May Day feature tomorrow morning on Newstalk 106

by Gerry Wed Mar 31, 2004 19:01

What's the phone number for FM106?

by ahm. Wed Mar 31, 2004 19:02

01-6445111

by listener Wed Mar 31, 2004 19:55

the no for the show is 6445106. that gets you on air.
text no is 085 7106106

by Barry Wed Mar 31, 2004 22:46

Paul i'll agree to fone in if you agree to stop writing annoying letters to the Northside

by Freddy Wed Mar 31, 2004 23:02

Whatever his faults (and they are many) at least Paul Kinsella gives his full name and contact details. That takes some kind of courage on this site. So instead of slagging him off here why not put your own views to the Northside People through your own annoying letters?

by pc Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:50

listening to 106 dicussion

its been pretty good so far

rory hearne although he doesn't represent anyone has been quite good, making sure to get the issues in

ciaran moore was on the editor of the sunday world keeps on going on about chilling sinister garda intelligence

a quote from the editor " a peaceful protest ain't news a riot is "

the good protester bad protester thing

hasn't been cleared up

by at work Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:39

Any more updates on this programme? Can't listen to the radio at work.

by 106 listener Thu Apr 01, 2004 13:24

rory hearne did a good job but got tripped up on the question posed: will you condemn all violence by protestors at may day etc.

stupid question, of course. rory didn't seem to know what the proper answer was - kieran allen didn't brief him on that one, i guess

by Paul Kinsella - DCTU Thu Apr 01, 2004 14:31 paulkinsella53 at yahoo dot com 53 Lorcan Grove, Santry, Dublin 9, Eire 085-1478100

Agree with most of the comments above from those who listened to the show this morning. Rory Hearne and Ciaran Moore both came out fairly well. That Conor Lenihan TD gasbag has really been shown up for the ardent right-winger that he is. And as regards that guy from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce (A body that got the City Council through draconian by-laws to try to effectively ban the right to protest 2 years ago), well the less said about him and his ilk the better. Just one thing Pat C, I agree with most of what you say, but the Editor guy was actually from the Sunday Mirror.

I also got my spoke in when they focussed in on the more traditional side of May Day, and especially the Dublin Council of Trade Union (DCTU)'s disgraceful decision to cancel their traditional May Day March. Des Bonass of DCTU and ATGWU was very good, and Des doesn't agree with the decision to scrap the DCTU May Day March either. Maybe the DCTU (Wishful thinking?) might reverse their decision in light of the fact that the concert on O'Connell Street has been cancelled, given that this was their 'excuse' for cancelling the May Day March in the first place.

All in all a good programme, and one of the better pieces of media coverage of May Day.

by David Thu Apr 01, 2004 14:45

He knew nothing about the grassroots plans that were causing the controversy (or he pretended not to)
He did nothing to really argue against the lies that were put forward by the various newspapers
He basically confirmed that there would probably be violence by anarchists on mayday in between belittling the grassroots plans as likely to be tiny

At every opportunity he advertised his another front is possible @Carnival@ to the phoenix park and made capital out of the fact that the gardai had been fully liased with (wait rory until you reach the gates of the park on may 1 and they refuse to let you in)
as if it was the only event happening over the bank holiday
He claimed responsibility for the reclaim the streets protests and then had to admit that he wasnt even there on 2002 and could not counter the claims that the RTS deserved to be batton charged for putting smoke bombs into a car


The program will be repeated tonight at 10pm if anybody wants to listen to it again (or for the first time) People should also e-mail them when they hear it or phone in to correct all that they find offensive so that there will be more debate in the coming days/weeks

by John Thu Apr 01, 2004 19:34

Sorry David, I don't think you were listening to the same programme- maybe you were on MW or something Athlantic 252 perhaps?
You have absolutely nothing positive to say and your comments are full of inaccurate information:
1)
"He knew nothing about the grassroots plans that were causing the controversy (or he pretended not to)"
I didn't realise he was on to speak for grassroots plans?? If he did you'd eb having a caridac on indymedia right now.

2)
"He did nothing to really argue against the lies that were put forward by the various newspapers"
Who was the one who silenced the idiot form the tabloid about scare stories?


3)
"At every opportunity he advertised his another front is possible @Carnival@ to the phoenix park"
Well actually I thought he kept pressingt he aregument that the guy from indymedia also did was that the viloence crap was to take away from real issues which rory raised loads of times: privatisation, racism, etc.


4)
"He claimed responsibility for the reclaim the streets protests"
He never said this. You need a hearing test.

You obviously heard what you wanted to hear. oh well.

Pity, ithough all did well: rory, paul, etc.

by pc Thu Apr 01, 2004 20:03

ok he didn't detail any the grassroots plans but he did constant go back to the reason for the protest which was good...

i was disappointed that rory aherne was the only guy in studio,,, must have got his number from joe carolen he must have replaced him for the "call him for everything that happens person..."

it was funny when he asked the union guy to join them at the phoenix park on the radio, as if he agree to that...

by John Thu Apr 01, 2004 20:12

Well I'm glad at least someone else agrees to some degree that rory did well, not like that anonymous person above who lied and just mad very pessimistc remarks.
Yeah was a pity there were not more than just rory in the studio, but it was good to hear at least someone decent on the radio- no forgetting Paul and the guy from indymedia too- both did well.
Yes it was funny when he asked the union guy to join them on the demo- he'd hardly agree on radio but it was good to just put it to him straight on air.

by David Thu Apr 01, 2004 20:20

Rory should not have been on the radio show at all. When they called him to speak about the issue of possible violence on mayday he should have said that he had little to do with that question instead of using the opportunity for publicity (like globalised resistance did when they claimed the "no justice no peace" street theatre as their own a few months ago)
If Newstalk had phoned a member grassroots to defend an "another europe is possible" demonstration he or she would almost certainly have told them that it was not up to them to discuss it and would have told them who they should contact instead

The question was about violence on mayday and rorys group was not the one being accused of plotting the violent acts. By totally ignoring the grassroots plans (which he must be aware of) he gave legitimisation to the claims that anarchists would be violent and the implication was that people should stay away from these demonstrations and join the 'carnival' instead.

I dont think Rory should have talked on behalf of the grassroots but he should have made it clear that they were an organisation that were working on peaceful protest and mentioned them in solidarity, called people to take part in their actions that would not co-incide with his own march (this is what the grassroots would have done and have a history of doing)

When i said he didnt counter the lies put forward by the papers. I am talking about specifics, the details that are totally inaccurate that have been pinted out here on Indymedia. The lies about the Wombles being first that spring to mind, the claims that antii globalisation protestors intend to "hijack" the event, the allegations that "hundreds of websites have sprung up offering advice on how to fight the police. He said the bare minimum to target the rhetoric and in my opinion he did so in a way that intentionally made the Grassroots look small and impotent.
He said that he "knew for a fact" that there would be hardly any anarchists coming over on the basis that in the past very few anarchists had come to ireland.. He was fighting rhetoric with even weaker rhetoric and the only thing he said with any conviction was that everybody should take part in the Another europe is possible march

Ok, He might not have taken credit for the RTS, but he pretended that he was involved in taking part and organising by using "we" and then when he was asked about 2002 he had to admit that he wasnt there and couldnt speak for RTS

by John Thu Apr 01, 2004 20:33

Lets begin :
"...and organising by using "we" and then when he was asked about 2002 he had to admit that he wasnt there and couldnt speak for RTS"
Firstly, the fact that you have noted his use of "we" is pretty sad. Youa re doing a better job than the special branch at analysising every word. Would it no be better to do something positive with our time than this.

You obviously think not judging by
"Rory should not have been on the radio show at all"

Do you believe its up to people like him to inform grassroots organisers of a debate on radio. Its now his fault because you guys were not ont he radio. c'mon give me a break?
You beleive Rory should not have talked on behalf of the grassroots,s o why do you think someone like hims hould be the one infroming grassroots of what radio station they shoudl speak on.
Most comments form people who 'claim' to be from grassroots movement on indymedia only post thinsg after news items on 'Another Europe' stuff, crap like 'boycott, boycott..'.? thats hardly helpful?

"When i said he didnt counter the lies put forward by the papers. I am talking about specifics"
What?

"He said the bare minimum to target the rhetoric and in my opinion he did so in a way that intentionally made the Grassroots look small and impotent"

If grassroots are successful and organise well no ammount of talk on radio form who you term "useless" rory will do any harm, by your logic.

"Ok, He might not have taken credit for the RTS, but he pretended that he was involved in taking part"

Finally you admit you lied (no sorry not lied), you acted just as bad as the tabloids by implying things and twisting the truth. Your first comment said he took the credit for RTS now you say
"He might not have taken credit for the RTS"

Come on a bit of honesty here

by David Fri Apr 02, 2004 10:54

"Ok, He might not have taken credit for the RTS, but he pretended that he was involved in taking part"

Finally you admit you lied (no sorry not lied), you acted just as bad as the tabloids by implying things and twisting the truth. Your first comment said he took the credit for RTS now you say
"He might not have taken credit for the RTS"
===================================

How can you be so disengenous when the source is right there for anybody to see?
you left out two very important words from when you quoted me and then claimed that i was twisting truth in a tabloid fashion
my actual quote was

"Ok, He might not have taken credit for the RTS, but he pretended that he was involved in taking part and organising"
which means that he didnt literally take credit for the event but said things which could be interpreted to imply that he was an organiser.

And john, you are right, it is pointless debating with you when you appear to have an agenda to ignore the actual things i say to promote your point of view.
You implied in your last reply that Rory made the effort to seek out Newstalk because he worked hard and discovered through careful research that they were having this feature and that if the GG tried harder they could have gotten a spokesperson on the show.
That is nonsense, rory was on the show because the media always contact globalised resistance first regarding anything to do with "anti globalisation" even though they have a contact number for the grassroots and if they wanted to could easily get a representative to speak. Rory as a participant in a movement has a responsibility not just to himself and his party but to the movement itself and clearly the SWP consistantly fail to live up to this responsibility.

You claim the grassroots have been unsupportive of other groups in the past (even though you only mentioned the most recent front) but if you look through the archives you will not find a single time when the IAWM held a march or demonstration that did not clash with a GG or GNAW event where members of the Grassroots in an official capacity told people not to attend. press releases always mentioned the IAWM marches when possible.. the opposite is not true, the SWP on many occasionas publically campaigned for people to not turn up to GNAW events.. this is just another in that proud history

by Observer Fri Apr 02, 2004 11:58

Well David I took your advise last night and I listened to and recorded the same newstalk programme. Hearn never said anything which would imply that he was taking credit for the event or which could be interpreted to imply that he was an organiser.
In fact the only time that any link was made to RTS and Hearn in the same sentence was by the interviewer (the bloke). You are making your own inferences from the show to suit whatever thorn is pissing you off. If you are going to criticise at least be honest. You see to accuse the IAWM and SWP of dishonesty, yet you show little yourself.

Oh and by the way,
I think I know whats pissed you off and it is very sad- Newstalk rang Hearn and not you. I'll be listening out for your wonderful contributions in the near future on Newstalk.
Oh and in case I forgot I didn't realise YOU were the MOVEMENT and that since Hearn didn't 'toe your line' (jesus maybe your a Spart or worse a member of the swp- well you did say he also had a responsibility to the party- and i doubt you mean RTS party!) he is doing the movement, sorry I mean you a dis-service. Cop yourself on.
Hearn did really well, (despite my own reservations about swp) and thank you David for letting em know about the repeat so I could actually hear the truth first hand not some deluded interpretation.

by David Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:32

i just said it the way i saw things. It was my interpretation.l just like you took the liberty of interpreting the things i said here in a certain way. I dont agree with them, but at least its transparent on this forum, people can read the source and make up their own minds. that is one of the main reasons why i mentioned the repeat. I didnt get the chance to record it or to transcribe any quotes, if you have a copy you could do some indymedia journalism and post them onto the newswire?