PLOUGHSHARES TRIAL *8.30am Vigil *9.45am Peace Walk *10.30am Court 23 Legal Argument

by Robin Hickey Fri Nov 04, 2005 15:52

While I don't disagree with a word you say it still doesn't explain why the previous trial was reported by the print media, the Mary Kelly trial was reported and Madam carried a report on the current trial on 27th of last month, but ... not a peep since then.
Did something happen on 27th?
Were there restrictions on reporting from the judge? Remember the press was ordered not to report the reasons for the collapse of the first trial, and obeyed.
Did the press collectively say "we're not covering this story?" and, if so, why? The self-interest of the Press Barons doesn't explain it in the light of previous reporting of similar cases.

by Terry Fri Nov 04, 2005 15:04

Robin,
You have to realize that the newspapers and media in general which are all owned and controlled by a very small number of people, all of whom are very wealthy are of course part of the establishment.

The US did not go to war because Bush decided on his own and Ireland didn't allow Shannon to be used solely on the nod of Bertie. These decisions permeate from within the top ranks of the capitalist's system and you may have noticed that it is these that are media serve. Bush is merely the public face of the shadows behind and Bertie as we know is the willing puppet (as is Blair) to when global capitalism calls. Should he say no, he could quickly ousted from office to be replaced by more willing party members to the biddings of the real sources of power -economic power. A good PR campaign and rumours against him orchastrated by the press would very likely quickly emerge.

Come to think of it, how much coverage do you regulary see in the newspapers of the effects of chemicals (pesticides etc) in our food, pollution -it's relation to cancer, social breakdown, the extremes of wealth, the hypocisary of talk of poverty and debt deduction, when of course it never happens. There has been at least $200 billion spent on this war, but when it comes to provide clean drinking water, the newspapers supports arguments like it must be privatised and fail to mention that they poor can't pay. And the newspapers endlessly take about terrorism, but never it causes. Nor does it ever state that war is in reality terrorism on an industrial scale.

The purpose of not covering this trial and indeed the reason it has been sent for retrial numerous times is to remove it as far away as possible from the events of the time, and to prevent the public becoming aware of it. The courts -who serve the system, thus the system know, that most people accept it was right to destroy these planes of death, but if there is no publicity, then they just might be able to lock them up, scare off any others from doing likewise (since such candidates would most lilely be fairly aware of the trial anyhow) and at the same time, hope the public never know. Usually it works very well.

by eeekkkk Fri Nov 04, 2005 14:08

reports of witness testimony that confirms the us threw geneva convention out the window in iraq

She also will not tolerate anything in the paper that might validate the 'crime' of civil disobedience - no matter how compelling or moral the case for it might be.

Ask Harry Browne.

Paper of record my arse.

by Robin Hickey Fri Nov 04, 2005 14:01 robin.hickey at gmail dot com Rockview, High Rock, Portmarnock, Co. Dublin 353.1.86 2570227

Can someone please tell me why the newspapers are not reporting this?

Have they collectively decided to boycott the trial, if so, why?

Robin Hickey