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

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you genuinely believe that's how it went down, you must have really been hogging the S2S Koolaid.

Seriously: I live here. I read the local papers every week. I could wallpaper my house with reports of public consultations - not to mention the non-stop reports of court appearances on public order and criminal damage charges by the "peaceful" protesters.

Just this week, the MD of the Shell plant was quoted as saying that he wanted to continue to try to find a way to bring the whole community together and heal the divisions over this project. The closing quote in the article was from one of the protesters vowing that the divisions would last for decades.

There is one party to this dispute that has been completely intransigent from the beginning and remains so to this day, and it isn't Shell.

And you my friend need to have some understanding of the Aarhus Convention and why the so-called 'consultations' are meaningless unless Aarhus is implemented.

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/welcome.html

My shorthand expression isn't 'how it went down' (shizzle?) - but it is effectively what happened (with some meandering meaningless 'consultations')

I've attended a good few 'consultations' in my time and they are an evil instrument. If you don't show up = "locals are apathetic", if you do = "we'll we consulted locals" If you try to address concerns outside the agenda of the 'facilitator' = "troublemakers disrupted the consultation"

joela makes some great points about the ability of the likes of An Taisce to prevent further abuses through legislation, and I agree that S2S haven't presented themselves in the best light. But to say that local residents were "consulted" is a joke.

For the MD of Shell Ireland to say he wanted to "bring the whole community together and heal the divisions" is a bit rich coming from a company that used unidentifiable security guards to assault people on public roads and hired private companies to trespass on private land. I take it he doesn't plan any apologies for those actions.

We will see if we have learned anything now with drilling proposed 6km of Dalkey Island.

joela

MadsL, this time Appropriate Assessment will be required before ANY works can take place and I really can't see drilling test holes as not posing a significant impact to qualifying interests of the Natura 2000 sites. That is only a start as the ecological studies alone required for the EIS should be pretty hefty plus acoustic, engineering etc....

I really hope for once it can just be done properly in Ireland.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

My shorthand expression isn't 'how it went down' (shizzle?) - but it is effectively what happened (with some meandering meaningless 'consultations')

I've attended a good few 'consultations' in my time and they are an evil instrument. If you don't show up = "locals are apathetic", if you do = "we'll we consulted locals" If you try to address concerns outside the agenda of the 'facilitator' = "troublemakers disrupted the consultation"

If you don't have consultations, you're "showing up and simply announcing 'this is where the pipeline will run'". If you have consultations, they are "meandering and meaningless".

I'll reiterate: if you compiled the newspaper reports of the consultations alone, you'd have the makings of a book. The latest consultation I saw outlined three possible routes for one section of the pipeline alone.

If you have your mind made up that the consultations are meaningless, fair enough - but don't preach about other people having a closed mind on the issue.

For the MD of Shell Ireland to say he wanted to "bring the whole community together and heal the divisions" is a bit rich coming from a company that used unidentifiable security guards to assault people on public roads and hired private companies to trespass on private land. I take it he doesn't plan any apologies for those actions.

I take it you would also call upon S2S to apologise for their near-constant public disorder, criminal damage and trespass over the past several years?

I suppose they are at least consistent: they are determine to entrench the divisions they have helped create in the community in perpetuity.

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you have your mind made up that the consultations are meaningless, fair enough - but don't preach about other people having a closed mind on the issue.

Try to have a read of the Aarhus link I posted and understand the difference between 'consultation' and 'participation' in the planning process - it is quite key to this discussion.

a multilateral environmental agreement through which the opportunities for citizens to access environmental information are increased and transparent and reliable regulation procedure is secured.[1][2] It is a way of enhancing the environmental governance network, introducing a reactive and trustworthy relationship between civil society and governments and adding the novelty of a mechanism created to empower the value of public participation in the decision making process and guarantee access to justice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Convention

I watched the first two. After a good giggle at the definition of "archaist", I didn't bother watching any more.

Closed mind...?

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suppose they are at least consistent: they are determine to entrench the divisions they have helped create in the community in perpetuity.

And you don't feel that Shell bear ANY share of the responsibility for those divisions?

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

And you don't feel that Shell bear ANY share of the responsibility for those divisions?

When you have two parties to a conflict, one of whom talks about wanting to bring the conflict to an end and the other about wanting to make sure that the divisions are permanently entrenched, I draw my own conclusions.

Shell have, for the most part, carried out their work within the parameters set by law. S2S have, for the most part, carried out their protests through civil disobedience which is ipso facto outside those parameters. If millions have been spent on policing, lay the blame where it belongs: on those who don't feel constrained by the rule of law.

MadsL

When you have two parties to a conflict, one of whom talks about wanting to bring the conflict to an end and the other about wanting to make sure that the divisions are permanently entrenched, I draw my own conclusions.

Interesting the way you have polarised and characterised the two positions, and then draw conclusions.

Shell have, for the most part, carried out their work within the parameters set by law. S2S have, for the most part, carried out their protests through civil disobedience which is ipso facto outside those parameters. If millions have been spent on policing, lay the blame where it belongs: on those who don't feel constrained by the rule of law.

The protesters have, for the most part, been constrained by lawful protest (you get arrested if you step outside those parameters - and sometimes you get arrested anyways and have to prove your protest lawful). Perhaps you consider mass protest unlawful?

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

Interesting the way you have polarised and characterised the two positions, and then draw conclusions.

I pretty much quoted them.

The protesters have, for the most part, been constrained by lawful protest...

If by "for the most part" you mean more than half the time, I guess that could be technically true. If you're so convinced that the protesters aren't doing anything wrong, then what's your explanation for the cost of policing the protests?

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

what's your explanation for the cost of policing the protests?

Are you for real? Garda overtime is only famous, besides these women aren't gonna push themselves over...

over €9m had been paid out in garda overtime and allowances alone.
Another €5m was paid out in travel, subsistence and other expenses.

FreudianSlippers

Looks to me like they're trying to stop her falling over. The dozy cow!

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

Are you for real? Garda overtime is only famous...

So the state, for no particularly good reason, has decided to use a totally peaceful protest as an excuse to pay out millions in Garda overtime?

I think it's clear we have no basis for a sensible discussion here. Nice talking with you.

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

OK, so the fact that Govt failed to require a Environmental Impact Assessment correctly means they are entirely blameless, and Shell constructing without planning permission means they are blameless too.

A wider point is that the Irish Govt signed the Aarhus Convention over ten years ago but have inadequately transposed this into Irish Law. This would have meant that projects like this would have required, by law, community participation in the planning process. This would have prevented Shell showing up and simply announcing 'this is where the pipeline will run'.

Shell and the Govt by the way they approached this caused the level of protests and local sentiment. That doesn't give carte blanche to protesters, but I do understand the anger, and treating protesters the way they have been treated doesn't exactly help either.

The accusation that there have been massive breaches of environmental law has been flung around a few times along with the implication that Shell wouldn't have got permission if there hadn't been those breaches.

I have read quite a bit of stuff now and I can see nothing anywhere to suggest anything other than minor technical breaches of a non-substantive nature. Can someone on this thread point to the parts of the legislation that are deficient and the amount of remedial work needed to make them compliant or is it just a slogan?

I include compliance with Aarhus and EU directives in this query. All of the court challenges have failed and in the one that was settled the State made a statement (which would have been part of the settlement agreement with An Taisce) that there was nothing wrong with the Shell permission. In fact despite the decision being described as a victory for An Taisce earlier in this thread, Shell to Sea regard it as a defeat.

http://www.shelltosea.com/content/rossport-residents-say-taisce-%E2%80%98undermined%E2%80%99-them


Right, I have found a Dail question to the Minister in which he says we have implemented the Convention. It looks like they are doing a few final checks before they formally ratify it - that is normal.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/11/24/00136.asp

It also seems that the changes required were minimal and fairly technical in nature.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0020/print.html

Copy of the Envronmental Act mentioned is attached. It seems to do a lot of things including increasing the plastic bag levy but from my reading of it, anything that might be considered as relating to the Directives or Aarhus is minimal change. Can somebody who believes that there are massive breaches of environmental law taking place please provide some evidence of same as all I can find from the source is evidence that Ireland is largely compliant and that breaches are minor and/or technical.

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

Right, I have found a Dail question to the Minister in which he says we have implemented the Convention. It looks like they are doing a few final checks before they formally ratify it - that is normal.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/11/24/00136.asp

Briefly, Are you aware that Ireland signed Aarhus in 1998? You regard carrying out 'a few final checks' - for the last fourteen years as normal???

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

Can somebody who believes that there are massive breaches of environmental law taking place please provide some evidence of same as all I can find from the source is evidence that Ireland is largely compliant and that breaches are minor and/or technical.

You are kidding right? Ireland has been referred over and over by the EU; this was in the news 3 days ago...
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/government-faces-4m-fine-for-failing-to-implement-eu-directives-184165.html

The European Commission is seeking to levy a once-off fine of €4m against the Government for its failure to ensure that proper environmental assessments are being carried out on Irish farming and fish farming projects

Environment: Commission takes Ireland back to court over septic tanks and asks for a fine
A year and a half after a previous Court ruling, Ireland has still not adopted the necessary measures to ensure that septic tanks go through adequate checks and inspections in order to protect human health and the environment. On the recommendation of Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik, the Commission is therefore referring Ireland back to the EU Court of Justice and asking the Court to impose a lump-sum fine of €2.7 million and a daily penalty payment of € 26,173.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/592&format=HTML
The European Commission is taking Ireland back to the European Court of Justice, with the possibility of fines, for failing to implement an earlier ruling on quality standards for shellfish waters on the Irish coast. The Commission proposes to ask the Court to impose a lump-sum fine of over €3.8 million and a daily penalty payment of nearly €40,000.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1647&format=HTML

Environment: Commission seeks fines against Ireland for not adopting legislation to protect countryside heritage

The European Commission is taking Ireland back to the European Court of Justice for failing to implement an earlier ruling concerning developments that may harm the natural and man-made heritage of the countryside. Two years after the judgment, Ireland has still not adopted legislation to address the issue. On the recommendation of Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik, the Commission is referring the case back to Court and asking it to impose a lump-sum fine of more than €4000 per day for the period between the first Court ruling and the second Court ruling and a daily penalty payment of more than €33,000 per day for each day after the second Court ruling until the infringement ends.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/168&format=HTML

Environment: Commission asks Ireland to comply with court ruling on waste, welcomes closure of two other cases
The European Commission is asking Ireland to comply with a ruling by the EU's Court of Justice regarding waste disposal. While good progress has been made in some instances, more action is needed in areas such as construction waste and end-of-life vehicles. If the necessary actions were not taken, the Commission may take Ireland back to Court and request financial penalties. The Commission welcomed measures taken by Ireland to comply with a Court ruling on the protection of certain vulnerable areas and Natura 2000 sites, as well as environmental impact assessments, and has closed infringement cases on both topics.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1257&format=HTML

Ireland: Commission sends final warning over four breaches of environmental law; closes two cases
The European Commission is sending a final warning to Ireland over four cases where it has failed to comply with European Court of Justice rulings concerning illegal development and developments that may harm the natural and man-made heritage of the countryside, access to the Irish courts and protection of marine mammals. If the necessary steps are not taken, the Commission could refer the cases back to the Court and ask for fines to be imposed.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/313&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The Europa site searched on Ireland +court +environment gives 136,000 results.

Ireland has an absolutely woeful record in environmental protection.

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

So the state, for no particularly good reason, has decided to use a totally peaceful protest as an excuse to pay out millions in Garda overtime?

I think it's clear we have no basis for a sensible discussion here. Nice talking with you.

Define peaceful, because we appear to have a difference of opinion on that. Do feel that the law should allow a right to protest or not?

tayto lover

MadsL wrote: »

Are you for real? Garda overtime is only famous, besides these women aren't gonna push themselves over...

The Garda have now purchased Dr. Who's "Tardis" so the expense will drop from now on.

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

Briefly, Are you aware that Ireland signed Aarhus in 1998? You regard carrying out 'a few final checks' - for the last fourteen years as normal???

You do know the difference between signature of an international treaty and ratification of an international treaty.


http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=faq.details&fid=38

some information on the difference in respect of the Hague Convention.

http://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/status-of-signature-and-ratification

Look at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, time between signature and ratification.

I could give you many more examples of a delay between signature and ratification if you want. The US has signed the Kyoto Protocol but never ratified it.

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

You are kidding right? Ireland has been referred over and over by the EU; this was in the news 3 days ago...
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/government-faces-4m-fine-for-failing-to-implement-eu-directives-184165.html

The European Commission is seeking to levy a once-off fine of €4m against the Government for its failure to ensure that proper environmental assessments are being carried out on Irish farming and fish farming projects

Environment: Commission takes Ireland back to court over septic tanks and asks for a fine
A year and a half after a previous Court ruling, Ireland has still not adopted the necessary measures to ensure that septic tanks go through adequate checks and inspections in order to protect human health and the environment. On the recommendation of Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik, the Commission is therefore referring Ireland back to the EU Court of Justice and asking the Court to impose a lump-sum fine of €2.7 million and a daily penalty payment of € 26,173.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/592&format=HTML
The European Commission is taking Ireland back to the European Court of Justice, with the possibility of fines, for failing to implement an earlier ruling on quality standards for shellfish waters on the Irish coast. The Commission proposes to ask the Court to impose a lump-sum fine of over €3.8 million and a daily penalty payment of nearly €40,000.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1647&format=HTML

Environment: Commission seeks fines against Ireland for not adopting legislation to protect countryside heritage

The European Commission is taking Ireland back to the European Court of Justice for failing to implement an earlier ruling concerning developments that may harm the natural and man-made heritage of the countryside. Two years after the judgment, Ireland has still not adopted legislation to address the issue. On the recommendation of Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik, the Commission is referring the case back to Court and asking it to impose a lump-sum fine of more than €4000 per day for the period between the first Court ruling and the second Court ruling and a daily penalty payment of more than €33,000 per day for each day after the second Court ruling until the infringement ends.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/168&format=HTML

Environment: Commission asks Ireland to comply with court ruling on waste, welcomes closure of two other cases
The European Commission is asking Ireland to comply with a ruling by the EU's Court of Justice regarding waste disposal. While good progress has been made in some instances, more action is needed in areas such as construction waste and end-of-life vehicles. If the necessary actions were not taken, the Commission may take Ireland back to Court and request financial penalties. The Commission welcomed measures taken by Ireland to comply with a Court ruling on the protection of certain vulnerable areas and Natura 2000 sites, as well as environmental impact assessments, and has closed infringement cases on both topics.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1257&format=HTML

Ireland: Commission sends final warning over four breaches of environmental law; closes two cases
The European Commission is sending a final warning to Ireland over four cases where it has failed to comply with European Court of Justice rulings concerning illegal development and developments that may harm the natural and man-made heritage of the countryside, access to the Irish courts and protection of marine mammals. If the necessary steps are not taken, the Commission could refer the cases back to the Court and ask for fines to be imposed.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/313&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The Europa site searched on Ireland +court +environment gives 136,000 results.

Ireland has an absolutely woeful record in environmental protection.

Given the detailed nature of environmental law, I see nothing in these that shows a disregard for the environment. The setting of thresholds, the ability to cost-effectively access the courts, these are technical measures. Some of the others relate to Court judgments where the state thought in good faith it was in compliance but a Court ruled otherwise.

As far as I can see, these are all relatively minor technical matters and have no bearing on whether the Shell development as currently being carried out is legal or not.

most other EU countreis have similar outstanding issues.

Hayte

oscarBravo wrote: »

So the state, for no particularly good reason, has decided to use a totally peaceful protest as an excuse to pay out millions in Garda overtime?

I think it's clear we have no basis for a sensible discussion here. Nice talking with you.

You are begging the question. Premise: the gardai get paid millions in overtime. Conclusion: therefore the protesters must not be peaceful.

I acknowledged that Maura Harrington was not a peaceful protester. By all accounts she was something of a firebrand. I made a case for the idea that civil disobedience must be protected as a means of correcting unjust law and government policy, as long as it is a public, non violent, conscientious breach of those laws. If so, I believe an argument can be made that the only direct victim is the protester who suffers as a result of an unjust law. I don't see a case being made that civil disobedience is itself criminal.

But the next question is - how much of the Shell to Sea protest movement is like Maura Harrington? How many of protestors are not civil disobedients worthy of protection due to the use of violence?

I ask this because it seems as if the entire movement is being tarred with the same brush. Where a minority group of unruly protesters comes to symbolize all protesters (i.e. black bloc).

for a summary of some of the environmental impact and safety issues, I've found this to be one of the more substantial third party reports. I'd like to see the planning documentation and reports commissioned by Shell if at all possible, but I'm not sure where to look.

If theres one thing I get from that article, it is the necessity of local objection. Because if you don't object, you don't even need to imagine the clusterf*** that would have been built. It lists what outcomes are possible if the local population did not have a say in reshaping the route of the pipeline.

Godge

Hayte wrote: »

for a summary of some of the environmental impact and safety issues, I've found this to be one of the more substantial third party reports. I'd like to see the planning documentation and reports commissioned by Shell if at all possible, but I'm not sure where to look.

If theres one thing I get from that article, it is the necessity of local objection. Because if you don't object, you don't even need to imagine the clusterf*** that would have been built. It lists what outcomes are possible if the local population did not have a say in reshaping the route of the pipeline.

If there are two things I check with third party reports to discover relevance it is (1) date and (2) background and previous publications. In relation to your report, the following is the information:

(1) 2008
(2) see below, can't find any other publications by Kat Salter, I will let posters draw their own conclusions based on their backgrounds.

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

You do know the difference between signature of an international treaty and ratification of an international treaty.

Patronise much?

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/AarhusMap.html

Of 45 states signing only 3 of the original signatories have failed to ratify - Switzerland (canton system makes it very difficult) Iceland (I believe Iceland made the final step in 20 October 2011) and Ireland - notably and shamefully the only EU state that has failed to ratify.

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

Patronise much?

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/AarhusMap.html

Of 45 states signing only 3 of the original signatories have failed to ratify - Switzerland (canton system makes it very difficult) Iceland (I believe Iceland made the final step in 20 October 2011) and Ireland - notably and shamefully the only EU state that has failed to ratify.

wow, 45, and nobody outside of the Eurasian landmass, really a wothwhile worldwide treaty.


Like a nuclear ban treaty without Russia, US, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iran and North Korea, what use is an environmental treaty without China, India, US, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Mexico and sub-Saharan countries. All of the fuss over Aarhus is a fuss about very little.

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

wow, 45, and nobody outside of the Eurasian landmass, really a wothwhile worldwide treaty.


Like a nuclear ban treaty without Russia, US, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, Iran and North Korea, what use is an environmental treaty without China, India, US, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Mexico and sub-Saharan countries. All of the fuss over Aarhus is a fuss about very little.

It was a EU based treaty that is spreading in adoption, are you just trying to be provocative?

Point I am making is that Ireland is the only EU country to have failed to ratify it after 14 years. Are you disputing that?

MadsL

Godge wrote: »

most other EU countreis have similar outstanding issues.

Oh, well because you say so. Let's not let any facts obscure our view...



Figure 1: Total number of EU environmental infringement proceedings (under Articles 258 and 260 TFEU) open against each EU Member State as at the end of 2007 and 2009. Member States ranked from highest number of open cases to lowest using the figures for 2009. Based on European Commission 2008 and European Commission 2010.





Figure 2: Number of EU environmental infringement proceedings open under Article 260 TFEU (proceedings for fines to enforce earlier ECJ judgment) against EU Member States as at the end of 2007 and 2009. Member States ranked from highest number of open cases to lowest using the figures for 2009. Based on European Commission 2008 and European Commission 2010.

In other words, of the 27 EU Member States, not only did Ireland have the third highest total number of EU environmental cases to defend at the end of 2009, it was the worst performer by some distance in terms of meeting its obligations after a breach had been confirmed by the ECJ.

Given Ireland’s relative size, these figures are staggering. As the European Commission points out, Germany and Ireland are two exceptions to the general rule that larger Member States typically have a larger caseload, the former having many fewer cases than one would expect, the latter many more (European Commission 2010). But more worrying than the bare statistics is the year-on-year trend. For the period to the end of 2007 - shortly after the Fianna Fáil/Green Party coalition came to power - Ireland was dealing with 34 environmental infringement cases overall (still 34 at the end of 2009), and 10 cases at the second stage (14 cases at the end of 2009, 12 now). In contrast, most of the other generally poor environmental performers have improved their positions over the same period. Italy, for example, has cut its overall caseload from 60 cases at the end of 2007 to 35 cases at the end of 2009; at the second stage (proceedings for fines), its caseload has halved from 18 cases to 9 over the same period.

Source - Andrew Jackson, Department of Geography, TCD - Atlas (2010), TCD’s annual Geographical Journal.

Cited at http://www.irishenvironment.com/irishenvironment/articles/Entries/2010/6/1_Andrew_L.R._Jackson,_The_Emerald_Isle_Irelands_environmental_compliance_record_in_cross-EU_terms.html

Godge

MadsL wrote: »

It was a EU based treaty that is spreading in adoption, are you just trying to be provocative?

Point I am making is that Ireland is the only EU country to have failed to ratify it after 14 years. Are you disputing that?

Spreading in adoption? After 14 years they still haven't managed to get any significant country outside of EU influence to sign the thing?

MadsL

Spreading in adoption? After 14 years they still haven't managed to get any significant country outside of EU influence to sign the thing?

Good strawman, now let's get back to discussing Ireland's record on compliance with EU Environmental Law and the fact that they are the only EU state not to have ratified.

joela

Hayte

If you go to www.mayococo.ie and use the search function for Corrib Gas Pipeline a whole host of documents are returned e.g. http://www.mayococo.ie/Planning/CorribGasOnshoreUpstreamPipeline/Environmental%20Monitoring%20Programme%20July%202011/EMP_Main%20Document.pdf and http://www.mayococo.ie/Planning/CorribGasOnshoreUpstreamPipeline/Offshore%20Supplementary%20Update%20Report%202010/2010%20Technical%20Appendices/Appendix%207-1%20Offshore%20Pipeline%20Survey%20Report%202007.pdf

Hayte

joela wrote: »

Hayte

If you go to www.mayococo.ie and use the search function for Corrib Gas Pipeline a whole host of documents are returned e.g. http://www.mayococo.ie/Planning/CorribGasOnshoreUpstreamPipeline/Environmental%20Monitoring%20Programme%20July%202011/EMP_Main%20Document.pdf and http://www.mayococo.ie/Planning/CorribGasOnshoreUpstreamPipeline/Offshore%20Supplementary%20Update%20Report%202010/2010%20Technical%20Appendices/Appendix%207-1%20Offshore%20Pipeline%20Survey%20Report%202007.pdf

Thanks. One of the good things about a 1.5 hour commute into and out of work is having 3 hours of reading time every day. Woot

joela

Well there is plenty there I can tell you!! Enjoy

oscarBravo

Hayte wrote: »

You are begging the question. Premise: the gardai get paid millions in overtime. Conclusion: therefore the protesters must not be peaceful.

Occam's Razor in action. If you have a simpler explanation for why the state feels the need to spend millions on policing a protest, I'm all ears.

Hayte

oscarBravo wrote: »

Occam's Razor in action. If you have a simpler explanation for why the state feels the need to spend millions on policing a protest, I'm all ears.

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.