Rossport 5 Wives to Appear on the Late Late Show tonight

by hjk Sat Sep 03, 2005 00:26

OMFG Pat Kenny asked the worst questions I was more upset by him then the Andy Pyle guy ( who seemed nervous ????but smarmy )

He clearly had not read the background to this story, saying sure once it in the ground it won't be any harm, he was about two months behind in his thinking and info...

He spoke to the wives who were only in the audience, which I guess to not create the position described above was good, they described the difficulties and inanity of the men being in jail that long, but described their logical resolve well.

The buck is still being passed, ...Mark thankfully overid Pat Kenny's incompetence and got the point in that nobody has taken responsibilty for the safety of the pipeline properly and the shell couldn't refute this. (although pointing out that the pipeline was being illegal built would have been a bonus)

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Fri Sep 02, 2005 22:08

If anyone can pass on this to the Late Late Rossport seven before the show, please do.

I advise caution. There appear to be seven spokespersons on one side and one on the other. This is not good - not good for the seven but very good for the one who will be made to appear very brave while being "attacked" from so many sides.

Remember that the point of view that is expected to emerge from this Late Late is the "reasonable" stance of Shell

Think back if you can to a few apparently loaded panels of the past. Professor Casey versus a large panel of former priests (on the issue of married priests), Gerry Adams versus Gay Byrne and a strong panel of critics (on the issue of IRA violence), the late Jonathan Bowman Philbin versus the Late Late audience (on the issue of leaving school early). The winners in all cases were the loners.

The reason isn't difficult to analyse. Apart from the feelings of most of us that there should be a level playing field, and the sympathy aroused for the "underdog" when this doesn't happen, there is also a question of the allotment of time. If there are seven against one, the one will be allowed to speak seven times more often than any one adversary. The arguments of the seven may appear to be disjointed and frustrated (because each one is getting in so seldom) while the loner can keep on repeating the same argument, no matter what his or her opponents say. In fact he or she can follow a prepared script without even listening to any of the people on the opposite side.

Tonight any one of these seven excellent people could handle any number of Shell proponents.
If they are not careful in the extreme, however, it could happen that a show that appears to be slanted in their favour could turn out to be the one that has been really slanted in favour of Shell.

I hope that doesn't happen.

by Connacht Fri Sep 02, 2005 19:24

In Favour says that there is no work to obstruct so therefore, the men should purge their contempt and come out of jail.

It is important to note that Shell have lied to the government before, they have misled and misinformed the courts, be it by telling untruths or by omission; they have shown that their word cannot be considered legal tender. They cannot be trusted.

They say that they have suspended work for a year, but the problem is that they actually have the consent from the Minister to lay the offshore section of the pipe and to do some preparatory work on the onshore section of the pipeline. Therefore, if the men purged their contempt tomorrow on this basis (~that they can trust SEPIL??), and if a day later, Shell decided to lay the offshore section of the pipeline for example, the men would still be governed by the injunction and would be barred from expressing their concerns and opposition to the work by the order. Would expressing their opinions be interpreted as obstructing Shell work for example? Could it be said that discussing the issue is collusion to obstruct SEPIL? Would it be seen as planning industrial sabotage? You are asking them to go down on bended knee before this bully of an oil giant who has jailed them.

I disagree that they should purge. And In Favour (muid ag easaontú arís!), you should have more pride than to expect your fellow citizens to do so in this particular context.

by John Fri Sep 02, 2005 17:48

i cannot believe that there is yet another issue being made of this, of course the company involved have worked with shell in the past, they are both in the oil and gas industry after all, from where did you think the experts would be drawn from?

I mean hello anybody home???

by Michael Fri Sep 02, 2005 17:15

To the last poster:- The key word there, as you it, is "suspended". What do you think will be the outcome of this 3rd "independant" review? The first two were a farce. The third is being done by a company that used to work for Shell. The extreme dangers of this pipeline does not take a mathamatical genius to work out. Do not get in the way of power, money & the establishment. If you do, be prepared to go to jail. The five brave Mayo men have been prepared to do that. Let's just hope there is a favourable final outcome. But it won't come without much hardship.

Regards.

by In Favour Fri Sep 02, 2005 15:53

Why cant the men just purge thier contempt because there is nothing to obstruct anymore as all the work is suspended?

by Che Mus Fri Sep 02, 2005 15:46

At last, now everyone will get the true story.
We all know Shell have demanded these men be imprisoned. Now the big contempt of court lie will be exposed for the lie it is.
If it was just a contempt of court then the men would be free by now - FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

by Hoot Fri Sep 02, 2005 14:56

Wow - this looks like a very onesided presentation of the issue. Anyway - we'll see!!

by DV8 Fri Sep 02, 2005 14:53

As other campaigners have experienced on the Late Late there's bound to be 'snake in the grass'. Who will it be? Pyle or some hack from the Indo?