Rossport Hunger strike: It's day one

04KY

captain a wrote: »

the garda have consistently operated as a law unto themselves in this specific case

Have you much evidence for this except for badly edited Shell to Sea youtube videos? Did you see any of this first hand?

As somebody who worked on the terminal site, and had to put up with my fair share of abuse and intimidation from Shell to Sea protesters, I found the Gardai handled the situations in an excellent manner and well within the law.

captain a

04KY wrote: »

Have you much evidence for this except for badly edited Shell to Sea youtube videos? Did you see any of this first hand?

i dont see how footage that is pointing at something happening with no editing can be thought to be badly edited, it hasnt actually been edited.

panda100

Kristopherus wrote: »

Panda, get it into your head that the Shell to Sea campaign is dead in the water. Maura Harrington has long lost the plot. I hope she's kept in jail until the gas is flowing to all the towns in Mayo that are piped for it.

As I have said numerous times before on this thread and others, this gas no longer belongs to the people of Mayo or indeed anyone in Ireland. Id also like to see it flowing into the homes and towns of Mayo,Limerick,Kerry, all throughout Ireland. I think we should utilise our own natural resources so everyone can afford to have heat,warmth etc.

But,
This gas no longer belongs to the Irish people, It belongs to Shell. They can do whatever they like with it and are not obligated to the Irish people or the Irish environment. Due to legislation by Fianna Fail, Shell doesn't have to pay any royalties and will be able to offset all of its projected €800 million investment against its tax liability. Not a cent from the enormous gas wealth (estimated to be in the region of €12 billion to €21 billion) that lies off our coast will accrue to the Irish people.

Id really reccomend you read 'The Corporate takeover of Ireland' by Kieran Allen. I dont blame you for getting a warped view of Shell to Sea*.Its not that difficult for the establishment to turn a campaigning group that is a threat to its neolibral,free market policys, into figures of scorn.

* especially from the O''Reily media. Tony O'Reily, as one of the main shareholders, is set to make 1.4 billion of gas in the west of Ireland. These multi billionaires dont get obscenly grossly wealthy for nothing you know.It will be me and you who will have to pay through our noses for this gas.

Karlusss wrote: »

She also, as far as I can tell, plead not guilty and was as difficult as possible in court, unlike the Aussie, who plead guilty.

Well I dont know about you but I would not plead guilty to something If I wasnt guilty off it. Do you think that Maura should have just lied and said she was guily to avoid a jail sentence? Do you think thats 'justice' which ever side of the fence you sit on?

A few things that were inconsistent in the case as far as Im concerned.
Firstly,I dont think the wife of a Fianna Fail TD who vocally supports Shell should have been in charge of Maura's case . Mary Devins was personally too close to the case and I would quetion her pre prejudice's on Maura. There should have been a judge sitting who was 100% impartial to the situation.

Also this quote from the Irish Times had me puzzled :
Judge Devins told Ms Harrington she was less inclined to believe in her passion for her cause having "witnessed the enjoyment she seems to get in being in the public limelight".

That is the judge own personal musings and has nothing to do with the case at hand. Wether Maura relishes or not from media attention (she doesnt!) isnt really whats up for discssion in this case. I dont see what bearing Mauras supposed lust for Jade Goody status has on wether she atttacked a gardai or not?
If Maura really was in this for the 'public limelight' she should have just got her tits out or posed in a bikini.Thats the only way women can make it into the Irish media anyways.

Also, witnesses that were there on the day have video footage that show clearly that Maura did not touch the gardai.This was not allowed to be shown in court. I presume because it was taken by a Shell to Sea supporter. However, you can easily prove if something has been tampered with or not. Surely this should have been allowed to be shown in court? Perhaps some legal heads can elighten me

johnmacward

Kristopherus wrote: »

Panda, get it into your head that the Shell to Sea campaign is dead in the water. Maura Harrington has long lost the plot. I hope she's kept in jail until the gas is flowing to all the towns in Mayo that are piped for it. The vast majority of Mayo people are in favour of the Gas Project, and don't need tree huggers and their ilk coming in to tell them wgat to do.

It's not dead until people like Maura actually stop protesting. Please do not state things you have no clue about, Maura has not lost the plot, she just doesn't agree with your take on life, she likes to do things about problems that arise in her community. Things can take a very quick turn in situations like this and a movement can develop. The incarceration of Maura is completely wrong and a clear way of undermining the strength of this movement. The state are getting pushy again, hoping that no one notices.

big b

Panda, Tony O'Reilly's going to make 1.4 billion from a field worth at best (your own figures) 21 billion? Jeez, I didn't realise he was such a major shareholder in Shell.:rolleyes:
JohnM, In any event, Corrib is a done deal. The time for protesting the deal is long gone. The oil companies got a very good deal, but still took a massive risk. Remember too that the field wasn't economically viable until years after it was discovered, Corrib isn't another Brent or Forties size field.
I don't think they're likely to sell back their winning ticket at cost price - would you?
People's energies would, imho, be much better spent stating a case for less favourable terms being available for the upcoming leases. That would be much more constructive than hindering an ongoing project that is bringing jobs, rates & business opportunities to a part of Mayo that is very grateful for it.

Homer

johnmacward wrote: »

The incarceration of Maura is completely wrong and a clear way of undermining the strength of this movement. The state are getting pushy again, hoping that no one notices.

So you are advocating physical violence against an garda siochana? She was convicted and found guilty in a court of law? Or are you hoping that you can use physical violence against anyone that stands in the way of your views, hoping that no one notices :rolleyes:

04KY

panda100 wrote: »

As I have said numerous times before on this thread and others, this gas no longer belongs to the people of Mayo or indeed anyone in Ireland. Id also like to see it flowing into the homes and towns of Mayo,Limerick,Kerry, all throughout Ireland. I think we should utilise our own natural resources so everyone can afford to have heat,warmth etc.

But,
This gas no longer belongs to the Irish people, It belongs to Shell. They can do whatever they like with it and are not obligated to the Irish people or the Irish environment. Due to legislation by Fianna Fail, Shell doesn't have to pay any royalties and will be able to offset all of its projected €800 million investment against its tax liability. Not a cent from the enormous gas wealth (estimated to be in the region of €12 billion to €21 billion) that lies off our coast will accrue to the Irish people.

But, is that what Shell to Sea are protesting about? I believe the campaign is for the terminal and pipeline to be constructed offshore.

panda100 wrote: »

I dont blame you for getting a warped view of Shell to Sea

It's not a warped view when I have seen the actions of the protestors first hand.

thebman

big b wrote: »

In any event, Corrib is a done deal. The time for protesting the deal is long gone. The oil companies got a very good deal, but still took a massive risk. Remember too that the field wasn't economically viable until years after it was discovered, Corrib isn't another Brent or Forties size field.
I don't think they're likely to sell back their winning ticket at cost price - would you?
People's energies would, imho, be much better spent stating a case for less favourable terms being available for the upcoming leases. That would be much more constructive than hindering an ongoing project that is bringing jobs, rates & business opportunities to a part of Mayo that is very grateful for it.

Exactly you can't tell the government not to obey a contract they already signed. That is what you are asking them to do. To break a legally binding contract.

They can't do that. They will get taken to court and lose to Shell.

So what are you trying to stop the development going ahead for again? Because it isn't a protest, it is an attempt to stop the development going ahead.

A protest is people walking down the street with placards not people stopping others goin to work and forcing the police to interven and then attacking them and pestering them when they do.

Sorry I can't suppor that cause. Lobby for changes to future deals the government may sign pointing out the problems with this deal, you can't affect what is going to happen here. The deal is done. Preventing it going ahead is against the law.

johnmacward

Who is a state suppose to look after? Who's guidance is it to follow, the rules of the rich or of its electorate? Should it put its electorate in danger and be extremely responsive to its non-electoral American shareholding friends? Don't delude yourself into thinking that the law reflects the ideas of the ordinary people. The Gardai are supposed to protect its citizens from what it s citizens regard as a threat, technically they should **** out Shell it thats the case.

thebman

johnmacward wrote: »

Who is a state suppose to look after? Who's guidance is it to follow, the rules of the rich or of its electorate? Should it put its electorate in danger and be extremely responsive to its non-electoral American shareholding friends? Don't delude yourself into thinking that the law reflects the ideas of the ordinary people. The Gardai are supposed to protect its citizens from what it s citizens regard as a threat, technically they should **** out Shell it thats the case.

If you are saying the laws weren't made for the people and so we shouldn't obey then I disagree. I have no doubt we have laws that need to be reformed, contract law isn't one of them. It has worked for generations.

Contract law is very fair. Its the governments fault they entered into a crap contract. They can't back out of it.

Don't get me wrong, if there were grounds to get out of this contract I would jump at them because I believe something dodgy probably did happen when the contract was drawn up since we get nothing but you have to prove that to have any hope of breaking the contract.

johnmacward

thebman wrote: »

If you are saying the laws weren't made for the people and so we shouldn't obey then I disagree. I have no doubt we have laws that need to be reformed, contract law isn't one of them. It has worked for generations.

Contract law is very fair. Its the governments fault they entered into a crap contract. They can't back out of it.

Don't get me wrong, if there were grounds to get out of this contract I would jump at them because I believe something dodgy probably did happen when the contract was drawn up since we get nothing but you have to prove that to have any hope of breaking the contract.

Yeah, and its a great excuse by States to say that something is all locked up and nobody can do anything about it. Tell that to the people of Bolivia in 2003, when there right-wing government handed over there gas industry to a private company against the wishes of the population. They protested, brought the country to a close and got rid of the right-wing administration and got their gas re-nationalised. Contract law has about as much relevance in that situation as nothing!

jaykay74

johnmacward wrote: »

Yeah, and its a great excuse by States to say that something is all locked up and nobody can do anything about it. Tell that to the people of Bolivia in 2003, when there right-wing government handed over there gas industry to a private company against the wishes of the population. They protested, brought the country to a close and got rid of the right-wing administration and got their gas re-nationalised. Contract law has about as much relevance in that situation as nothing!

So break international law and turf them out

big b

johnmacward wrote: »

Yeah, and its a great excuse by States to say that something is all locked up and nobody can do anything about it. Tell that to the people of Bolivia in 2003, when there right-wing government handed over there gas industry to a private company against the wishes of the population. They protested, brought the country to a close and got rid of the right-wing administration and got their gas re-nationalised. Contract law has about as much relevance in that situation as nothing!

Not quite the same thing though.
We didn't have a nationalised industry.
Also, Shell only "got" Corrib as an asset of Enterprise Oil when they bought that company.
Incidentally, if Corrib had been developed by a State-run company, are you suggesting that the Guarda should have stopped the nation from carrying out the works?

thebman

johnmacward wrote: »

Yeah, and its a great excuse by States to say that something is all locked up and nobody can do anything about it. Tell that to the people of Bolivia in 2003, when there right-wing government handed over there gas industry to a private company against the wishes of the population. They protested, brought the country to a close and got rid of the right-wing administration and got their gas re-nationalised. Contract law has about as much relevance in that situation as nothing!

So now your planning to over throw the government :eek:

This isn't Bolivia and you don't have the right to request the existing government to break a contract they have signed. I wouldn't call bringing the country to a close and getting rid of the right wing government a protest. That is more of a coup than a protest.

It would also substantially damage our reputation and discourage other companies from exploring for oil off the cost and there probably are more deposits off our coast which the state can't afford to go exploring or bringing on shore especially at the moment.

If we rewrote the contracts to be fairer and sold these rights, we would have a much better chance of getting something than trying to freak out the entire oil and gas industry out of doing business here.

We will still have the jobs and taxes that comes from Shell operating here so it isn't like we have gotten absolutely nothing out of this.

johnmacward

thebman wrote: »

This isn't Bolivia and you don't have the right to request the existing government to break a contract they have signed. I wouldn't call bringing the country to a close and getting rid of the right wing government a protest. That is more of a coup than a protest.

Of course I have the right to request the government to desist from a contract if I want to, and if enough pressure is put on them that it costs both parties so much - the government and Shell then they will desist.

In relation to Bolivia it was a coup carried out by the vast majority of the country. Whatever you want to call it, it changed things radically, in the interests of the majority, and even still it has a lot more to go under Morales. The pressure of the people there is incredible.

I know our country isn't in the same situation, but during a recession things can develop very fast. But FF didn't have to privatise the gas if it didn't want to, ideologues in government wanted it privatised. Hence it can be renationalised and extracted by the state. Anything is possible with a decent movement behind it. Thats what we have to develop.

jaykay74

johnmacward wrote: »

Of course I have the right to request the government to desist from a contract if I want to, and if enough pressure is put on them that it costs both parties so much - the government and Shell then they will desist.

In relation to Bolivia it was a coup carried out by the vast majority of the country. Whatever you want to call it, it changed things radically, in the interests of the majority, and even still it has a lot more to go under Morales. The pressure of the people there is incredible.

I know our country isn't in the same situation, but during a recession things can develop very fast. But FF didn't have to privatise the gas if it didn't want to, ideologues in government wanted it privatised. Hence it can be renationalised and extracted by the state. Anything is possible with a decent movement behind it. Thats what we have to develop.

you must be smoking some good sh!t...

thebman

johnmacward wrote: »

Of course I have the right to request the government to desist from a contract if I want to, and if enough pressure is put on them that it costs both parties so much - the government and Shell then they will desist.

Sorry bad choice of words on my part. They aren't really requesting the government not to do it.

They did that and were told no. Now they are trying to force the government to change. The use of force is what I don't agree with and I don't think they have the right to force the government.

Applying political pressure is one thing. Turning up and getting in the way and doing everything possible to cause havoc is wrong in this case IMO.

Jip

I posted something along the lines of this before when the whole farce originally started. For all those claming that this is 'our gas' and the Irish government has given it away, would you have a problem if Shell never actually found any gas ? Or how about this, if the government wasted milllions exploring for oil themselves literally throwing money into the sea before they actually found anything ?

Why don't you have a problem with Tara Mines for example ? After all they're all plundering out natural resources in the same way. Or is it just that it's too convenient for you all to pick on the big bad Shell ?

JimmyCrackCorn!

If the hippies are reading this.

Could you go back to the Glen of the downs and please tidy up the crap you left there.

Thank You.

Tabnabs

The fiasco over Corrib/shell always makes me laugh. :pac:

Marathon, an American company has been running the Kinsale head gas field for many years and has a stake in Corrib. EnCore Oil has interests all around the coast. All with no fuss or protesting.

In fact, there is a whole industry of non state owned oil & gas companies operating off the Irish coast clicky.

And successive governments, be they FF, FG or any shade of coalition have supported this way of operating since it started in the 70s.

RossFixxxed

JimmyCrackCorn! wrote: »

If the hippies are reading this.

Could you go back to the Glen of the downs and please tidy up the crap you left there.

Thank You.

Bloody right! And it's the same fookin people who are all against 'the corporation' and 'the man' that are the ones who want a lift everwhere, and want you to buy them things and are ENTITLED to things. Goddamn sponges.

It's the same pricks who stood outside petrol stations and threathened to damage your car if you went in... I'm sorry but I have to drive home, I have RESONSIBILITIES you know, and I'm in a car and you're standing there. I know whos' gonna win the fight agains malnourished, dirty, diseased idiots.

Many thanks for the rant.

R

murfie

The Shell to sea as was said earlier was never about the fact the government signed a bad contract and gave away the right to the gas. I would imagine that Shell laid out the terms of them investing in a high risk area of the sea and they got what they wanted. They may not have invested otherwise, my opinion may be wrong.

The actual issue that Shell to Sea argue is one that with today's advances in pipe and refining technology is based on false laid fears.

What ever happened to the Hunger Striker? Did she die? I heard nothing, RIP.

dotsman

murfie wrote: »

What ever happened to the Hunger Striker? Did she die? I heard nothing, RIP.

This is the very same looney.

johnmacward

thebman wrote: »

Sorry bad choice of words on my part. They aren't really requesting the government not to do it.

They did that and were told no. Now they are trying to force the government to change. The use of force is what I don't agree with and I don't think they have the right to force the government.

Applying political pressure is one thing. Turning up and getting in the way and doing everything possible to cause havoc is wrong in this case IMO.

Depends on the extremity of the case to be honest and what YOU think is at stake. During the Vietnam War (which was completely illegal by all world standards) people we're beaten to death by police for protesting the war in which force was being used against an innocent country, very harshly and for no justifiable reason (their reason was spread of communism, they have no right to actually prevent the spread of communism if its democratically wanted). Should American protesters not have protested because the state said they shouldn't and essentially let a bloody massacre that killed several million in Indochina continue or should they have regarded what the state was doing as grotesque and horrific and do everything to stop them. The vast majority at the end of the War agreed with my latter suggestion and they did stop the war, not completely based on the protests to be fair, there we're all kinds of pressures but it still makes my point. It started with the protestors being regarded as loony left idiots and by the 70's the entire country was on their side.

Sir Gallagher

johnmacward wrote: »

Depends on the extremity of the case to be honest and what YOU think is at stake. During the Vietnam War (which was completely illegal by all world standards) people we're beaten to death by police for protesting the war in which force was being used against an innocent country, very harshly and for no justifiable reason (their reason was spread of communism, they have no right to actually prevent the spread of communism if its democratically wanted). Should American protesters not have protested because the state said they shouldn't and essentially let a bloody massacre that killed several million in Indochina continue or should they have regarded what the state was doing as grotesque and horrific and do everything to stop them. The vast majority at the end of the War agreed with my latter suggestion and they did stop the war, not completely based on the protests to be fair, there we're all kinds of pressures but it still makes my point. It started with the protestors being regarded as loony left idiots and by the 70's the entire country was on their side.

Just because they turned out to be in the right that doesn't mean it's the same case in this situation. Don't flatter this campaign by comparing it with the protests against the Vietnam war.

johnmacward

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Just because they turned out to be in the right that doesn't mean it's the same case in this situation. Don't flatter this campaign by comparing it with the protests against the Vietnam war.

I happen to think they are right, you may not, you may be like the early pro-Vietnam war protestors. Our gas is being taken under the guise of protecting good market rules (which no one really understands or even believes in, and they hardly ever work in favour of the mass of the population, that being the important point) and even though we have our own state gas company, Bord Gais, a private company is grabbing this natural resource and reaping the reward of billions of euros in profits with no benefit to the Irish population whatsoever. To add insult to injury this is happening while our own country's economy is collapsing and billions are sought in cutbacks in each government department. Why are we giving away mass revenue when we need it so badly! It's stupid!

04KY

johnmacward wrote: »

I happen to think they are right, you may not, you may be like the early pro-Vietnam war protestors. Our gas is being taken under the guise of protecting good market rules (which no one really understands or even believes in, and they hardly ever work in favour of the mass of the population, that being the important point) and even though we have our own state gas company, Bord Gais, a private company is grabbing this natural resource and reaping the reward of billions of euros in profits with no benefit to the Irish population whatsoever. To add insult to injury this is happening while our own country's economy is collapsing and billions are sought in cutbacks in each government department. Why are we giving away mass revenue when we need it so badly! It's stupid!

You realise that Shell to Sea are protesting for the (pretty much constructed) terminal to be built offshore?

johnmacward

Oh, absolutely, thats true.

I'm just adding some extra points that are also discussed within these circles, making further points about the points about handing over national resources to private companies, as I can't help but feel and notice Shell to Sea don't want Shell anywhere near this gas, not just a case of building it offshore.

Jip

johnmacward wrote: »

Our gas is being taken under the guise of protecting good market rules

Care to answer my question I had put to people such as yourself ?

Chickus

That looney has been jailed this week and is pleading insanity....She is the craziest woman goin,