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

Peter Sutherland urges 'hard decisions'

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    joebucks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 728 ✭✭✭joebucks


    robtri wrote: »
    or maybe it possible, that the government follow his advice because he is good at his job and knows what he is talking about and how to try yo make things work out best for our country....

    You gotta be takin the piss Robtri!

    He is good at his job, yes. Making money for Goldman Sachs and all their cronies at Bilderberg.

    Look at Goldman Sachs position on Anglo and Quinn

    http://www.independent.ie/business/world/goldman-plays-dual-role-with-quinn-group-2349547.html

    Seeing as Sutherland is CEO of GS Int. How can you argue that he is talking about how to try make things best work out for our country??


  • Options
    #33
    joebucks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 728 ✭✭✭joebucks


    gizmo wrote: »
    It got plenty of media attention. Then they realised the majority of the protesters claiming it was damaging the local environment weren't from the locality at all and were just the usual rent-a-mob nuts.


    One-sided media attention.

    This docu looks to give a fairer portrayal of the situation

    http://www.thepipethefilm.com/


  • Options
    #34
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    joebucks wrote: »
    One-sided media attention.

    Nonsense. The Shell-to-Sea case over Corrib has been given at least the same (if not more) coverage than the Shell one.


  • Options
    #35
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    joebucks wrote: »
    One-sided media attention.

    This docu looks to give a fairer portrayal of the situation

    http://www.thepipethefilm.com/
    A "fairer portrayal" should not be described as this:
    ...where the oil company decided to run a gas line, and the community decided otherwise.
    The "community" did not decide otherwise, a vocal minority did which was then supplemented by groups who were not even from the locality. Locals were on the news, in the papers and even on Boards stating that they had been assured by Shell that the construction was safe and were satisfied with it but that they were annoyed at the "outsiders" coming in to make trouble.

    This was also noted by Gardai at the time:
    "Most of the faces, in fact all of the faces, were outsiders," said a senior garda source last night. "They want to cause trouble."


  • Options
    #36
    Pete M.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭Pete M.


    alastair wrote: »
    Dunno about anyone else, but I've seen no shortage of media coverage of all aspects of the Shell pipeline dispute for a number of years now. Maybe if you've been living under a rock it'd seem different, but otherwise...?

    Nope, ain't been living under a rock. Originally from Mayo and living in Sligo and I don't think there has been adequate or balanced reporting on the issue in the mainstream media at all. But maybe if you believe all the lies......
    alastair wrote: »
    Why haven't the calls for nationalisarion of mineral deposits been more to the fore? Maybe because we invested sod all in exploring for said mineral deposits so were never likely to find anything without doing a deal with the oil corporations, and it's a bit late now to complain that the terms of those deals were'nt particularly great from a national perspective?

    We invested plenty, it was a punt for the exploration companies and for us. Except a certain Ray Burke and his FF cronies shafted all of us, you included btw.
    And you reckon it's too late to complain? If my grandkids complain about having to pay back the Anglo bailout, I wouldn't tell them they were too late if something hadn't been done by then.
    If we went back and told Shell we want to renegotiate or else then they'd have to wouldn't they?
    The benefit to this Country would be MASSIVE. Think we could do with a little something like that right now.
    We have to first start seeing, and treating, people like Sutherland & practically every politician, lawyer, banker and property developer etc. for what they really are......

    gizmo wrote: »
    It got plenty of media attention. Then they realised the majority of the protesters claiming it was damaging the local environment weren't from the locality at all and were just the usual rent-a-mob nuts.

    So those protesting are just nuts? And there is nothing to see here? No swindling of the citizens of the state?
    And the media coverage you think was adequate and balanced?
    For a CT follower, you sure do tow the party line on this one eh?:rolleyes:
    gizmo wrote: »
    No, it's because we have neither the means nor the funds to extract it ourselves.

    Well not now we don't that's for sure :mad:

    But we don't actually have to do it ourselves you know. Nationalisation could take the form of a more reasonable contract between the extractor and the Country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    sligopark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,620 ✭✭✭sligopark


    <SNIP>


  • Options
    #38
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Pete M. wrote: »
    So those protesting are just nuts? And there is nothing to see here? No swindling of the citizens of the state?
    And the media coverage you think was adequate and balanced?
    For a CT follower, you sure do tow the party line on this one eh?:rolleyes:
    I did not say those protesting are nuts, I said the rent-a-mob crowd were nuts. People in the locality have every right to complain and there were plenty of opportunities to do so in the appropriate forum. Many people were satisfied with this yet a few were not, should the entire operation be halted because of this vocal minority. By the way, in Nov '06 the following gentlemen gave a conference representing Shell To Sea, see any problems with it? Your CT follower comment is also amusing, I'm assuming you're relatively new to this forum?
    Pete M. wrote: »
    Well not now we don't that's for sure :mad:
    No, we never had the means to do it. It would also have been idiotic for us to invest in the equipment required given the limited use it would have seen. As for the rate we received, to be honest there would have been people complaining regardless of the figure so there's no point debating it further.


  • Options
    #39
    Pete M.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭Pete M.


    gizmo wrote: »
    see any problems with it? Your CT follower comment is also amusing, I'm assuming you're relatively new to this forum?

    Well I suppose there's a lot of things which could be out of place in that photo...
    And I'm glad I amuse you. Long time lurker and all that ;)
    gizmo wrote: »
    No, we never had the means to do it. It would also have been idiotic for us to invest in the equipment required given the limited use it would have seen. As for the rate we received, to be honest there would have been people complaining regardless of the figure so there's no point debating it further.

    This type of exploration is of course, the preserve of specialist outfits and yes it would be ridiculous for the Country to go out and buy the required equipment and training. I mean if we couldn't even get the election machines working...
    As for the 'rate' we're receiving, it is an insult and a scandal and warrants debate until we get what is ours.
    Ireland retains no share of the gas and oil and no royalties. A tax rate of 25% on profits after right off of all exploration and overhead (including projected costs of cleanup) is the best Ray could get.

    No other Country in the world would put up with it.

    There's no point debating it further?

    Yeah right...

    We should get Sutherland to renegotiate it maybe :p


  • Options
    #40
    sligopark
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,620 ✭✭✭sligopark


    Pete M. wrote: »
    We should get Sutherland to renegotiate it maybe :p

    and proper screw our passive a$$es :D

    pass the vaseline Pete :D:D


  • Options
    #41
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Pete M. wrote: »
    Well I suppose there's a lot of things which could be out of place in that photo...
    And I'm glad I amuse you. Long time lurker and all that ;)
    Well yes, the photo highlights my problem with most of the protesting that went on down there. As for me, well while lurking you may have no noticed I don't buy into many of the CTs around here so I most definitely don't fall in line. ;)
    Pete M. wrote: »
    This type of exploration is of course, the preserve of specialist outfits and yes it would be ridiculous for the Country to go out and buy the required equipment and training. I mean if we couldn't even get the election machines working...
    As for the 'rate' we're receiving, it is an insult and a scandal and warrants debate until we get what is ours.
    Ireland retains no share of the gas and oil and no royalties. A tax rate of 25% on profits after right off of all exploration and overhead (including projected costs of cleanup) is the best Ray could get.

    No other Country in the world would put up with it.
    See protesting about the rates negotiated I could accept no problem, but that's not what they had to put fences around the area in Mayo for nor call for increased Garda presence due to possible sabotage attempts. :o

    As for debating further I simply mean that there would be people complaining no mater what rates we got therefore there's no point in us debating it on thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    iPlop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,822 ✭✭✭iPlop


    Look! I originally stated that I suspected Peter Sutherland or the EU was telling the government what to do.As in the government were not really in charge and I stand by that Here the EU advise the government to lay out a 4 year plan

    and here 1 day later the government announce the 4 year plan

    To Me that means Ireland is being told what to do! Am I missing something? I thought we decided what to to ,no? This seems to be that it doesn't matter who is in power we have to bend and kneel to our overlords in Europe! Peter Sutherland is the real leader of this country in an economic sense as he is the advisor to Mr Cowan! In other words

    Peter: "Brian you do this or else mate" ,
    Brian: "yeah no bother ,keep me a place on the trilateral commission will ya";)


  • Options
    #43
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Septic Leper wrote: »
    Look! I originally stated that I suspected Peter Sutherland or the EU was telling the government what to do.As in the government were not really in charge and I stand by that Here the EU advise the government to lay out a 4 year plan

    and here 1 day later the government announce the 4 year plan

    To Me that means Ireland is being told what to do! Am I missing something? I thought we decided what to to ,no? This seems to be that it doesn't matter who is in power we have to bend and kneel to our overlords in Europe! Peter Sutherland is the real leader of this country in an economic sense as he is the advisor to Mr Cowan! In other words

    Peter: "Brian you do this or else mate" ,
    Brian: "yeah no bother ,keep me a place on the trilateral commission will ya";)
    What you're missing is the order of events...

    The Government's initial statement:
    Government plans to squeeze €3 bn from its budget for 2011 and 2012 and has pledged to get its deficit to the EU limit of 3pc of GDP by 2014 but has not laid out specific ways to meet that goal.

    EU look at that and say more detail is needed. Then...
    Ireland confirms four-year budget plan in November


  • Options
    #44
    steelcityblues
    Registered Users Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭steelcityblues


    Sutherland = fat, corrupt pig on board the EU gravy train!

    Best not to take any of his comments at face value.


Advertisement