Shocking stuff regarding the poisoning of drinking water in mayo.

    Jessop1 if what is in the report is true, it's an example of criminal negligence not active malice.


  • #3
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,832 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    There's just a hint of editorial bias in that video. For example, the statement that "following mass national outrage, after 94 days the Rossport 5 were released" is technically true, in that there was a chronological sequence - but the men were released because they purged their contempt, not because of public protests.

    Then there's "police baton-charged local people..." - the bulk of the protestors on site have always been non-locals. There's much talk of police violence, but the footage of the Harrington woman driving her car at the police is conspicuously absent.

    It's also a bit melodramatic to focus on muddy water flowing from a drain, as if aluminium levels in the order of 400µg/L manifest as a muddy appearance.

    All of the above aside, if Shell are breaking the law, they should be held to account for it, as should everybody involved. I've always disagreed with the no-arrest policy - if some busybody tried to prevent me going about my lawful business, I'd want his ass arrested, not thrown in a ditch.


  • #4
    Eeb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭Eeb


    Dude, I don't see why you're calling this a conspiracy theory. This is probably more accurately filed under "politics".


  • #5
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,832 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Honestly, I think it's a better fit under Green Issues.


  • #6
    jessop1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 414 ✭✭jessop1


    I am saying that the oil criminals have criminally poisoned irish people, whether it be through criminal negligence or otherwise, and criminally corrupt irish government officials have conspired with the oil criminals to downplay this crime and avoid penalisation for any of the criminals involved.

    This thread is where it belongs.

    I hope people will watch this video and get an idea of the type of gangsters that control the govenrment of this country.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Eeb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭Eeb


    I agree with you, but where do you think you'll get more people to watch the film, here or on the politics board?


  • #8
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,832 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Don't even think about posting something like that on Politics just to get traffic.

    jessop1, you've posted some extremely serious accusations there without a shred of evidence. I know evidence is something you're not fond of, but any chance you could make an exception?


  • #9
    Eeb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭Eeb


    Well, there's a total misrepresentation of that short film. Did you even watch it? The film presents some very clear evidence for its most serious allegation - that the water is being badly poisoned with aluminium.

    "Just a hint of editorial bias in the film"? What the hell do you expect! Jesus H! Show me a political documentary or film that doesn't have a "hint of editorial bias" and I'll show you a talking pig. So the makers of the film are anti-Shell/our government's squandering of a natural resource. Don't go thinking that that is a useful criticism.

    On what basis would this post be not permitted in the political forum? Show me the bit in the charter.


  • #10
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,832 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Eeb wrote: »
    Well, there's a total misrepresentation of that short film. Did you even watch it?
    Of course I watched it - how else did you think I was able to quote from it?
    Eeb wrote: »
    The film presents some very clear evidence for its most serious allegation - that the water is being badly poisoned with aluminium.
    I haven't contested that allegation.
    Eeb wrote: »
    "Just a hint of editorial bias in the film"? What the hell do you expect! Jesus H! Show me a political documentary or film that doesn't have a "hint of editorial bias" and I'll show you a talking pig. So the makers of the film are anti-Shell/our government's squandering of a natural resource. Don't go thinking that that is a useful criticism.
    The film is about water pollution. Why the need to talk about high pressure pipelines and alleged police brutality? If there's a point to be made about water pollution, make it. The rest is irrelevant, and changes the tone of the film from that of a documentary to that of a polemic.
    Eeb wrote: »
    On what basis would this post be not permitted in the political forum? Show me the bit in the charter.
    It's not appropriate for Politics, because it indirectly alleges what jessop1 has stated outright, in both cases without bothering with trivia like actual evidence.


  • #11
    Eeb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭Eeb


    Nonsense. The film makes some very clear arguments that you might disagree with, but stating that it's "not appropriate for politics" should not be your decision.
    So, you attempted to outline what you think the film's scope should be and then have a dig at it for daring to take on such things as police brutality and high pressure pipelines. More of a polemic than a documentary? Have you seen many political documentaries that don't do this?
    The way you talk about the film clearly shows your own political stance in relation to the "Shell to Sea" movement, so don't go saying it's not political.
    You are not in a position to determine what my politics or anyone else's are. Your determining the boundaries of what is political discussion and what isn't is an abuse of your power on the political forum.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Eeb wrote: »
    You are not in a position to determine what my politics or anyone else's are.
    OB is not saying that
    Your determining the boundaries of what is political discussion and what isn't is an abuse of your power on the political forum.
    He is determining the boundaries of what is political discussion suitable for the politics board on boards.ie. If you feel that it is an abuse of power on the politics forum then take it to Feedback or the Helpdesk.


  • #13
    Eeb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭Eeb


    How illuminating. So there's political discussion and political discussion that's suitable for boards.ie. What's the difference, dude?


  • #14
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Eeb wrote: »
    How illuminating. So there's political discussion and political discussion that's suitable for boards.ie. What's the difference, dude?
    Read the charter and/or ask the mods.

    Sorry for going off topic, that'll be my last on this thread.


  • #15
    Eeb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭Eeb


    I read the charter and I asked the mod. He didn't answer the question to my satisfaction. Then you showed up.


  • #16
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,832 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Eeb wrote: »
    Nonsense. The film makes some very clear arguments that you might disagree with, but stating that it's "not appropriate for politics" should not be your decision.
    Whose decision should it be? Yours?
    Eeb wrote: »
    So, you attempted to outline what you think the film's scope should be...
    The film's title indicates what its scope should be.
    Eeb wrote: »
    ...and then have a dig at it for daring to take on such things as police brutality and high pressure pipelines.
    They're irrelevant to a pollution issue. If they are relevant, that relevance should have been illustrated in the film. It wasn't.
    Eeb wrote: »
    More of a polemic than a documentary? Have you seen many political documentaries that don't do this?
    Yes, several. It's the difference between documentary and polemic.
    Eeb wrote: »
    The way you talk about the film clearly shows your own political stance in relation to the "Shell to Sea" movement, so don't go saying it's not political.
    I didn't say it wasn't political.
    Eeb wrote: »
    You are not in a position to determine what my politics or anyone else's are.
    I don't care what your politics are.
    Eeb wrote: »
    Your determining the boundaries of what is political discussion and what isn't is an abuse of your power on the political forum.
    Off-topic for this forum.


  • #17
    Eeb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭Eeb


    Yes, it should be my decision to talk about this on a political forum if I choose to. If the forum is any use, that is, and not policed by people with very strong political ideas who have no problem exercising their power to censor discussion.
    You should stop telling me what you think the film's scope should be on the basis of what it's title is. It's really stupid.
    And go on, name me some of these several political documentaries that are clearly not polemics.


Advertisement