Loyalist agent shot in Belfast…
THE top loyalist shot in north Belfast is said to be Mark Haddock, the alleged UVF commander and Special Branch agent. Haddock, who faces an attempted murder charge, was bailed last week.
Advertise
-
Books
-
A New Vision for the Catholic Church – Book Review
The oft-quoted verse from the book of Proverbs, ‘where there is no vision, the people perish,’ (chapter 29, verse 18) opens a new book by Gerry O’Hanlon, A New Vision for the Catholic Church: A View from Ireland (Columba Press, 2011). That verse could be considered an apt summary of the current state of the [...] read our review »
-
John Laird for Christmas?
John Laird (Lord Laird of Artigarvan) is unionism’s jester. His memoir A Struggle To Be Heard ” by a True Ulster Liberal” (from Slugger’s shop on Amazon here) might serve more as a heavy stocking filler than anybody’s idea of a main present. In it he wears the masks of comedy and tragedy to turn the [...] read our review »
-
The ANC, the IRA and the rise of influence of the left within Sinn Fein…
World by Storm has a nice piece up on the IRA’s role in helping MK, the armed wing of the ANC, in the 1980s. In particular he sees a strange alchemy at work there: …if one can think of a clearly legitimate contemporary struggle it was that against apartheid and it is to the credit [...] read our review »
-
This doesn’t look good for Sir Reg…
I hope that Reg & co all have their alibis sorted out!
It’s confirmed as Haddock. Multiple injuries, critical.
Shot eight times and still alive
Sounds fishy to me.
I must confess to felling absolutely nothing for this gentleman and the misfortunate situation he now finds himself in. In East Antrim and North Belfast there are various groups perhaps amounting to 50 individuals in total who have caused misery for many.
With regards Mount Vernon, there is the question of the youth who was murdered in Somerton and allegations that the murders were known to the Police and lived in Mount Vernon. I have no reason to believe the rumours true or indeed false but it shows the damage to public confidence caused by collusion.
It suits special branch to see Haddock dead. They have been coming under increasing pressure from Raymond Mc Cord Snr to expose the activities of Haddock who was allowed to kill with impunity while on the special branch books. Like every other SB agent he has served his purpose and it seems he has been set up for murder to coverup the dirty activities of the RUC/PSNI special branch.
thank god he was’nt a fenian buying his cigarettes in dundalk. Then the “law and order” unionists would really be upset.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, for Mr Empey the rather sordid marriage of convenience with the UVF seems to about to end in a rather short period of time. The DUP will savage him, rightly so.
If the Brits intend to continue liquidating their assets this must be very worrying for certain UDA men in North Belfast, not to mention their friends in both leading unionist parties – no wonder the dirt squad are busy trying to distract us all with black propaganda about Sinn Fein.
lib2016
One very senior UDA man in particular and a couple of his main supporters must be very worried.
Except you’ve hit on the wrong part of Belfast altogether.
Sections of the media are well aware that this man has been working for the intelligence services for years but are sitting on it because it doesn’t help the big picture.
How long will that last?
Many of his friends have twigged on lately.
Peking,
My interpretation is that most loyalists are very well aware of what is happening in the way of moving the unionist paramilitaries towards a civilian role. This is yet another example being made ‘pour encourager les autres’.
“My interpretation is that most loyalists are very well aware of what is happening in the way of moving the unionist paramilitaries towards a civilian role.”
By the same token then, did most republicans know that Scap, Donaldson et. al. were working for the security services as part of moving the IRA towards a civilian role?
Peking,
If you are asking whether most republicans realise that the British had and still have agents within the republican movement then the answer is yes. They also realise that the eventual success of the Peace Process is dependent on the support of the leadership of all sides except the unionists.
lib2016
No.
Given your earlier comment and by the same token, I’m asking did most republicans know that Scap, Donaldson et. al. were working for the security services as part of moving the IRA towards a civilian role.
Simple enough question.
“the eventual success of the Peace Process is dependent on the support of the leadership of all sides except the unionists.”
Nuff said
Obviously they wouldn’t have known which members of the republican movement were working for the British. Equally obviously they know and support the idea that the Peace Process is agreed on and supported by the Irish government, the British government and the nationalist people of the North which would seem to indicate that they all support Sinn Fein’s stated aim ‘to take the gun out of Irish politics’.
I really don’t know how I can make it any clearer – the Peace Process includes removing the need for an armed IRA and is supported by all reasonable people, which seems to mean everybody but the unionists.
The British and the huge majority of Irish people, including Sinn Fein, support civilianisation or demilitarisation if you prefer that word.
fairdeal,
Unionism gained and held power by undemocratic means, remember the UWC. Naturally democrats have reacted. What else do you propose should or could happen?
“Obviously they wouldn’t have known which members of the republican movement were working for the British. Equally obviously they know and support the idea that the Peace Process is agreed on and supported by the Irish government, the British government and the nationalist people of the North which would seem to indicate that they all support Sinn Fein’s stated aim ‘to take the gun out of Irish politics’.”
Seems like you’re saying the British agents that were working to a Peace Process agenda were all right then seeing as they were moving things generally in the right direction. A novel position for a republican.
It doesn’t matter either then, presumably, that they were murdering all round them at the same time.
Not so novel a republican position that one.
thank god he was’nt a fenian buying his cigarettes in dundalk. Then the “law and order” unionists would really be upset.
heck, I’ve been keeping a watchful eye on your posts of late, and just want to say I admire your wit tremendously.
Keep on exposing the hypocracy, it’s always a winner, and will eventually collapse unionism.
Not a terribly surprising incident.
It will be interesting however if the injured party lives to tell another tale.
Well! I never thought for a moment that I would smile when I heard a Loyalist was riddled as our Mr Haddcok was. But Boy I had a grin like a cheshire cat! I think this is possibly the best news from Ulster in a long, long time.
Now another embarresment for the SB is almost gone. A joyous day for all Eh!! Well? maybe not Mr. Empty!!
Shame on you “Handy man wi a hanky ball”. Haddcok might be a very bad boy but he is some mother’s son.
Wouldn’t it be better if we had a police force other than the PSNI/UVF, a transparent prosecution service (with none of this public interest shite) and a balanced judiciary that we all could accept and have him tried and made to answer questions about his relationship with so called forces of “law and order”.
This is too much like the case of William Strobie. A loyalist who knows too much about their relationship with the state and has a visible profile suddenly being shot.
I hope he lives and spills the beans on his security force contacts.
Heck
Totally agree with you there. To gloat over the non-judicial attempt to terminate another human being with extreme prejudice brings shame on the gloater.
If Mark Haddock dies, I would like to acknowledge the achievements of the Sunday World. This will be the 21st person who has appeared on their front page and has later been assassinated. This name and assassinate campaign, with Denis Donaldson being the last victim is obviously working.
lib2016
“Unionism gained and held power by undemocratic means, remember the UWC”
All those Stormont elections they won from 1921 to 1972. How terrible of them!
I was one at the time (I have been told I was at the protests in a pram) but from what I have read the anti-Sunningdale parties won the popular vote in February 1974. How undemocratic of them!
And the makers of last week’s ‘Spotlight’ surely? I assume that “Alice” is Haddock. If so, it wouldn’t have taken a genius to work out who the makers of the programme were on about.
“All those Stormont elections they won from 1921 to 1972. How terrible of them!”
Yeah, it is so terribly hard to do when you have a one party state and gerrymandering. That isn’t democracy.
kensei
what were the party percentages between 1922-72?
kensei
“one party state”
You seem ignorant of the range of other parties that existed, campaigned and got elected.
“gerrymandering”
I was specific in choosing Stormont. They also won Westminster elections too.
Issues of gerrymandering arise at local government level not Stormont and even then it was the refusal to update them more than the original boundaries that distorted local democracy to the detrimant of nationalists.
Sweeping charges are often foolish.
I would like to know: Michael Shilliday, Rebecca Black, Fermanagh Young Unionist, Tony Clifton, Boshank, Lord Belmont, where are you all?
You pathetic little lickspittles came on here to defend Reg linking up with the UV’s – now that the inevetable has happen, what have you got to say for yourselves?
Interestingly, why have Shilliday/Crowe’s articles on the YU Blog justifying the move been removed?
Loyalist: “Interestingly, why have Shilliday/Crowe’s articles on the YU Blog justifying the move been removed? ”
When the chickens come home, maybe its time to take down the roost…
dread
Indeed. I’m listening to Reg on TalkBack right now – what a pathetic little creep – even Dunseith has got the better of him! He sounds like a man under pressure….
Fair Deal,
I took lib2016′s remark to apply primarily to the foundation of the NI state, which was formed against the wishes of the majority due to the threat of violence. I don’t expect a unionist to acknowledge that the unionist position is anti-democratic, but to pretend that NI was formed according to what we consider normal democratic practices is wrong.
I think the point about the one party state was that effectively the Unionist position was unchallengeable. The whole point of democracy being that everyone can feel they have a chance of influencing the formation of the government. Richard Bourke’s book ‘Peace in Ireland: the War of Ideas’ looks at NI in these terms, and is well worth a read. It explores how differing interpretations of democracy lie at the base of both nationalist and unionist arguments.
Your argument about gerrymandering is hardly a resounding endorsement of the democratic practices of the Stormont government. Even accepting that your argument about the 1920s is correct, and I’m not sure it is, Stormont could have redrawn the boundaries at any time to reflect population shifts, and didn’t. Even if this was oversight for a long time, an extremely charitable interpretation, it’s clear that by the mid to late 1960s it was undeniably political.
The popular vote argument on Sunningdale is of course an ongoing one about the responsiveness of the first past the post system, be it in the UK, or in the US. Opponents of Sunningdale lost the elections and respsonded by undemocratic means.
Sweeping charges are often foolish, but so are attempts to defend NI’s unionists as blameless and consistent paragons of democracy.
So elections constitute democracy? As in Soviet Russia or Zimbabwe, for instance. The truth is that Northern Ireland was conceived of around 1870 as a gerrymander when it became clear that democracy in Ireland was inevitable.
The fact that unionists still can’t face up to and deal with democracy is sad but not something which will be allowed to halt progress for much longer.
garibaldy
If it was democratic for Ireland to secede from the UK it was democratic for NI to secede from Ireland, which is legally what happened. The Northern Ireland parliament had to vote itself out of Ireland (IIRC there was legally a United ireland for a few hours while the parliamentary debate took place.)
“Opponents of Sunningdale lost the elections and respsonded by undemocratic means.”
They won over 50% of the popular vote and took 11 of the 12 westminster seats how is that losing?
“it’s clear that by the mid to late 1960s it was undeniably political.”
Yes it was and it was wrong, as was the failure (and possibly more significant) to make local government elections universal suffrage, in line with the rest of the UK in the 1940′s.
lib2016
So democracy is only democracy if nationalism wins, dream on.
Free and fair elections provide democratic legitimacy. Soviet Russia and now Zimbabwe didn’t have free and fair elections to its parliament.
“The fact that unionists still can’t face up to and deal with democracy is sad but not something which will be allowed to halt progress for much longer.”
Republican truisms are getting so passe after 85 years
If unionists had confined their violent pogroms and subsequent failed attempt to build a state to those areas where they were in a majority then you might have a point.
In nation-building nothing succeeds like success and unionism didn’t succeed in building a working democratic state. They have since failed at their attemppt to negotiate integration with Britain and joint authority is not on offer.
What direction do you suggest remains for us to try?
Accept changes to the Belfast Agreement that deliver substantial/overwhelming Unionist support so that devolved government with necessary checks and balances recommences?
FD,
I meant representation in the Assembly. I think that there was enough unionist opposition to make Sunningdale unworkable, but that’s not the same as the majority of the population being opposed to it. On the popular vote, there were many nationalists who boycotted elections, so the figures might be in doubt.
As for the formation of NI. If we want to get legal, where did the NI Parliament come from? It was formed against the expressed wishes of the majority of people in Ireland in the first place. The Irish Parliament had represented the whole island, and that was the basis on which the union was negotiated. There was no historical reason or precedent for a 6-county Parliament. As I’ve said, no unionist can accept that this was undemocratic, so in some senses the debate is pointless.
Just to be clear, and as i’ve said on another thread, this is of academic rather than political interest, and cannot form the basis for political action today.
Accept changes to the Belfast Agreement that deliver substantial/overwhelming Unionist support so that devolved government with necessary checks and balances recommences?
Which is it then: substantial or overwhelming? Seems to be we got substantial Unionist support last time but that clearly wasn’t enough. So it looks like ‘overwhelming’ is required. Now presumably these changes will be at the expense of Nationalism (and will presumably need Nationalist asquiescence) so why don’t you enlighten us all as to what changes you foresee as being required for Unionist support?
Dec
“these changes will be at the expense of Nationalism”
Only if nationalism interprets the Belfast Agreement as their agreement.
“what changes you foresee as being required for Unionist support?”
I have listed these numerous times. End to paramilitarism (on which the signs are presently positive in terms of republicanism), reforms to the executive to make it more collective and accountable, increased accountablity on north-south structures, strengthening of east-west dimension.
For sustainability of the executive a solution to parades is needed to as well as a collective approach to human rights and equality developmentsn (the human rights bill and the single equality act).
Plus things which would benefit everyone ie reduction in the number of departments and size of the assembly plus a water charges package wouldn’t hurt either.
joeCanuck: To gloat over the non-judicial attempt to terminate another human being with extreme prejudice brings shame on the gloater.
Hear hear. There is a lot of this crap about on slugger at the minute.
Any substantial changes to the GFA would require a re-run of the referendum and are a non-starter but there is already provision for reviews and plenty of room for creative tinkering around the edges if unionists need the sort of meaningless facesaver you are suggesting. What will actually emerge when politicans start working the institutions is another story altogether. As in Scotland it will be the power to raise taxes which will matter in the medium term.
The unionist position is being eroded the longer they withhold their support for the Agreement so I don’t see any problem for nationalists in the DUP continuing their delaying tactics for another 6/12 months. Whether the British will put up with it is another question.
lib2016
“Any substantial changes to the GFA would require a re-run of the referendum”
It doesn’t actually.
these changes will be at the expense of Nationalism”
Only if nationalism interprets the Belfast Agreement as their agreement.
No, they’ll be at the expense of Nationalism because we know how Unionism operates.
a solution to parades
Agreed. Here’s one: parade where you’re wanted. Easy and democratic, eh?
“All those Stormont elections they won from 1921 to 1972. How terrible of them!”
Yeah, it is so terribly hard to do when you have a one party state and gerrymandering. That isn’t democracy.”
But Stormont boundaries weren’t gerrymandered. That’s an urban myth.
‘But Stormont boundaries weren’t gerrymandered. That’s an urban myth.’
So were the B Specials, and the Special Powers act, and all those adverts for jobs in the Bele Tele asking Catholics not to apply.
“parade where you’re wanted. Easy and democratic, eh? ”
Under human rights standards such an approach it isn’t democratic
Garibaldy: “Your argument about gerrymandering is hardly a resounding endorsement of the democratic practices of the Stormont government. Even accepting that your argument about the 1920s is correct, and I’m not sure it is, Stormont could have redrawn the boundaries at any time to reflect population shifts, and didn’t. Even if this was oversight for a long time, an extremely charitable interpretation, it’s clear that by the mid to late 1960s it was undeniably political.”
A view which you’re perfectly entitled to hold, just as you’re entitled to believe that the earth is flat and that Elvis Presley is selling smuggled ciggies door to door in Turf Lodge but if you and Northsider make it without supporting evidence you tend to look a little foolish.
At the last Stormont general election in 1969 the smallest 2 seats were Belfast Dock (c.7800 voters) and Belfast Central (c.6600) both of which were held by Nationalists/Republicans one of whom was pretty close to the emerging PIRA. The seats which bordered them and would have donated voters to them in the event of any boundary change were Belfast Duncairn (c.19000 voters) and Belfast Woodvale (c.20000) both of which were rock-solid Unionist seats, so much so that no Nationalist ever stood there.
Furthermore the Unionist vote share was 68% and the Unionist share of seats 75% which is not an unexpected bonus under a First Past the post electoral system. Besides all that anyway it’s not as if Unionists were unique on the island in gerrymandering was it as it was standard practice in the 26 counties culminating in the infamous Tullymander of the mid-70s. So sorry you’ll have to do a little better. You could start here… http://www.election.demon.co.uk/stormont Northsider in particular might find it a little more relevant to the topic at hand than the 1967 Belfast Telegraph job ads