Kate P wrote:

Important Development on Shell to Sea



Thursday, 18 September 2008

I have been alerted to an important development in the ongoing Shell to Sea Campaign in Co. Mayo. Maura Harrington, a school teacher from Glengad in Co. Donegal, began a hunger strike when the biggest pipe-laying ship in the world, Solitaire, arrived to start laying the pipeline for Shell's controversial Corrib gas project.

Yet, following 10 days of hunger strike, Shell maintains a stony silence, refusing to make public their intentions and that of the Solitaire. It was previously reported that Shell would not attempt to lay the pipeline until next year; however no statement from Shell has been forthcoming to confirm or deny that. If Shell were to clarify their intentions, it would hopefully provide sufficient grounds for Maura to end her current protest. Instead, one of the biggest multinationals in the world is playing a game of high stakes poker with Ms. Harrington's life. We need to continue to pressurise this multinational company in every way possible and continue to raise public awareness to make an unequivocal announcement.


Kathy Sinnott press release from today.

Ms Sinnott appears to be somewhat behind events.

I hear the politicians are now yakking on about Rossport. Funny that - not a squeak out of them these past eight days.

Kathy Sinnott doesn't half pop up in the oddest situations.

johnfás wrote:

Kathy Sinnott doesn't half pop up in the oddest situations.

Oh jesus, that strikes fear into my very being..

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Kathy Sinnott doesn't half pop up in the oddest situations.

Oh jesus, that strikes fear into my very being..

Just for you then:

You're tryying to kill me ibis. Did you make that animation over a cup of coffee ?

I wonder could you get a beer tankard like that with her ear as a handle

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

You're tryying to kill me ibis. Did you make that animation over a cup of coffee ?

I did. With great power goes great irresponsibility...

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

You're tryying to kill me ibis. Did you make that animation over a cup of coffee ?

I did. With great power goes great irresponsibility...

And great wickedness...

Good to see Conor Lally didn't head out to Rós Dumhach with an agenda.

A lazy pathetic ultra-biased account of the issue. Do Conor Lally/The Irish Times really under estimate people's intelligence that much? To see through this type of guff?

Ah good old Tom Brady never lets you down with his thorough going reportage.

ibis wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Important Development on Shell to Sea



Thursday, 18 September 2008

I have been alerted to an important development in the ongoing Shell to Sea Campaign in Co. Mayo. Maura Harrington, a school teacher from Glengad in Co. Donegal, began a hunger strike when the biggest pipe-laying ship in the world, Solitaire, arrived to start laying the pipeline for Shell's controversial Corrib gas project.

Yet, following 10 days of hunger strike, Shell maintains a stony silence, refusing to make public their intentions and that of the Solitaire. It was previously reported that Shell would not attempt to lay the pipeline until next year; however no statement from Shell has been forthcoming to confirm or deny that. If Shell were to clarify their intentions, it would hopefully provide sufficient grounds for Maura to end her current protest. Instead, one of the biggest multinationals in the world is playing a game of high stakes poker with Ms. Harrington's life. We need to continue to pressurise this multinational company in every way possible and continue to raise public awareness to make an unequivocal announcement.


Kathy Sinnott press release from today.

Ms Sinnott appears to be somewhat behind events.

But not behind the door about coming forward, is she? Even tardily. If it wasn't such an awful situation, it might be funny.

cactus flower wrote:

The S2S and other local opposition group did not ignore or downplay the incident Ibis, they both made prompt and thorough statements to press and television condemning it and disassociating themselves from it. The allegation of downplaying and PR is a totally unwarranted slur. The news report I linked didn't seem to muster the degree of outrage and fury against S2S that might have been hoped for by some and made suggested that the device was non-functional.

There is a clear contradiction between the original Garda statement that the "device" (plastic bag containing an alarm clock, bottle of petrol and can of paint, in some way linked but not in any functional way) was viable and the news report I linked that reported a source as saying it was not set up to work. If it had been established that it was safe, why was it then destroyed, as it provided both forensic evidence and as Hermes says the possibility of tracing the purchase of the objects?

Anyone who hasn't read the report of the Morris Tribunal will find it linked here. The details of the instigation by a small number of Gardai of bomb making and planting of bullets and "devices" would be hilarious if the matter wasn't so serious.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/special/2004/morris/index.pdf

With respect to the excellent work done by many Gardai, I seem to recall that interception of the huge car bomb stopped a short while before Omagh
was achieved by one of the Gardai named in the Morrison report.

There is little point in even entertaining the allegation that the Gardaí planted the device because there is no evidence that this is the case. The reports state that the the device was dealt with by the Army and that it was they who carried out the controlled explosion. I am not familiar with the procedure in these cases but a controlled explosion may well be the appropriate, standard response. The dispute over whether the device was 'viable' or not could just be inaccurate reporting on the part of some.

From a common sense view, the handling of a 'viable' device, even if it did have some investigative value, is inherently unsafe. It would be unreasonable to have someone put themselves in harm's way for the sake of a blurry fingerprint. That said, it could well be that the device was dusted for prints or it was photographed before it was destroyed - we simply don't know.

The Morris findings are irrelevant here. That different members, in a different part of the country, at a different time, planted a device has no logical or common sense relationship to the device that was planted a few days ago. Unless some information or evidence emerges, the allegation has no merit.

Nietzsche'sposterchild wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The S2S and other local opposition group did not ignore or downplay the incident Ibis, they both made prompt and thorough statements to press and television condemning it and disassociating themselves from it. The allegation of downplaying and PR is a totally unwarranted slur. The news report I linked didn't seem to muster the degree of outrage and fury against S2S that might have been hoped for by some and made suggested that the device was non-functional.

There is a clear contradiction between the original Garda statement that the "device" (plastic bag containing an alarm clock, bottle of petrol and can of paint, in some way linked but not in any functional way) was viable and the news report I linked that reported a source as saying it was not set up to work. If it had been established that it was safe, why was it then destroyed, as it provided both forensic evidence and as Hermes says the possibility of tracing the purchase of the objects?

Anyone who hasn't read the report of the Morris Tribunal will find it linked here. The details of the instigation by a small number of Gardai of bomb making and planting of bullets and "devices" would be hilarious if the matter wasn't so serious.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/special/2004/morris/index.pdf

With respect to the excellent work done by many Gardai, I seem to recall that interception of the huge car bomb stopped a short while before Omagh
was achieved by one of the Gardai named in the Morrison report.

There is little point in even entertaining the allegation that the Gardaí planted the device because there is no evidence that this is the case. The reports state that the the device was dealt with by the Army and that it was they who carried out the controlled explosion. I am not familiar with the procedure in these cases but a controlled explosion may well be the appropriate, standard response. The dispute over whether the device was 'viable' or not could just be inaccurate reporting on the part of some.

From a common sense view, the handling of a 'viable' device, even if it did have some investigative value, is inherently unsafe. It would be unreasonable to have someone put themselves in harm's way for the sake of a blurry fingerprint. That said, it could well be that the device was dusted for prints or it was photographed before it was destroyed - we simply don't know.

The Morris findings are irrelevant here. That different members, in a different part of the country, at a different time, planted a device has no logical or common sense relationship to the device that was planted a few days ago. Unless some information or evidence emerges, the allegation has no merit.

That's not rational, nietschesposterchild. They say it was a bottle of petrol, not a barrel of semtex. If it was dusted, it clearly wasn't considered dangerous.

And neither, on those terms, does any allegation that it has anything to do with Rossport.

As to whether the Morris findings are relevant - firstly they are a response to posters who had questioned whether there is any form in Ireland for "false flag" incidents, and secondly, we paid for the Tribunal, and the report is one of the funniest (and saddest) things I've ever read in my life.

cactus flower wrote:

Nietzsche'sposterchild wrote:

There is little point in even entertaining the allegation that the Gardaí planted the device because there is no evidence that this is the case. The reports state that the the device was dealt with by the Army and that it was they who carried out the controlled explosion. I am not familiar with the procedure in these cases but a controlled explosion may well be the appropriate, standard response. The dispute over whether the device was 'viable' or not could just be inaccurate reporting on the part of some.

From a common sense view, the handling of a 'viable' device, even if it did have some investigative value, is inherently unsafe. It would be unreasonable to have someone put themselves in harm's way for the sake of a blurry fingerprint. That said, it could well be that the device was dusted for prints or it was photographed before it was destroyed - we simply don't know.

The Morris findings are irrelevant here. That different members, in a different part of the country, at a different time, planted a device has no logical or common sense relationship to the device that was planted a few days ago. Unless some information or evidence emerges, the allegation has no merit.

That's not rational, nietschesposterchild. They say it was a bottle of petrol, not a barrel of semtex. If it was dusted, it clearly wasn't considered dangerous.

And neither, on those terms, does any allegation that it has anything to do with Rossport.

As to whether the Morris findings are relevant - firstly they are a response to posters who had questioned whether there is any form in Ireland for "false flag" incidents, and secondly, we paid for the Tribunal, and the report is one of the funniest (and saddest) things I've ever read in my life.

That's why I put the adverbial clause in there, cactus flower. I was proposing an alternative.

I also never said that I thought it had anything to do with Rossport. I did say that the claim that the Gardaí planted the device is rubbish and I stand by that.

cactus flower wrote:

Nietzsche'sposterchild wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

The S2S and other local opposition group did not ignore or downplay the incident Ibis, they both made prompt and thorough statements to press and television condemning it and disassociating themselves from it. The allegation of downplaying and PR is a totally unwarranted slur. The news report I linked didn't seem to muster the degree of outrage and fury against S2S that might have been hoped for by some and made suggested that the device was non-functional.

There is a clear contradiction between the original Garda statement that the "device" (plastic bag containing an alarm clock, bottle of petrol and can of paint, in some way linked but not in any functional way) was viable and the news report I linked that reported a source as saying it was not set up to work. If it had been established that it was safe, why was it then destroyed, as it provided both forensic evidence and as Hermes says the possibility of tracing the purchase of the objects?

Anyone who hasn't read the report of the Morris Tribunal will find it linked here. The details of the instigation by a small number of Gardai of bomb making and planting of bullets and "devices" would be hilarious if the matter wasn't so serious.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/special/2004/morris/index.pdf

With respect to the excellent work done by many Gardai, I seem to recall that interception of the huge car bomb stopped a short while before Omagh
was achieved by one of the Gardai named in the Morrison report.

There is little point in even entertaining the allegation that the Gardaí planted the device because there is no evidence that this is the case. The reports state that the the device was dealt with by the Army and that it was they who carried out the controlled explosion. I am not familiar with the procedure in these cases but a controlled explosion may well be the appropriate, standard response. The dispute over whether the device was 'viable' or not could just be inaccurate reporting on the part of some.

From a common sense view, the handling of a 'viable' device, even if it did have some investigative value, is inherently unsafe. It would be unreasonable to have someone put themselves in harm's way for the sake of a blurry fingerprint. That said, it could well be that the device was dusted for prints or it was photographed before it was destroyed - we simply don't know.

The Morris findings are irrelevant here. That different members, in a different part of the country, at a different time, planted a device has no logical or common sense relationship to the device that was planted a few days ago. Unless some information or evidence emerges, the allegation has no merit.

That's not rational, nietschesposterchild. They say it was a bottle of petrol, not a barrel of semtex. If it was dusted, it clearly wasn't considered dangerous.

And neither, on those terms, does any allegation that it has anything to do with Rossport.

As to whether the Morris findings are relevant - firstly they are a response to posters who had questioned whether there is any form in Ireland for "false flag" incidents, and secondly, we paid for the Tribunal, and the report is one of the funniest (and saddest) things I've ever read in my life.

The Donegal Gardai have form for fitting people up. It means extremely little in respect of the Shell bomb, since, variously, they're not Donegal Gardai, they haven't fitted anyone up, and even the Donegal Gardai didn't plant a device in a public place.

Nietzsche'sposterchild wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Nietzsche'sposterchild wrote:

There is little point in even entertaining the allegation that the Gardaí planted the device because there is no evidence that this is the case. The reports state that the the device was dealt with by the Army and that it was they who carried out the controlled explosion. I am not familiar with the procedure in these cases but a controlled explosion may well be the appropriate, standard response. The dispute over whether the device was 'viable' or not could just be inaccurate reporting on the part of some.

From a common sense view, the handling of a 'viable' device, even if it did have some investigative value, is inherently unsafe. It would be unreasonable to have someone put themselves in harm's way for the sake of a blurry fingerprint. That said, it could well be that the device was dusted for prints or it was photographed before it was destroyed - we simply don't know.

The Morris findings are irrelevant here. That different members, in a different part of the country, at a different time, planted a device has no logical or common sense relationship to the device that was planted a few days ago. Unless some information or evidence emerges, the allegation has no merit.

That's not rational, nietschesposterchild. They say it was a bottle of petrol, not a barrel of semtex. If it was dusted, it clearly wasn't considered dangerous.

And neither, on those terms, does any allegation that it has anything to do with Rossport.

As to whether the Morris findings are relevant - firstly they are a response to posters who had questioned whether there is any form in Ireland for "false flag" incidents, and secondly, we paid for the Tribunal, and the report is one of the funniest (and saddest) things I've ever read in my life.

That's why I put the adverbial clause in there, cactus flower. I was proposing an alternative.

I also never said that I thought it had anything to do with Rossport. I did say that the claim that the Gardaí planted the device is rubbish and I stand by that.

Did someone say the Gardai planted the device? We don't know who did it - there is no evidence so far was we know. My point is that actions like this always support the status quo, irrespective of who does them, and it would be naive to think that they may not be false flag.

"Garda sources say the protest has been infiltrated at times by very hard-line republican elements, though they concede the various protest groups cannot stop people coming into the area.

The same sources said at least two leading members of the Real IRA in Derry have been seen at the protest. Both have been arrested recently in connection with firearms offences unrelated to the Mayo protest. Two other men who have involved themselves are former members of the Provisional IRA, one of whom was released from prison under the Good Friday Agreement."

Gardaí are briefing the national press with shyte like this .

I think it's sad that people of reasonable intelligence swallow this baloney. Anonymous sources within the Gardaí feeding any cock and bull to the media and some people don't think it could be possible for them to pay a low-level tout to drop a carrier bag on Leeson st. Again I have no evidence that that is what transpired but it's as likely a scenario as S2S or their supporters doing it. Any time the Gardaí press office turn up at an incident Geppetto cries.

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

"Garda sources say the protest has been infiltrated at times by very hard-line republican elements, though they concede the various protest groups cannot stop people coming into the area.

The same sources said at least two leading members of the Real IRA in Derry have been seen at the protest. Both have been arrested recently in connection with firearms offences unrelated to the Mayo protest. Two other men who have involved themselves are former members of the Provisional IRA, one of whom was released from prison under the Good Friday Agreement."

Gardaí are briefing the national press with shyte like this .

I think it's sad that people of reasonable intelligence swallow this baloney. Anonymous sources within the Gardaí feeding any cock and bull to the media and some people don't think it could be possible for them to pay a low-level tout to drop a carrier bag on Leeson st. Again I have no evidence that that is what transpired but it's as likely a scenario as S2S or their supporters doing it. Any time the Gardaí press office turn up at an incident Geppetto cries.

When we hear the Green Party Minister telling us that we need an EU army to deal with "Energy Security" why would we be surprised to find the Navy pop up at Rossport?

It is too easy to slur people who oppose Shell, for whatever reason. That was a good link you posted across the way SC - http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0366.html.

The Republican movement is so infiltrated that the best way of ensuring a "presence" at Rossport would be to have them down there.

False flag operations that hurt civilians are a stock in trade of security forces. There is an political issue there for any Republicans who still think that anything is to be gained by terror attacks.

cactus flower wrote:

False flag operations that hurt civilians are a stock in trade of security forces.

They're not, in real life. The number of proven false flag attacks is very small, virtually none of which are modern terrorist attacks - and basing the idea that they're common on unproven cases is essentially the same as saying "and now I shall pull some evidence out of my posterior".

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

False flag operations that hurt civilians are a stock in trade of security forces.

They're not, in real life. The number of proven false flag attacks is very small, virtually none of which are modern terrorist attacks - and basing the idea that they're common on unproven cases is essentially the same as saying "and now I shall pull some evidence out of my posterior".

Exactly what I would guess the guard who briefed Conor Lally (above) did. There is obviously a widespread smear campaign against those who oppose Shell.

Can we please refrain from statements implying complicity by any person or readily identifiable group in any illegal activity unless the persons implying such activity can produce evidence supporting the statements being made.

I would also suggest that if persons have evidence of any such activity that this is not the place where it should be posted. Rather that it should be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities whether that be the Gardaí or the Garda Ombudsman Commission.

Thanks.

Quote :

Gardai believe the device had been left there to send a sinister threat to Shell, rather than create much damage, if it had exploded

This is from Tom Brady's report, just to reassure anyone who might have had the impression that there had been a danger to the public.

johnfás wrote:

Can we please refrain from statements implying complicity by any person or readily identifiable group in any illegal activity unless the persons implying such activity can produce evidence supporting the statements being made.

I would also suggest that if persons have evidence of any such activity that this is not the place where it should be posted. Rather that it should be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities whether that be the Gardaí or the Garda Ombudsman Commission.

Thanks.

It's the Gardaí that are doing most of the implying on this score. I'd direct your first remarks to their Press Office

johnfás wrote:

Can we please refrain from statements implying complicity by any person or readily identifiable group in any illegal activity unless the persons implying such activity can produce evidence supporting the statements being made.

I would also suggest that if persons have evidence of any such activity that this is not the place where it should be posted. Rather that it should be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities whether that be the Gardaí or the Garda Ombudsman Commission.

Thanks.

johnfas, I'm blue in the face saying I don't know who did it and ibis says he doesn't think S2S did it. I don't see that anyone is claiming they know who did it. It seems to be mainly the Gardai and the press who are making the assumptions.