Protest at Dublin City Council's deal with Shell

by kato Sat Nov 11, 2006 00:40

Well done to the council workers who have a conscience and showed they have Irish souls still. To the rest of you go and see for yourselves what is happening in Rossport. Shell To Sea is not about political idealogies. It is not about supporting one party over another it is about saying with a free voice, under the laws of this state, that the site of the proposed terminal is not safe and that the local people for reasons of health and safety do not want it there. We have tried for over five years to be heard. If the only way that we will be heard by the rest of the country and the world is to protest we will. That is our choice and our democratic right and our human right. These rights are enshrined in legislation. If this government chooses to ignore it, at the moment, we will shout louder. Please help us.

by Dermot L - Labour Youth Thu Nov 09, 2006 09:54

Congrats to all involved.

The following motion relevant to this ongoing issue was passed at Labour Youth's national conference last weekend in Dublin.

Conference reaffirms:
its support for the Shell to Sea and Killer Coke campaigns.

Conference notes:
that there are multi-million euro contracts with oil and soft drink companies held by various government departments and local authorities across Ireland.

Conference calls for:
an ethical-based approach to all state contracts.

Conference mandates:
the Vice Chair/Campaigns Officer to research the extent to which local authorities and government are contracted to Shell, Statoil and Marathon, the three companies involved in exploitative practices in Mayo, and Coca-Cola.

Conference further mandates:
the Vice Chair/Campaigns Officer to contact all Labour Party public representatives, including town and county councillors, to ask them to propose the cutting of all links with these companies by local authorities and government in the relevant bodies.

by henry joy Wed Nov 08, 2006 20:32

the only pertinent point on this thread was made by james, why do sinn fein and more importantly most of the left gear most of their activity to getting elected to these undemocratic bodies? Even the anti war campaign is organised on a constituency basis. You can bet that pictures of candidates on this and other protests will be delivered to their prospective or actual constituents without any health warning that their votes are by and large a waste of time other than as an opinion poll and their elected councillors are more or less powerless. This sort of electoralist nonesence can be expected from SF who are bending over backwards to get a colonial puppet parliament up and runningin the 6 co.s, headed up by Paisley the most consistent unreconstructed fundamentalist bigot that Britains political slum has managed to throw up in living memory.
But, for those who call themselves socialist some explanation is required given socialism's rich heritage of theory warning about such attachment to parliament fetishism.

by cool j Wed Nov 08, 2006 03:44

Both the EPA and NPWS have or are on the brink of running their fleets on Bio-diesel. Time for DCC and others to get the finger out on this issue!!

by Stupidity watch Tue Nov 07, 2006 15:30

"Why shouldn't DCC have a deal with Shell or any other fuel company for that matter??"

See www.shelltosea.com for details. The campaign is trying to maximise pressure on Shell by encouraging people not to buy their products. If DCC ended their deal with Shell, which must be worth hundreds of thousands, it would be an effective way of doing so. Whether you choose to support Shell to Sea or not, and the tone of your posts suggests not, it should be evidence to all why a campaign would do something like this.

"To suggest this is down to corruption and underhanded dealing is simply ridiculous."

It would be, but no-one is doing so. DCC made this decision. Shell to Sea and Sinn Féin are trying to overturn it.

"You go to any company that operate a fleet of vehicles, I'm sure you will find everyone of them have a fuel deal with one company or another."

This is a straw man argument. No-one is arguing against companies or, in this case, a local authority having such a deal. It's efficient and makes financial sense. The issue of the morality of the corporation one is dealing with and whether as a customer, DCC could help to bring about a change in behaviour in Shell by changing customers.

"So if DCC were to shift to another fuel company what would be the difference??"

See answer to point one.

"Typical of Sin Fein to latch on to this, trying to steal a few cheap votes! and shame on anyone who votes for a party that refuses to condemn the murder of 2 of our own Gardai"

This seems to be the actual purpose behind your post. You've an anti-Sinn Féin position and if the party supported free food for starving orphans, you'd attack them for it. While no big fan of Sinn Fein myself, I am a supporter of Shell to Sea and they deserve credit for their work on it. And pedantic though it might be, one Garda was killed, not two. If you actually cared about them other than as party political point-scoring, you'd know that.

by Citizen Tue Nov 07, 2006 15:12

This is the most ridiculous story I've seen yet from the scaremongers of Shell to Sea.!!!
Why shouldn't DCC have a deal with Shell or any other fuel company for that matter??
To suggest this is down to corruption and underhanded dealing is simply ridiculous. You go to any company that operate a fleet of vehicles, I'm sure you will find everyone of them have a fuel deal with one company or another.

Where is this story leading???

So if DCC were to shift to another fuel company what would be the difference?? They have all been involved in their fair share of contraversial projects over the years.

Stop being so utterly ridiculous!

Typical of Sin Fein to latch on to this, trying to steal a few cheap votes! and shame on anyone who votes for a party that refuses to condemn the murder of 2 of our own Gardai.

by James Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:31

Councillors on a local authority are no more policy makers, except in a handful of narrowly defined areas, than they are microbiologists. City and County managers make the decisions.

This being the case, what is the point of them from your point of view? Are they that useful a propaganda tool? From the state's point of view they have the use of providing a veneer of democracy for the population to swallow, i.e. they are a useful propoganda tool which the state can use on a far grander scale than the left can.

by Council Worker - DCC Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:06

.and if you read my post you will see that I mentioned " the decisions of their own board or executive! " Note the " or ".

And yes, I really am a council worker.

by Jonah Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:03

Councillors on a local authority are no more policy makers, except in a handful of narrowly defined areas, than they are microbiologists. City and County managers make the decisions.

And for the record, even if they were policymakers, and even if SF were in charge of the Council, which they're not, then political struggle requires mobilisation outside of parliaments and chambers, as well as inside them. The two aspects of political struggle should mutually enforce each other.

by pat c Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:58

They are protesting against the actions of the unelected management of DCC. If you are really a Council Worker then surely you would be aware of who decidedes what in the Council structures.

by Council Worker - DCC Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:41

It never ceases to amaze me to see City Councillors, who are effectively on my board of directors, out demonstrating against council policies. We must be one of the few organisations anywhere where the policy makers actively oppose, outside the chamber, the decisions of their own board or executive!
Represenation without responsibility, and never failing to avail of a photo opportunity appear to be their only pursuit.