Conference tallis::celt

1286.0. "Lies of our Times: Guildford Four, and Gerry Adams articles" by KOALA::HOLOHAN () Fri Nov 12 1993 16:38

Pulled from usenet:



                        Irish Chronicles
                         by Sandy Boyer
             from 'Lies Of Our Times'. October 1993

                              *****

The "Chronicle" column, the closest the New York Times comes to
providing a little dirt on the "people in the news", is hardly
where you would expect to find the British establishment's
political message.

But on July 12, 1993, the "Chronicle" ran the story that Paul
Hill of the Guildford Four had married Courtney Kennedy, daughter
of Robert Kennedy. The Guildford Four served 15 years in British
prisons after being framed for IRA pub bombings when police
forced confessions through beatings and threats.

In announcing the scoop, the Times said that Hill and the others
were really bombers and killers who got out because the cops
bungled the evidence. The "Chronicle" described Hill as "one of
the Guildford Four who were convicted of bombing two pubs in
England in 1974. The incident killed five people and injured 65.
After serving 15 years in prison, he and three co-defendants were
released from prison in October 1989 when an appellate court
determined that the police had tampered with the evidence."

Unlike the Times, other U.S. papers reported that the Guildford
Four were innocent and that the police had manufactured the
evidence. The 'Washington Post' wrote that the Guildford Four
"were wrongfully convicted in the 1974 bombings of pubs." The
'Boston Globe headline was even more straight forward: "RFK
daughter weds man cleared of IRA blast."  (July 2). The
Associated Press story in 'New York Newsday' not only described
the Guildford Four as "wrongfully convicted" but said that "the
government admitted that the police falsified evidence." (July
2). Only the New York Times left readers with the erroneous
impression that the Guildford Four were guilty, but released on a
technicality.

Meanwhile in Great Britain...

Paul Hill and his co-defendants was just incidental victims of a
wider effort to restore the image of "British justice" after the
devastating revelations that  18 people in four separate cases
were systematically framed on IRA bombing charges. The Guildford
Four case was critical because it was the first to come
unraveled.

Ronan Bennet in the June 24 'London Review of Books' described a
whispering campaign that began in England among certain media
hacks noted for  their close personal  ties to the police and
security forces. The line went something like this: "he Guildford
Four were guilty. Maybe the police stretched the evidence, but
they were the bombers."

The campaign came into the open in May 1993 when three former
detectives in the Guildford Four case were acquitted of
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice after a curious trial
presided over by a former colonel in the British Army's Special
Air Services--famous for its shoot-to-kill policy in Northern
Ireland. Concealing from the jury that the actual IRA bombers had
acknowledged the Guildford bombings in open court undoubtedly
helped secure the "not guilty" verdict.

Bennet recounted that the 'Daily Telegraph' expressed the
establishment view that "until now, the received view of  the
Guildford Four, at least since they were released by the Court of
Appeal in 1989, is that they were all part of a scandalous
miscarriage of justice who spent many years in prison for crimes
they did not commit. This {acquittal} raises the disturbing
possibility that the real miscarriage of justice in their case
occurred when they walked free." ('London Review of Books', June
24, p.15).

British Police Continue to Frame the Innocent

The image of "British Justice" is being cleaned up now because
the British police are again framing innocent Irish people for
IRA bombings. They have been powerless to stop the IRA from
planting bombs that threaten London's future as an international
financial  center. So someone Irish has to be arrested to
reassure the British public.

Last winter it was Patrick Murphy, who was changes with hijacking
a cab to transport bombs. He was at an AA meeting at the time the
hijacking took place. If his  lawyer had not found people to
testify that he was at the meeting, he would probably be starting
a life sentence.

Then it was John Matthews, 22 year old and from Northern Ireland,
who was charges with hijacking a cab to take a bomb to 10 Downing
Street, The police released a description of a tall man with dark
hair. Matthews in 5 feet tall with bright red hair. He was held
without bail for nearly two and a half month until the case
collapsed on July 8 when the police couldn't produce any
evidence.

                              *****

Sandy Boyer is assistant director of the Irish Arts Center in New
York City.

                              *****

                          Short Tales:
                       Not in Our Backyard
                      by William H. Schapp

When James F. Clarity wrote in his New York Times piece about
Sinn Fein campaigning in Ireland, he managed to put down Gerry
Adams, the Belfast-based president of  the party, in almost every
paragraph. ("With Talks Idle, Sinn Fein Stumps in Ireland",
August 15, p. 8) He used the British government's formula for
describing Sin Fein--"the political arm of  the outlawed irish
Republican Army"--although I suspect that this formula is in a
Times computer, and Clarity would not  have been allowed to write
a story abut Sinn Fein without it.

Stating that Sinn Fein is excluded by  the British from the
Northern Ireland peace talks because "it refuses to denounce the
IRA violence", Clarity offered no further explanation, as if this
makes sense. Peace talks are usually  needed because there is
violence, and there are supporters on each side. Of course the
British don't denounce British Army violence, but that's
different. Clarity described a term Adams used, "armed struggle",
as "the IRA euphemism for violence," another British formula. As
for Adams's speaking tour (he is, after all, the president of a
legal  political party), Clarity called it "taking advantage of a
lull in the violence in Northern Ireland."

The last sentence of the story reads: "While Sinn Fein is a legal
party in Ireland, its members are barred from radio and
television." True enough,albeit unconscionable. But what does not
appear anywhere in Clarity's article is that Gerry ADams is
barred altogether from the U.S. Candidate Clinton promised his 
Irish American supporters that he would not follow the Reagan-
Bush lead and continue to refuse Adams a visa. But, last May, he
did just that. There was an outcry in the Irish American media,
but almost nothing in the mainstream press. As Sandy Boyer points
out, the Times and the Clinton administration are in lockstep
with this one.

                              *****

Lies of Our Times " is a magazine of media criticism. "Our Times"
are the times we live in but also the words of the New York
Times, the most cited news medium in the U.S.; our paper of
record. Our "Lies" are more than literal  falsehoods; they
encompass subjects that have been ignored, hypocrisies,
misleading emphasized and hidden premises--the biases which
systematically shape reporting. We can only address a sampling of
the universe of media lies and distortions. But we hope LOOT will
go a long way toward correcting the record."


Lies Of Our Times
Sheridan Square Press
145 West 4th Street
New York, NY  10012

$24a year sub.

Just a few minor points to redress the balance of such a biased article.  

>British Police Continue to Frame the Innocent
>
>The image of "British Justice" is being cleaned up now because
>the British police are again framing innocent Irish people for
>IRA bombings. They have been powerless to stop the IRA from
>planting bombs that threaten London's future as an international
>financial  center. So someone Irish has to be arrested to
>reassure the British public.


Total crap.  You obviously don't know that 6 Scots were arrested a couple 
of months under the PTA.  This was widely believed to be connected with the 
IRA bombing campaign of London.



>The last sentence of the story reads: "While Sinn Fein is a legal
>party in Ireland, its members are barred from radio and
>television." True enough,albeit unconscionable. But what does not
>appear anywhere in Clarity's article is that Gerry ADams is
>barred altogether from the U.S. Candidate Clinton promised his 
>Irish American supporters that he would not follow the Reagan-
>Bush lead and continue to refuse Adams a visa. But, last May, he
>did just that. There was an outcry in the Irish American media,
>but almost nothing in the mainstream press. As Sandy Boyer points
>out, the Times and the Clinton administration are in lockstep
>with this one.


Maybe, just maybe, Clinton recognised that there is a tendency towards 
gullibilty in certain parts of the Irish-American community.  After all, we 
read some of them in here believing that there is a great British 
conspiracy to make life hell for everyone with an Irish sounding surname.  
These same people also don't appear to believe that there happens to be 
hundreds of thousands of people in the NE corner of the island who don't 
subscribe to the nationalist cause.  Clinton probably thought "These 
suckers will believe anything.  A little bit of bullsh*t and their votes 
are mine." 

The rest of the US media probably ignored the story because they are more 
concerned with sorting out the issues affecting the USA than those 
affecting Ireland.  I believe you guys are all talking about NAFTA, 
Somalia, N.Korea etc.  Banning an alleged terrorist from a wee country that 
doesn't cause the US any problems is not going to be of much concern to 
everybody else in your country, particularly when you've got all sorts of 
problems elsewhere in the world.

>Lies of Our Times " is a magazine of media criticism. "Our Times"
>are the times we live in but also the words of the New York
>Times, the most cited news medium in the U.S.; our paper of
>record. Our "Lies" are more than literal  falsehoods; they
>encompass subjects that have been ignored, hypocrisies,
>misleading emphasized and hidden premises--the biases which
>systematically shape reporting. We can only address a sampling of
>the universe of media lies and distortions. But we hope LOOT will
>go a long way toward correcting the record."
>
>
>Lies Of Our Times
>Sheridan Square Press
>145 West 4th Street
>New York, NY  10012
>
>$24a year sub.


Next week, lies of our times asks "Santa Claus - myth or reality ?"


MR

re. .1
>Total crap.  You obviously don't know that 6 Scots were arrested a couple 
>of months under the PTA.  This was widely believed to be connected with the 
>IRA bombing campaign of London.

 6 Scotts, compared to 60,000 stopped, searched, and
 interrogated under the PTA in 1986 alone (Note. 1251).
 Most of these stopped are Irish people in Britain.

>Maybe, just maybe, Clinton recognised that there is a tendency towards 
>gullibilty in certain parts of the Irish-American community.  After all, we 
>read some of them in here believing that there is a great British 
>conspiracy to make life hell for everyone with an Irish sounding surname. 

 I see, we need to let the government ban people that
 they feel may affect the "gullible Irish-Americans".
 You wouldn't be British by any chance?
 Why not let Americans (all Americans), decide for
 themselves how they feel about Gerry Adams, and let
 us hear what he has to say.

 I'd start trying to explain to you what freedom of
 speech means to Americans, but I suspect that it would
 pass right over the head of one of Her Majesty's
 citizens, like yourself.

                       Mark

> I see, we need to let the government ban people that
> they feel may affect the "gullible Irish-Americans".

No. You've got the wrong end of the stick.  I mean that perhaps Bill 
Clinton had no intention of addressing the problems in Northern Ireland all 
along.  Instead, he pretended that he was concerned in order to win the 
votes of the Irish-American community.  Then, once the votes were safely in 
the can, he dropped the issue like a hot brick.  In short, he spotted a 
good opportunity to bullsh*t his way to a few votes.  And *some* (not all) 
of the Irish American community were gullible enough to believe it.  They 
voted for him (hoping for a change in policy), Bill rubbed his hands in 
glee, and the status quo was maintained.


> You wouldn't be British by any chance?

Technically yes.  If asked my nationality, I usually reply "Scots".


> Why not let Americans (all Americans), decide for
> themselves how they feel about Gerry Adams, and let
> us hear what he has to say.


Agreed.  I'd like that extended to us folks here in Britain as well.


> I'd start trying to explain to you what freedom of
> speech means to Americans, but I suspect that it would
> pass right over the head of one of Her Majesty's
> citizens, like yourself.

Very funny.


Mark