Nobody's granted planning permission. They were allowed to start their work at the cliff face and beach under the foreshore license. I kid you not.

Quote :

show the continuing determination of the Shell to Sea campaign to halt this environmentally and economically destructive Corrib Gas Project, a group of local residents made the attempt to exercise their right to public access to the foreshore at Glengad, where Shell have illegally enclosed a section of the foreshore right down to below the low water mark. One of the many conditions attached to Shell’s operation at Glengad is that they allow the general public access to the entire foreshore. This is also one of the many conditions attached to their operating permission that they blithely ignore, as with so many other ones, and Shell’s Gardaí sure as (S)hell won’t even think of keeping them honest!

I'm sure that the lads have good advice on this, but I would still like to know what the works are , and under what permission - it does sound as though possibly Shell are in breach of the law. If they are, the legal remedy is straightforward. Is there someone I could communicate with on this ?

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

show the continuing determination of the Shell to Sea campaign to halt this environmentally and economically destructive Corrib Gas Project, a group of local residents made the attempt to exercise their right to public access to the foreshore at Glengad, where Shell have illegally enclosed a section of the foreshore right down to below the low water mark. One of the many conditions attached to Shell’s operation at Glengad is that they allow the general public access to the entire foreshore. This is also one of the many conditions attached to their operating permission that they blithely ignore, as with so many other ones, and Shell’s Gardaí sure as (S)hell won’t even think of keeping them honest!

I'm sure that the lads have good advice on this, but I would still like to know what the works are , and under what permission - it does sound as though possibly Shell are in breach of the law. If they are, the legal remedy is straightforward. Is there someone I could communicate with on this ?

I'm very sure there's no planning permission. The strategic infrastructure bill is a very complex piece of legislation and allows for lots of legal anomalies, including the bypassing of planning permission at certain points. Tis my own belief that it's an unconstitutional bill, however, the argument is very involved and is beyond both my meagre abilities and resources to realistically think about challenging it at this point. Here's a link to an Indy article that spells it out, with regard to planning permission not having been granted as of yet. LINK.

You'll have a PM in a few moments with some contact details.

Hermes wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

show the continuing determination of the Shell to Sea campaign to halt this environmentally and economically destructive Corrib Gas Project, a group of local residents made the attempt to exercise their right to public access to the foreshore at Glengad, where Shell have illegally enclosed a section of the foreshore right down to below the low water mark. One of the many conditions attached to Shell’s operation at Glengad is that they allow the general public access to the entire foreshore. This is also one of the many conditions attached to their operating permission that they blithely ignore, as with so many other ones, and Shell’s Gardaí sure as (S)hell won’t even think of keeping them honest!

I'm sure that the lads have good advice on this, but I would still like to know what the works are , and under what permission - it does sound as though possibly Shell are in breach of the law. If they are, the legal remedy is straightforward. Is there someone I could communicate with on this ?

I'm very sure there's no planning permission. The strategic infrastructure bill is a very complex piece of legislation and allows for lots of legal anomalies, including the bypassing of planning permission at certain points. Tis my own belief that it's an unconstitutional bill, however, the argument is very involved and is beyond both my meagre abilities and resources to realistically think about challenging it at this point. Here's a link to an Indy article that spells it out, with regard to planning permission not having been granted as of yet. LINK.

You'll have a PM in a few moments with some contact details.

Thanks Hermes. I appreciate that this is complex and that untested legislation is being used. My understanding of foreshore licences is that they are pretty well a rubber stamping exercise. The Planning Permissions and the Conditions attached are usually what matter.

I haven't heard any news from Rossport in a few days. I expected something to happen in terms of a sudden action against the people at Rossport. Instead a "device" has been found outside Shell's headquarters in Dublin.

This is very sad, but not surprising. The possibility of dirty tricks should not be excluded. Fortunately it looks as though most people there have known each other a long time.
The utmost care should be taken to avoid any adventures, and to identify and get a distance from anyone who has a strange tendency to get involved in them.

Who are you thinking did it johnfás ? I don't know who did it. I think the people in Rossport should be very careful to disassociate themselves from anyone who supports such a thing and to make it clear that they totally oppose such actions.

This action, whoever did it, is very obviously extremely damaging to the Shell to Sea campaign.

I haven't a notion who did it - I would presume somebody or some group that does not like Shell.

I see no evidence whatsoever that Shell bombed their own offices but neither do I see evidence that Shell to Sea or it's supporters had any connection to it either. And given the large Gardaí involvement in all of this I would be very circumspect about anything they would say in relation to the source of this device or indeed it's viability. A box of matches are viable.

That leaves two questions 'Cui Bono?' or 'Cui Malo?'

The last few posts have all been edited by either me or Cactus just to bring everything back on track for the avoidance of doubt. The essence of all posts has been kept the same. Just various quotations have been removed.

johnfás wrote:

I haven't a notion who did it - I would presume somebody or some group that does not like Shell. I will however say this, if it is your intention above to imply that Shell placed a viable and dangerous device on a major Dublin street, without any evidence, it is not fair comment. It would rather, be an example of corporate defamation and consequently without any evidence should either be retracted or removed.

I have already said that I don't know who did it. I note that you say you presume that it was done by an anti-Shell group or person. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that ? If you don't you might want to retract it.

One of the basic issues that Shell to Sea is protesting about is their perception that people might be endangered by accidental explosions from Shells' infrastructure. What on earth purpose would there be for them to then go and endanger people from explosives? It would make absolutely no sense.

Shell are notoriously touchy about any form of criticism so in the interests of the Site I have modified my original post on this. However this now leaves us with your statement, which I do not accept as a fully accurate reflection of my original post. Perhaps you might consider modifying it. (thanks johnfas, I see you have)
There is a very long history in this country and others of provocation and "permitted" incidents of violence. There is a long history of infiltration of groups that then go on to commit acts of violence. There are also cases of "genuine" terror attacks. It is usually extremely difficult to tell the difference between the two and in many cases we may never know the answer. Terror attacks damage and divide ordinary people and I am totally opposed to them, irrespective of who commits them.

Imo any campaign like Shell to Sea (and any groups involved in it) should make it crystal clear, if it haven't already done so, that it is opposed to acts of terror.

I have to say that oil companies are constantly involved in many many situations worldwide like Rossport which have a potential for violence and direct action. Despite that, there is no known history of them using "false flag" attacks of such a kind whatsoever, for obvious reasons. They could not possibly afford the consequences involved were they ever found to have done or even contemplated such a thing, and none of the oppositional situations they find themselves in are "life and death", so they have no motive whatever for actions like this.

cactus flower wrote:

I note that you say you presume that it was done by an anti-Shell group or person. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that ? If you don't you might want to retract it.

I think that stating a bomb placed on the doorstep of a corporation was probably placed there by either somebody or some group which did not like that corporation is a reasonable statement and thus should stand.

First, it is a fair comment that such an activity against a corporation would be carried out by somebody or some group with an agenda, or at least a grievance, against that corporation.

Secondly, my statement regarding somebody or some group is a sufficiently broad and vague class of person or grouping that it is beyond the law of defamation in any case. In order for it to potentially fall within defamation it must either be a readily identifiable person or body or a sufficiently small class of person so as the members of the body to be readily identifiable and associated to the defamatory statement. In this case I did not in fact state that it was an anti shell group, which in itself would also be too broad in regard to defamation. I in fact said it was presumably somebody or some group that did not like Shell.

I'm expecting a press release from S2S at any moment and will put it here when it arrives.

I don't for a moment believe that anyone associated with S2S had anything to do with the the alleged device. And yes, I am that paranoid and am not in the least convinced that there was any device, planted by anyone other than someone employed by the State or Shell. Ffs, that particular area is one of the most watched parts of the country presently. This State has a long history of trying to fit people up and just as long a history of making a pig's dinner of it (pun intended).

There would be no gain to be had by S2S if a bomb had gone off outside Shell's office. The 'device' was in a plastic bag outside the railings of the building, and if it had gone off, the chances are that it would have been some innocent civillian(s) injured and indeed, that the damage to the premises would have been minimal. I Don't rate anyone who'd do such a thing as being intelligent but must allow that they'd be intelligent enough to see the probable consequences. This would neither have put a dent in Shell's resolve to make off with our sovereign resources nor would it have dented our government's aspirations to facilitate them.

However, now the State has the excuse to start dragging protesters into police custody and hold them under the Offences Against The State legislation. Not to mention the potential for smear. Very handy.

Who gains from this and who loses?

http://www.spiderednews.com/FalseFlagOperations_I.htm?url=@http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1028224/Was-friend-yelled-abuse-police-anti-war-demo-stooge-thug-asks-writer.html

Here is a Daily Mail report on an incident of provocateur activity in Britain. There are many others, internationally. Surely we do not have to pretend these things don't happen.

The Irish Navy have been out at Rossport and there were unconfirmed reports that a UK sub was in the area and we have been repeatedly told by government that "energy security" is a matter that requires military response. There is a heavy police presence including people in a green jumpsuit whose role has not been identified.

My point is that people campaigning or demonstrating should take the utmost care to disassociate themselves from violent action. The record is that this type of action is destructive of their campaign and injures innocent people. Any "supporter" who would think that an action like the Dublin "device" was in any way helpful to the campaign would clearly be for the birds or indulging in some personal gratification of some kind.

My rule of thumb, as with a number of other posters, is when something like this happens to think about who benefits.

ibis wrote:

I have to say that oil companies are constantly involved in many many situations worldwide like Rossport which have a potential for violence and direct action. Despite that, there is no known history of them using "false flag" attacks of such a kind whatsoever, for obvious reasons. They could not possibly afford the consequences involved were they ever found to have done or even contemplated such a thing, and none of the oppositional situations they find themselves in are "life and death", so they have no motive whatever for actions like this.

Why would the oil companies bother with such tactics when you've got the most powerful country in the world invading Iraq to ensure your profits? Oil companies are a cut above the rest morally speaking. I take it the amassing of £13.9b in profits was achieved in the most ethical of manners. Shell is innocent. Mind you the Guards and the State have plenty of form with the "false flag" operations.

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

ibis wrote:

I have to say that oil companies are constantly involved in many many situations worldwide like Rossport which have a potential for violence and direct action. Despite that, there is no known history of them using "false flag" attacks of such a kind whatsoever, for obvious reasons. They could not possibly afford the consequences involved were they ever found to have done or even contemplated such a thing, and none of the oppositional situations they find themselves in are "life and death", so they have no motive whatever for actions like this.

Why would the oil companies bother with such tactics when you've got the most powerful country in the world invading Iraq to ensure your profits? Oil companies are a cut above the rest morally speaking. I take it the amassing of £13.9b in profits was achieved in the most ethical of manners. Shell is innocent. Mind you the Guards and the State have plenty of form with the "false flag" operations.

Oil companies have done all kinds of bad things, and continue to do all kinds of bad things - and indeed governments regularly do bad things on account of them. My point is that they have no record of doing this particular kind of bad thing.

Is it just me, by the way, or is there virtually no coverage whatsoever of this on Indymedia?

cactus flower wrote:

http://www.spiderednews.com/FalseFlagOperations_I.htm?url=@http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1028224/Was-friend-yelled-abuse-police-anti-war-demo-stooge-thug-asks-writer.html

Here is a Daily Mail report on an incident of provocateur activity in Britain. There are many others, internationally. Surely we do not have to pretend these things don't happen.

The Irish Navy have been out at Rossport and there were unconfirmed reports that a UK sub was in the area and we have been repeatedly told by government that "energy security" is a matter that requires military response. There is a heavy police presence including people in a green jumpsuit whose role has not been identified.

My point is that people campaigning or demonstrating should take the utmost care to disassociate themselves from violent action. The record is that this type of action is destructive of their campaign and injures innocent people. Any "supporter" who would think that an action like the Dublin "device" was in any way helpful to the campaign would clearly be for the birds or indulging in some personal gratification of some kind.

My rule of thumb, as with a number of other posters, is when something like this happens to think about who benefits.

Which is reasonable - however, you also have to look at who would lose most if they were found to be the perpetrators. Shell would suffer hugely - not just in Rossport, not just in Ireland, but globally, in every public opinion issue. Shell2Sea would suffer hugely. Someone who thinks they were doing the 'right thing' would achieve glorious 'martyrdom' and publicity for the cause.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

http://www.spiderednews.com/FalseFlagOperations_I.htm?url=@http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1028224/Was-friend-yelled-abuse-police-anti-war-demo-stooge-thug-asks-writer.html

Here is a Daily Mail report on an incident of provocateur activity in Britain. There are many others, internationally. Surely we do not have to pretend these things don't happen.

The Irish Navy have been out at Rossport and there were unconfirmed reports that a UK sub was in the area and we have been repeatedly told by government that "energy security" is a matter that requires military response. There is a heavy police presence including people in a green jumpsuit whose role has not been identified.

My point is that people campaigning or demonstrating should take the utmost care to disassociate themselves from violent action. The record is that this type of action is destructive of their campaign and injures innocent people. Any "supporter" who would think that an action like the Dublin "device" was in any way helpful to the campaign would clearly be for the birds or indulging in some personal gratification of some kind.

My rule of thumb, as with a number of other posters, is when something like this happens to think about who benefits.

Which is reasonable - however, you also have to look at who would lose most if they were found to be the perpetrators. Shell would suffer hugely - not just in Rossport, not just in Ireland, but globally, in every public opinion issue. Shell2Sea would suffer hugely. Someone who thinks they were doing the 'right thing' would achieve glorious 'martyrdom' and publicity for the cause.

No signs of a martyr yet and only very bad publicity.

There are of course other possible perpetrators and Hermes suggests there may have been no perpetrator at all. All of this is of course speculation and "wondering". The one thing that is sure at the moment is that all we know is that there has been a report that a device has been found.

Shell to Sea press release
16th sept 08
For immediate release

Shell to Sea not linked to alleged bomb find

Shell to Sea campaigners Reject Claims by Joyce.

Today Shell to Sea campaigners across the country distanced themselves
from the placing of an alledged explosive device outside Shell HQ last
night

"Shell to Sea has been committed peaceful rigorous public protest from
the start of our campaign," commented spokesperson Paul Murphy. We
reject completely the unfounded insinuation by Shell's communication
advisor, Colin Joyce, that this device was made and placed by Shell to
Sea supporters. This blatantly looks like an attempt to derail the
campaign. Such statements from Joyce sits entirely well with the
continuing lack of concern for the truth about the devastating effect
an explosion from the proposed pipeline would have along its currently
planned route".

"We would ask our supporters and the public to consider who has the
most to benefit from actions such as those last night. Such actions are
a distraction from the growing public pressure on Shell itself and can
only be designed to cause disruption to the campaign as a whole." said
Murphy.

He concludes "We also make it clear that any de-escalation of current
tensions lie in the court of Shell. As Maura Harrington enters her 8th
day of hunger strike we call again for Shell to ensure that the
Solitaire immediately and unequivocally announces its intent to leave
Irish water.

Statement ends

A couple of thoughts on this. Firstly a couple of posters have said that this could have been the state as they have "history" of false flag operations. Any examples of these? That are at least half way proven? The only thing I can think of were those Donegal Gardai, and that wasn't particularly the state.

Secondly, (and cactus, not getting at you again!) the UK has a fleet of 13 Nuclear submarines. The nuclear sub is designed to be the most covert secretive bit of machinery ever. They do not surface unless they are coming into base (or unless they are ironically in the process of sinking). They cannot be detected except by the most state of the art military sonar. It is against the Official Secrets Act ( or some variation thereof) for anyone in the UK to divulge the whereabouts of these subs, and outside of a small subset of the UK military (and probably the US) nobody else knows where they are.

Except the ShelltoSea guys?

MikeW wrote:

A couple of thoughts on this. Firstly a couple of posters have said that this could have been the state as they have "history" of false flag operations. Any examples of these? That are at least half way proven? The only thing I can think of were those Donegal Gardai, and that wasn't particularly the state.

Secondly, (and cactus, not getting at you again!) the UK has a fleet of 13 Nuclear submarines. The nuclear sub is designed to be the most covert secretive bit of machinery ever. They do not surface unless they are coming into base (or unless they are ironically in the process of sinking). They cannot be detected except by the most state of the art military sonar. It is against the Official Secrets Act ( or some variation thereof) for anyone in the UK to divulge the whereabouts of these subs, and outside of a small subset of the UK military (and probably the US) nobody else knows where they are.

Except the ShelltoSea guys?

No problem with you getting at me MikeW - that's what we're here for

The sub is not an issue in this. I said it was an unconfirmed report - to the best of my recall published in a local Mayo paper they claimed from a naval source, and not by StS.

"False flag" operations and provocations are by definition never admitted to and difficult to prove. They've been used throughout history. In Ireland though it is undeniable that a large number of British State agents operated freely within the Republican movement and were personally involved in horrific murders. In relation to the most recently asked question, are we ever going to get a reliable answer on why GCHQ didn't act on what could be heard on the Omagh mobiles ?

I simply don't accept the "appalling vista" theory that states do not do bad things and do not have covert operations. They have enormous budgets for them and the money must go somewhere.

MikeW wrote:

A couple of thoughts on this. Firstly a couple of posters have said that this could have been the state as they have "history" of false flag operations. Any examples of these? That are at least half way proven? The only thing I can think of were those Donegal Gardai, and that wasn't particularly the state.

Secondly, (and cactus, not getting at you again!) the UK has a fleet of 13 Nuclear submarines. The nuclear sub is designed to be the most covert secretive bit of machinery ever. They do not surface unless they are coming into base (or unless they are ironically in the process of sinking). They cannot be detected except by the most state of the art military sonar. It is against the Official Secrets Act ( or some variation thereof) for anyone in the UK to divulge the whereabouts of these subs, and outside of a small subset of the UK military (and probably the US) nobody else knows where they are.

Except the ShelltoSea guys?

Howdy Mike.

I didn't say that the State had been involved in lots of false flag operations (though they arguably have), I said they were involved in fitting people up. The Donegal example is an excellent one. But it's far from the only one. There are many examples that I'll be glad to elaborate on if you fancy opening a new thread to deal with it, as it's a topic worthy of its own discussion. For now I'll mention but one. There have been hundreds of arrests of activists involved in anti-war protests over the last eight or so years, with a multitude of trials following them. To my recollection (and I'm open to contradiction here as me memory isn't as good as I'd like it to be at times), there has been only one conviction, Mary Kelly. And even that's on shaky grounds, what with the result of the appeal expected some time next month. Even for our apalling conviction rate in this country, one must admit that this is strange. To me, it's pretty definite proof of a fitting up mentality and process.

Speaking of Donegal, isn't it interesting, that not a single garda involved has been jailed for either their initial crimes or their subsequent and very provable perjury? Says to me that there's an agenda that protects those who fit people up.

It wasn't S2S who broke the nuclear submarine story, twas the Galway Echo and they say their source for it was in the Irish navy. The MOD in England has said, that if there was a sub parked off the coast of Mayo, that it would be there with the knowledge and consent of the Irish government. I don't know if this story is true or not and have refrained from saying a lot about the incident. If it does turn out to be true, I'll have lots to say on the issue, starting with the fact that it takes more than the consent of FF and their cronies to raise and or maintain a military force in this country. If this had been put before the Oireachtas, we'd not be asking whether it had happened or not.

Edit: Told ya I had a crap memory. There were a number of convictions following pleas of guilty by Anarchist Youth after they marched on Baldonnell at Easter a couple of years ago.

Further Edit: This is embarrassing, my partner whom I love and am vey proud of was convicted for her part in the Banshee protest at Shannon airport.

cactus flower wrote:

I simply don't accept the "appalling vista" theory that states do not do bad things and do not have covert operations. They have enormous budgets for them and the money must go somewhere.

Unfortunately this is not the argument. Of course states do convert operations. Often you can tell them by their sheer ineptitude. However there is a growing cancer across the internet that states the opposite to what you say above. That no matter what happens its a covert operation by somebody and you must look to the unlikely. And at the root of it is always the British, US (or US oil), and Israelis in differing mixes. Airliners are crashed into the Twin Towers? Must have been the Americans and Israelis. Bombs set of on London underground? British, US and Israelis. Russia invades Georgia, almost taking control of the only non-Russian pipeline to the west? US instigated. And that is before getting to the next level of belief, that the driver behind these countries doing strange things is some odd cabal with is origins in 1AD Babylonia, or the Catholic Church, or that Jewish mystical belief (name escapes me at the moment).


I've more or less given up on Internet debate these days because it is virtually impossible for any topic not to become some odd conspiracy theory involving a state. Or the illuminati, or whatever. In this specific case I have no idea who planted a reportedly amatuerish but viable explosive device over the railing of Shells headquarters. To be honest I doubt it was Shell, the Irish Government, ShelltoSea, the Royal Navy, the illuminati, or 10ft Lizards. I would assume that it was a kook with an attitude about Shell, and who has read the Anarchists Cookbook.

But I can absolutely gaurantee that the next time something like this happens somebody will use as evidence of a state conspiracy that "Of course they do it, didn't they leave a bomb outside Shells headquarters and pretend it was ShelltoSea".

Hermes,

might be worth a thread on its own, I would be genuinely interested. Regarding the Sub story (and I know its a side issue and a not very important one at that), I would have to say:

1. There is no way the Irish Navy would know there was a Nuke there, unless the Brits told them (and why would they).
2. What on earth would the use of a nuclear sub be in the context of the ShelltoSea protests anyway.
3. If they wanted to monitor the ShelltoSea picket, haven't they got satellites that would do a much better job.

MikeW wrote:

Hermes,

might be worth a thread on its own, I would be genuinely interested. Regarding the Sub story (and I know its a side issue and a not very important one at that), I would have to say:

1. There is no way the Irish Navy would know there was a Nuke there, unless the Brits told them (and why would they).
2. What on earth would the use of a nuclear sub be in the context of the ShelltoSea protests anyway.
3. If they wanted to monitor the ShelltoSea picket, haven't they got satellites that would do a much better job.

You make good points. But there's an implied assumption in them. Shit, now I'm going to promote a conspiracy theory of my own with only vague circumstantial evidence to back it up. The lizards made me do it

The Irish navy was hardly needed to defend against a few kayaks and some fishermen, the Gardaí have the equipment needed and indeed, as far as the kayaks are concerned, most of the activities involved being in waters too shallow for the navy to operate in. The navy were there for a week before the Solitaire arrived (realistically speaking, during the work of the Solitaire, would be the only time they might be needed). A few hours notice from Shell or the Solitaire and the navy would have arrived to protect them in plenty of time. Moreso, it would have completely surprised S2S who wouldn't have had any time to set off an almighty stink about the affair.

Your implied assumption is that the sub arrived of its own volition. What if it were asked to come? These subs have some interesting capabilities other than obliterating stuff. They've some very interesting communications equipment that could have easilly been put to use regarding intelligence operations against S2S and in turn communicating with the navy vessels. Britain has need of gas, and Rossport is being set up to process a whole lot more than the €13 billion worth in the Erris Basin. There's an estimated €500 billion (our government's estimation) off our coast and that's 500 billion reasons to have an interest in the activities of S2S and to ensure the project goes ahead.

Shaky theory like I said. But no more so than any explanation that seeks to explain why there wasn't a sub there. We just don't know.

Okay, the lizards may take me now, my work is done!