# More unrest & arrests at Corrib gas field



## Jock04 (14 Sep 2007)

At least 5 arrested & 2 Gardai taken to hospital after protestors stormed the gates at the construction site.

After spending most of my working life in the oil industry, part of it for Shell, I guess I could be accused of having a slanted view of this. But I just can't make up my mind about the protestors:

Ill-informed locals encouraged to cause trouble by militant groups from elsewhere?

Concerned citizens stating their case the only way they know how?

A bunch of chancers looking for a bundle of money to make them go away?

A bunch of gougers delighted to get the chance to cause trouble?

None of the above?

All of the above?


Personally, I think the locals have been fed a doomsday scenario by others with a bigger agenda - Shell seem to attract these groups, rightly or wrongly.
I can't help thinking the locals aren't helping their case by getting involved in fisticuffs with the guards & breaking HSE regulations themselves. Although some say any publicity is good publicity....
I'm well aware that this isn't happening in my own back yard and that I may well feel differently if it was. I still don't think the locals are portraying themselves in the best possible light.
So, what do others make of the situation?


----------



## polaris (14 Sep 2007)

From the Indo:

"A large group of Shell to Sea protestors was bussed into the area this morning to take part in a sit-down blockade of the site."

This suggests a bunch of non-local militants who went there specifically to stir things up.


----------



## nelly (14 Sep 2007)

Jock04 said:


> I can't help thinking the locals aren't helping their case by getting involved in fisticuffs with the guards & breaking HSE regulations themselves.


just to clarify - HSE??
do you mean Health and Safety Authority by any chance? HSA...

As for your question. did i hear somewhere that the find will be huge, big bucks and the State should not have sold but rather gotten the oil themselves as it is property of the state.??? could have been drivel... for the life of me it does not hold my interest.


----------



## Jock04 (14 Sep 2007)

Yep, HSA Nelly, - wrong vowel!

In global terms, the Corrib field is pretty small - although obviously still big enough to be worth developing. But Shell will have factored in many government concessions to make it a workable project, they could just as easily have left it as an asset on their books for a few years, or sold it on. The Gov. has at least secured a supply of gas without importing, for a number of years.

Now that it IS being developed though, I think the scare-mongering has got well out of perspective. It's hardly in Shells' interests to spend multi-millions on an unsafe asset. They know how to build refineries, and how to lay pipelines. Like I said before, Shell do attract a lot of flak from well-organised protest groups. I also wonder if there is some local resentment that perceived big-money jobs on an offshore platform have not come to fruition. Quite simply, if the field required, and justified on cost, an offshore manned facility, it would have one.

I think your last comment says a lot though - it's old news now, and probably only those close to it are still interested.


----------



## GeneralZod (14 Sep 2007)

The Irish Government recently [broken link removed] an increase in taxes on off-shore oil and gas revenues.


----------



## ubiquitous (14 Sep 2007)

Hi Jock

This subject was discussed on AAM many moons ago and I remember a number of contributors expressing very trenchant opinions in opposition to this development. 

I think your point that the think the scare-mongering has got out of perspective  is pretty well proven at this stage. Its also obvious that the protesters have little or no local support apart from a small coterie of diehards. The local politicians who backed the development all did very well in the recent election while the only "anti" TD, Jerry Cowley, lost his seat.


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2007)

Good posts Jock, it should also be remembered that oil companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years looking for oil and gas off the west coast. I really don't think most people have any idea of the cost of drilling.


----------



## Madangan (14 Sep 2007)

I am from the general area i.e Erris and although I no longer live there it is home,always will be and as well as family and friends living there I cant imagine that anywhere else will ever be home for me. I live and love Dublin but home is home.

Erris is beatiful but as my neighbour often says "ya cant eat scenery", jobs of any kind are needed there that many longterm well paying jobs are or will be created by the corrib find.

Most erris people are divided on the subject and I am too. I think the OPs list of people involved is spot on, you have genuine and scared and concerned locals, shinners out to cause trouble and gain votes(failed miserably thankfully) assorted tree huggers and new age travellers who if they ever did a real days work would drop dead of the shock and some non local but genuine well informed people with real concerns.

I have been sitting on the fence for a very long time on the issue but now my gut tells me that the protesters may be right(very scientific I know ).
People are very concerned about the local water supply(for an area the size of louth) having been damaged by the groundworks alone due to the nature(peat bog) of the soil etc.. Mayo Co Council are definitely not on the side of anyone but shell and seem to do nothing about peoples concerns. The only media outlet which raised this was channel 4 and no irish media appears interested. This I know is not about the pipeline its safety etc... but more and more I am worried that the people of erris who depend quite a lot on tourism may well end up being sacrificed for the greater economic good of the country...not just the people near the pipelines. Problem is erris is and has alawys been one of the poorest and most remote and infrastructurally most underdeveloped parts of the country so if fishing agriculture and tourism is endangered it is serious. 

I am not a nimby by nature but part of the problem is that it appears to many in/from erris that the people whose function it is to protect the people e.g the co.council,the planning authorities EPA and the government are all hell bent on helping shell regardless of the cost. If erris or indeed ireland as a whole was going to benefit in some meaningful long lasting way then it might be worth the sacrifice of our lakes and bays and the coast generally but Shell will benefit not erris and not ireland. Its not all that well known but more and more people at home are buying bottled water all the time rather than drink even boiled tap water( due to concerns about elevated mineral levels in the water(with possible links among other things to alzheimers). If of course erris was in Galway that would be on the tv day in day out.

However my biggest issue with many of the protestors is that some are so unsavoury themselves that they do far more harm to the cause than good. Equally there are a lot of Erris people in favour of the pipelines for the security and construction jobs in the initial stages etc.. A member of my own family works there at the moment.

Anyway this is just one erris persions view for what its worth.


----------



## ludermor (14 Sep 2007)

Like Madagan i am from the area but living in dublin. I have close ties to the area and have mixed views as to the development. I have stated here before my views so wont go through them again. I would have lots of friends on boths sides of the argument and i know a lot of outsiders woring on the plant through my work.The protest today was well known all week and it was known that there would be trouble. It is the blow in who cause most of the trouble but i have to sa that the attitude of some of the local protesters is sickening. Most of what happens doesnt even make the local papers any more the intimidation of the workers is continious and getting worse. Days like this does there cause no good whatsoever


----------



## RainyDay (15 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> it should also be remembered that oil companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years looking for oil and gas off the west coast. I really don't think most people have any idea of the cost of drilling.


What's the chances that Shell will share their billions with the other oil companies who spent hundreds of millions exploring?

I wonder why there is no difficulty putting 200 gardai on site to act as private security for Shell in Mayo when many inner-city communities are crying out for more gardai on the streets.


----------



## ludermor (15 Sep 2007)

there is not 200 guards there on a permanent basis, there is a far smaller crew there to deal with the daily distrubance on public roads where people are being stopped going to work.
Have you an issue with guards been deployed to the streets of dublin for the Love Ulster march? Reinforcements are called in when 'day of action' are going to happen, the protesters are fairly vocal as to what will happen on these days of action.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> What's the chances that Shell will share their billions with the other oil companies who spent hundreds of millions exploring?


I don't think there's much chance of this happening but if any of the other oil companies who were looking found oil or gas I don't think they would share it either. What's your point? 



RainyDay said:


> I wonder why there is no difficulty putting 200 gardai on site to act as private security for Shell in Mayo when many inner-city communities are crying out for more gardai on the streets.


 I agree that it's a disgrace that police resources are being tied up there and not used where they could help more. I don't see how they could not be diploid there though as public order is their remit.

I am no fan of Shell as a corporation and am well aware of how they behaved in Nigeria but this dispute should be seen in a local context.


----------



## RainyDay (15 Sep 2007)

My point about 'sharing' was in response to your point about the millions spent on exploration. So really, it's a case of 'whats your point?'.

My point about Garda resources was to highlight the fact that people can be shot in Moyross on a regular basis, and the Gardai are still left without the resources to control that situation, but when there is a hint of a huge oil company coming under siege, there seems to be no problem with resources. A cynic might come to the conclusion that Shell's profits are more important than human life down in the Dept of Justice.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> My point about 'sharing' was in response to your point about the millions spent on exploration. So really, it's a case of 'whats your point?'.


 My point is that because oil companies have to spend upwards of one million dollars a day just to have an exploration rig at sea and there is a low chance of getting a return the rewards have to be high. The fact that the oil or gas is not shared between all the oil companies only increases the risks. I still don't know what point you were making with your comments about sharing. If oil companies knew that they would get a share of oil or gas found by other companies none of them would bother drilling 10" diameter holes three miles deep through sea bed a mile under water.  



RainyDay said:


> My point about Garda resources was to highlight the fact that people can be shot in Moyross on a regular basis, and the Gardai are still left without the resources to control that situation, but when there is a hint of a huge oil company coming under siege, there seems to be no problem with resources. A cynic might come to the conclusion that Shell's profits are more important than human life down in the Dept of Justice.


 Only a cynic that was either a simpleton or choose to ignore the complexities of the situation in Moyross. I fully accept that more should be done to help Moyross and other areas that suffer high levels of social deprivation (even if that means higher taxes etc) but there is no link between Mayross and the Shell to Sea protests.


----------



## RainyDay (16 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> My point is that because oil companies have to spend upwards of one million dollars a day just to have an exploration rig at sea and there is a low chance of getting a return the rewards have to be high. The fact that the oil or gas is not shared between all the oil companies only increases the risks.


Nothing I'd disagree with there, though I'm still struggling to see the relevance of this to the Corrib unrest discussion. If there is some implication for the unrest, you might want to spell this out.


Purple said:


> Only a cynic that was either a simpleton or choose to ignore the complexities of the situation in Moyross. I fully accept that more should be done to help Moyross and other areas that suffer high levels of social deprivation (even if that means higher taxes etc) but there is no link between Mayross and the Shell to Sea protests.



You seem to have missed my point. I never said or implied that additional Gardai would completely resolve the Moyross situation. Moyross is just one example of the many, many better things that the Gardai could be doing, other than providing private security for Shell. When Gardai attend at Landsdowne Road or Croker, the organising body shells out a portion of the costs incurred by the state. How much has Shell paid out? [Hint: Zero]


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Nothing I'd disagree with there, though I'm still struggling to see the relevance of this to the Corrib unrest discussion. If there is some implication for the unrest, you might want to spell this out.


  It has nothing to do with Corrib but it has a lot to do with the Red Herring of how Shell are ripping off the people of Ireland that is thrown in when the Corrib gas field is discussed. It may well be true but it has nothing to do with the safety concerns that are supposed to be at issue in Mayo.




RainyDay said:


> You seem to have missed my point. I never said or implied that additional Gardai would completely resolve the Moyross situation. Moyross is just one example of the many, many better things that the Gardai could be doing, other than providing private security for Shell. When Gardai attend at Landsdowne Road or Croker, the organising body shells out a portion of the costs incurred by the state. How much has Shell paid out? [Hint: Zero]


I am no fan of oil companies, the French ones being the worst by a mile when it comes to abuse of human rights and supporting despots Burma, Rwanda etc) but at Landsdown road the IRFU, FIA, concert promoter etc wants the people there (and make money from each one), Shell don't. I do not see any reason why a person or corporation should have to pay the policing costs for legal and illegal protest against them. Imagine the precedent that would set? Pro-life groups could put pro-choice groups out of business simply by protesting against them, and vice versa.


----------



## room305 (16 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Moyross is just one example of the many, many better things that the Gardai could be doing, other than providing private security for Shell.





RainyDay said:


> A cynic might come to the conclusion that Shell's profits are more important than human life down in the Dept of Justice.





RainyDay said:


> I wonder why there is no difficulty putting 200 gardai on site to act as private security for Shell in Mayo when many inner-city communities are crying out for more gardai on the streets.



Even if they can well afford it, would you really be happy if Shell told the Gardai to stay away and hired their own private security force to handle the protests?


----------



## jhegarty (16 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> You seem to have missed my point. I never said or implied that additional Gardai would completely resolve the Moyross situation. Moyross is just one example of the many, many better things that the Gardai could be doing, other than providing private security for Shell. When Gardai attend at Landsdowne Road or Croker, the organising body shells out a portion of the costs incurred by the state. How much has Shell paid out? [Hint: Zero]





You get planning permission to build a house. I objected but my objection was rejected.

You start building your house but I decided to do illegal things to stop the builders...


How much should you have to pay to get me arrested ?


----------



## RainyDay (16 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> at Landsdown road the IRFU, FIA, concert promoter etc wants the people there (and make money from each one), Shell don't. I do not see any reason why a person or corporation should have to pay the policing costs for legal and illegal protest against them. Imagine the precedent that would set? Pro-life groups could put pro-choice groups out of business simply by protesting against them, and vice versa.


While it is obvious that Shell don't want the people there, they are nevertheless a commercial entity. Their sole objective in this project is to make money. It is a commercial venture, not a social movement or a protest. 



jhegarty said:


> You get planning permission to build a house. I objected but my objection was rejected.
> 
> You start building your house but I decided to do illegal things to stop the builders...
> 
> ...



Is your house full of dynamite or other highly explosive substances?



room305 said:


> Even if they can well afford it, would you really be happy if Shell told the Gardai to stay away and hired their own private security force to handle the protests?


I'd be really happy if Shell reimbursed the State for the costs of the resources applied to help them make more money.


----------



## room305 (16 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> While it is obvious that Shell don't want the people there, they are nevertheless a commercial entity. Their sole objective in this project is to make money. It is a commercial venture, not a social movement or a protest.



How sinful. God forbid the state should extend protection to those pursuing a profit-driven agenda.



RainyDay said:


> I'd be really happy if Shell reimbursed the State for the costs of the resources applied to help them make more money.



The state is not supplying Shell with resources to "help make them more money" as you put it, but to allow a legal and legitimate business to continue to operate. If protestors took umbrage with a business you owned for some reason or other, you would expect the same courtesy to be extended to you.

Following your logic, almost any large business could run its smaller competitors out of business by paying protestors to stir up trouble and have the state send out a bill.


----------



## ubiquitous (17 Sep 2007)

room305 said:


> If protestors took umbrage with a business you owned for some reason or other, you would expect the same courtesy to be extended to you.



This a very good point and imho applies equally or perhaps to a greater extent to the employees on the construction project. These people are simply doing a day's work on the construction project and in doing so are being subjected to intimidation, threats and sometimes violence.  Surely they deserve police protection and should not have to pay for it. 

(The companies who occupied the World Trade Center buildings on Sept 11 2001 were commercial entities whose sole objective was to make money. Did anyone argue then that the police, fire and other emergency services should have stood idly by when they were illegally attacked?)

The mind boggles when people who pride themselves on their concerns about workers rights (including health & safety) in other contexts can choose to equivocate in relation to the plight of the Rossport construction workers.


----------



## RainyDay (17 Sep 2007)

room305 said:


> How sinful. God forbid the state should extend protection to those pursuing a profit-driven agenda.


It's funny, but when I was composing that post in my head, I had planned to put in something to say 'I don't have any particular problem with profit', but I knew someone would deliberately misconstrue my comments. Posters interested in the facts might like to go back and read what I said. Those who want to put 2 and 2 together to get 17 can keep on putting words in my mouth which aren't mine.


room305 said:


> The state is not supplying Shell with resources to "help make them more money" as you put it, but to allow a legal and legitimate business to continue to operate. If protestors took umbrage with a business you owned for some reason or other, you would expect the same courtesy to be extended to you.





room305 said:


> The state is not supplying Shell with resources to "help make them more money" as you put it,


Eh, oh yes it is. You can spin it anyway you like, but that is exactly what is happening.


room305 said:


> If protestors took umbrage with a business you owned for some reason or other, you would expect the same courtesy to be extended to you.


As stated above, if my business involved piping highly explosive substances within a kilometre of somebody's living room, I might expect some courtesy would be extended to the people in the living room.


room305 said:


> Following your logic, almost any large business could run its smaller competitors out of business by paying protestors to stir up trouble and have the state send out a bill.


This is just silly. Do you think the protesters are VAT-registered? How would they get that invoice past the auditors?


ubiquitous said:


> The mind boggles when people who pride themselves on their concerns about workers rights (including health & safety) in other contexts can choose to equivocate in relation to the plight of the Rossport construction workers.


On the assumption that this is a little dig at me, I'd again suggest that readers look at what I posted, rather than berating me for what I didn't post.


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> Eh, oh yes it is. You can spin it anyway you like, but that is exactly what is happening.


 Yes, the net result is that Shell will be able to make a profit, a far bigger one than should have been possible if Ray Bourke hadn't screwed things up, but that's not why the state are allocating police resources there. They are doing so to uphold the law. Correct me if I am wrong but I take it that you are not objecting to the Gardai being there but to the fact that Shell are not footing the bill? While it is galling that a company like Shell are not paying for this you must accept that the state cannot charge the victim for protecting them from illegal protests. Again, I fully accept that it is galling that Shell is cast in the role of the victim but the law must be blind in these matters. 
This in no way takes away from the serious concerns which some of the locals have.


----------



## RainyDay (17 Sep 2007)

Purple said:


> but that's not why the state are allocating police resources there. They are doing so to uphold the law.


But yet when faced with many other opportunities to uphold the law (e.g. Moyross), they choose to give priority to big business. Is this just coincidence?


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> But yet when faced with many other opportunities to uphold the law (e.g. Moyross), they choose to give priority to big business. Is this just coincidence?


 I don't think it's that simple. They are seperate issues but I do agree that the fact that it's Shell, and a strategic national resource, does mean that overtime is unlikely to be an issue.


----------



## room305 (18 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> As stated above, if my business involved piping highly explosive substances within a kilometre of somebody's living room, I might expect some courtesy would be extended to the people in the living room.



So you think the Gardai should evaluate the businesses they are going to protect to decide whether they agree with their business model before deigning to protect them from illegal protests?

I'm no fan of Shell, but what you are proposing sounds more like police-state than a democratic republic.



RainyDay said:


> This is just silly. Do you think the protesters are VAT-registered? How would they get that invoice past the auditors?



You may be missing my point. By your logic, a business that requires Garda protection to allow it to continue to operate should foot the bill for said protection.

Now imagine Multinational Megacorp (MM) decides it doesn't like its competitor Plucky Upstart Ltd. So MM spreads a few scandalous rumours about the environmental practices or working conditions of Plucky Upstart, or maybe just hires a bunch of people who like causing trouble to go and cause trouble outside the doors of the company - intimidate workers, block access to the site etc. Eventually the Gardai are called in and Plucky Upstart is forced to pay for these Gardai to be stationed outside its doors. Very soon, Plucky soon runs into cashflow difficulties meeting Garda overtime demands and goes out of business.

Unless of course, you are suggesting that your rules should only apply to businesses you don't like.


----------



## ubiquitous (18 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> On the assumption that this is a little dig at me...


You are wrong in your assumption.

Fwiw, I was thinking more in terms of the likes of ex-TD Joe Higgins and the Indymedia brigade (along with their pals in the softer left-wing political parties and/or the media) who shout very loud about workers rights, but who don't seem to be able to bring themselves to condemn or oppose the harassment that the Rossport construction workers are suffering. In fact most of these people seem to claim to actively support the Rossport lawbreakers.

If you are happy to count yourself in this bracket, fine by me.


----------



## ludermor (18 Sep 2007)

the level of harrassment has never being made public knowledge and it is hardcore. As well the stuff you see on TV or the papers ( blocking the roads, protesting at the gates,) there is lots of more sinister stuff going on, assualting staff at quarries, verbal and physical abuse in the town , taunts and threats outside certain pubs, phonecalls in the middle of the night, urinating on the gates with the security staff behind the gates. 
I have friends involved in both the protests and working on the site and i have sympathy for both sides. But i have huge issues with the tactics used by the protestors, not all of the trouble is caused by the rent a mob who have set up camp near the site, the behaviour of some local (in weel respected jobs , teachers and accountants) is disgraceful.


----------



## RainyDay (18 Sep 2007)

room305 said:


> So you think the Gardai should evaluate the businesses they are going to protect to decide whether they agree with their business model before deigning to protect them from illegal protests?
> I'm no fan of Shell, but what you are proposing sounds more like police-state than a democratic republic.


You've just put 2 + 2 together to make 17. That's not what I suggested at all. What I would propose is that businesses like Shell do their business in a way that doesn't require mass ranks of Gardai at their site on a regular basis.


room305 said:


> You may be missing my point. By your logic, a business that requires Garda protection to allow it to continue to operate should foot the bill for said protection.
> 
> Now imagine Multinational Megacorp (MM) decides it doesn't like its competitor Plucky Upstart Ltd. So MM spreads a few scandalous rumours about the environmental practices or working conditions of Plucky Upstart, or maybe just hires a bunch of people who like causing trouble to go and cause trouble outside the doors of the company - intimidate workers, block access to the site etc. Eventually the Gardai are called in and Plucky Upstart is forced to pay for these Gardai to be stationed outside its doors. Very soon, Plucky soon runs into cashflow difficulties meeting Garda overtime demands and goes out of business.


I got your point the first time. I thought it was silly then, and your clarification is even more silly. If MM wants to put PU out of business, it has many existing illegal options at its disposal. This is a red herring.



Purple said:


> I don't think it's that simple. They are seperate issues but I do agree that the fact that it's Shell, and a strategic national resource, does mean that overtime is unlikely to be an issue.


But they are NOT separate issues for the Garda Supt who is deciding where to send his troops today has to choose A or B. I heard community leaders in Limerick begging for additional Garda resources to save lives over the summer. I guess an email from Shell gets more weight.


ludermor said:


> the level of harrassment has never being made public knowledge and it is hardcore. As well the stuff you see on TV or the papers ( blocking the roads, protesting at the gates,) there is lots of more sinister stuff going on, assualting staff at quarries, verbal and physical abuse in the town , taunts and threats outside certain pubs, phonecalls in the middle of the night, urinating on the gates with the security staff behind the gates.
> I have friends involved in both the protests and working on the site and i have sympathy for both sides. But i have huge issues with the tactics used by the protestors, not all of the trouble is caused by the rent a mob who have set up camp near the site, the behaviour of some local (in weel respected jobs , teachers and accountants) is disgraceful.


If this kind of harrassment is going on, a few mobile phone clips up on Youtube will quickly bring it into the public domain.


----------



## room305 (19 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> What I would propose is that businesses like Shell do their business in a way that doesn't require mass ranks of Gardai at their site on a regular basis.



So you want them to get out of the oil industry altogether then? 

Seriously, I asked would you be happy if Shell supplied their own private security forces to keep the protestors at bay (many of whom care not a whit for safety issues and are more concerned about issues of environment and natural resource nationalisation). You suggested that you would be happy if Shell reimbursed the state for the cost of maintaining a Garda presence. I took it that you would like such a scheme to be put in place for all businesses. Apologies if it appears that I derived 17 from the addition of 2 plus 2.

So perhaps you could clarify matters. There will always be businesses operating legally in this state that clash with the ideology of some group on how the world should work. This leads to the possibility of such groups attempting to disrupt the operations of the businesses with which they disagree. These businesses and their workers may then require Garda protection if they are to continue to operate. How do you propose to determine which businesses should reimburse the state for this courtesy, and which should not?


----------



## RainyDay (19 Sep 2007)

room305 said:


> Seriously, I asked would you be happy if Shell supplied their own private security forces to keep the protestors at bay (many of whom care not a whit for safety issues and are more concerned about issues of environment and natural resource nationalisation). You suggested that you would be happy if Shell reimbursed the state for the cost of maintaining a Garda presence. I took it that you would like such a scheme to be put in place for all businesses. Apologies if it appears that I derived 17 from the addition of 2 plus 2.
> 
> So perhaps you could clarify matters. There will always be businesses operating legally in this state that clash with the ideology of some group on how the world should work. This leads to the possibility of such groups attempting to disrupt the operations of the businesses with which they disagree. These businesses and their workers may then require Garda protection if they are to continue to operate. How do you propose to determine which businesses should reimburse the state for this courtesy, and which should not?



You can make up as many hypothetical scenarios you like. I don't feel obliged to answer to you. The facts are that the vast majority of companies don't operate in a way that require hundreds of Gardai on a regular basis to support their operation. Shell need to find a solution to this, and until they do, they need to shell out to reimburse the State for the costs of the operation. I'm not going to discuss this further with you, as I believe you are trolling.


----------



## ludermor (19 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> You can make up as many hypothetical scenarios you like. I don't feel obliged to answer to you. The facts are that the vast majority of companies don't operate in a way that require hundreds of Gardai on a regular basis to support their operation. Shell need to find a solution to this, and until they do, they need to shell out to reimburse the State for the costs of the operation. I'm not going to discuss this further with you, as I believe you are trolling.


 
Thats hilarious , so a different opinion to you is trolling!
If the protestors werent causing disruption there would be no need for the guards. Whatever about the moral or ethical arguments that fact is not in doubt. Why arnt the protestors charged with these costs?


----------



## RainyDay (19 Sep 2007)

ludermor said:


> Thats hilarious , so a different opinion to you is trolling!


My track record on AAM shows that this is not how I operate.


ludermor said:


> If the protestors werent causing disruption there would be no need for the guards. Whatever about the moral or ethical arguments that fact is not in doubt. Why arnt the protestors charged with these costs?


Hardly an objective view. If Shell weren't trying to build a high-pressure pipeline less than 1 km from residential houses, there would be no need for the guards.


----------



## Purple (20 Sep 2007)

I don't think anybody is trolling here. It's a fundamental question; if a person or company gains the right, through legal means, to do something that others strongly object to, should that person or company have to foot the bill when the state enforces its laws. That, in general terms, is the point being made above and even if you disagree with it, it is still valid and is in no way trolling.
I know what happens when oil companies are left to their own devices to protect their interests. If you are not sure read up on the Ogoni people. I'm not trying to be flippant, I know that many of Shell to Sea have used the memory of Ken Sara Wiwa in their campaign and I have no doubt that he would support their protests, but we cannot allow a precedent to be set where those who operate within the law have to foot the bill for protests against them that are outside the law. All parties should operate within the law, or at least in a manner which does not require police protection due to threats against the person.


----------



## ludermor (20 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> My track record on AAM shows that this is not how I operate.
> 
> Hardly an objective view. If Shell weren't trying to build a high-pressure pipeline less than 1 km from residential houses, there would be no need for the guards.


 
I know thats not how you operate but i really dont think there was any call for saying that trolling is going all.
Shell have got permission for their operations and to my knowledge have not done anything illegal here. As i said before my biggest gripe in this situation is the government for granting the licence and the terms of the licence. It is a fact that the protestors are breaking the law and not shell (to the best of my knowledge)


----------



## ubiquitous (20 Sep 2007)

Did McDonalds have to bear the cost of police protection when their stores were repeatedly attacked by French "farmers" some years ago?

Did factories and shops in Northern Ireland have to do likewise when they and their staff were threatened, bombed or killed by terrorists?

Did An Post have to pay the cost of the protection afforded to them by Garda O'Sullivan and the late Jerry McCabe when their post office in Adare was robbed in 1996?

If the Irish branches of Intel, Dell, Google, eBay or one of the other large multinational IT companies were to have their premises or staff attacked by anti-globalisation forces at any stage, should the Gardai steer clear unless and until their bills are paid?


----------



## room305 (20 Sep 2007)

RainyDay said:


> You can make up as many hypothetical scenarios you like. I don't feel obliged to answer to you. The facts are that the vast majority of companies don't operate in a way that require hundreds of Gardai on a regular basis to support their operation. Shell need to find a solution to this, and until they do, they need to shell out to reimburse the State for the costs of the operation. I'm not going to discuss this further with you, as I believe you are trolling.



That's twice now you've accused me of trolling. You point to your record and I'll point to mine.

The reason I, and many others, keep outlining hypothetical scenarios to you is that we are trying to discover what you feel is fundamentally different about the Shell case that it should be forced to pay for Garda protection. If the issue is safety well then the fault lies with the government who approved the operation and it hardly seems fair to punish Shell for this. If the issue is whether the state should gain a portion of the profits from the utilisation of an Irish resource then ditto. If Shell is acting in breach of any law well then there are legal means of redress.

Since it would be a staggering and unprecedented turn of events for the state to bill a company for the cost of protecting its workers from illegal protests, I'm curious to know what sort of rules you propose should be applied when doing so.


----------



## RainyDay (20 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> Did McDonalds have to bear the cost of police protection when their stores were repeatedly attacked by French "farmers" some years ago?
> 
> Did factories and shops in Northern Ireland have to do likewise when they and their staff were threatened, bombed or killed by terrorists?
> 
> Did An Post have to pay the cost of the protection afforded to them by Garda O'Sullivan and the late Jerry McCabe when their post office in Adare was robbed in 1996?


I'm not sure about France or NI, but (and thanks for reminding me) I do know that the banks do indeed pay a contribution towards the costs of the Garda protection for the cash-in-transit service, and have done so for many years. Why should Shell get away lightly?


----------



## ubiquitous (21 Sep 2007)

I still am bemused that you seem to be a lot more worried about the perceived injustice of Shell getting free Garda protection against violent attacks than about the actual injustice of the attacks themselves. Mountains and molehills come to mind but I honestly don't think we're going to agree on this one.


----------



## room305 (21 Sep 2007)

ubiquitous said:


> I still am bemused that you seem to be a lot more worried about the perceived injustice of Shell getting free Garda protection against violent attacks than about the actual injustice of the attacks themselves.



Perhaps RainyDay doesn't feel the attacks constitute an injustice?



RainyDay said:


> Is your house full of dynamite or other highly explosive substances?





RainyDay said:


> ... if my business involved piping highly explosive substances within a kilometre of somebody's living room, I might expect some courtesy would be extended to the people in the living room.


----------

