More unrest & arrests at Corrib gas field

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
room305 said:
How sinful. God forbid the state should extend protection to those pursuing a profit-driven agenda.
Click to expand...
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,
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
RainyDay said:
Eh, oh yes it is. You can spin it anyway you like, but that is exactly what is happening.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Purple said:
but that's not why the state are allocating police resources there. They are doing so to uphold the law.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
RainyDay said:
On the assumption that this is a little dig at me...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
If this kind of harrassment is going on, a few mobile phone clips up on Youtube will quickly bring it into the public domain.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 

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?
 
ludermor said:
Thats hilarious , so a different opinion to you is trolling!
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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 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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
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?
 

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

RainyDay said:
Is your house full of dynamite or other highly explosive substances?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register