Shell meets Boards.ie - a protest? (naive rant herewithin)

RE*AC*TOR

Boards.ie - Ireland's largest online community. Do we have a purpose beyond meeting for beer, giving computer advice and selling mobile phones to each other?

At the time of writing this there are about 400 other people on the site. This will go up and down as the day goes on.

5 men were jailed last night for contempt of court, by blocking a shell gas pipeline going through their land in Mayo. This is an outrage. I won't go into how the government has decided to hand over our natural resources to this big multinational - without looking for royalties. I won't go into Shell's past abuses, or how these people have genuine concerns over the risk at running this pipeline through their community. Once more in Ireland, the almighty dollar rules the roost and we the public carry on with or daily lives - not really giving a toss. It doesn't directly affect us - so why bother?

If boards.ie can have one purpose, bigger than itself - this is it. We have a powerful resource if we choose to use it. With our network, I propose we could block every shell garage in Dublin and beyond. I propose in concert we take our cars, motorbikes, bicycles and ourselves to our local garages. We obstruct the pumps and the entrances to the garages. A simple A4 sheet in solidarity with the 5 men will get the message across.

After all - this is our country... for now at least... we can have a say... if we WANT to. It remains to be seen if the public in general (or this niche community) really cares beyond themselves.

RE*AC*TOR

Nuttzz

it was contempt of court which means they ignored a court order. for them to have ignored a court order they would have had to have been in court before to present their case. Just because they arent happy with the result of a court case doesnt mean they can flout the court order.

I could run over a tot in my car and get banned from driving but just because I wasnt happy with the ban does that mean I can drive.

These 5 are free to leave jail as soon as they purge their contempt, so they could be out this morning if they so desired.

RE*AC*TOR

Ah yes, the old God asking Abraham to kill his son Isaac.

Just as Abraham should have told God to sod off, these men are correct in standing up for their principle. Their contempt is justified.

oscarBravo

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, I'm with Nuttzz on this one. I've always maintained that contempt of court should be considered one of the most serious offences there is; if it were not, what authority do courts have?

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I won't go into how the government has decided to hand over our natural resources to this big multinational - without looking for royalties. I won't go into Shell's past abuses, or how these people have genuine concerns over the risk at running this pipeline through their community.

That's where I think you're going wrong. You're directing your ire in the wrong direction, as so often happens in these cases. Remember, these men are not in jail because they don't want the pipeline through their land, they're in jail because they're in contempt of court. All they have to do to get out is to agree to pursue their concerns in a legal manner. It shouldn't be a lot to ask.

For the record, I agree with you: the government sold the country - and Mayo in particular - down the river where this gas is concerned.

RE*AC*TOR

oscarBravo wrote:

Remember, these men are not in jail because they don't want the pipeline through their land, they're in jail because they're in contempt of court. All they have to do to get out is to agree to pursue their concerns in a legal manner. It shouldn't be a lot to ask.

Pursuing their concerns in a legal manner won't necessarily stop this pipeline from being built through their land. However, obstructing it will.

When the courts are wrong contempt is healthy. And let me remind you, judges are only human. They make bad decisions like everyone else.

oscarBravo

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Pursuing their concerns in a legal manner won't necessarily stop this pipeline from being built through their land. However, obstructing it will.

...which is precisely why there's a court order preventing them from obstructing it. Which is why they're in jail, not obstructing it - in other words the construction will go ahead in their absence. It's not merely illegal, it's counter-productive.

Lest anyone be under any illusions that it's a case of Ireland versus Shell, there's a lot of controversy in Mayo over this pipeline. There are at least as many supporters as opponents.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

When the courts are wrong contempt is healthy. And let me remind you, judges are only human. They make bad decisions like everyone else.

That's what higher courts are for. Taking the law into your own hands simply can't be tolerated in a civilised society.

Nuttzz

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

When the courts are wrong contempt is healthy. And let me remind you, judges are only human. They make bad decisions like everyone else.

fine, but where does it stop? Who decides the court is wrong? Higher courts. Just because you dont like the decision doesnt mean you cant flout it. Can I physically block the establishment of pay and display parking outside my house, can I physically block the introduction of a new QBC on my road because I object to them.

seamus

oscarBravo wrote:

Remember, these men are not in jail because they don't want the pipeline through their land, they're in jail because they're in contempt of court. All they have to do to get out is to agree to pursue their concerns in a legal manner. It shouldn't be a lot to ask.

Yerp. This has nothing to do with how Shell are a big evil corporation, and these guys are just salt-of-the-earth farmers, trying to make a living even though they're awful poor and just decent guys. :rolleyes:

They broke the law, they were jailed. Shocking.

toiletduck

havent had enough time to read up on this in detail as i've been prety busy, but it seems to me it's just another case of N.I.M.B.Y. and blaming the oil companies for everything.

RE*AC*TOR

Nuttzz wrote:

fine, but where does it stop? Who decides the court is wrong? Higher courts. Just because you dont like the decision doesnt mean you cant flout it. Can I physically block the establishment of pay and display parking outside my house, can I physically block the introduction of a new QBC on my road because I object to them.

yes, yes you can. Its called Civil Disobediance. Its how things used to get done before people's lives were filled with inane distractions.

Nuttzz

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

yes, yes you can. Its called Civil Disobediance. Its how things used to get done before people's lives were filled with inane distractions.

but if i engage in civil disobediance I have to take responsibility for the consequences of my actions, which would probably eventually land me in the clink, and who could I blame? big business? oppressive government? perhaps but really the reason i'd be inside would be because of my own actions.

As I said earlier they could be out this morning if they so desired

RE*AC*TOR

Nuttzz wrote:

As I said earlier they could be out this morning if they so desired

and instead they choose to stand by their convictions... the bastards! :rolleyes:

my point is - this is our country - we have the power to change it when the system fails. The system HAS failed in this case. These men shouldn't have to curtsy to shell. We (as a society) should care, and when we see an injustice - we should act.

However, we will instead hide behind our seemingly set-in-stone laws that are always right and say boohoo to anyone inconvenienced (as long as its not us).

CiaranC

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

It remains to be seen if the public in general (or this niche community) really cares beyond themselves.

Its perfectly clear from the responses here already that people dont care beyond themselves. Anyone who opposes the government allowing corporations to built on their land is a criminal, a whingebag or a NIMBY.

Very few people will give a toss, until perhaps it comes to their turn, and then no-one will give a toss about them in turn.

You might as well give up before you start.

bonkey

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Pursuing their concerns in a legal manner won't necessarily stop this pipeline from being built through their land.

Correct. It will only do so if they can eventually convince the court that the government acted inappropriately in relation to Irish law in how they have built this pipe.

However, obstructing it will.

How do you make that out?

They tried obstructing it, and got thrown in jail. Their being in jail is at least a factor in why you started this thread, cause the pipeline nor the case itself is new....just these guys getting jailed.

So how will these men being in jail stop the pipeline being built? How will it even offer a greater chance of the pipeline being stopped, compared to the possibility that the legal avenue could offer.

jc

toiletduck

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0630/mayo.html

who are objecting to the pipeline for health and safety reasons.

the age old cry of the NIMBY...

RE*AC*TOR

This is very doable...

Shell
Irish Air Corps
IRL - BALDONNELL

Parnell Self-Service (distance: 1.2 mi)
Parnell Road
IRL - Dublin 12 D6


Kilmainham Self Serve (distance: 1.4 mi)
"S C R, Kilmainham"
IRL - Dublin 8 D8


East Link Self Serve (distance: 1.8 mi)
East Wall Road
IRL - Dublin 1 D1
Tel: 353

Friarsland Filling Station (distance: 2.2 mi)
"Roebuck Rd, Clonskeagh"
IRL - Dublin 14 D14
Tel: 353

Donnybrook Self Serve (distance: 2.4 mi)
Donnybrook
IRL - Dublin 4 D4
Tel: 353

Taney Service Station (distance: 2.4 mi)
"Taney Rd, Dundrum"
IRL - Dublin 14 D14
Tel: 353

Mulhuddart Self Serve (distance: 2.5 mi)
"Navan Rd, Mulhuddart"
IRL - Dublin 15 D15
Tel: 353

Glasnevin Service Station (distance: 2.5 mi)
"Finglas Rd, Glasnevin"
IRL - Dublin 11 D11
Tel: 353

Clontarf Road
IRL - Dublin 3 D3
Tel: 353

bonkey

CiaranC wrote:

Its perfectly clear from the responses here already that people dont care beyond themselves.

How is only looking after oneself to say that first and foremost, one needs to respect the law in order to expect sympathy in getting the law to help in one's cause ? Because thats what most people are saying here.

Anyone who opposes the government allowing corporations to built on their land is a criminal, a whingebag or a NIMBY.

There's been one comment along those lines. The rest have been that anyone who breaks the law is a criminal, and that they don't believe that breaking the law is the right way to fight this fight. But if you'd prefer to cast those who don't fully agree with you in such a negative light...please...don't let me stop you from trying to convince others that your side is right because you'll just insult those who disagree.

Very few people will give a toss, until perhaps it comes to their turn, and then no-one will give a toss about them in turn.

You might as well give up before you start.

It is notable that there hadn't been any discussion about the pipeline, the objections, or any of it in here until these guys got thrown in jail. The people looking to drum up support for the opposition of this pipeline didn't see fit to raise the issue in here.....but now its our fault because we're not interested enough to suddenly side with them when someone comes all enraged that people who broke the law got jailed for it.

If thats the right way to approach garnering support in your book, then I'd agree - you really might as well give up before you start.

I would have thought a logical presentation on why the pipeline should be opposed, as well as some discourse perhaps on explaining why these men felt they had no option but to risk incarceration would be a minimum precursor to expecting anyone to support such a cause...because they need to know where the cause is coming from....but what do I know.

jc

RE*AC*TOR

bonkey wrote:

Correct. It will only do so if they can eventually convince the court that the government acted inappropriately in relation to Irish law in how they have built this pipe.

eventually... when its built.

bonkey wrote:

How do you make that out?

They tried obstructing it, and got thrown in jail. Their being in jail is at least a factor in why you started this thread, cause the pipeline nor the case itself is new....just these guys getting jailed.

So how will these men being in jail stop the pipeline being built? How will it even offer a greater chance of the pipeline being stopped, compared to the possibility that the legal avenue could offer.

jc

They used the tools at their disposal. The legal avenue in reality would not have prevented the pipeline being built. Perhaps being martyred for their cause may have the desired effect in the long run. Either way - it has highlighted this case in a way that filing an appeal could never do.

egan007

Shell got compulsory purchase orders for the farmers land!!!!!

A private company company having the right to come in and take the land?
This has never been granted in the history of the state.
I smell huge wads "WADS" of cash.

If the state has interests here this changes the perspective.
But the state have a big fat 0 to make out of this - it's all shell profit.

Disgrace Disgrace Disgrace
But unsupprising in our current regime

toiletduck

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Either way - it has highlighted this case in a way that filing an appeal could never do.

i agree, i hadn't heard about it til now. the main issue of contention seems to be that some of the locals want the terminal built offshore but shell say that offshore weather conditions would endanger workers safety and so have decided to build inland.

Nuttzz

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

This is very doable...

Shell
Irish Air Corps
IRL - BALDONNELL


Clontarf Road
IRL - Dublin 3 D3
Tel: 353

Your going to picket a military installation? What will that do?

Clontraf roads has been closed for a while now and in any case shell will be gone in a few weeks (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=273587)

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

and instead they choose to stand by their convictions... the bastards!

fair play to them, but if it lands them in prision that the decision they make.

whippet

'The system HAS failed in this case. These men shouldn't have to curtsy to shell. We (as a society) should care, and when we see an injustice - we should act.'

Reactor ... this is a very strong statement and I would appriciate if you could substantiate it.

I havn't been privy to the intriciate details of the case but I believe that all over the world there are gas pipes feeding to peoples homes and businesses.

Contempt of court is next to treason as far as I am concerned, there are very atainable judicial structures in place for anyone with an appeal to a district or circurt court judge, even as far as europe.

What sickened me last night was listening to the sensationalism of the press describing the 'prisioners' as Fathers and bread winning husbands etc .. there a many husbands and father in prision all over the country .. and these have the luxury of being in a position to return to their bread winning and father of the year status with a simple promise.

RE*AC*TOR

whippet wrote:

'The system HAS failed in this case. These men shouldn't have to curtsy to shell. We (as a society) should care, and when we see an injustice - we should act.'

Reactor ... this is a very strong statement and I would appriciate if you could substantiate it.

The system of government we currently have including the Dáil and the judiciary has failed in this circumstance. It has failed in the respect of TRUE justice. Once the court order was given - and the men disobeyed it - there was nothing that could be done. However, this all started with a very bad decision by the government to hand over one of our natural resources to a private interest for nothing. This is a failure of the system. All subsequent failures arose from this.

To a large extent laws will always fail. However, laws can be changed and when they are shown to be wrong they should and need to be changed. However, in times of ambivalence and self-serving attitudes our society is choosing to turn a blind eye to this need.

Is that clear?

whippet wrote:

I havn't been privy to the intriciate details of the case but I believe that all over the world there are gas pipes feeding to peoples homes and businesses.

Contempt of court is next to treason as far as I am concerned, there are very atainable judicial structures in place for anyone with an appeal to a district or circurt court judge, even as far as europe.

Contempt of court is a valid and necessary part of our govenrment system. However, as I have said in the presence of failure of the system - contempt is justified. This is my opinion.

whippet wrote:

What sickened me last night was listening to the sensationalism of the press describing the 'prisioners' as Fathers and bread winning husbands etc .. there a many husbands and father in prision all over the country .. and these have the luxury of being in a position to return to their bread winning and father of the year status with a simple promise.

and to give up their principles... I'm amazed that people find this so extraordinary. They must be crazy - all they have to do is geneflect at the alter of money and they can carry on with their lives. Where do I sign up? Can i do it now?

RE*AC*TOR

Nuttzz wrote:

Your going to picket a military installation? What will that do?

Clontraf roads has been closed for a while now and in any case shell will be gone in a few weeks (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=273587)

What will any protest do? It will highlight further the injustice (as I see it).
Shell forecourts might be gone in a few weeks, but shell (it appears) will be here for a long time.

Nuttzz wrote:

fair play to them, but if it lands them in prision that the decision they make.

That was the decision they made. However, in respect of this I believe that the true injustice has been dealt to them (an us as a larger society) for all the reasons outlined above.

whippet

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

The system of government we currently have including the Dáil and the judiciary has failed in this circumstance. It has failed in the respect of TRUE justice. Once the court order was given - and the men disobeyed it - there was nothing that could be done. However, this all started with a very bad decision by the government to hand over one of our natural resources to a private interest for nothing. This is a failure of the system. All subsequent failures arose from this.

To a large extent laws will always fail. However, laws can be changed and when they are shown to be wrong they should and need to be changed. However, in times of ambivalence and self-serving attitudes our society is choosing to turn a blind eye to this need.

Is that clear?

Actually it is not clear at all, could you please articulate why the Gas Line should not run though these particular streches of land?

As with any CPO there has to be a reason for it, I would like to hear the argument against it, so far all I can get is NIMBY and Big Business rules ! Rubbish, who else will extract the gas .. Duchas? or maybe the crowd running the Aquatic Centre. Public opinion is very much favourable towards letting Private enterprise to take on large tasks as our public sector is far to prone to massive cost over runs.

RE*AC*TOR

whippet wrote:

Actually it is not clear at all, could you please articulate why the Gas Line should not run though these particular streches of land?

the number one reason (in my view) [from indymedia]:

From 1975 for oil and gas companies there was a tax rate of 50%, an automatic 50% state stake in any commercial well, and royalties of 6 %– 7%.


In 1987, after lobbying by the companies, Ray Burke got rid of the 50% state stake and removed royalties.

In 1992 after further lobbying Bobby Molloy reduced the tax rate to 25% and 100% tax write offs were introduced, meaning that the companies can subtract their costs from their tax bill.

We (ireland) are essentially handing Shell money.

Safety concerns:

This is an unprecedented development, normally up stream pipelines of untreated gas do not go over land.
The gas pipeline also has adjoining pipelines carrying hydraulic fluid, cleansing acids, and a waste pipe.
There will also be electric cables.
This is a high pressure pipeline, 345 bar pressure for the gas, 610 bar pressure for the acids and hydraulic fluid.
It is untreated, that is, odourless, without the added smell for detecting leaks.
This is not the normal run of the mill gas pipeline.
In Kinsale the gas is refined at sea, piped ashore at a much lower pressure and odorised.
The biggest Bord Gais pipelines, in the so-called Transmission network, bringing the gas cross-country or overseas, run at 16 – 70 bar pressure.
This development is so unprecedented the relevant legislation and regulations assumes its non-existence, that is, it applies to off shore upstream pipelines and to on land ones of around the levels of pressure used by Bord Gais.
The large pressure is necessary as the pipeline is actually pumping the gas straight out of the field, normally this process takes place completely at sea.
This pipeline will pass by peoples’ houses and by villages.
It is being built through a bog where there have been landslides.

whippet

reactor ... I would probably agree with the issue of tax cuts, however if the tax saving were not there shell would have no interest and the gas would never be moved, or give enployment to the area.. similar to the IT companies.

With regards to the list that you have given .. I still can't see where the risks are, you have quoted pressures and the like which mean nothing to most people. I am fully confident that shell are quite capable of mining and refining gas safely and securely and that their engineers are best placed to ensure that no explosions or leaks occur.

bonkey

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

They used the tools at their disposal.

No, they used some of the tools at their disposal. They could have taken a legal avenue, but chose not to.

They were not out of legal options, they just made the decision - rightly or wrongly - that even if the law backed them up it would be too late.

Of course, tehy traded that uncertainty for - as you yourself admit - nothing but an aspiration that their "martyrdom" would make a difference.

So they traded the legal-but-uncertain avenue for the illegal-but-uncertain avenue. Why should I respect this?

More importantly, look at how you started the thread :

5 men were jailed last night for contempt of court, by blocking a shell gas pipeline going through their land in Mayo. This is an outrage.

It is nto outrageous that anyone is thrown in jail for being in contempt of court. It may be outrageous that the mandatory purchase orders were agreed to, or that the injunction was ever granted, but it was not outrageous that they be thrown in jail for carrying out a protest which they knew in advance would be illegal.

It would have been even more outrageous had they not been imprisoned. There is a clear distinction between the decisions of our government and the fucntioning of our legal system. Our government may have made a bad decision wrt this pipeline (I don't know...its such a "big" deal, I've seen nothing about it and heard nothing about it before this thread), but the remedy to that is not to suggest that our legal system be run in just as slip-shod a manner and that we ignore flouting of the law because an unknown percentage of the mob are making noises about how wrong it is.

At the end of the day, I've still to see a single reference to information - just people offering their take on what has happened, and there's already disagreement there. From that perspective, the rights or wrongs wrt: Shell and whether or not they should have had this contract is not something I feel in a position to comment on. You can insist its wrong, unjust, scandalous, criminal, or whatever you like, but while all I have is your outrage, I think I'll stay where I am on the fence regarding who's right and wrong on that one.

However, regarding the "poor" farmers. They should have been treated exactly as they were. The law must be upheld, or punishment for breaking it accepted, even when arguing against the policy that the law is enforcing. Policy and law are entirely seperate issues, and suggesting one should be ignored because the other is failing is only going to serve to bring us the lowest common denominator.

jc

RE*AC*TOR

whippet wrote:

reactor ... I would probably agree with the issue of tax cuts, however if the tax saving were not there shell would have no interest and the gas would never be moved, or give enployment to the area.. similar to the IT companies.

With regards to the list that you have given .. I still can't see where the risks are, you have quoted pressures and the like which mean nothing to most people. I am fully confident that shell are quite capable of mining and refining gas safely and securely and that their engineers are best placed to ensure that no explosions or leaks occur.

High pressure means if there's a problem there is a potential for high explosion. i think most people understand that simple principle. What are you basing your confidence of Shell on? They have a long history of leaks, contamination of land, damaging the environment. All you have to do is check google - there are plenty of stories.

I don't want to get personal - but like your previous comment...

"As with any CPO there has to be a reason for it"

....it is clear you have you head firmly in the sand on this one. There is no state interest in this development. Some politicians made some nice money in the past and sold us out. Yes some jobs will be created. That is about the only bonus. However, Shell, Statoil and Marathon Oil have a history of not employing Irish rig workers.

landser

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

The system of government we currently have including the Dáil and the judiciary has failed in this circumstance. It has failed in the respect of TRUE justice. Once the court order was given - and the men disobeyed it - there was nothing that could be done. However, this all started with a very bad decision by the government to hand over one of our natural resources to a private interest for nothing. This is a failure of the system. All subsequent failures arose from this.

To a large extent laws will always fail. However, laws can be changed and when they are shown to be wrong they should and need to be changed. However, in times of ambivalence and self-serving attitudes our society is choosing to turn a blind eye to this need.

Is that clear?

Contempt of court is a valid and necessary part of our govenrment system. However, as I have said in the presence of failure of the system - contempt is justified. This is my opinion.

so, by your logic, if the law fails to agree with your opinion, the law is obviously wrong and you are then justified in breaking the laws of the state in pursuing an illegal protest against their decision and if you are punished by that state for that protest this only enforces your opinion that the state was wrong in the first place becuase it is wrong again in punishing you??!!

hmmm, i see...

RE*AC*TOR

bonkey wrote:

No, they used some of the tools at their disposal. They could have taken a legal avenue, but chose not to.

ok now you are being pedantic. IMO they used the best tools for the job. Why pursue action through the same system that has basically told them to go f*ck off? The civil disobedience route has brought them greater exposure and probably will give them the best chance of having obtaining some sort of real justice, at the expense for now of their liberty.

bonkey wrote:

More importantly, look at how you started the thread :

bonkey wrote:

It is nto outrageous that anyone is thrown in jail for being in contempt of court. It may be outrageous that the mandatory purchase orders were agreed to, or that the injunction was ever granted, but it was not outrageous that they be thrown in jail for carrying out a protest which they knew in advance would be illegal.

It would have been even more outrageous had they not been imprisoned.

I agree with your point - however, I did mean that the whole process up to then had been and outrage - the act of sending them to jail for contempt in itslef was largely inevitable and therefore not outrageous - true.

bonkey wrote:

There is a clear distinction between the decisions of our government and the fucntioning of our legal system.

who makes the laws?

bonkey wrote:

Our government may have made a bad decision wrt this pipeline (I don't know...its such a "big" deal, I've seen nothing about it and heard nothing about it before this thread), but the remedy to that is not to suggest that our legal system be run in just as slip-shod a manner and that we ignore flouting of the law because an unknown percentage of the mob are making noises about how wrong it is.

my point is - the rest of us should also be making noise. Laws do change, and ultimately it is we (the people) who make them. Laws regarding public safety and sale (or giving away) of state assets need to be looked at.

RE*AC*TOR

landser wrote:

so, by your logic, if the law fails to agree with your opinion, the law is obviously wrong and you are then justified in breaking the laws of the state in pursuing an illegal protest against their decision and if you are punished by that state for that protest this only enforces your opinion that the state was wrong in the first place becuase it is wrong again in punishing you??!!

hmmm, i see...

Ok let me be clear - i am not trying to question the law of Contempt of Court. Try to look at the bigger picture here. I am sayign that these men were right to break that law in an act of Civil Disobedience in the face of goverment corruption and disregard for public safety.

It is up to us (should we choose) to voice our concerns at these issues.

Meh

I don't know about the rights and wrongs of the pipeline itself, but it seems self-evident to me that Shell, a private company, should not be allowed use private land without the consent of the landowners. Seizing private land for public projects like roads is one thing, seizing it for the use of a private company is unacceptable. If Shell can't get the consent of the farmers who own the land, then that's Shell's problem.

As for the other points, civil disobedience is a valid form of protest, but don't whine when you suffer the consequences of that disobedience. If you're willing to break the law (for whatever reason), you shouldn't act all surprised when you get jailed.

egan007

What the hell is wrong with you people - this is not a Contempt of Court issue.
A profit hungry company has put your fellow country men in Jail because they got in their way.

Take any route you want - add all the bells and whistles - but this is the bottom line.

Take a step back and use your brain - Just tink about it and who shell are.

You don't have to be right all the time - the MAN can be wrong you know

steviec

Getting themselves arrested seems like a good tactic to me. They've brought the media's attention to whats going on and it means the government are more likely to give it more discussion. Going the legal route wouldn't have got them anywhere.

I don't know enough details yet to say who's right or wrong in the case but I can definitely see the reasoning of the farmers, if they believe their right then turning themselves into Martyrs is probably one of the better ways to get their point across.

whippet

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Ok let me be clear - i am not trying to question the law of Contempt of Court. Try to look at the bigger picture here. I am sayign that these men were right to break that law in an act of Civil Disobedience in the face of goverment corruption and disregard for public safety.

It is up to us (should we choose) to voice our concerns at these issues.

is there any proof of corruption, if so please share it with us otherwise that is a slanderous statement.

I would have more confidence in shell operating an inland refinery than anything that would be run by the public sector or have you another alternative?

Maybe the government decided that the tax breaks were an adaquate trade off for the employment that will be generated and all other ancillary economic benefits to the area. Government are always being accused of not supporting industry in the regions, when they do they are corrupt! logical.

Also could you please substanciate the statement about shell not employing local workers.

For the record, I have no affilliation with government, shell or any other interested party, I just can't stand unfounded 'protesting for the sake of protesting' and 'fight the system' hysteria.

egan007

whippet wrote:

is there any proof of corruption, if so please share it with us otherwise that is a slanderous statement. .

Are you seroius?
How about this for a believeable scenario - of the top of my head.

Oil is staying up -that's a fact it's not going to go down - there is just not enough left.
People will soon start complaining about the high price and suggest that the gov reduce duty on fuel. The gov can't win here as If they do they will face a back lash from the green side, they will also suffer from reduced revenue.

A 'gentlemans' agreement between the biggest oil company and the irish government to 'keep stable' fule prices in the Irish market for - say 10 years. in return you get your purchase orders.

Is that so unbelieveable?

Indeed a statement like yours 'is there any proof of corruption' is very naieve

RE*AC*TOR

whippet wrote:

is there any proof of corruption, if so please share it with us otherwise that is a slanderous statement.

:eek: you have got to be joking me? The state - with no interest in this development (ie we get no money back from giving away our asset) GIVES Shell our gas, and over 400 acres of Coilte land for nothing.

Oh and by the way, they also run fund-raisers for and are donators to Fianna Fáil. But that's not related.

I've already mentioned Ray Burke and the changing of tax and royalty laws for these companies. I assume you know who Ray Burke is, and I don't need to go any further? To suggest that he might be involved in shenaningans would not be a stretch.

whippet wrote:

I would have more confidence in shell operating an inland refinery than anything that would be run by the public sector or have you another alternative?

Shell only has responsibility to its shareholders. A public sector company would have responsibility to all of us. Another alternative seeing as how we are getting nothing from this would be to leave the gas where it is for now, until we have a competent government to properly manage it.

whippet wrote:

Maybe the government decided that the tax breaks were an adaquate trade off for the employment that will be generated and all other ancillary economic benefits to the area. Government are always being accused of not supporting industry in the regions, when they do they are corrupt! logical.

maybe? yeah - maybe they did. No 1 I think they would be hugely undervaluing the asset and No 2 I'm not naive enough to believe that. In the face of all the tribunals and all the revelations of corruption - why do people have such a hard time believing that the government might be selling us off to whomever lines THEIR pockets?

whippet wrote:

Also could you please substanciate the statement about shell not employing local workers.

its fairly moot in regard to the larger picture - but here you go anyway...

indymedia wrote:

The deal is the pipelines after the refinery, running to Dublin and Scotland, will be constructed by the state, that is, Bord Gais, while a good deal of infrastructure, new roads and bridges is already being built by the state, i.e. Mayo County Council. Some of the gas, that which is not exported, will then be purchased back by the state.

These companies have a track record of not employing Irish rig workers.

whippet wrote:

For the record, I have no affilliation with government, shell or any other interested party, I just can't stand unfounded 'protesting for the sake of protesting' and 'fight the system' hysteria.

or perhaps your cynicism is so strong that you cannot see that this really is an injustice. Sometimes the system is wrong.

landser

Meh wrote:

I don't know about the rights and wrongs of the pipeline itself, but it seems self-evident to me that Shell, a private company, should not be allowed use private land without the consent of the landowners. Seizing private land for public projects like roads is one thing, seizing it for the use of a private company is unacceptable. If Shell can't get the consent of the farmers who own the land, then that's Shell's problem.

.

this is the purpose of a Compulsory Purchase Order, otherwise one person could hold up projects of national importance. While it may a private developer, the pipeline is seen as a benefit to the state (whether you agree with this statement or not is not relevant to the function of a CPO) therefore approval for the CPO is given. there is noting novel about CPO's for private firms.


AS for Reactor, I have looked at the "big picture", but you've missed my point. Furether to that, just because you think it's wrong, doesn't mean that it is. as said supra, the pro's and anti's are split pretty evenly in mayo, and a handful of protestors is hardly indicative of a major opposition to the project.

btw, i think i know you, your first name isn't "Over" by any chance

Meh

landser wrote:

this is the purpose of a Compulsory Purchase Order, otherwise one person could hold up projects of national importance. While it may a private developer, the pipeline is seen as a benefit to the state (whether you agree with this statement or not is not relevant to the function of a CPO) therefore approval for the CPO is given. there is noting novel about CPO's for private firms.

But any and every private development could be argued as a "benefit to the state". So what you're effectively arguing is that people should only be allowed own property at the pleasure of property developers.

RE*AC*TOR

landser wrote:

this is the purpose of a Compulsory Purchase Order, otherwise one person could hold up projects of national importance. While it may a private developer, the pipeline is seen as a benefit to the state (whether you agree with this statement or not is not relevant to the function of a CPO) therefore approval for the CPO is given. there is noting novel about CPO's for private firms.

It is novel - it is the 1st time in the history of the state that a private firm has been awarded one. It was awarded in error (at best) or in gross corruption (at worst) as I have yet to see an argument as to how it best serves the state in the absence of tax or royalties, apart from a few jobs.

landser wrote:

AS for Reactor, I have looked at the "big picture", but you've missed my point. Furether to that, just because you think it's wrong, doesn't mean that it is. as said supra, the pro's and anti's are split pretty evenly in mayo, and a handful of protestors is hardly indicative of a major opposition to the project.

btw, i think i know you, your first name isn't "Over" by any chance

if you think I have missed your point, perhaps you could argue/explain it better. I took time and effort to clarify myself - you could at least do the same instead of making silly jokes.

whippet

reactor .. I have no doubt we have and had corrupt officials, however you have not indicated or substanciated any wrong doing.

Shell oil's primary responsibility it to shareholders, however shareholders only benefit when oil and gas refinerys work properly etc .. not when they explode, leak raw materials. If any pubilc sector was involved in this it would be an unmitigated disaster, leading to massive cost over runs, shoddy work (similar to the national aquatic centre) etc .. that would not be the solution. In theory the pubilc sector is there to serve the pubilc, whereby in practice the public sector serves to create work for itself and maintain its own inflated cost base.

the quotes you are using from indymedia are hearsay and have no back up as far as I can see, indymedia is not a reliable source of objective reference as they are the extreme in 'anti capitalism'.

Have you asked why shell have not gone off shore with this project? obviously there would inherant dangers there and it is much safter to do it onland.

I am cynical, I am a capitalist (as in I support free trade no communisim or extreme socialism). I have not gotten off the fence on this argument yet as I don't have a convincing argument from either side and I don't know enough about it.

I am sure that the jailbirds have been compensated nicely for the land that was 'purchased' not stolen.

egan007

Whippet - what position do you hold in the Dail?

oscarBravo

egan007 wrote:

What the hell is wrong with you people - this is not a Contempt of Court issue.

On the contrary, this is a contempt of court issue.

egan007 wrote:

A profit hungry company has put your fellow country men in Jail because they got in their way.

A court put them in jail. Companies - "profit hungry" or otherwise (is their another kind?) - have no power to do so.

RE*AC*TOR

whippet wrote:

reactor .. I have no doubt we have and had corrupt officials, however you have not indicated or substanciated any wrong doing.

in the absence of a reason FOR this pipeline and current deal, and in light of past-performance - this is my opinion.

whippet wrote:

Shell oil's primary responsibility it to shareholders, however shareholders only benefit when oil and gas refinerys work properly etc .. not when they explode, leak raw materials.

not true, shareholders benefit when shell makes money. Say it costs Shell x amount to put in place certain safety procedures. If x is more than the likely amount they will lose due to leaks, explosions etc - do you think they will do it (be honest here).

whippet wrote:

If any pubilc sector was involved in this it would be an unmitigated disaster, leading to massive cost over runs, shoddy work (similar to the national aquatic centre) etc .. that would not be the solution. In theory the pubilc sector is there to serve the pubilc, whereby in practice the public sector serves to create work for itself and maintain its own inflated cost base.

Maybe so - but that again goes back to this governement and their management of public sector projects. Either way giving away the family jewels is not the way to go.

whippet wrote:

the quotes you are using from indymedia are hearsay and have no back up as far as I can see, indymedia is not a reliable source of objective reference as they are the extreme in 'anti capitalism'.

That may be true. Most of the facts are in the public domain though. The nationality of the rig workers I haven't found elsewhere - so you can take it as you will. Largely speaking its not one of the major points in any case.

whippet wrote:

Have you asked why shell have not gone off shore with this project? obviously there would inherant dangers there and it is much safter to do it onland.

Its cheaper to build on land. Its probably safer for Shell workers on land. Did you ever consider if something cannot be done safely - then perhaps it shouldn't be done. I for one would not be happy living on top of a high-pressure pipeline of odorless gas, run by a company with a track record of environmental destruction.

whippet wrote:

I am cynical, I am a capitalist (as in I support free trade no communisim or extreme socialism). I have not gotten off the fence on this argument yet as I don't have a convincing argument from either side and I don't know enough about it.

ok Mr Capitalist - you are the chairman of a company - lets call it The State PLC. You have an asset worth x euro, do you:
(a) sell the asset at market value
(b) use the asset for the benefit of the company
(c) give the asset away

be careful what you answer - future employers may be watching.

whippet wrote:

I am sure that the jailbirds have been compensated nicely for the land that was 'purchased' not stolen.

and you were doing so well up until that point.....

Villain

I can't understand how Shell were allowed to use Compulsory Purchase orders to take control of these farmers land. This is a private investment been made by Shell, the Government aren't getting anything apart from a few quid in tax from this project. I support these men and I believe the people who granted this planning permission and CPO's are a disgrace to this state. We only need to look at the deaths of 2 young poeple in America to see what risks this kind of project present.

Meh

whippet wrote:

I am a capitalist

I'm surprised to hear a capitalist arguing against the right to own private property.

I am sure that the jailbirds have been compensated nicely for the land that was 'purchased' not stolen.

Clearly they haven't been compensated enough, since they're still objecting.

toiletduck

Meh wrote:

Clearly they haven't been compensated enough, since they're still objecting.

since a lot of people here are throwing around accusations of corruption between the government and shell, i throw in my own little theory with absolutely no evidence: The farmers wanted more money, they decided the best way to get more would be to protest on safety grounds, bring in enviromentalists etc. and generally keep annoying the authorithies until they get a bigger pay-off to cease. As i said no evidence, like the rest of the accusations banded around here but plausible since we all know farmers (like the rest of us!) like to get as much as they can outta the gov.

Stabshauptmann

seamus wrote:

Yerp. This has nothing to do with how Shell are a big evil corporation, and these guys are just salt-of-the-earth farmers, trying to make a living even though they're awful poor and just decent guys. :rolleyes:

They broke the law, they were jailed. Shocking.

Nelson Mandela broke the law and was jailed. Good enough for the malcontent!!

These men went to court against the legal team of a wealthy multi national company. They lost.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

I can't understand how Shell were allowed to use Compulsory Purchase orders to take control of these farmers land.

They weren't.

The Department of the Marine used CPOs to ensure that the project - which was deemed to be of significant National interest - would go ahead.

it would be little different to (say) the government securing land and then allowing a toll-road to be built on it rather than building a public road there themselves. Whether or not this has happened in the past, I can't see it as being a conceptual problem, but rather a question of whether or not this move (the Shell one) is in the national interest.

This is a private investment been made by Shell, the Government aren't getting anything apart from a few quid in tax from this project.

A few quid? That would be like me saying there's a tiny bit of opposition to the project, yes? I mean, if you don't want accuracy to play a part in the discussion, thats fine, but I don't see how it helps you.

I believe the people who granted this planning permission and CPO's are a disgrace to this state.

Tell me...what should have been done? More importantly, why wasn't it done? Most importantly, can you answer these questions without using vagaries and supposition. (i.e., can you do it without suggesting that brown envelopes changed hands, but rather by proving they did - if brown envelopes are yoru reasoning of choice....I'm not saying they are).

Generally speaking, one would have to wonder what our govt stands to gain sucking up to Shell, which seems to be the only obvious reason they'd sell us down the Swanee like people are suggesting. Were they bought out? Are they just deliberately trying to ruin our country because they hate us? There has to be some reason, and surely this is what we should be looking for? But all I hear is baseless cries of corruption and incompetence.

We only need to look at the deaths of 2 young poeple in America to see what risks this kind of project present.

I thought this kind of project was supposed to be the first of its kind in the world?

Have the people opposing this been misleading us, and in fact there's been an overland pipe for untreated gas already built elsewhere in the world?

Or when you say "this kind of project", are you talking about something other than this kind of project?

jc

RE*AC*TOR

bonkey wrote:

They weren't.

The Department of the Marine used CPOs to ensure that the project - which was deemed to be of significant National interest - would go ahead.

it would be little different to (say) the government securing land and then allowing a toll-road to be built on it rather than building a public road there themselves. Whether or not this has happened in the past, I can't see it as being a conceptual problem, but rather a question of whether or not this move (the Shell one) is in the national interest.

As you know despite the ridiculously good deal NTR got with the toll roads, the state does collect tax from them and gets a tidy amount of money. This is not the case for this project. If there is a national interest in this project I've yet to here a cogent arguement as to why. The only real reason I have heard is that it will create some jobs. However, I would be interested to see if someone can propose that this is a fair trade off for a gas field. This is not the international norm - neither the deal (no tax/royalties) not the type of refinery (on land) are normal.

A few quid? That would be like me saying there's a tiny bit of opposition to the project, yes? I mean, if you don't want accuracy to play a part in the discussion, thats fine, but I don't see how it helps you.

What earnings do the state stand to gain from this then? I would agree that "a few quid" is about all if any that they will get.

Tell me...what should have been done? More importantly, why wasn't it done? Most importantly, can you answer these questions without using vagaries and supposition. (i.e., can you do it without suggesting that brown envelopes changed hands, but rather by proving they did - if brown envelopes are yoru reasoning of choice....I'm not saying they are).

Generally speaking, one would have to wonder what our govt stands to gain sucking up to Shell, which seems to be the only obvious reason they'd sell us down the Swanee like people are suggesting. Were they bought out? Are they just deliberately trying to ruin our country because they hate us? There has to be some reason, and surely this is what we should be looking for? But all I hear is baseless cries of corruption and incompetence.

Judging on past-performance I don't think cries of corruption are baseless. In the absence of a reason why they would give shell this deal - you cannot blame us for jumping to such a conclusion.

I thought this kind of project was supposed to be the first of its kind in the world?

Have the people opposing this been misleading us, and in fact there's been an overland pipe for untreated gas already built elsewhere in the world?

Or when you say "this kind of project", are you talking about something other than this kind of project?

jc

there are overland pipes - most usually in the desert.