Shell to Sea

[Hardy]

I'd be interested in people's opinions on the concept of hunger strike as determinant of public policy.

To my mind it's a question of degree between it and hostage taking. Instead of "I'll kill these people if I don't get my way", it's "I'll kill myself if I don't get my way". Is it good policy to concede to either threat?

[Gnevin]

Well if you truly believe that you should leave

No room for oposition in Ireland? The Chinese would be proud of you.

Didn't mean that , I meant I wouldn't live in the country where i believed the government has such as wilful disregard for life .

[blast05]

I'd be interested in people's opinions on the concept of hunger strike as determinant of public policy.

To my mind it's a question of degree between it and hostage taking. Instead of "I'll kill these people if I don't get my way", it's "I'll kill myself if I don't get my way". Is it good policy to concede to either threat?

I think she is wrong - completely...... and she is putting Shell to Sea in a difficult situation imho.
The reality is that the Shell to Sea campgin aren't complaining as such about the government giving away the resources (which i don't see to be the case given the circumstances of when the agreement was made in the 80's) or proposing that the gas should not be brought ashore. They are simply stating that it should be processed at sea, which would cost and additional €300-400 million in contruction - 1 weeks profit for the global shell corporation. However, by Shell to Sea "supporting" Maura Harrington in her hunger strike, their message is getting further confused .... but what are they to do ..... if they fail to be seen to back here then there is a divide in their support - just what Shell would want.

[magpie seanie]

Good post Blast.

Genuinely I believe if Shell agreed to process at sea then the trouble would be over. I also feel that if our government pressed them to do so they would eventually agree.

[ludermor]

I think she is wrong - completely...... and she is putting Shell to Sea in a difficult situation imho.
The reality is that the Shell to Sea campgin aren't complaining as such about the government giving away the resources (which i don't see to be the case given the circumstances of when the agreement was made in the 80's) or proposing that the gas should not be brought ashore. They are simply stating that it should be processed at sea, which would cost and additional €300-400 million in contruction - 1 weeks profit for the global shell corporation. However, by Shell to Sea "supporting" Maura Harrington in her hunger strike, their message is getting further confused .... but what are they to do ..... if they fail to be seen to back here then there is a divide in their support - just what Shell would want.

She has stated that exact point as one of the reasons for the strike

[Lar Naparka]

I'd be interested in people's opinions on the concept of hunger strike as determinant of public policy.

To my mind it's a question of degree between it and hostage taking. Instead of "I'll kill these people if I don't get my way", it's "I'll kill myself if I don't get my way". Is it good policy to concede to either threat?

I think she is wrong - completely...... and she is putting Shell to Sea in a difficult situation imho.
The reality is that the Shell to Sea campgin aren't complaining as such about the government giving away the resources (which i don't see to be the case given the circumstances of when the agreement was made in the 80's) or proposing that the gas should not be brought ashore. They are simply stating that it should be processed at sea, which would cost and additional €300-400 million in contruction - 1 weeks profit for the global shell corporation. However, by Shell to Sea "supporting" Maura Harrington in her hunger strike, their message is getting further confused .... but what are they to do ..... if they fail to be seen to back here then there is a divide in their support - just what Shell would want.

You're spot on there, Blast.
I was down Bellenaboy way on Saturday to have a chat with some of the locals that I know. Maura Harrington lives in Doohoma, about 20 miles away and is not regarded by most as a 'local' person. It seems too that her action took many of the residents there by surprise. I don't mean that they don't broadly agree with her but they feel that she tends to act off her own bat.
Furthermore, some of the appellants at a planning meeting back in 2001 were at pains to point out that they were not against the gas being brought ashore. It was the proposed method of refining that they were objecting to.
Martin Healy, one of the appellants (objectors) at this meeting summed up their concerns neatly:
"You cannot build a gas terminal in a bog. That's free advice."

[Zapatista]

I think she is wrong - completely...... and she is putting Shell to Sea in a difficult situation imho.
The reality is that the Shell to Sea campgin aren't complaining as such about the government giving away the resources (which i don't see to be the case given the circumstances of when the agreement was made in the 80's) or proposing that the gas should not be brought ashore. They are simply stating that it should be processed at sea, which would cost and additional €300-400 million in contruction - 1 weeks profit for the global shell corporation. However, by Shell to Sea "supporting" Maura Harrington in her hunger strike, their message is getting further confused .... but what are they to do ..... if they fail to be seen to back here then there is a divide in their support - just what Shell would want.

She has stated that exact point as one of the reasons for the strike

She has made it quite clear that if the pipe laying boat leaves then she will call  off the strike. One demand.

[ludermor]

Not true!
So if the gas was refined at sea it would still need to be broguht to land, and she would still be against this. She said quite clearly that she was against the gas coming ashore in whatever format.

[Zapatista]

Not true!
So if the gas was refined at sea it would still need to be broguht to land, and she would still be against this. She said quite clearly that she was against the gas coming ashore in whatever format.

You might be right she might be against this but it is not a demand of the hungerstrike.

She is on hungerstrike with one demand. She has been on other forms of protest with other demands but the hungerstrike has one demand.

[ludermor]

You might be right Zap but im sure she had a list of reasons when she was interviewed on Matt Cooper. Can anyone source the interview online? I know she realeased a statement saying she would come off it when the boat left irish waters but thought she added to it later

[blast05]

Lets her say all she likes. The question is whose opinion and stance is she representing.
"Shell to Sea" was set up to try and get the gas processed off shore - not stop the gas being processed or to get the government to re-negotiate anything with Shell. Shell to Sea are losing the PR battle and they have allowed their single issue to get tied up with the issue that Maura Harrington is trying to highlight. They are damned if they support her and they are damned if they don't. Hippies and crusties and Sinn Fein ((2 members of the local Sinn Fein party are employed by Shell)) also have nothing to do with Shell to Seas single issue - they are only also serving to confuse the issue by focusing on the money the governmnet is 'losing'

Where is Mark Garavan when he is needed. The Shell to Sea campaign has completely lost direction int he last 12 months

Edit: I've just looked at the Shell to Sea website. I stand corrected on most of the above. While the single focus of the campaign was on getting the gas to be processed at sea, i think it is clear now from the website with the big bold label of "Our Gas Our National Interest" that the focus has switched completely. Remains to be seen whether it will be sucessful. I still stand by the opinion that the vast majority of the original Shell to Sea campaigners (not including the rent-a-mob) are only interested in getting the terminal re-located out to sea.

[Gnevin]

See a bomb was planted out side's shells head office . And being very very careful here Shell have at least mentioned the Corbib project in their press release saying "In a statement released today, Shell says the work being undertaken on the Corrib pipeline in Mayo has all the necessary consents and permissions required. "



Bomb defused outside Shell headquarters in Dublin

Tuesday, 16 September 2008

    * Print Print
    * Email Email

Search Search Go
Bookmark & Share

    * Digg It
    * del.icio.us
    * Facebook
    * Stumbleupon

What are these?
Change font size: A | A | A

Shell Ireland is describing the discovery of an explosive device outside its offices in Dublin as a "sinister development".

The Republic's Army Bomb Disposal Unit had to be called in to deal with the device outside Corrib House on Leeson Street at about 10.30pm last night.

A controlled explosion was carried out, and the scene was given the all clear at 11.20pm.

"The bomb disposal team received a Garda request to attend at the scene," said a Defence Forces spokesman.

"The team carried out a controlled explosion on the simple, improvised explosive device.

"The bomb disposal officer gave the all-clear at 11.20pm. The remains of the device were handed over to Gardai at the scene for investigation into the incident."

The area around Leeson Street and Adelaide Road was sealed off but was given the all-clear at around midnight. Shell Ireland is building a controversial pipeline despite local protests at Rossport in north Co Mayo.

In a statement released today, Shell says the work being undertaken on the Corrib pipeline in Mayo has all the necessary consents and permissions required.

The company goes on to say that this is a time for calm assessment and that they remain open and willing to talk to any individuals or groups who still have concerns about the project.


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/bomb-defused-outside-shell-headquarters-in-dublin-13974178.html

[Tankie]

ahh this is taking it a bit far, theres one thing some aul one not eating but another thing putting other people lives in danger!

[Zapatista]

ahh this is taking it a bit far, theres one thing some aul one not eating but another thing putting other people lives in danger!

She is also a person.

Do you know who did this?

[Tankie]

ahh this is taking it a bit far, theres one thing some aul one not eating but another thing putting other people lives in danger!

She is also a person.

Do you know who did this?

yes but what she is doing she can stop and its all he own choice, a bomb could go off at any stage killing anyone!