Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

The Corrib gas project should be suspended

24567

Comments

  • #32
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    NewVision wrote: »
    You are trying to tell us that the government was charging 50% royalties + 50% tax (=100%). Can you provide any source for that allegation?

    Erm ... your opening post? This is what you said;
    NewVision wrote: »
    Minister Ray Burke (later jailed for corruption) changed the law in 1987, reducing the State’s share in our offshore oil and gas from 50% to zero and abolishing royalties. In 1992, Minister Bertie Ahern reduced the tax rate for the profits made from the sale of these resources from 50% to 25%" The Gas & Oil Robbery | Shell to Sea

    So re-reading this I believe that I was wrong on the exact figures and their effect. But regardless of the detail, the point I was trying to make still stands: 25% of something is better than 50% of nothing. If the large taxes and charges the government had on oil were still in place would the oil be drilled at all?

    There's also the question of employment and investment. By drilling the oil the companies involved are providing services to the economy, including income tax and other taxes paid by their employees.


  • #33
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Don't mind him, he sees left-wing conspiracies everywhere he looks.


  • #34
    Burt Russ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11 ✭Burt Russ


    I never fully understand why people who despise the protesters so much won't also consider if there's a rat here all the same, what with Ray MacSharry and Bertie at it.

    It's pretty clear the "deal" done stinks to high heaven, just by comparing the tax set up against every other country. And the way the planning problems were "got around". It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to admit that.

    Is it that people feel to speak up about the deal would be to align themselves with crusty communists or something? It's disappointing to think many people won't just analyse the issues for themselves, and prefer to simply throw in behind what "their kind" feel about the situation. The best response to someone else's ideological crusade is not to just do the same from the opposite side. I'm actually not aiming that at anyone in particular in this case, or at either side exclusively.


  • #35
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    NewVision wrote: »
    Not shutting down. Renegotiating the deal between the state and the gas consortium. Shell to sea.

    "Renegotiate" the deal - Chavez/Pution style? That is tear up a contract made by a sovereign government of the EU? Now please pull the other leg.

    If it was done legally and without international damge I would have no problem. But if it exposed the state to billions of damage by Shell I would have a serious problem.

    As regards the so-called favourable deal,there were only two applicants for this project. Enterprise got it and sold to Shell. They will pay 25.5% corporation tax on profits.

    The UK gets about 32 % for the North sea which is far more productive and an easier place to work and explore. Who would go out into the rough Atlantic, spend millions exploring and maybe get very little. Changing terms now is like a bookie changing the odds hes given you after your horse wins the race.

    Once again Enterprise were first in here and sold to Shell. While I abhor Ray Burke, Bertie etc, I do not believe they sold away our resources for a few donations to themselves. Maybe the state could have gotten a bit more in the deal, maybe, but please remember there were only 2 applicants despite terms.

    The Corrib Field will provide 60 - 70% of our gas needs. It is not a major field. If and when someone finds oil, it may be possible to strike a much better deal with the oil companies. However, we have been waiting for that event since the 1970's.


  • #36
    unit 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 549 ✭✭✭unit 1


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Show me where I'm wrong here...

    The government's initially charging 50% in royalties plus 50% in tax. Due to these added costs it's not viable for any oil company to set up. Hence, the government gets 50% of nothing, plus another 50% of the profits of nothing for good measure. €0, in short.

    As a result, they decide to remove the royalties, and reduce the tax to 25%. The oil company, now seeing that it's a profitable enterprise, establishes itself in Ireland. As well as the 25% tax they pay on profits, they provide jobs and investment for the local community.

    The moral would appear to be that 25% of something is better than 50% of nothing.

    So am I erring somewhere?

    Yes, because for instance 40% of something is better than 25% of something.
    You assume that a 50% royalty scuppers the deal, but 25% makes it OK.
    It's like saying if you raise corporation tax from 12.5% to say 13% all the multinational would dissappear overnight. Of course not but those who know better, FF of course, will say this, so thats it.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Erm ... your opening post? This is what you said;

    So re-reading this I believe that I was wrong on the exact figures and their effect. But regardless of the detail, the point I was trying to make still stands: 25% of something is better than 50% of nothing. If the large taxes and charges the government had on oil were still in place would the oil be drilled at all?

    There's also the question of employment and investment. By drilling the oil the companies involved are providing services to the economy, including income tax and other taxes paid by their employees.

    Amazing that people still believe we need the multinationals that much because 'they're creating jobs'. Not even 5% of our jobs come from them. But they dictate the conditions.
    Many of those multinatinal corporations come, get on the gravy train, and leave us with the mess behind. And that happens all over the world, called globalisation of economy. The project itself is not that big job creator as advertised by those companies. The security for example are hired from eastern European states and russia.

    A different design, renegotiating the deal, and that would create even more jobs.


  • #38
    Scarab80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    This post might be of help to people here


  • #39
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    sesna wrote: »
    "Renegotiate" the deal - Chavez/Pution style? That is tear up a contract made by a sovereign government of an EU state. Now please pull the other leg.

    If it was done legally and without international damge I would have no problem. But if it exposed the state to billions of damage by Shell I would have a serious problem.

    As regards the so-called favourable deal,there were only two applicants for this project. Enterprise got it and sold to Shell. They will pay 25.5% corporation tax on profits.

    The UK gets about 32 % for the North sea which is far more productive and an easier place to work and explore. Who would go out into the rough Atlantic, spend millions exploring and maybe get very little. Changing terms now is like a bookie changing the odds hes given you after your horse wins the race.

    Once again please remember Enterprise were first in here and sold to Shell. While I abhor Ray Burke, Bertie etc, I do not believe they sold away our resources for a few donations to themselves. Maybe the state could have got a bit more, maybe, but please remember there were only 2 applicants despite terms.

    Isn't this the key though, despite the lucrative terms only two applicants and then one sold out. And there was no one banging down the door prior to the change in the law.

    Its because of the favourable terms that we are even talking about this because without them the gas would still be under the sea. Furthermore Belmullet and north Mayo would be suffering even more in the downturn in the economy.

    As for the protesters, I'm glad they got a battering, they deserved it.


  • #40
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Isn't this the key though, despite the lucrative terms only two applicants and then one sold out. And there was no one banging down the door prior to the change in the law.

    Its because of the favourable terms that we are even talking about this because without them the gas would still be under the sea. Furthermore Belmullet and north Mayo would be suffering even more in the downturn in the economy.

    As for the protesters, I'm glad they got a battering, they deserved it.


    Agreed, Shell have employed about 1000 construction workers for past two and a half years, now down to about 700. Most of them from area apart from highly technical experts. And there is not a word about it, only mob rule gets the airways.


  • #41
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    unit 1 wrote: »
    Yes, because for instance 40% of something is better than 25% of something.

    The point I was trying to make, that I will now repeat, is that if the tax rate was 40% (or 50% etc) it might have been non-viable for a gas company to set up, hence the Government would have received less tax.

    Scofflaw expands upon this point in the post Scarab80 linked to. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66163445&postcount=31
    NewVision wrote: »
    Amazing that people still believe we need the multinationals that much because 'they're creating jobs'.jobs.

    The fact that Dell pulling out of Limerick caused such havoc is proof enough that, yes, we do benefit from multi-national corporations being here.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    sesna wrote: »
    "Renegotiate" the deal - Chavez/Pution style? That is tear up a contract made by a sovereign government of the EU? Now please pull the other leg.

    If it was done legally and without international damge I would have no problem. But if it exposed the state to billions of damage by Shell I would have a serious problem.

    As regards the so-called favourable deal,there were only two applicants for this project. Enterprise got it and sold to Shell. They will pay 25.5% corporation tax on profits.

    The UK gets about 32 % for the North sea which is far more productive and an easier place to work and explore. Who would go out into the rough Atlantic, spend millions exploring and maybe get very little. Changing terms now is like a bookie changing the odds hes given you after your horse wins the race.

    Once again Enterprise were first in here and sold to Shell. While I abhor Ray Burke, Bertie etc, I do not believe they sold away our resources for a few donations to themselves. Maybe the state could have gotten a bit more in the deal, maybe, but please remember there were only 2 applicants despite terms.

    The Corrib Field will provide 60 - 70% of our gas needs. It is not a major field. If and when someone finds oil, it will be possible to strike a much better deal with the oil companies. However, we have been waiting for that event since the 1970's.

    First of all, under the current contract nobody can force Shell to sell the gas to Ireland. They can sell it to whom they want.

    Minister Ray Burke who changed the law in 1987, reducing the State’s share in our offshore oil and gas from 50% to zero and abolishing royalties, is a convicted criminal. So far to your Chavez/Pution style.

    But most important, the state has all the right to renegotiate the contract as the companies have been constantly breaching this treaty themselves.

    Here what the contact says:
    The Minister may, for such period as the Minister deems necessary, require that specified exploration, exploitation, production or processing activities should cease… subject to conditions which the Minister may specify, in any case where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in order to reduce the risk of injury to the person, waste of petroleum or damage to property or the environment. No claim for compensation may be made against the Minister on foot of any such requirement.


  • #43
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    NewVision wrote: »
    First of all, under the current contract nobody can force Shell to sell the gas to Ireland. They can sell it to whom they want.

    Minister Ray Burke who changed the law in 1987, reducing the State’s share in our offshore oil and gas from 50% to zero and abolishing royalties, is a convicted criminal. So far to your Chavez/Pution style.

    But most important, the state has all the right to renegotiate the contract as the companies have been constantly breaching this treaty themselves.

    Here what the contact says:

    As for such simplistic solutions on tearing up the contract, try it out with the lawyers and see how far it goes.

    What you quoted does not say that the terms of the contract could be renegotiated if Shell actually found gas.

    As regards safety mentioned in your quote, Shell should be held to the highest international safety standards, and if any aspect is found to be unsafe work should be stopped until it is fixed. Independent experts Advantica already cleared the project as meeting the highest safety standards.

    The terms can not be changed. No company in the world would have signed it if it did. Once again, like a bookie changing odds after your horse has won the race.

    Currently, Ireland is 90 per cent dependent on imported gas. We are highly dependent on gas supply from Russia and at the end of a very long supply chain, which exposes us to risks of supply interruption and price volatility. If anything were to occur that disrupted this supply, we would have a serious energy crisis in this country.

    Corrib Gas field will supply up to 60 per cent of Ireland’s gas needs at peak production. Also it's critical that we consider our international reputation and ability to attract foreign investment, especially considering unemployement could reach 17%.


  • #44
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    I was trawling through the Shell To Sea site when I found this picture:

    welcomeglengad.jpg

    ("In solidarity with communities resisting fossil fuel extraction around the world.")

    So are the campaigners against gas being extracted full stop?


  • #45
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    The point I was trying to make, that I will now repeat, is that if the tax rate was 40% (or 50% etc) it might have been non-viable for a gas company to set up, hence the Government would have received less tax.

    The fact that Dell pulling out of Limerick caused such havoc is proof enough that, yes, we do benefit from multi-national corporations being here.

    So, how much are we prepared for getting compromised by those multinationals?
    Why do other European countries successfully charge royalties?
    Norway charges 76% royalties. And still there are multinationals drilling. Their state owned company Statoil has a 36% stake in Corrib. That means that Norway is getting more money from the Corrib Gas Fields than our country.

    Apart from the fact that the gas is refined onshore, that high pressure pipelines going through unstable boglands are threatening live of people there, that the refinery is poisoning local water supplies etc., apart from that, do you still believe that everything is ok with that deal?


  • #46
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    I was trawling through the Shell To Sea site when I found this picture:

    ("In solidarity with communities resisting fossil fuel extraction around the world.")

    So are the campaigners against gas being extracted full stop?

    Who knows what their actual focus is given the awful mixture of imported hippies,Bull McCabes,tree huggers and shinners down there.


  • #47
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    NewVision wrote: »
    So, how much are we prepared for getting compromised by those multinationals?

    Rather than preparing for "compromisation" our time would be better spent ensuring that such things do not occur. This involves creating and maintaining a competitive economy.
    NewVision wrote: »
    Why do other European countries successfully charge royalties?

    Because they have bigger oil fields and companies will still be interested in drilling even when the royalties are charged.

    As Scofflaw said, when the tax rates were high and the royalties were instituted, no company was interested in exploring. When the economic climate was made more favourable, they became interested. It really isn't that hard to understand. If the tax rates were higher, the tax yield would be lower.
    NewVision wrote: »
    Apart from the fact that the gas is refined onshore, that high pressure pipelines going through unstable boglands are threatening live of people there,

    What proof is there that these pipes pose a danger? People all over the world live near pipelines. Even the pipes coming into ones house are pressurised.
    NewVision wrote: »
    that the refinery is poisoning local water supplies etc.,

    Source?


  • #48
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    Those shell to sea campaigners should be thrown into the Atlantic. I seriously hope your petition goes nowhere and fails. Your not helping the country as you and your fellow rent-a-mob hippies like to think in you fantasy land crusade, your ensuring you cost the state money in terms of having to police your mob, and making sure we miss out on money through tax and jobs. We're lucky your type aren't ruling the country or we'd never see any of our natural resources harvested.


  • #49
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    sesna wrote: »
    As for such simplistic solutions on tearing up the contract, try it out with the lawyers and see how far it goes.

    What you quoted does not say that the terms of the contract could be renegotiated if Shell actually found gas.

    As regards safety mentioned in your quote, Shell should be held to the highest international safety standards, and if any aspect is found to be unsafe work should be stopped until it is fixed. Independent experts Advantica already cleared the project as meeting the highest safety standards.

    The terms can not be changed. No company in the world would have signed it if it did. Once again, like a bookie changing odds after your horse has won the race.

    Currently, Ireland is 90 per cent dependent on imported gas. We are highly dependent on gas supply from Russia and at the end of a very long supply chain, which exposes us to risks of supply interruption and price volatility. If anything were to occur that disrupted this supply, we would have a serious energy crisis in this country.

    Corrib Gas field will supply up to 60 per cent of Ireland’s gas needs at peak production. Also it's critical that we consider our international reputation and ability to attract foreign investment, especially considering unemployement could reach 17%.

    Maybe we should start a collection to hire some lawyers. Don't know how far the Shell To Sea campaign has come in that matters.

    But no matter if Shell finds gas (which is more than likely) or not, the contract says, "The Minister may, for such period as the Minister deems necessary, require that specified exploration, exploitation, production or processing activities should cease… subject to conditions which the Minister may specify, in any case where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in order to reduce the risk of injury to the person, waste of petroleum or damage to property or the environment. No claim for compensation may be made against the Minister on foot of any such requirement."

    Again. Nobody can force the companies to sell th gas to Ireland. Shell can sell it to whom they want to the current market price.

    At the moment it seems more likely that Ireland is getting the reputation of being the country with the most corrupt government in Europe and it would be the easiest to break human rights and demands for profits there.
    Is that the reputation you would fancy?


  • #50
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    Scarab80 wrote: »
    This post might be of help to people here

    So....if we're getting 25% corp tax + 5-15% PRRT, then why did we pay Marathon Petroleum Ireland Ltd. 11 million from the budget last year and 4 million this year (page 8)? God knows how much we've paid them since they started up in the south.

    I really don't understand, could someone please explain?


  • #51
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    NewVision wrote: »
    Maybe we should start a collection to hire some lawyers. Don't know how far the Shell To Sea campaign has come in that matters.

    But no matter if Shell finds gas (which is more than likely) or not, the contract says, "The Minister may, for such period as the Minister deems necessary, require that specified exploration, exploitation, production or processing activities should cease… subject to conditions which the Minister may specify, in any case where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in order to reduce the risk of injury to the person, waste of petroleum or damage to property or the environment. No claim for compensation may be made against the Minister on foot of any such requirement."

    Again. Nobody can force the companies to sell th gas to Ireland. Shell can sell it to whom they want to the current market price.

    At the moment it seems more likely that Ireland is getting the reputation of being the country with the most corrupt government in Europe and it would be the easiest to break human rights and demands for profits there.
    Is that the reputation you would fancy?

    They wouldn't have to ship it halfway around the world to sell it to Ireland though, so surely it would be easy to come to an agreement that benefits both the state and Shell


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Those shell to sea campaigners should be thrown into the Atlantic. I seriously hope your petition goes nowhere and fails. Your not helping the country as you and your fellow rent-a-mob hippies like to think in you fantasy land crusade, your ensuring you cost the state money in terms of having to police your mob, and making sure we miss out on money through tax and jobs. We're lucky your type aren't ruling the country or we'd never see any of our natural resources harvested.

    You are obviously promoting violence against these campaigners!
    And seemingly you are also trying to disinform about the targets of this campaign.
    We can only hope that people like you are still in a minority because you seem to be a real threat to a developed and peaceful society.


  • #53
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    NewVision wrote: »
    You are obviously promoting violence against these campaigners!
    And seemingly you are also trying to disinform about the targets of this campaign.
    We can only hope that people like you are still in a minority because you seem to be a real threat to a developed and peaceful society.

    Unfortunately. Maybe thrown into the Atlantic is a bit strong.

    Not as if shell to sea contribute to a peaceful society now either though.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0211/corrib.html
    A Circuit Court judge has strongly criticised the action of the members of the Shell to Sea campaign group which is opposing the controversial Corrib Gas project in Co Mayo.

    Judge Raymond Groarke told a leading member of the group, 56-year-old retired primary school principal Maura Harrington, that she and her associates were acting like a secret police force in the Erris area of the county.

    Judge Groarke was hearing a series of appeals lodged by Ms Harrington against convictions and jail sentences arising from protests against the Corrib gas project in 2008 and 2009.

    She told him that she believed the work by Shell was unlawful and damaging to the environment and that issues in relation to the project were still before the High Court.

    However, Judge Groarke told her that, while people had a legitimate right to protest against what they perceived to be injustices, she and a handful of others appear to think they could appoint themselves to interrupt and enforce the law as they thought fit.

    He said they felt that they could go about the roads of Mayo seeking to investigate perceived crimes and entering lands they had no right to.

    'You don't have a uniform Miss Harrington, but you are acting like a secret police,' Judge Groarke said.

    The judge disqualified her from driving for two years and fined her €200 and adjourned sentencing on cases relating to trespass and causing criminal damage for 12 months.


  • #54
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Unfortunately. Maybe thrown into the Atlantic is a bit strong.

    Not as if shell to sea contribute to a peaceful society now either though.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0211/corrib.html

    Unfortunately the mainstream media seem to be one-sided and don't report as much about Shell's security bullying the locals and breaching the law. The reason for that seem quite obvious. That's why we have Indymedia (often defamed as "left wing propagand") and others. But Joe Sixpack wouldn't watch their reports I'm afraid.
    I posted one video about how Gardai practised unproportional violence against peaceful protesters. It was defamed as "left wing propagand".

    Question: How long would you stay peaceful when you are bullied for months and experience unproportional violence against yourself?


  • #55
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    Example of this bullying and unproportional violence? As in a link

    And indymedia is left wing is it not?


  • #56
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Example of this bullying and unproportional violence? As in a link

    And indymedia is left wing is it not?



    Public protest is not breaking the law. Standing on a public road is not trespass.


  • #57
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    NewVision wrote: »
    unproportional violence against peaceful protesters. It was defamed as "left wing propagand".

    Question: How long would you stay peaceful when you are bullied for months and experience unproportional violence against yourself?

    Wouldn't blame the gardai for standing up to a S2S mob. The independent Garda Ombudsman dismissed all but one of over 150 complaints against the gardai. I refuse to look at anything in Indymedia, the site has no credibility.

    Both Harnett and O Donnell were in jail for assaulting Gardai. Forget about Shell cops and all that. Gardai enforce the law, whether it be child abuse, murder or whatever. If you want to change the law go to your TDs. And if that fails theres an election every 4/5 years. Thuggery has ruined S2S campaign, they are their own worst enemies.


  • #58
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    sesna wrote: »
    Wouldn't blame the gardai for standing up to a S2S mob. The independent Garda Ombudsman dismissed all but one of over 150 complaints against the gardai. I refuse to look at anything in Indymedia, the site has no credibility.

    Both Harnett and O Donnell were in jail for assaulting Gardai. Forget about Shell cops and all that. Gardai enforce the law, whether it be child abuse, murder or whatever. If you want to change the law go to your TDs. And if that fails theres an election every 4/5 years. Thuggery has ruined S2S campaign, they are their own worst enemies.

    And what law where the Gardai enforcing exactly?

    Some people got fat brown envelopes for that deal with Shell and the Gardai are there to make sure Shell don't have to come back looking for those envelopes. Simple as.


  • #59
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Example of this bullying and unproportional violence? As in a link

    And indymedia is left wing is it not?

    You're not bothering yourself and will answer my question, will you?


  • #60
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    NewVision wrote: »
    You're not bothering yourself and will answer my question, will you?

    Give me an example of this bullying and unproportional violence before I can answer the question?

    Public protest is not breaking the law. Standing on a public road is not trespass.
    They were hardly just 'standing' on a road. They tried to break a garda cordon by pushing a car into them, which I can't imagine is legal. They were asked to leave the road by gardai which they also refused to do.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Give me an example of this bullying and unproportional violence before I can answer the question?

    I guess you didn't watch the video. You don't like Rage or something?
    They were hardly just 'standing' on a road. They tried to break a garda cordon by pushing a car into them, which I can't imagine is legal. They were asked to leave the road by gardai which they also refused to do.

    I didn't see anyone pushing cars into a Gardai cordon. If they did we would see some kind of news story about it. I saw Gardai smashing windscreens (why?) and dragging people out of cars. I saw Gardai throwing people into ditches with complete disregard for their welfare. I saw Gardai swinging batons at peaceful protesters.

    The Gardai have a responsibility to protect the citizens of this country. They do not have the responsibility to protect the interests of a private company by infringing on the rights of Irish citizens.


Advertisement