Apologies?

by Kill Wed Aug 31, 2005 18:31

You have not been paying attention, Bill. Now if you would care to read the various articles on this site about this dispute, you would not need to ask questions. The information has been published already.

by Bill Wed Aug 31, 2005 18:21

Can someone please explain why the injunction is flawed?

by Dr. Mark Garavan Wed Aug 31, 2005 14:24

In response to Mr. Rabbittee's suggestion that the Rossport 5 should apologise to the courts:

''It is entirely unfair to put any burden of responsibility on the 5 men. The solution to this crisis lies squarely with Shell and their government partners. The injunction must be dropped so dialogue can begin.''

In response to Mr. Rabbittee's suggestion that a mediator should be appointed by the government:


''The government are not neutral in this matter but are an active partner of Shell. Because of this the Irish government have disqualified themselves to appoint any mediator. To act neutrally or against it's own citizens goes against the primary duty of protection expected of any sovereign government. A small village in Ireland should never have been forced into a confrontation with a huge multinational corporate alliance such as Shell, Marathon and Statoil. It is time for the Irish government to redeem themselves by taking whatever actions are necessary to end the imprisonment of it's citizens and fulfil it's obligation of protection''.

For Comment or verification call Dr. Mark Garavan Spokesman ''Shell to Sea''

by Darragh Tue Aug 30, 2005 20:25 darragh25 at hotmail dot com

Well, "apologising to the Court" and "purging your contempt" are two entirely different things. If I was in the mens situation, I would be prepared to apologise for HAVING to put myself in contempt of Court, but I would not be purging my contempt! I don't know why people expect any different from Pat Rabbitte, he's just doing what the rest of them are doing, playing party politics with the issue, talking in circles as usual.

by Ruairi Tue Aug 30, 2005 19:50

At last Mr. Rabbitte speaks. I almost forgot he existed. It is entirely unfair that he pushes responsibility on the Rossport 5 to apologise.

They didn't breach an injunction as the injunction was flawed and therefore nul and void.

Labour members and activists must surely be dismayed by their leaders attempts at diplomacy.

by chekov - 1 of Indymedia Ireland Tue Aug 30, 2005 19:39

The apologise bit just looks like a face saving measure for the state. The important bit is the waving of the injunction. If this 'compromise' was accepted it would be a big victory for the Rossport 5. The might apologise but they would be free to block Shell's pipeline construction in the future and it's hard to see the state locking them up a second time if they did.

by Maigh Eo Tue Aug 30, 2005 19:25

It is true that the men have to apologise to the court for their contempt in order to get released, so in that, Pat Rabbitte is not wrong - people shouldn't be offended by his statement. It's a technical, administrative internal issue pertaining to the court itself. The men are aware of this, and as far as I know, they actually have no problem whatsoever in apologising to the court, as they are law-abiding and do not wish to be in contempt of the court. However, it is imperative that Shell waive their proceedings first so that the five can apologise, knowing that their right to protect their homes has not been forfeited in the process.

by Darragh Tue Aug 30, 2005 18:23

yes, because "benefits" = "common good" and "common good" = constitutional problems for the government and Shell, thats why we aren't hearing much about the "benefits" or the "common good"!!!

by Bunny Tue Aug 30, 2005 17:50

Rabbitte makes proposals to resolve Rossport impasse

Issued : Tuesday 30 August, 2005

Statement by Pat Rabbitte TD
Labour Leader & Spokesperson on Northern Ireland

The ongoing incarceration of five law-abiding citizens because of their convictions that the Shell operation at Rossport, County Mayo, may pose a risk to health and life is now bordering on becoming a national disgrace.

I am suggesting the following three-pronged approach to break the impasse
1. That Shell waives its interests under the injunction.
2. That the five men simultaneously apologise to the court.
3. That an agreed mediator, with access to whatever professional and technical advice is necessary, be appointed by Government to report on all of the issues of concern to the men.

Specifically, as far as the third point above is concerned, the mediator ought to be required in addition to the health and safety issues to report on what measures are proposed by the oil companies to contribute to the development of this region of Mayo. Whatever the merits of the original terms negotiated between the oil companies and the Government, it seems unlikely that these terms could now be unilaterally altered by any Irish Government.

However, since the oil companies concerned are the principal beneficiaries of the find off the Mayo coast, it is entirely reasonable that they be required to spell out what benefits will accrue to this underdeveloped region arising from this significant gas find in Irish waters.

The Government that negotiated the deal that has given rise to the present controversy is remarkably silent on what economic benefit redounds to this economy. From my meeting with the Shell management, they argue that over the duration of the contract benefits will accrue but both the company and Government are remarkably unwilling to spell out that benefit.”

by Frank Tue Aug 30, 2005 17:42

What a complete disgrace, Pat rabbitte should be ashamed of himself in calling on these brave men to apologies to the Court. I guess it just demonstrates how completely out of touch the Labour party are on this issue.