Conference tallis::celt

How appalling that such a tragedy should be used to gain a political 
advantage.  Cynicism at its worst.

Whatever, my heart goes out to Damian and his family.

Chris.

Re> "How appalling that such a tragedy should be used to gain a political 
     advantage. Cynicism at its worst."

Is it more or less appalling than:
    "....the British government seeks to ``spin'' anything
     that reminds the world of how morally corrupt, violent and bankrupt their
     occupation of Northern Ireland has been."

When is a writer who making the truth clear in the face of misrepresentation
using tragedy for political advantge rather than simply clarifying the reality
of the situation? Is there a difference?


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

>Is it more or less appalling than:

they're both pretty nasty.  I wouldn't say otherwise.

>When is a writer who making the truth clear in the face of misrepresentation
>using tragedy for political advantge rather than simply clarifying the reality
>of the situation? Is there a difference?

making political gain, or trying to grab the moral high ground, through a 
situation such as this is just not on, IMO, no matter how it is packaged.

Chris.

    Bill,
    
    > simply clarifying the reality of the situation
    
    The article for me does very little to clarify, it is essentially
    propagandist and does not try to analyse the nature of sectarian
    violence or offer a perspective of how to deal with it. It therefore
    adds to the problem, by taking a narrow view of one side. One might
    just as well take an article on the Shankill Rd bombings and the
    veneration of the teenager who was killed taking the bomb into the fish
    shop to show that NI Catholics are all sectarian terrorists. In short,
    it is the usual divisive bunk.
    
    Kevin

    Well said Kevin. isn't it about time people stopped trying to get one
    over on the other side and started trying to accomodate the different
    cultures in Ireland.
    
    Shaun.
    

    Just a few notes.
    
    >pathetic attempt to cling to their shrinking "empire."
    
    This statement borders on hatred and I think should be taken with a
    pinch of salt.
    
    >Ms. Evans, a true sleuth, also wrote that the Brennan family got a
    >settlement of 300,000 pounds - $450,000 in American money - and that
    >the story ``is sad enough without the sectarian scapegoating with which it
    >has been embellished.
    
    True enough.
    
    >An account was established for Damian but neither he nor anyone in his 
    >family can touch it until the boy turns 18.
    
    Mrs Evans was incorrect in saying the money went to they boys family.
    Compensation payments for children are awarded in the childs name and
    are put in trust until the boy reaches 18.
    
    > ``Money was used from this account once, to buy the family a home
    >and move them out of the area where the incident happened. The
    >psychiatrists and psychologists treating Damian felt this was essential
    >to his recovery, to help him get over the memory of what took place.
    
    Is this reporter on drugs? Did he not just say that the family could
    not have any money now suddenly they've got a new house?
    
    >``The money is controlled by the High Court in Belfast. 
    
    This paints a bad picture. The *release* of money from Damiens trust is
    controlled by the courts. The funds themselves are controlled (short of
    withdrawal of the money) by trustees who are chosen by the parents.
    This is a deliberate twisting of facts.
    
    
    >And we had to fight hard to get it for the house. 
    
    All sorts of agendas have to be implemented, such as "would the family
    use the money for their own gain" etc.
    
    >It took time but we managed to do it. And the judge was kind of saying to 
    >me: `Don't come back near me for any more.'''
    
    This paints another bad picture.
    
    UKOGBANI laws states that no money that is in trust for a child should
    be released before their 18th birthday except in exceptional circumstances.
    This is the same for everybody, Protestant, Catholic, Hindu, Jew, etc.
    You're not being told the truth, this is selective journalism.
    
    >Next, we have Ms. Evans' contention that the burns were not the
    >result of sectarian violence: A few days before the Brennan family -
    >Catholics on welfare, which happens to be a way of life in Northern
    >Ireland - finally raised money to bring him to the Shriners Burns 
    >Institute sodoctors might help the 9-year-old become someone others don't 
    >laugh or cringe at because of hideous wounds and scars, 
    >the BBC carried a report on their radio news about Damian's plight.
    
    
    I have two thing to say about this paragraph - the first sentence
    implies that Ms. Evans was lying then goes on to prove nothing in
    contradiction in her statement.
    
    Secondly, I am quite sickened by the reporters heavy handed use of a 
    disfigured boy to try to gain a sympathy vote among his readers.
    
    >The BBC - not exactly known for embellishment - stated the boy was
    >going to America for treatment of burns suffered when he was ``set
    >alight''by Protestant boys.
    
    9 years old boys can't even spell sectarian.
    
    I can't be arsed to write any more, I've got work to do.
    
    
    CHARLEY
    
    

    
    None of us are naive to the degree that we would be surprised that
    there are people who would use the boy's disfigurement to further their
    own aims, but why not be truthful about what happended ?  
    
    I read this column (not story) in the Boston Globe.  Tell me why the
    British Consulate in Boston would want to give the impression that this
    terrible incident was not sectarian when it most likely was ? 
    
    We all know that there are people in the North who hate one another. 
    Why complicate matters with a poorly dressed up tale that gives one the
    impression of defending the indefensible ?
    
    Help me out on this one, please. 
    
    Mike
    
    

    >want to give the impression that this terrible incident was not sectarian 
    >when it most likely was ?
    
    Unfortunately, the only people who could answer that question would be
    the two nine year old boys.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Mike
    
    
   >     I read this column (not story) in the Boston Globe.  Tell me why
    the British Consulate in Boston would want to give the impression that
    this terrible incident was not sectarian when it most likely was ?.
    
    
    I would not want to defend this lady for a minute, but the article in
    the base note has a lot more in it than that, and as I have already
    said, it leaves out what needs to be said.  As to the motives of the
    British Consulate, they seem unclear to me, and the whole thing is very
    amateur PR.  So if you ask me I would say that a rather pathetic
    blunder has been used as an excuse for the usual tribal number,
    designed to bring us back, not forwards.
    
    Kevin 
         

Is the article on .0 representative of the quality of the Boston Globe in
general?

Okay, it may be trying to push a particular point.  But it does so with no
sense of subtlety whatsoever.  So many paragraphs display such a blatant
slant on the story that I instantly stop believing anything in the article.

Good propaganda is done so that you don't know that it's proaganda.  The
raw hatred in this article is so blatant that it will only sway the most
stupid.

Stunningly bad journalism, and incompetent as propaganda.

regards,
//alan

    Hear hear.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    
    
    Not defending the Globe, although I'll take it over the Sun, Star, and
    four or five other English papers in a heartbeat.....
    
    
    When the writing was introduced into this note, it was misrepresented as
    a newstory.  It was not.  It was a column or bi-line written by a feature
    writer for the Globe who has a penchant for generating controversy. I
    made that distinction in my note.
    
    Having said that, the situation is that the boy is here in Boston for
    medical care.  The newspapers did report that the boy was here. His
    parents were interviewed and characterized the incident as sectarian.
    
    It would have been treated as just another unfortunate incident (and
    another good argument for the peace efforts) if it had been left at that. 
    
    Sadly, it wasn't. The response by the British Consulate made it appear
    that they were adding to the misery of the family by needlessly calling
    their account into question, and doing so despite BBC reports to the
    contrary.
    
    
    Mike

    Re: Last note.
    
    well said.  This article is not typical of the Globe.  Barnicle thrives
    on controversy.  The British response only made matters worst.  Our
    thoughts should be about the victim, not the article, as we have
    already given it more attention than it is worth.
    
    Regards,  Ken Hanly

  Mike,

> Sadly, it wasn't. The response by the British Consulate made it appear
> that they were adding to the misery of the family by needlessly calling
> their account into question, and doing so despite BBC reports to the
> contrary.

  The British Consulate is doing what they always do with information
  from north east Ireland.  They twist the facts to suite there own
  purpose, one of holding on to the last colonies they have.

  Thank God for a reporter who investigated the story further, rather than
  relying on the tripe the British Government tried to feed to the world
  news services.

                   Mark

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Yes, thank god for a reporter who investigated the story further,
    printing lies and twisting truths in his column. You obviously believe
    every word though.
    
    
    CHARLEY

>    Our
>    thoughts should be about the victim, not the article, as we have
>    already given it more attention than it is worth.
 
  Ken,
   Yes our thoughts should be about the victim.  The victim of sectartian
  violence, a little boy badly burned.  My thoughts are also with his 
  family who have had to deal with the lies being spun by the British
  government about the incident.  My heart also goes out to the other
  victims of sectarian violence that the British have or will attempt to
  cover up.
   If it had not been for Mr. Barnicle's article, we would not have known
  that the little boy, his family, and community were being victimized
  by lies perpetrated through the British government.  The Nationalist
  community in north east Ireland are being victimized by this kind of
  British propoganda and "spin control".

                       Mark
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Have you proof it was sectarian violence Mark?
    
    
    CHARLEY

I wrote

>The
>raw hatred in this article is so blatant that it will only sway the most
>stupid.

Mark responded

>Thank God for a reporter who investigated the story further, rather than
>relying on the tripe the British Government tried to feed to the world
>news services.

Well, one of us must be right...

//atp

RE:      <<< Note 1577.14 by NETRIX::"[email protected]" "Mark Holohan" >>>

>>  Mike,
>>  
>>  > Sadly, it wasn't. The response by the British Consulate made it appear
>>  > that they were adding to the misery of the family by needlessly calling
>>  > their account into question, and doing so despite BBC reports to the
>>  > contrary.
>>  
>>    The British Consulate is doing what they always do with information
>>    from north east Ireland.  They twist the facts to suite there own
>>    purpose, one of holding on to the last colonies they have.
>>  
>>    Thank God for a reporter who investigated the story further, rather than
>>    relying on the tripe the British Government tried to feed to the world
>>    news services.
>>  
>>                     Mark

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Bloody Classic!!!!!! That last paragraph is an
    absolute gem! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Thanks for the
    best laugh I've had in weeks. If you truly believe that, then I feel
    very, very sorry for you.
    
    Laurie.

RE:                      <<< Note 1577.19 by IAMOK::BARRY >>>
    
>>      If the truth be known, the Consulate here walked into this one and made
>>      themselves look awful.  I don't like Barnicle all that much, but in this
>>      case, he was not the problem.  The Consulate should have left these
>>      folks alone.
    
    Being thousands of miles away, and only catching up on this this
    morning, it's difficult for me to comment with accuracy, but from what
    I've read in here, I don't think anyone's going to argue with that. It
    seems that the British Government has a particular talent for totally
    cocking its PR up, with sometimes disastrous results. However, that
    fact doesn't make the tripe posted in .0 any better, or anything other
    than tripe, which is the real issue under debate here.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

re .12
                            -< No page 3 here.... >-

Nothing's perfect :-)
    
    
>    When the writing was introduced into this note, it was misrepresented as
>    a newstory.  It was not.  It was a column or bi-line written by a feature
>    writer for the Globe who has a penchant for generating controversy. I
>    made that distinction in my note.

Ah - I think that "a penchant for generating controversy" is a euphemism.  I
get the point.
    
    Sadly, it wasn't. The response by the British Consulate made it appear
    that they were adding to the misery of the family by needlessly calling
    their account into question, and doing so despite BBC reports to the
    contrary.

There are times that I despair of Britain's PR efforts abroad...

regards,
//alan

    >I'm going to assume that your last note ("idiots") wasn't addressed to
    >me.
    
    No it wasn't. I'm sorry if you got that impression.
    
    >And while you're writing, perhaps you might enlighten me on what other
    >stateside accounts have been proven, time and again, to be
    >"complete propaganda bullshit."
       
    Read any note in this conference started by Mark Holohan that contains
    a quote from the Sinn Fein web page then read the subsequent replies.
    
    
    CHARLEY 

    .19
    
    Mike, I've just re-read this note and noticed the header "Barnicle is
    not the problem". No he's not the problem, but he is *a* problem. The
    article is twisted, biased, bits and pieces are left out and half truths 
    are told, which seems to be the norm about any stateside articles on the
    situation in Ireland. He is either a/ Trying to enhance his own
    "controversial" reputation or b/ Trying to stir up racial hatred in an
    effort to sell more papers.
    
    Do not take such articles as gospel, for they are not, not by a long
    chalk.
    
    
    CHARLEY

  You know, I'm not sure what I find more apalling.  The initial British
  government coverup of the incident, or the way the representatives of
  the British people (ie. the Brit noters in here), try to attack or
  put their own spin on this disgusting action.  Maybe my initial thoughts
  were right, and you should all be grouped together as representative
  of your Government, and it's actions.

                   Mark
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Mark,

Are we reading the same notes string here?

Not one British noter has done anything other than condemn this abonimable act.
Not one British noter has attempted to defend the British government / embassy
in what appears to be a very incompetent PR cock-up.

regards,
//alan

>        -< What's worse, the Brit Gov "spin" or the Brit noters spin? >-
>
>  You know, I'm not sure what I find more apalling.  The initial British
>  government coverup of the incident, or the way the representatives of
>  the British people (ie. the Brit noters in here), try to attack or
>  put their own spin on this disgusting action.  Maybe my initial thoughts
>  were right, and you should all be grouped together as representative
>  of your Government, and it's actions.

	...?!

oh, I can't even be bothered.

    >or the way the representatives of the British people (ie. the Brit noters 
    >in here), try to attack or put their own spin on this disgusting action.
    
    
    Care to elaborate Mark? That is of course, assuming you can.
    
    
    CHARLEY

>    >or the way the representatives of the British people (ie. the Brit noters 
>    >in here), try to attack or put their own spin on this disgusting action.
>    
>    Care to elaborate Mark? That is of course, assuming you can.
    
I doubt if he will, because he can't.  I found his last sentence particularly 
interesting; it would be very convenient for him to group all British people 
in with his perceived enemy, that way he can excuse the murderous behaviour of 
his terrorist chums.  Nice, eh?

Chris.

    Mark, why are you talking total bolox again. What is your point ? It
    does get somewhat embaressing when we're having a fairly normal
    conversation and then you jump in like a five year old, throwing your
    toys around the room and generaly making a nuisance of yourself. Either
    join the discussion in a sensible way or don't bother joining at all.
    
    Either way, stop wasting our time.
    
    Helpfully, Shaun.

    Yes, it is the usual hate mail, all Brits are as bad as people who burn
    babies. If you have that mind set you can rationalise and justify
    sending the immature Ed O'Brien onto a London bus with a badly made
    bomb.
    
    It is not worth arguing with, just exposing for what it is. That way we
    can move forward to doing something about sectarian violence. That
    means crossing the sectarian divide, which the journalist who wrote the
    base note didn't understand either. 
    
    Kevin
                        

    
    re' the last few notes....
    
    Agree.  If you can't be helpful or constructive, and calling people
    names is hardly either, then don't waste everybody's time.
    
    

Re:> Note 1577.22

   > "The tone, veracity and balance of the entire piece was clear halfway
     through the first paragraph. It is political propaganda at its most
     unsubtle. If that crap is the kind of thing the general public in the
     US see, then no wonder they have no understanding of the complexity
     and seriousness of the NI situation."

   >  "....the British government seeks to ``spin'' anything
     that reminds the world of how morally corrupt, violent and bankrupt their
     occupation of Northern Ireland has been."

Laurie, between the two (the politicians and the spin doctors), it cerainly is
difficult to grasp the problem and, therefore, the solution. Just for the record, 
the British government isn't alone in misrepresenting their posture. Most other
governments, including the U.S., hide facts and misrepresent the truth about 
their activities. The challenge for the citizens-at-large is to see through the
crap and influence viable solutions to clearly defined problems. To deny the 
reality of and hypocracy of our governments' (and medias') spinning of 
information, and to believe it, is to become part of the problem.

Bill.  


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    This story keeps going!  The Boston Globe yesterday (Sunday, 2nd of
    Jume, 1996) had a letter from the Woman at the British COnsulate here. 
    She stated again that Barnicle's article was incorrect, that four
    children were injured, there was no sectarian motive, and it was more a
    matter of children playing with fire, so to speak.  She made a point to
    emphasise the generosity of the people of Boston for contributing to
    his care.  This letter was a lot more credible than her first and a lot
    less confrontational.  She was, however, just as firm in her statement
    about Barnicle having his facts wrong.  For the British Consulate to
    keep this issue going, weeks after the orginal article, would lead me
    to believe that they must be sure of their facts.  Barnicle does tend
    to gloss over facts and be very subjective, so at this stage, it is
    hard to know who to believe.
    
    Regards,  Ken Hanly