Dublin Lockout 1913 And Its Relevance Today

'What degradation is more abysmal than that of those who prostitute their manhood on the altar of profit-mongering?' - James Connolly

This year celebrates the centenary of the 1913 Lockout (26th August 1913 - 18th January 1914). In one of the most significant workers' movement of its kind until that point seen in Europe, approximately 25,000 workers went on strike against 300 employers. The spark was caused by William Martin Murphy, an influential tycoon, who sacked 340 of his workers in a deliberate attempt to ignite a conflict with the unions - and he was considered a 'good employer' (Greaves, 306, 1976) at the time.  The strikes which followed led to a lockout of workers by employers from their premises.  It also highlights a version of spiteful corporate media bias against the poor and starving people of Dublin.

'All the capitalist newspapers of Friday last join in urging, or giving favourable publicity to the views of others urging the employers of Dublin to join in a general lock-out of the members of the Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union'. - James Connolly,

With the current capitalist crisis, how shall we remember the heroes of 1913?  What is its relevance in 2013 Ireland?  Today, ordinary people have been pushed to breaking point, and beyond, by a policy of austerity which does not work (unless you are part of the 1%).  But there is a fightback. With the Campaign Against Home and Water Taxes (CAHWT), and the unions' rejection of the Croke Park II deal, the issues that the souls of 1913 fought for are still on the agenda.  There are also smaller, but equally significant campaigns - to keep hospitals open, for the rights of care assistants and those who depend on them, and others, which taken together, are just as important and relevant as any of the largest movements. 

The reality is, Ireland is in a very similar situation to that of 1913. - 100 years on, we are yet to control our own futures! Ireland has lost her sovereignty to the Troika - we now answer to a financial dictatorship of the IMF, ECB and EU triumvirate.  In practice, our sovereignty is lost to capitalism.  The voice of workers throughout the world is drowned by the interests of capitalism.  The German Reichstag knows details of Ireland's budget before her people do.  Similarly, in 1913, Ireland was a colony of the imperial British Empire - Home Rule was the nationalist bourgeois topic of the day. Today, many argue for the same empty dream - the return to national sovereignty, and for what? - when the discussions in homes around the country and Europe should be the overthrow of capitalism! Capitalism is our backward parasitic occupier.

Do we see, for example, with high unemployment, decreased living and working conditions, and property taxes among other draconian measures pushed upon the working-class, that Larkin's words are as relevant today as ever?; as people struggle to pay mortgages, warm their homes, or put food on the tables for their families, massive corporations are pandered to by a government that is supposed to protect and represent its people; that Google pay virtually no tax back to the economy; that Starbucks have paid less tax in the past 7 years than a couple would.  Do we see that 'employers... throughout Ireland generally... use and exploit individuals as they please', just as Larkin said in October 1913?  If there has been a change since this was said, it is that the employers of Larkin's time have grown, into massively powerful global corporations and banks that have adopted an aristocratic position through bailouts at the expense of the ordinary citizens of Ireland - these corporations, they tell us, 'cannot fall!'.

The concessions won by workers in earlier days, have been turned belly-up, inevitably, as recession comes around once again.  We see how hard-won rights have been eroded and reversed as the unions have been weakened by Thatcherite policies and thinking.

Some would argue that we have come a long way.  We have running water (soon planned to be charged); we have central heating (which people cannot afford and is increasing in price); we have televisions (soon to have a broadcasting tax, as if paying for your xbox, tv, xbox live membership, netflix subscription etc. on top of advertising revenue were not enough); we have "free" education (which is not free - and a decreasing group has access to third level studies); we have made advancements in medicine and healthcare technology (which is unaffordable - waiting lists are so long for public healthcare, people are needlessly dying before they receive treatment), we have an educated workforce (who cannot find employment, are emigrating, or are working in part-time positions well below their ability - Tesco has a highly educated part-time staff indeed!).  Suicide and depression rates are up, and have become a national tragedy.  So sure, we have moved forward a lot.

But more importantly, relative to our problems in Ireland, are the conditions of less developed nations.  Unlike 1913, the world is in a more perilous place than ever. Global warming and climate change is a reality; capitalism has been its contributor.  Throughout the world, more people are exploited than ever before - to an even worse extent in the developing countries.

'It is then upon this working class so enslaved, this working class so led and so enriched with moral purposes and high aims that the employers propose to make general war. Shall we shrink from it; cower before their onset? A thousand times no! Shall we crawl back... abase our hearts, bow our knees, and crawl once more to lick the hand that would smite us? Shall we, who have been carving out for our children a brighter future, a cleaner city, a freer life, consent to betray them instead into the grasp of the blood-suckers from whom we have dreamt of escaping? No, no, and yet again no! Let them declare their lock-out; it will only hasten the day when the working class will lock-out the capitalist class for good and all' (James Connolly, Irish Worker, 30th August, 1913)

Who Are Direct Democracy Ireland?

Who are Direct Democracy Ireland (DDI), this seemingly grand party who claim to represent all people regardless of their political beliefs?  What are DDI's policies?  Why are they so afraid to state a position on any topic?  It is believed that they are a nationalist anti-left party attempting to create division among working class people.  They do not state their ideologies because they fear to do so. How do they accumulate their funds? -  which appear significant for such a small and recent group.  They have links with the UKIP and the Christian Solidarity Party - a party which cannot muster a single member to be elected at local level in Ireland such is their irrelevance.  I believe DDI is a political front for Christians who oppose a woman's right to choose - is that democratic?  We gain just a glimpse of DDI bigotry from their representative Ben Gilroy:

'- If you are a RICH banker you get a bailout

- If you are POOR you get a handout

- If you are in the MIDDLE you get left out and wiped out.'

This is  a direct attack on the working class in Ireland - those who have been hit hardest and sacrificed most during this recession.  Evidence converse to the DDI claim regarding 'handouts' is ubiquitous.  Their assertion of creating a transformation from the current 'political system... to one of direct democracy' seems all very well, but is not backed up with any meaningful policy - What difference would simply changing how we vote ultimately affect the current economic climate? - we are still subject to a financial capitalist dictatorship.  DDI make no such declaration about economics, or their position on it, or anything else.

Instead, DDI have burrowed their way into the circles of credible political campaigns which are justifiably protesting government policy.  DDI are exploiting the need for an alternative party which exists; they do this by leeching on the achievements of others within those campaigns to build a support of citizens tired and disillusioned with the current political climate.  They make romantic reference to 'founding fathers of the Irish free state' in an attempt to appeal to the sentiments of Irish people. It is hot air.

Once again, there is an different, wholly more democratic option - one which is built on sound social, economic and political theory, and strengthened continuously by its consistent analysis and criticism of itself and the world around it - socialism.  It is this idea which has striven tirelessly for the rights of people all over the world.  The battles which have been won did not come without struggle and can be easily reversed; the war has not yet concluded.  This struggle is not based on any false, misguided and divisive notions such as religion, race, nation or gender as other political ideas are, but on scientific and historical analysis of the system in which we live - and it has identified class-conflict within a backward  and oppressive capitalist paradigm as the obstacle to democracy and progress.

"I detest it when people think Marxism is some sort of intellectual exercise: we interpret things, we understand, we are more clever. Marxism is about action" ~Tony Cliff

Read more about DDI right-wing policy here.

 

The Great Money Trick by Robert Tressel:

The Great Money Trick

(From Robert Tressell's The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists)

 

Tressell designed this cover for the manuscript of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.  It reads 'Being the story of twelve months in Hell, told by one of the damned, and written down by Robert Tressell'.

“Money is the real cause of poverty,” said Owen.


“Prove it,” repeated Philpot.


“Money is the cause of poverty because it is the device by which those who are too lazy to work are enabled to rob the workers of the fruits of their labour.”


“Prove it,” said Philpot.


Owen slowly folded up the piece of newspaper he had been reading and put it in his pocket.


“All right,” he replied. “I’ll show you how the Great Money Trick is worked.”


Owen opened his dinner basket and took from it two slices of bread, but as these were not sufficient, he requested that anyone who had some bread left should give it to him. They gave him several pieces, which he placed in a heap on a clean piece of paper, and, having borrowed the pocket knives of Easton, Harlow and Philpot, he addressed them, as follows:


“These pieces of bread represent the raw materials which exist naturally in and on the earth for the use of mankind; they were not made by any human being, but were created for the benefit and sustenance of all, the same as were the air and the light of the sun.”


“Now,” continued Owen, “I am a capitalist; or rather I represent the landlord and capitalist class. That is to say, all these raw materials belong to me. It does not matter for our present argument how I obtained possession of them, the only thing that matters now is the admitted fact that all the raw materials which are necessary for the production of the necessaries of life are now the property of the landlord and capitalist class. I am that class; all these raw materials belong to me.”


“Now you three represent the working class. You have nothing, and, for my part, although I have these raw materials, they are of no use to me. What I need is the things that can be made out of these raw materials by work; but I am too lazy to work for me. But first I must explain that I possess something else beside the raw materials. These three knives represent all the machinery of production; the factories, tools, railways, and so forth, without which the necessaries of life cannot be produced in abundance. And these three coins” - taking three half pennies from his pocket - “represent my money, capital.” “But before we go any further,” said Owen, interrupting himself, “it is important to remember that I am not supposed to be merely a capitalist. I represent the whole capitalist class. You are not supposed to be just three workers, you represent the whole working class.”


Owen proceeded to cut up one of the slices of bread into a number of little square blocks.


“These represent the things which are produced by labour, aided by machinery, from the raw materials. We will suppose that three of these blocks represent a week’s work. We will suppose that a week’s work is worth one pound.”


Owen now addressed himself to the working class as represented by Philpot, Harlow and Easton.


“You say that you are all in need of employment, and as I am the kind-hearted capitalist class I am going to invest all my money in various industries, so as to give you plenty of work. I shall pay each of you one pound per week, and a week’s work is that you must each produce three of these square blocks. For doing this work you will each receive your wages; the money will be your own, to do as you like with, and the things you produce will of course be mine to do as I like with. You will each take one of these machines and as soon as you have done a week’s work, you shall have your money.”


The working classes accordingly set to work, and the capitalist class sat down and watched them. As soon as they had finished, they passed the nine little blocks to Owen, who placed them on a piece of paper by his side and paid the workers their wages.


“These blocks represent the necessaries of life. You can’t live without some of these things, but as they belong to me, you will have to buy them from me: my price for these blocks is, one pound each.”


As the working classes were in need of the necessaries of life and as they could not eat, drink or wear the useless money, they were compelled to agree to the capitalist’s terms. They each bought back, and at once consumed, one-third of the produce of their labour. The capitalist class also devoured two of the square blocks, and so the net result of the week’s work was that the kind capitalist had consumed two pounds worth of things produced by the labour of others, and reckoning the squares at their market value of one pound each, he had more than doubled his capital, for he still possessed the three pounds in money and in addition four pounds worth of goods. As for the working classes, Philpot, Harlow and Easton, having each consumed the pound’s worth of necessaries they had bought with their wages, they were again in precisely the same condition as when they had started work - they had nothing.


This process was repeated several times; for each week’s work the producers were paid their wages. They kept on working and spending all their earnings. The kind-hearted capitalist consumed twice as much as any one of them and his pool of wealth continually increased. In a little while, reckoning the little squares at their market value of one pound each, he was worth about one hundred pounds, and the working classes were still in the same condition as when they began, and were still tearing into their work as if their lives depended on it.


After a while the rest of the crowd began to laugh, and their merriment increased when the kind-hearted capitalist, just after having sold a pound’s worth of necessaries to each of his workers, suddenly took their tools, the machinery of production, the knives, away from them, and informed them that owing to over-production all his store-houses were glutted with the necessaries of life, he had decided to close down the works.


“Well, and wot the bloody ‘ell are we to do now?” demanded Philpot.


“That’s not my business,” replied the kind-hearted capitalist. “I’ve paid your wages, and provided you with plenty of work for a long time past. I have no more work for you to do at the present. Come round again in a few months time and I’ll see what I can do.”


“But what about the necessaries of life?” demanded Philpot. “we must have something to eat.”


“Of course you must,” replied the capitalist, affably; “and I shall be very pleased to sell you some.”


“But we ain’t got no bloody money!” said Philpot


“Well, you can’t expect me to give you my goods for nothing! You didn’t work for nothing, you know. I paid you for your work and you should have saved something: you should have been thrifty like me. Look how I have got on by being thrifty!”


The unemployed looked blankly at each other, but the rest of the crowd only laughed; and then the three unemployed began to abuse the kind-hearted capitalist, demanding that he should give them some of the necessaries of life that he had piled up in his warehouses, or to be allowed to work and produce some more for their own needs; and even threatened to take some of the things by force if he did not comply with their demands. But the kind-hearted capitalist told them not to be insolent, and spoke to them about honesty, and said if they were not careful he would have their faces battered in for them by the police, or if necessary he would call out the military and have them shot down like dogs, the same as he had done before at Featherstone and Belfast.

What Is the Difference Between Left Wing and Right Wing?

Questions like 'what is the difference between right and left-wing?', or 'what side are we on - the left or the right?' are ones which have come up often at meetings and events I have attended recently.  Sadly the prevailing knowledge on forums and other Internet sites also tend to be very ill-informed about the left-right political spectrum.

Here, a broad description of differences between 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' politics is presented.  This political spectrum can be bleary.  It can be quite a technical topic also - there is no black and white answer - however, an attempt is made below to give a basic explanation of the differences, which are not always polarised.

Left to right-wing is just one version of a political spectrum.  The concept of left-wing and right-wing originated in France during the French Revolution in 1789.  Members of the National Assembly would be divided into two groups; supporters of the king - who sat on the right; and supporters of the revolution - who sat on the left.   In France, the left may be referred to as 'the party of movement', and the right as 'the party of order'.  This remains true now, in a very broad sense.

Seating in the 2009 European Parliament
     European United Left–Nordic Green Left (35)
     Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (184)
     European Greens–European Free Alliance (55)
     Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (84)
     European People's Party (265)
     European Conservatives and Reformists (54)
     Europe of Freedom and Democracy (32)
     Non-Inscrits (27)

Generally, left-wing parties, individuals and groups tend to be progressives, greens, liberals (in the social/cultural sense), democratic-socialists, communists or include some forms of anarchist groups also.  The right-wing often describes the outlooks of reactionaries or conservatives, neo-conservatives, neo-liberals (in an economic sense), monarchists, theocrats, nazis, fascists and some forms of nationalism.  Above, you can see a diagram of the left-right divide within the European Parliament seating arrangements.


Left-wing parties are generally interested in social justice and reforms.  Right wing parties are generally concerned with order, maintaining privilege, protecting private property and defending capitalism.   

In economics, the right-wing outlook tends to favour the top-down approach.  This is the belief that wealthy entrepreneurs, employers, corporations, etc. (in other words, the privileged few of wealth and ownership of production in capitalist societies) will create employment and wealth for the working-class who are dependent on them doing so for employment and well-being.  This is often referred to as the 'trickle-down' effect; the wealth is eventually passed down as the value and productivity of profit-seeking organisations goes up (See Margaret Thatcher's remarks on this) Groups on the right may also see themselves as responsible for maintaining order, and traditionally rely on harsh laws and policing to combat crime.  Prioritising nationalism, religion, imperialism, individualism and competition are usually of the right.

Left-wing views tends to disagree with the 'trickle-down' approach.  Marxists have shown, for example, that wealth is created by the working class who are exploited for the benefit of capitalist employers.  That wealth is turned to profit, which is not returned back into the economy through taxes for the benefit of all, but is either "sat on" cautiously in times of recession, or gambled on markets in a speculative manner.  The left would generally support higher taxes on the wealthy, reforming capitalism, or eradicating the capitalist system through popular revolution.  The left tends to be more concerned with progressive social justice than harsher laws as a method of reducing crime.  Internationalism, secularism, equality, solidarity and cooperation are mainly priorities of the left.

The left/right explanation for political theory is in no way an accurate definition of political theory.  There is no point in becoming pedantic about it.  For example some anarchists may be right-wing.  Stalin, it can be shown, exemplified extreme right-wing actions at times, though many would describe him as 'communist' which would be of the left. Nationalist parties in Ireland, such as Sinn Féin, are sometimes regarded as being relatively left-wing economically, but relatively right-wing socially.

As a socialist, I do not believe the right-wing approach to economics is a fair and efficient method.  Wealth is not distributed fairly to workers without massive struggle - if even then.  There is an abundance of waste of talent, resources, capital, and so on.  Of course, Margaret Thatcher's economic policies were disastrous, which brought about the destruction of the working-class while she was in power (see Chavs, Jones, 2011), and have inevitably lead to the current crisis today.  It is possible that totalitarianism, bureaucracy and authoritarianism can arise from groups throughout the political spectrum - Mussolini, Napoleon and Stalin would have gained power from the struggle for implementation of ideas from completely different sections.  Hence the importance of maintaining democracy, and the principles of Republicanism such as 'Civic Virtue' and 'Non-Domination'.  A republic, although a vague concept, can be thought of as a framework for managing society, in a civilised way.  In my opinion, capitalism is incompatible with the definition of a republic, because of the inherent need of groups and individuals to dominate others, and because of a governments' general inability to stop this from happening.  In a republic, it is the role of the government to block domination, whether it is from a group, individual or the state, and to protect its citizens who give the government legitimacy. (See Up The Republic!, O'Toole, 2012)

Reply to Brian Mooney's Report on the Teacher's Conference.

Brian Mooney's article about the teachers' conference would have us believe that a 'small minority' of those in attendance hindered the chance of making progress on other 'educational issues' by heckling the minister for education on the 'day he celebrated his birthday'.  His argument is cretinous, but may nonetheless be influential among the Irish Times readership in creating a misplaced sympathy for the royal in attendance.  

His article is an example of class divide; those whom are cushioned from the crisis show no empathy towards those who are.  

For teachers, other issues - as important as they are too - have finally been out-weighed by their struggle to simply get by on salaries such as theirs.  The item of pay must be prioritized by them in this case, as it would be simply impossible for them to focus on other obstacles facing their profession without it.  This is the main point, and one which has been missed or ignored by Mooney, the assistant principle of an all boys Catholic school in privileged Blackrock. 

Mooney's claim that a 'small minority' acted in such a way is contradictory to the RTE report in which we can see a vast number of people hold up red cards towards the minister.  We can plainly see the significant displeasure among the attendees, justifiably conveyed to the minister in this way.  Teachers are simply sick of talk and negotiations which have moved them to the point which they are currently at - nowhere.

His description of the nature of the conference also seems contrary to reports that 'delegates overwhelmingly agreed to oppose the contentious property tax', because they believe, rightly, that this tax, along with proposed income cuts, are the greatest obstacles. 'The proposals would see teachers working extra hours, losing allowances, including supervision and substitution payments, and experiencing pay cuts in higher grades.'  'The TUI is the first union to return a ballot result on the proposed public service agreement, as 86% of members overwhelmingly (my emphasis) rejected it'.  Mooney describes the struggle against these austerity measures by TUI members as 'antics'.

Mooney considers the IMF-EU deal to be irrelevant to the cause of the teachers, and that they should focus on their own narrow interests.  'Voting No simply to let the Government know the level of our frustration at the effects of the EU-IMF is not a luxury we can afford...'.  This argument is almost too stupid for me to counter here!  Most of us realise the inseparable link between the IMF-EU, austerity, the property tax and cuts to pay etc.  His only purpose of this argument is to bring about a fear among TUI members of having too much to  lose.  They should, by his reckoning, toe-the-line.  But what have teachers left to lose?  

You can read Brian Mooney's article for the Irish Times here, and I have also included a copy of the text below.  

The education conferences are over for another year, and the opportunity that Easter week offers to teachers through their trade unions to communicate their key messages has again been squandered. From a Government perspective the events of the past week have been a huge public relations success. None of the problems now arising in our schools and colleges from the cutbacks imposed in the past four years, which should be causing the Government acute political difficulties, made any impression on the public consciousness this week.

This was because of the unruly conduct of a small minority of conference delegates. For the casual observer going about their day-to-day business, the only aspect of the conferences which hit home strongly was this behaviour by teachers, holding up red cards to Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn, while others heckled him constantly as he delivered his address. The fact that the Minister was treated in this manner on the day he celebrated his birthday, while he attended the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation and the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland conferences at their invitation, magnified the public relations disaster this week became for the entire education sector.

All of us have an innate sense of how we expect an invited Minister to be treated, even if you fundamentally disagree with how he is formulating and implementing policy. The most common public reaction to this behaviour which I encountered this week was the question of how those same teachers would feel if their own students behaved in that manner, when they return to their classrooms on Monday morning?

While the public were distracted by these antics there were really important debates taking place at all three conferences during the week, on a wide range of educational issues, which teachers really wanted the public to engage with. As indicated in theMillward Brown survey published by the ASTI on Wednesday, 98 per cent of second-level schools have lost an average of two full-time subject teachers since the onset of the education cutbacks.


Many schools have also lost specialist teachers (such as resource teachers, home school liaison teachers etc.). Forty per cent of schools have lost learning support/ resource teaching hours, while 37 per cent have lost English-language support teaching hours. Thirty-eight per cent of schools said they had dropped at least one subject at Leaving Certificate level as a result of losing subject teachers.

Huge pressures

As the guidance counsellor in Oatlands College myself, I am acutely conscious of the huge pressures which have built up in schools as a result of the cutbacks imposed since 2008. As reported by Louise Holden in The Irish Times yesterday Ciara Kinsella, a teacher of Irish and history at St Raphael’s secondary school in Stillorgan, stated at the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland conference: “This year is the worst I’ve ever seen. It’s not your typical adolescent stuff. Their parents have lost jobs and in some cases the girls have had no breakfast. They’re hungry.”

Career guidance services in the school were stretched very thin and the school counsellor was “shattered and exhausted”, she said. In her Irish class, she had 35 students and not enough chairs. “I find myself hoping that students will be absent.”

The effects on the lives of our children of the cumulative effect of all the cubacks in our education system imposed in recent years, including the abolition of dedicated hours for the provision of guidance counselling and the resultant loss of one-to-one counselling in 70 per cent of schools, as indicated in the Millward Brown survey, was totally overshadowed by the public reaction to the unruly behaviour of a small minority of teachers, expressing their anger at the ongoing cuts to their salaries, and to the resources invested in our schools.

Efforts by ASTI general secretary Pat King to rescue the situation through his statement publicly condemning the behaviour of the teachers who engaged in those actions, and the more disciplined approach of the Teachers’ Union of Ireland delegates on Wednesday, did little to repair the damage caused by Tuesday’s events.

What happens now? It is clear that there is huge anger among teachers at the effects of the cutbacks on the quality of education which can now be delivered in our schools as well as over how the cutbacks in salaries have impacted on their personal lives. I am still not certain that this anger will translate into a No vote on Croke Park II within theINTO, although the mood at its conference this week would indicate that anger may yet override all other considerations.

Crucial vote

What is clear is that the INTO vote is crucial as to whether the proposed Croke Park agreement will secure a majority at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Ictu). On the ground, most teachers earning less than €65,000 realise that the loss of substitution and supervision, which after tax is worth about €600 per year, is a far better deal than the across-the-board cut of 7 per cent which the Government has indicated it will impose, if the proposed package of measures is rejected.

Having said that, the TUI seems to be determined to possibly break with Ictu and consider strike action if the proposals are accepted by a majority at congress. The ASTI went down that route some years back and deeply regretted it. Nobody within the teacher unions or the wider public service is coming forward with proposals as to how far they are prepared to go to defy the Government’s determination to cut the public service pay bill by a further €1 billion over the next three years.

Calls from the chairwoman of Impact’s education division, Gina O’Brien, who represents 10,000 lower-paid staff working as special needs assistants and school secretaries, on teachers to support the proposals, may yet be heard at school level, as members fill in their ballot papers on Croke Park over the coming week. The voices of recently recruited teachers who will have their increments restored under the proposals may also sway some of their colleagues to support the deal.

Whatever happens, teachers need to remember that anger is not a policy. Voting No simply to let the Government know the level of our frustration at the effects of the EU-IMF is not a luxury we can afford, unless we can see a clear pathway of actions following such a vote.

Brian Mooney is a guidance counsellor and a member of the ASTI

The Destruction of the Working Class in Ireland and the UK (Pt. 2)

Bias Within the Mass Media's Portrayal of Madeleine McCann and Shannon Matthews Cases.

The tragic case of Madeleine McCann going missing, was an example of how the child of wealthy parents is prioritized over the lives of ordinary children by the media in the UK (and Ireland, as it absorbed coverage here too).  Studies and comparisons of these cases are ubiquitous across the Internet and bookshelves, so I'll just summarize the two here as an example.  The Madeleine McCann story dominated the papers and television news for weeks, while other important stories were ignored or received little coverage.  In the UK, a child goes missing every three minutes.  On the missing kids.co.uk website, there are currently 8 children missing since the beginning of February this year, yet none of these children received anything like the kind of blanket coverage that the McCann family did. A massive reward of £2.5 million was offered for help in finding Madeleine. 

Regarding the Shannon Matthews case in Britain, an initial reward of £20,000 was raised to £50,000 for help in finding the young girl - still 50 times less than that which was on offer for Madeleine.  The media largely ignored the good work done by the local community in attempts to find the child.  Instead the media tarred all in Shannon's community with one brush as 'professional scroungers', an 'underclass' or, as Melanie Phillips stated;

 'the affair has helped to "reveal the existence of an underclass which is a world apart from the lives that most of us lead and the attitudes and social conventions that most of us take for granted... whole communities where committed fathers are so rare that any child who actually has one risks being bullied... and where boys impregnate two, three, four girls with scarcely a second thought'.

The true reality of the community where Shannon Matthews is from, is that it's a location where '90% of people work'.  Many locals helped in the search for Shannon, and  took money from their own pockets to help with finding her.  But these facts were largely ignored.