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

irishh_bob

Godge wrote: »

Ridiculous.

People have a right to go about their legitimate business without that business being illegally interfered with by ignorant louts. The Gardai have a responsibility to protect people and businesses from criminals intent on damaging them and their businesses and that applies to Shell as much as anyone else.

Would you say now that the 16-year old girl shot dead in Tallaght should have had her own personal bodyguard?

Would you say that anti-ODS protesters could go down and just rip up the hoardings and take away the tents that are sitting on public space in front of the Central Bank just like that while the Gardai stand idly by and let them? No, I am sure you would say that anyone who wants to remove the protesters should get a court order and that if anyone tries to do it without a court order that the gardai should stop them.

There is one law for everyone in this country. Shell have not broken that law, they have a right to Gardai protection. The taxpayers have a responsibility to pay for that protection. It is an absolute disgrace that a small minority of irresponsible protesters have caused this bill for the taxpayers of Ireland.

with all due respect , thier are many businesses up and down the country who get hassled by various troublemakers yet the guards dont man the premises 24- 7 , shell is probably worth more than this countrys entire economy , that kind of wealth draws a lot of politcal priveledge , politcal priveledge often gives you special favours from a nations police force , it certainly does in this country and im not limiting that to rossport

Inclusion

Remember the Dale Farm eviction last Summer?
I watched it on Sky news and wondered who these protestors were who had suddenly turned up out of the blue and chained themselves to the scaffolding they had erected at the entrance to Dale Farm.

These protestors had never even met ANY of the Dale Farm residents , they didn't have ANYTHING in common with the residents only the notion that as 'Freemen' they subscribe to the notion that anybody can move in on land and set up residence there despite the laws of the land which apply to everyone else.

Tourist protestors , they get around

AlekSmart

irishh_bob wrote: »

while thier might be a very determined bunch of protestors in this country , thier numbers are incredibly small,Irish people in the main are as fond of attending protests as they are of attending pioneer meetings

Well spotted, IrishBob,and this being a small wee country,it's often the same faces which pop up again and again,until they eventually have to decide between a career at law and whichever protest site is active at the time.

It seems to hinge upon having time on one's hands,which given our recessionary times should be allowing thousands to travel to Mayo on a daily basis..?

MadsL

Lots of outrage and 'spray them with slurry' keyboard warrior-ism. Not so much on the massive breaches of EU Environmental Law by the Irish Govt in relation to Corrib/Rossport. How much did the Govt spend on legal fees to defend itself against legal challenges? How legal were the licences and activites permitted under those licences in relation to EU law and directives.

Problem is it is a lot easier to blame 'crusties' than to accept that your government has systematically abused environmental law to get Shell what it wanted.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

How much did the Govt spend on legal fees to defend itself against legal challenges? How legal were the licences and activites permitted under those licences in relation to EU law and directives.

I don't know - how much? How legal?

Problem is it is a lot easier to blame 'crusties' than to accept that your government has systematically abused environmental law to get Shell what it wanted.

[citation needed]

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

Lots of outrage and 'spray them with slurry' keyboard warrior-ism. Not so much on the massive breaches of EU Environmental Law by the Irish Govt in relation to Corrib/Rossport. How much did the Govt spend on legal fees to defend itself against legal challenges? How legal were the licences and activites permitted under those licences in relation to EU law and directives.

Problem is it is a lot easier to blame 'crusties' than to accept that your government has systematically abused environmental law to get Shell what it wanted.

"Massive breaches of Eu Environmental Law"???? I take it that people and animals have been dying as a result and the EU have imposed massive (i.e. multi-million) fines on Ireland as a result. If there was truly massive breaches, we would see people dying from the effects.

As for the legality of the licences, if they were illegal, how come the pipeline is being built?

FreudianSlippers

MadsL wrote: »

Lots of outrage and 'spray them with slurry' keyboard warrior-ism. Not so much on the massive breaches of EU Environmental Law by the Irish Govt in relation to Corrib/Rossport. How much did the Govt spend on legal fees to defend itself against legal challenges? How legal were the licences and activites permitted under those licences in relation to EU law and directives.

One would presume that if a person has accusations like that to throw around, they would have sources to support it. What directives and laws are broken, what cases taken against the government (citations please)

Inclusion

Protestors not making one jot of difference only costing us in policing :-

http://bocktherobber.com/2010/09/****-the-shell-to-sea-campaign/

MadsL

What directives and laws are broken, what cases taken against the government (citations please)

The changes to the Planning and Development Act has only recently come into force which allows campaigners to go to court and only be liable for their own costs. Taking a case previously against either the Govt or multinationals has meant that you either had to be very rich or penniless.

In the recent court case between the State and An Taisce, the state conceded that it it had failed to enforce several key aspects of EU Environmental law and reached a settlement to ensure that the mess that was the Corrib project will never happen again.

http://www.antaisce.org/CurrentCampaigns/CorribJudicialReview/StatementonCorribJudicialReviews.aspx

Shell however continue to breach their conditions.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0116/1224310309778.html

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

The changes to the Planning and Development Act has only recently come into force which allows campaigners to go to court and only be liable for their own costs. Taking a case previously against either the Govt or multinationals has meant that you either had to be very rich or penniless.

In the recent court case between the State and An Taisce, the state conceded that it it had failed to enforce several key aspects of EU Environmental law and reached a settlement to ensure that the mess that was the Corrib project will never happen again.

http://www.antaisce.org/CurrentCampaigns/CorribJudicialReview/StatementonCorribJudicialReviews.aspx

Shell however continue to breach their conditions.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0116/1224310309778.html[/QUOTE]

Have read the link, but am only confused. An Taisce were obviously going to court to get the Shell project stopped. The case was settled but the Shell project is still going ahead and according to you is continuing to breach its conditions. How is that a victory for An Taisce?

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

"Massive breaches of Eu Environmental Law"???? I take it that people and animals have been dying as a result and the EU have imposed massive (i.e. multi-million) fines on Ireland as a result. If there was truly massive breaches, we would see people dying from the effects.

As for the legality of the licences, if they were illegal, how come the pipeline is being built?

In 2005 Shell were ordered to dismantle 3km of illegally built pipeline.
http://buckplanning.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html

In 2006, a private road already built from the foreshore at Sruwaddacon Bay, where the gas pipeline comes ashore to the existing county road, was built illegally without planning permission. An Bord Pleanala said that the road was built through a priority habitat protected under an EU directive on special areas of conservation known as SACs.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/corrib-pipeline-roadway-was-built-illegally-90889.html

Unauthorized digging of test bore holes at the landfall site in a Special Area of Conservation without Ministerial consent in 2007.
http://www.rightsnow.ie/assets/66/25766B88-D713-83DC-AEB2B7D42FAA8C90_document/AFRI_UPR_Submission.pdf (2.4)

In 2007, due to run-off from the refinery site, aluminum levels in the Carrowmore lake were up to 200 times higher than WHO recommended levels. Carrowmore supplies drinking water for 10000 people - Aluminium toxicity is linked to Alzheimer's. (Same Source)

2008 Local people block Shell from illegal work in a SAC at Glengad, Erris for 4 hours until Gardai force through workers, injuring protesters.

“In many decisions in the past An Bord Pleanála has been a shining beacon. However this latest decision represents a further nail in the coffin of proper Regulation in Ireland. It highlights that poor planning, which was at the heart of Ireland’s banking failure and consequent economic collapse, continues to be a major issue. An Bord Pleanála is the independent body appointed to decide on major planning matters. An Taisce believes that in this decision, the Board has failed to properly take account of the legislative requirements of the Habitats, Birds and Environmental Impact Assessment Directives and An Taisce detailed such issues in its substantial submissions made to the Board. This grant of approval flies in the face of a number of European Court of Justice Rulings and indeed sets the Board up as contending it has more insight into the law than the Supreme Court of Ireland, on matters such as the integrity of Natura 2000 sites.”

An Taisce

Failure of the State to direct Shell to conduct a EIA in 2010 in relation to foreshore drilling; http://www.environ.ie/en/Foreshore/ApplicationsandDeterminations/ShellEPIrelandLtd5611Jan10/PublicConsultation/FileDownLoad,23336,en.pdf

Letters sent to Shell claim 'ongoing harassment'
LETTERS FROM more than 400 residents of a north Mayo parish who claim that they are being subjected to “ongoing and escalating physical and psychological harassment” have been delivered to Shell EP Ireland.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0413/1224268228606.html

Failure of the State to transpose the European Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1027/breaking40.html

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

Have read the link, but am only confused. An Taisce were obviously going to court to get the Shell project stopped. The case was settled but the Shell project is still going ahead and according to you is continuing to breach its conditions. How is that a victory for An Taisce?

An Taisce took an agnostic position on whether Shell should be allowed to build the pipeline. However, the State did not apply/transpose EU Environmental Law correctly and that is why the case was taken.

An Taisce wrote:

An Taisce maintains its position that the manner in which the Corrib Gas Development Project has been consented to and constructed is a travesty of European Environmental Law. That is why we initiated these proceedings.

tayto lover

MadsL wrote: »

Lots of outrage and 'spray them with slurry' keyboard warrior-ism. Not so much on the massive breaches of EU Environmental Law by the Irish Govt in relation to Corrib/Rossport. How much did the Govt spend on legal fees to defend itself against legal challenges? How legal were the licences and activites permitted under those licences in relation to EU law and directives.

Problem is it is a lot easier to blame 'crusties' than to accept that your government has systematically abused environmental law to get Shell what it wanted.

What about the rights of the workers over in Rossport ?
Many of the locals are PRO the Shell project too.

MadsL

tayto lover wrote: »

What about the rights of the workers over in Rossport ?
Many of the locals are PRO the Shell project too.

Rights of the workers? Hmmm...illegal construction activity in a SAC? Would you say they have 'rights' above EU law? Pretty clear some of the activists rights were violated too.

Tricky issue, but blaming 'crusties' for the incompetence of Shell, Gardaí and the Irish Govt. is just too easy an out for the complexity of what's happening in Mayo.

tayto lover

MadsL wrote: »

Rights of the workers? Hmmm...illegal construction activity in a SAC? Would you say they have 'rights' above EU law? Pretty clear some of the activists rights were violated too.

Tricky issue, but blaming 'crusties' for the incompetence of Shell, Gardaí and the Irish Govt. is just too easy an out for the complexity of what's happening in Mayo.

1,500 jobs Shell say they are providing very soon.(R.T.E. News tonight)
That should start a bit of a scramble.

MadsL

tayto lover wrote: »

1,500 jobs Shell say they are providing very soon.(R.T.E. News tonight)
That should start a bit of a scramble.

Isn't it always 'jabs' they are offering anytime 'they' want us to close our eyes...let's focus on the 'jabs'...

What's the betting 1450 of those jobs go to experienced Oil workers from overseas.

Sigh.

Vizzy

MadsL wrote: »

Isn't it always 'jabs' they are offering anytime 'they' want us to close our eyes...let's focus on the 'jabs'...

What's the betting 1450 of those jobs go to experienced Oil workers from overseas.

Sigh.

And I assume that these "experienced Oil workers from overseas" will be running the local shops/pubs/car repair shops as well ?

tayto lover

MadsL wrote: »

Isn't it always 'jabs' they are offering anytime 'they' want us to close our eyes...let's focus on the 'jabs'...

What's the betting 1450 of those jobs go to experienced Oil workers from overseas.

Sigh.

I think some of the protesters need a few "jabs", up the hole.

MadsL

I admire your optimism, but I doubt very much that Mayo will be the new Dallas...good luck with that.

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

An Taisce took an agnostic position on whether Shell should be allowed to build the pipeline. However, the State did not apply/transpose EU Environmental Law correctly and that is why the case was taken.

Not transposing EU environmental law correctly is very different from massive breaches of EU directives. Nearly all EU countries have current outstanding issues in relation to the correct transposition of EU directives. The directives are long and complicated and national procedures vary so it is impossible for every EU country to implement every singel EU directive absolutely correctly the first time around. The Commission monitors the implementation and when it sees a problem it notifies the government concerned. sometimes the Commission doesn't see the problem either and it takes legal action for all to see that the directive isn't correctly transposed. However, these are usually very minor issues. You used the adjective massive yet all you can point to is a minor infringement.

MadsL

Point I'm making is that there seems to be plenty of vitriol directed at people exercising their right to assemble and making their voices heard. Yet not a dickybird about the way in which the Irish Govt bent over backwards, in breach of EU Law, to grant Shell anything it asked for.

Building 3 km of pipeline without planning permission in an SAC is a fairly massive breach of the law in my view...

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

Point I'm making is that there seems to be plenty of vitriol directed at people exercising their right to assemble and making their voices heard.

There's not a word being said about people exercising their right to assemble and making their voices heard. Assembling and being heard don't require a massive police presence. Unlawfully preventing people from going about their work requires a massive police presence, and that unlawful behaviour is what's being criticised.

Yet not a dickybird about the way in which the Irish Govt bent over backwards, in breach of EU Law, to grant Shell anything it asked for.

If you haven't heard any complaints about the Irish government's handling of this situation, you must have had your head buried under an SAC for the past several years.

Building 3 km of pipeline without planning permission in an SAC is a fairly massive breach of the law in my view...

It's a breach of a law, I'll grant you that. What punishment do you feel is appropriate for such an action?

tayto lover

MadsL wrote: »

Point I'm making is that there seems to be plenty of vitriol directed at people exercising their right to assemble and making their voices heard. Yet not a dickybird about the way in which the Irish Govt bent over backwards, in breach of EU Law, to grant Shell anything it asked for.

Building 3 km of pipeline without planning permission in an SAC is a fairly massive breach of the law in my view...

What about the people from that part of Mayo who support Shell and who might gain employment there ? Have they no rights ? Do you just ignore them ?

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's not a word being said about people exercising their right to assemble and making their voices heard. Assembling and being heard don't require a massive police presence. Unlawfully preventing people from going about their work requires a massive police presence, and that unlawful behaviour is what's being criticised.

And I've stayed away from that, there are endless examples of rights being trampled on by Gardai and Private Security companies. We could debate that all day - what I'm trying to add is some balance to the 'spray them with slurry' brigade.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you haven't heard any complaints about the Irish government's handling of this situation, you must have had your head buried under an SAC for the past several years.

...I meant no complaints in this thread.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's a breach of a law, I'll grant you that. What punishment do you feel is appropriate for such an action?

Do you feel a punishment is appropriate?, great. The Irish govt don't, even after Shell were forced to dismantle it, they still get to write both costs of building it and dismantling it off against future income. So, that would be what sort of punishment??

What about the people from that part of Mayo who support Shell and who might gain employment there ? Have they no rights ? Do you just ignore them ?

So you are happy your neighbours get to more or less sit on top of a high-pressure pipeline, whilst you get a few bob from Shell? Nice. But that's a moral argument, so in my view- do people have a right to interfere to prevent illegal activity; yes. Legal activity, no. What makes the Shell case complex is that much of Shell's initial work was conducted illegally and then regularised through Govt licencing.

The concept of environmental protection is completely lost on Shell when it comes to the process of getting stuff done, for example it may be an EU protected bird habitat, but put nets on it so the birds are prevented from nesting, end of problem.

My prediction stands however, you will get very little in Mayo from Shell in the form of economic development. Workers will be recruited in UK or Europe come in on 6 week shifts, and fly home - Shell will feed them centrally at a canteen.

You can see Shell's recruiting intentions by their website...
http://www.shell.ie/home/content/irl/aboutshell/careers/


Good luck finding a single Irish job.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

Do you feel a punishment is appropriate?, great. The Irish govt don't, even after Shell were forced to dismantle it, they still get to write both costs of building it and dismantling it off against future income. So, that would be what sort of punishment??

You didn't answer the question.

If I build something without planning permission, I have to tear it down and wait for permission before building it again. That means I double my build costs, and add in the tear-down costs as well as (presumably) legal fees. If I'm a business, all of those costs reduce my profit and as such are written off against my tax liabilities.

In other words, Shell were punished entirely in accordance with the law for their wrongdoing. Now, do you feel that Shell should merit some extraordinary punishment for their behaviour, or do you feel that everyone in such a situation should face draconian sanctions?

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

You didn't answer the question.

If I build something without planning permission, I have to tear it down and wait for permission before building it again. That means I double my build costs, and add in the tear-down costs as well as (presumably) legal fees. If I'm a business, all of those costs reduce my profit and as such are written off against my tax liabilities.

In other words, Shell were punished entirely in accordance with the law for their wrongdoing. Now, do you feel that Shell should merit some extraordinary punishment for their behaviour, or do you feel that everyone in such a situation should face draconian sanctions?

Do you get a guaranteed multi-year write off against future profits for those tear-down costs? Thought not.

MadsL

I confess I am not a tax expert, but the conditions for tax relief on development listed in this page http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitioner/law/notes-for-guidance/tca/index.html seem to require a valid planning application to qualify.

Shell will face no such requirement to write-off these costs.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

Do you get a guaranteed multi-year write off against future profits for those tear-down costs? Thought not.

You still didn't answer the question. And yes, I get to write off operating losses against my tax bill, including any costs incurred while complying with planning regulations.

Granted, Shell are operating in a fairly unique tax environment, but unless you subscribe to the view that the gas would be better off under the sea bed (and I'm aware that it's a view that has some currency), it's not unreasonable to expect that exploration and development costs should happen under a relatively favourable tax regime. And that's leaving aside the fact that they will pay double the normal rate of corporation tax after the writeoffs.

MadsL wrote: »

I confess I am not a tax expert, but the conditions for tax relief on development listed in this page http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitioner/law/notes-for-guidance/tca/index.html seem to require a valid planning application to qualify.

Shell will face no such requirement to write-off these costs.

What development is currently taking place on the Shell project for which there is no planning permission?

Hayte

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's not a word being said about people exercising their right to assemble and making their voices heard. Assembling and being heard don't require a massive police presence. Unlawfully preventing people from going about their work requires a massive police presence, and that unlawful behaviour is what's being criticised.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the roots of this problem concern the compulsory acquisition of land from their respective owners by the Government who intended to sell/lease it to Shell for the use of an onshore gas pipeline. I note that Mayo County Council granted planning permission for the pipeline and that Shell's planning application was subsequently appealed to An Bord Pleanala who overturned the approval. At some later date planning application was resubmitted and approved by An Bord Pleanala with a massive list of conditions and thats where things get testy.

See, Shell has up until now had a pretty terrible record of adhering to conditional approval set down by state agencies. I also note that Shell has constructed sections of the pipeline without consent. I further note the controversy surrounding energy companies using land compulsorily acquired through the state for gas extraction through fracking in the US and UK, where the environmental impact has not been properly assessed.

I understand people quipping about law and enforcement but the principle of equity doesn't seem factor in out of convenience. The rule of law and its enforcement can and should be overturned if it causes grave inequity. If there is an inequity, is it worth fighting to rectify it?

I am also curious about the stigma of civil disobedience in this country, or at least how it is reflected on this forum. In all socially contentious problems there is a cost to unilateral action. In this case, one of the costs is civil disobedience, which necessitates a large and continuous police presence. I wonder how many of you would dance to a different tune if it was your home that was subject to compulsory acquisition, if all of this was happening on your doorstep. Do you fight it and how long do you fight? Far too many people are willing to capitulate, to just go with it as long as the problems do not impact them directly.

I see very few people on these boards expressing a desire to understand the problems and why they lead to civil disobedience. I see very little attempt to scrutinise Shell's past dealings with state agencies for the extraction of energy resources. I see alot of people just accepting their position because the cost of their action doesn't effect them personally, whilst the cost of opposition does. I see very little attempt to understand our laws, how they are created, how they are enforced, what systems of checks and balances have been implemented to curb abuse of power.

MadsL

Hayte wrote:

...

Post of the Day!

OscarBravo wrote:

complying with planning regulations.

Big difference between complying and ignoring. I suspect Revenue would take a dim view of cost incurred in ignoring planning regulations.