Stena Carron protest in Shetland - Greenpeace Esperanza

[blue beetle]

Spoken like a true land lubber Malkie . And someone who wont be risking his own life having to rescue these idiots if it does all go wrong. I believe the captains of the Green lily, Union star and the Braer etc had a similar attitude.

[owre-weel]

I wonder how they would feel if their Esperanze wotsits vessel just happened to be hijacked this weekend? I've got nothing spectacular lined up and could always take me flip-cam with me ...

 

I would imagine thats why they are staying weel clear of the harbour, burning fuel uneccessarily !

[crofter]

I don’t deny that Shetlink has its uses. For example, it’s a place where the ignorant, the daft and the downright nasty can vent their spleen without any editorial control (apparently) but also without causing much harm. Normally I ignore the ravings of its more eccentric contributors. However, some of the Shetlink petrolheads’ comments on the Greenpeace protest are getting Shetland a bad name.

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/09/24/seven-questions-for-chevron

[Fjool]

Yes, Jonathan, how dare people express opinions that differ from your own, on a forum in which you do not participate. Outrageous.

 

But tell me, was the attack on the folks of Shetlink really a necessary part of your point, or just a childish swipe?

[Malachy]

Spoken like a true land lubber Malkie . And someone who wont be risking his own life having to rescue these idiots if it does all go wrong. I believe the captains of the Green lily, Union star and the Braer etc had a similar attitude.

 

I think you're slightly misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that the master of the SC presumably doesn't think his ship is at risk otherwise he would put in a request for them to be removed. Contributers to Shetlink are disagreeing with him, not with me.

[unlinkedstudent]

I think you're slightly misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is that the master of the SC presumably doesn't think his ship is at risk otherwise he would put in a request for them to be removed. Contributers to Shetlink are disagreeing with him, not with me.

 

Eh? To whom does he put in a request? How do you know said Captain hasn't?

[Malachy]

Yes, Jonathan, how dare people express opinions that differ from your own, on a forum in which you do not participate. Outrageous.

 

But tell me, was the attack on the folks of Shetlink really a necessary part of your point, or just a childish swipe?

 

I agree with Jonathan's initial point on this one. This subject has brought out the absolute worst side of Shetlink. Some of the views expressed in this thread have been seriously venomous. I can't really see how suggesting that individuals should be murdered for their actions (whether in jest or not) has any place in these forums - if those comments were made against Shetlanders they'd presumably be removed.

 

I would expect a better level of debate in a group of 15 year olds.

 

Edit: the following added:

 

The T&Cs state:

1. You agree, through your use of the Shetlink website, that you will not submit (or hyperlink to) any material or use language which is defamatory, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, inciting of violence, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or in violation of ANY UK law. Personal attacks, inflammatory language, harassment, impersonation, trolling and sockpuppeting (multiple user accounts), or multi-account use (two or more individuals using same account) will not be tolerated.

Presumably these don't cover environmentalists though.

[unlinkedstudent]

^^ I'd expect the average group of 15 year olds to know how dangerous it is to attach a pod to a vessel's anchor but hey, what do I know, a mere female "petrolhead" (sssh - I drive a diesel Pug 306 and don't tend to speed - am I still a petrolhead then?)

[Fjool]

Yes, there have been some appalling comments. I cannot deny that I find them embarrassing but, ultimately, they are the responsibility of those who make them. Shetlink has a fine line to tread between censorship and maintaining decency; never mind finding the time to cover it all. Your point regarding our T&Cs, however, is valid and more vigilance is required.

 

I basically agree too, but to ignore the fact that there are many folks such as yourself who are prepared to make rational and informed counter-arguments, is wrong. Whilst you are in here with sleeves rolled up and bringing sense to the debate, I strongly dislike the attitude that it is ok to sit on the sidelines and discredit an entire community based on the postings of a few. Far better to contribute as a voice-of-reason.

 

Anyway, yes, let's have this serve as a warning and that we'll be paying closer attention.

 

Apologies for any offence caused thus far.

[Malachy]

I basically agree too, but to ignore the fact that there are many folks such as yourself who are prepared to make rational and informed counter-arguments, is wrong. Whilst you are in here with sleeves rolled up and bringing sense to the debate, I strongly dislike the attitude that it is ok to sit on the sidelines and discredit an entire community based on the postings of a few. Far better to contribute as a voice-of-reason.

 

Well yes and no. In fact there's very few. KTL stepped in some time ago with some very sensible points and was attacked for it, so disappeared almost immediately, and I don't blame him. This will also be my last post on this thread as it seems rather fruitless to try and debate with some of the closed-minded views that are being expressed (and also because I feel rather exposed, since I choose not to post anonymously). Sadly (for you) the moderators have a responsibility to make sure that things don't get too extreme, regardless of whether anyone else is willing to stand up and disagree.

[scooper]

I wonder if Jonathan Wills is going to put a mast and sail aboard the Dunter and sail around Bressay from now on just incase he ends up with deep water fuel aboard......

[Northerly]

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/09/24/seven-questions-for-chevron

 

I'd like to pose 7 questions for Greenpeace if I may Jonathan!

 

1. In the event of severe weather during the course of this protest, what proposals do Greenpeace have in place to permit the Master of the Stena Carron to deploy his anchors in an emergency, in order to prevent his vessel being blown onto the shore?

 

2. In the event of (1) above, what safety measures have Greenpeace put in place for the rescue of their own members in such circumstances or do they simply expect our lifeboatmen, helicopter crews and coastguard rescue teams to put themselves at risk for the sake of the warm glow inside one gets from feeling smug and superior and having all the answers?

 

3. In the event of (1) above and there is a delay in the Stena Carron being able to deploy her anchors and the vessel subsequently does go ashore and this results in pollution from the spillage of the Stena Carrons bunkers, what proposals do Greenpeace have in place to ensure the proper, timely and effective clean up of said spillage and to compensate Shetlanders in such an event? Surely these are the sort of risk assessments Greenpeace must have carried out prior to embarking on their course of action?

 

4. During the current protest, how much diesel fuel per day is the Esperanza burning, ploughing up and down just outside harbour limits and what does this equate to in terms of carbon emissions (also on a per day basis).

 

5. Taking (4) above a step further, what is the annual carbon footprint for Greenpeace as an organisation, i.e how "green" is Greenpeace?

 

6. Given their antipathy toward "big oil" I would be interested to know from which of the "big oil" companies Greenpeace has purchased the fuel for its fleet of vessels, RIB's, helicopters etc. I appreciate it may be more than one, I don't mind a list

 

7. What proposals do Greenpeace have to "go beyond oil" themselves by replacing their current fleet of diesel powered vessels, petrol powered RIB's, kerosene powered helicopters etc with something more "sustainable" such as a modern sail-powered vessel for example, and what is the timescale for them to actually set everyone else an example instead of sticking two-fingers up at everyone playing the "don't do as I do, do as I tell you" game?

[Ghostrider]

Having to put up with their b/s because it's an allegely free country and they have the right to protest is galling enough

 

Yes, absolutely. In fact, perhaps we should remove the right to protest from anyone who doesn't agree with us. That would sort out a few of these 'wishy-wash liberals' and their wishy-washy direct action. Send them home! They should voice their opinions anonymously on an internet forum like a normal person. Then we'd live in a better country.

 

The level of sarcasm included in your comment is noted, however notwithstanding that, you have taken this sentence out of context, which has allowed you to apply to it a deeper meaning than intended within the context it was posted, and apply to it the response you have.

 

Its was, as I'm sure you noticed, posted as the opening sentence of a paragraph, and should be read within the context of the whole paragraph, as these things are. Cherry picking is tempting, but to do so puts words in the mouths of others that never were there in the first place, and makes arguments where none exist.

 

[Edited for grammar]

[scrap man]

all the comments made reguarding green peaces carry on rightly or wrongly are irrelivant the bottom line is they are breaking the law by endangering life at sea.i have been a fisherman for the past 25 years i'v been involved with a boat sinking and the loss of a close friend in almost exactly where this is taking place, my point being it's dangerous enough out there without asking for trouble, also not so long ago a few klondikers ran ashore around LK harbour in poor weather it could happen again who would GP blame for that my guess is anybody but themselves. as reguards the coastguard not having to do anything malaky they will be having to keep a close eye on it and there fore spreading there limited resorses on that [/b]

[JustMe]

One question for whoever has the answer. Why was the Stena Carron anchored off Bressay anyway. Is this simply that she was too big to tie up at the Greenhead base or at Dales Voe. Or was it to avoid mooring fees?.