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

12467

Comments

  • #92
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    demonspawn wrote: »
    Eh what? You ever heard of worker's strikes? You know the ones where you'd be called a scab (and worse) for crossing the picket line? Sure, people have the right to go to work. People also have the right to protest against what the see as injustice and corruption.

    "Professional protesters"? I think you're giving them more credit than they deserve really. I've seen "professional" protesters. They would have had that entire location locked down for months, chaining themselves to diggers, burying their arms into the ground, all sorts of crazy stuff.


    Yes buddy, Iv'e heard of workers rights... that's people who actually work.

    People who actually WORK have rights.

    I don't doubt you've seen professional protesters.;)


  • #93
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Yes buddy, Iv'e heard of workers rights... that's people who actually work.

    People who actually WORK have rights.

    I don't doubt you've seen professional protesters.;)

    Then surely these "professional" protesters have a right to work, no? By implication you're saying these people were hired to go down there and protest. Surely the Gardai are breaking the law by not allowing them to "work".


  • #94
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    Work at what pal?


  • #95
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    Hey Bantam, you gonna wait for a few more posts so you can avoid addressing my point? You think these "professional protesters" have a right to work or not?


  • #96
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Work at what pal?

    Protesting, of course. They are professional protesters after all.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    So which is it amigo?

    1. These are professional protesters and the Gardai are breaking the law by not allowing them to work.

    2. These are not professional protesters and you're just spreading misinformation to cloud the issues (or you're just talking out your hole).


  • #98
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    :rolleyes:

    Criminals have the right to rob houses do they?

    Get a grip buddy.


  • #99
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Criminals have the right to rob houses do they?

    Get a grip buddy.

    Of course not my friend, robbery is against to law.

    Protesting is not.

    So are they, or are they not professional protesters? You brought it up, so what's the problem answering the question?


  • #100
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Mod

    I think you guys should take your buddy-buddy act to PM, quite the double/triple/quadruple posting, stay on topic and be mindful of the forum rules.

    'kay, thanks. GY


  • #101
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    GuanYin wrote: »
    Mod

    I think you guys should take your buddy-buddy act to PM, quite the double/triple/quadruple posting, stay on topic and be mindful of the forum rules.

    'kay, thanks. GY

    Apologies, I'm just trying to make a point about the blatant misinformation being spread about this issue and the people involved. Moving on.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    NewVision wrote: »
    So you don't bother either to misquote me in shortening a sentence I posted and cut a word that says 'unproportional' to make 'Proportional' of it.
    A person who refuses to look at Indymedia because they would have 'no credibility'. You just have proven your own 'credibility'.
    The worst enemy of Shell To Sea are people like you, faking other people's comments, like faking the truth.

    You've outed yourself by doing that, sesna.No more to say.

    Relax there, your post was edited as soon as it was brought to my attention.

    By the way, changing proportional to unproportional did nothing to enhance my point, made no sense in the context of what iI said, and was purely accidental. Talk about over reaction... "faking the truth"...


  • #103
    Scarab80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    demonspawn wrote: »
    And once again, quoting for truth.

    Last time though, and if no answers come this way I'll just assume nobody has the slightest clue as to why we paid Marathon Petro millions of euros over the last few year.

    The payments are made under the Fianance Act 1992 so i assume it some sort of tax offset against the 540 million received from them in the same period.


  • #104
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    sesna wrote: »
    Relax there, your post was edited as soon as it was brought to my attention.

    By the way, changing proportional to unproportional did nothing to enhance my point, made no sense in the context of what iI said, and was purely accidental. Talk about over reaction... "faking the truth"...

    And purely accidentally you put the first letter in capital. And pigs fly...
    I'm finished with you. Can't stick people faking the truth. That was too obvious as there's any excuse.


  • #105
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    humanji wrote: »
    I don't get where that snippet of the contract says it can be renegotiated. That just says the minister can pause the processing of the plant to investigate one of the listed risks.

    The minister can renegotiate the conditions, of course. As long as that he can cease the project.
    veXual wrote: »
    So if the project was taxed appropriately NewVision would you still be opposed it?

    And if the gas would be refined offshore. The method pumping unrefined gas under high pressure on land and refining it there is relatively new and poses an unfounded threat to health and live to the people living there.

    We want the contract renegotiated, not abolished.

    Health, security and a fair share for the country and within its people. Is that demanded too much?


  • #106
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    NewVision wrote: »
    And purely accidentally you put the first letter in capital. And pigs fly...
    I'm finished with you. Can't stick people faking the truth. That was too obvious as there's any excuse.

    You're a perfect example of the dramatic bull$hit Indymedia is infested with, not to mention Corrib "SOS" arguments. Pity you're not as sceptical about the likelihood of accidents when it comes to a pipeline that has been deemed perfectly safe by international experts whose knowledge far surpasses yours ( the pressure of which has since been reduced by almost half making the pipeline even safer)

    Ironic also that you cant stand people faking the truth yet refer to Indymedia so frequently.

    Rent-a-hippy prostesters like yourself in Mayo are a disgrace costing the taxpayer a fortune in Garda overtime, vandalising property, intimidating locals and dragging our international reputation through the mud.


  • #107
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    I cannot call it only grossly negligent when a poster here calls the high pressure pipeline going through unstable boglands in Mayo as "deemed perfectly safe". Without any evidence for such an assertion I can only call it as willingly disinforming the people.
    You can find several links which proof that this high pressure pipeline pumping unrefined gas is far away from being "perfectly safe" on this website from IPEC. For anybody who wants to read a bit more background information I would recommend this CORRIB GAS PROJECT REPORT.


  • #108
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    NewVision wrote: »
    The minister can renegotiate the conditions, of course. As long as that he can cease the project.

    But that's not what that part of the contract says. It only says that the processing can be stopped while risk assessements are undertaken. Nothing about renegotiating. Unless you are saying he should blackmail Shell into changing the contract?

    In which case, shell don't have to do anything. Ireland will have lost a fortune in developing a site that they can't do anything with. And Shell will still be the ones who are under contract to develope the site. But because our government has stopped work in it, Shell jsut have to sit back and laugh as they get a fortune in from all their other projects and Ireland loses out even more than it is now.


  • #109
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    demonspawn wrote: »
    Standing on a public road is not trespass.
    Thought experiment for you. Go stand in the middle of a street of your choice, blocking traffic. Refuse to move when asked to do so by a Garda.

    How long do you think you'll be left there?


  • #110
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Thought experiment for you. Go stand in the middle of a street of your choice, blocking traffic. Refuse to move when asked to do so by a Garda.

    How long do you think you'll be left there?

    My comment was correct. Standing on public property cannot be considered trespass. We have a right to demonstrate in this country, it's one of the perks of living in a free democracy.

    The Gardai can arrest anyone for disobeying an order to disperse, as these protesters were clearly doing. I didn't see anyone being arrested. I saw protesters being beaten, dragged, and thrown into ditches. The Gardai had absolutely no right whatsoever to do what they did here. In my eyes they broke the law and got away with it. But then, this is Ireland after all.


  • #111
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    demonspawn wrote: »
    My comment was correct. Standing on public property cannot be considered trespass. We have a right to demonstrate in this country, it's one of the perks of living in a free democracy.
    Unfortunately, rights have concomitant duties, and the flipside of the right to protest is a duty to do so lawfully - and that includes not blocking a public highway without obtaining prior permission from the authorities.
    The Gardai can arrest anyone for disobeying an order to disperse, as these protesters were clearly doing. I didn't see anyone being arrested. I saw protesters being beaten, dragged, and thrown into ditches.
    Aren't you the poster who managed not to see Maura Harrington driving her car into a police cordon, but managed to see her being dragged out of the same car?
    The Gardai had absolutely no right whatsoever to do what they did here. In my eyes they broke the law and got away with it. But then, this is Ireland after all.
    The protesters had no right to do what they did, but I'm not hearing you complain about them.

    I'll agree with you on one point: the protesters should have been arrested, en masse if necessary.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Unfortunately, rights have concomitant duties, and the flipside of the right to protest is a duty to do so lawfully - and that includes not blocking a public highway without obtaining prior permission from the authorities.

    So now we need permission from the State to protest? How much you wanna bet that permission would not have been granted?
    Aren't you the poster who managed not to see Maura Harrington driving her car into a police cordon, but managed to see her being dragged out of the same car? The protesters had no right to do what they did, but I'm not hearing you complain about them.
    Ok, I'll give you that. It was a stupid decision to have a vehicle there. Unfortunately, one bad decision can do a lot of damage to a protest. Personally, I think your one is a bit of a nutter anyway. That doesn't change my opinion of the murderous Shell corporation or the ape-men we have in the Gardai.

    Post #85. Try to keep up mate. I had not seen that footage of the car before the Gardai started smashing it up..
    I'll agree with you on one point: the protesters should have been arrested, en masse if necessary.

    So one can only assume that as nobody was arrested, then nobody was charged with a crime, so no crime was committed. That's seems pretty logical to me.


  • #113
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    demonspawn wrote: »
    So now we need permission from the State to protest? How much you wanna bet that permission would not have been granted?
    Permission would probably have been granted for a lawful protest. The protesters didn't want a lawful protest, so there was no way they were ever going to look for permission.
    Post #85. Try to keep up mate. I had not seen that footage of the car before the Gardai started smashing it up.
    ...
    So one can only assume that as nobody was arrested, then nobody was charged with a crime, so no crime was committed. That's seems pretty logical to me.
    Clearly we differ on whether deliberately driving a car at a human being is a crime.

    That aside, you illustrate precisely the point of why there should have been mass arrests: to avoid the sort of daft sophistry you just wheeled out.

    But hey, don't let me distract you from your pre-conceived ideas.


  • #114
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    humanji wrote: »
    But that's not what that part of the contract says. It only says that the processing can be stopped while risk assessements are undertaken. Nothing about renegotiating. Unless you are saying he should blackmail Shell into changing the contract?

    In which case, shell don't have to do anything. Ireland will have lost a fortune in developing a site that they can't do anything with. And Shell will still be the ones who are under contract to develope the site. But because our government has stopped work in it, Shell jsut have to sit back and laugh as they get a fortune in from all their other projects and Ireland loses out even more than it is now.

    Ireland would lose nothing so far. Forcing Shell to sea would cost the corporations as they're nor state companies. Of course can the minister demand the gas being processed offshore as Shell et al have been violating the contract in many cases.
    At a profit of tens or even hundreds of billions the gas will provide, repositioning the refinery would actyally be peanuts.

    Where there is a will there is a way.


  • #115
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Permission would probably have been granted for a lawful protest. The protesters didn't want a lawful protest, so there was no way they were ever going to look for permission. ...

    Ok, let's agree that you really have no idea what the protesters wanted. Unless of course you were there yourself, involved in the discussions about the protest. Speculation just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
    Clearly we differ on whether deliberately driving a car at a human being is a crime.
    She was charged and convicted of assault of an officer for slapping a Garda in the face. There were no charges in relation to the vehicle.

    http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6134&Itemid=38
    That aside, you illustrate precisely the point of why there should have been mass arrests: to avoid the sort of daft sophistry you just wheeled out.

    But hey, don't let me distract you from your pre-conceived ideas.
    Is that a personal attack from a moderator of these forums? Nice. Custodiam ipsos custodes indeed. I had to look up the word "sophistry", I've never heard it before.
    In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are derogatory terms, due to the influence of many past philosophers.


  • #116
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    demonspawn wrote: »
    My comment was correct. Standing on public property cannot be considered trespass. We have a right to demonstrate in this country, it's one of the perks of living in a free democracy.

    The Gardai can arrest anyone for disobeying an order to disperse, as these protesters were clearly doing. I didn't see anyone being arrested. I saw protesters being beaten, dragged, and thrown into ditches. The Gardai had absolutely no right whatsoever to do what they did here. In my eyes they broke the law and got away with it. But then, this is Ireland after all.

    What exactly should the Gardai do when they've asked these people to clear the road and they won't, and when they marched towards them with batons, they still refused to move, and then resisted the Gardai attempting to move them?


  • #117
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    What exactly should the Gardai do when they've asked these people to clear the road and they won't, and when they marched towards them with batons, they still refused to move, and then resisted the Gardai attempting to move them?

    Place them under arrest and charge them with a crime? I thought everyone knew how law enforcement works. :rolleyes:


  • #118
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    demonspawn wrote: »
    Ok, let's agree that you really have no idea what the protesters wanted. Unless of course you were there yourself, involved in the discussions about the protest. Speculation just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
    I have a fair idea what the protesters wanted. I live in Mayo, and their antics are well-known to us here.

    Unless you know differently, and can offer a more concrete perspective on the protesters' motives?
    She was charged and convicted of assault of an officer for slapping a Garda in the face. There were no charges in relation to the vehicle.
    I guess that means that she didn't actually drive her car at anyone, so - after all, if she wasn't convicted of it, it didn't happen.

    Right?
    Is that a personal attack from a moderator of these forums? Nice.
    No, it's not. It's a description of your post. The difference isn't really all that subtle.


  • #119
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    NewVision wrote: »
    Ireland would lose nothing so far. Forcing Shell to sea would cost the corporations as they're nor state companies. Of course can the minister demand the gas being processed offshore as Shell et al have been violating the contract in many cases.
    At a profit of tens or even hundreds of billions the gas will provide, repositioning the refinery would actyally be peanuts.

    Where there is a will there is a way.

    The post is a bit difficult to read, so sorry if I'm assuming you mean something different.

    You don't seem to understand that we have a contract with them. You can't just blackmail someone into changing it. If the minister decides to pause all processing to pressure Shell into renegotiating, Shell will tell him to f*ck right off. They'll take a tiny financial hit, but we won't be able to get anyone else to process the gas as Shell are still contracted to do it.

    If we break the contract, we'll be sued. Other multinationals will run a mile from us because we can't be trusted. Those who will come to Ireland will enforce draconian deals that will make the Corrib gas field look like the deal of the century, and we'll be forced to accept because we won't have a choice.


  • #120
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I have a fair idea what the protesters wanted. I live in Mayo, and their antics are well-known to us here.

    Unless you know differently, and can offer a more concrete perspective on the protesters' motives?

    No, I don't know differently. That's why I avoid spouting baseless speculation.
    I guess that means that she didn't actually drive her car at anyone, so - after all, if she wasn't convicted of it, it didn't happen.

    Right?

    If I was a member of the Gardai, and someone drove a car towards me, I would be damn sure that person was charged with dangerous driving and reckless endangerment. Why wasn't she charged? Probably because there was no evidence whatsoever that she actually drove into the cordon.

    No, it's not. It's a description of your post. The difference isn't really all that subtle.

    Well please try to restrain yourself from dragging this conversation down to a mud slinging match. Everyone else has done so up to now. If you have an argument, present it in a respectable fashion. It's called common courtesy.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    demonspawn wrote: »
    Place them under arrest and charge them with a crime? I thought everyone knew how law enforcement works. :rolleyes:

    There should have been arrests, I don't know why there wasn't but they were lucky. But how do you propose they deal with them, they weren't going to just be arrested, they were resisting and not cooperating with the Gardai.


Advertisement