Defining “Victory”
Nationalists have reacted angrily to the Parades Commission decision on the Whiterock. Sean “Spike” Murray of the Springfield Residents Group said the decision was “immoral” outlined what the residents viewed as victories and compromises:
“There is the West Circular route which we would see as a victory for the nationalists over the unionists; Workman gates which we would see as a victory for unionists over the nationalists. Now our position is and has been for the past six years that the parade should be put through the Mackies (site). We would see it as a win/win situation for both communities.”This position contains some revisionism as the parade route has changed before, moving further up the Springfield Road, so do these past nationalist “victories” not make Workman Avenue a “compromise”? The Parade Commission determination has merged two of the options with the vast bulk of the parade (93%) following the nationalist perceived “compromise”, is 93% not enough?
In broader terms on the use of rhetoric is defining particular outcomes as victory and implicitly a defeat for someone else wise? The selling of the last Agreement fell apart as each side claimed victory and as another deal edges closer is there a need to examine what language can be used to sell it without a process of upmanship?
The DUP meanwhile have embraced the terminology of sharing. The Orange Order has not yet given any formal response.
Equality is what people need and in the case of these parades Nationalists need to organise parades through the Unionist part of these same roads.
On the Springfield Road for Nationalists to walk from Ballymurphy to the Falls would mean having to pass the front of around 100-150m of Unionist/Protestant house fronts. From the UTV interview this would clearly have the support of the DUP (Nelson McCausland) and there defined “Shared Space” concept. The 9th of August would be a good date to start – anyone in Ballymurphy want to pick up the challenge?
The same would apply for the Nationalist people of Ligoneill who should also have the right to parade past the Unionits living along the main Crumlin Road “Shared Space”, an equal distance that is passed by the Unionists on their way from Protestant Ligoneill to the Shankill via Ardoyne and the Catholic Crumlin Road. Again the 9th August seems to be a good date and in time for the papers to be delivered to the PSNI.
Clearly equality is when everyone is allowed the same privileges and freedoms, and therefore Nationalists must also have the right to parade these “Shared Roads” and likewise the Unionists the right to protest, or is the Equality legislation not worth the paper on which it is printed?
DC
Thanks for that clarification. No need for apologies. The memory is not a perfect instrument and it happens to all regular commentators on hereat some stage.
Pat sticks and stones. Thats not an argument. you failed to answer the questions. You changed your position. First you said there was agreement on the parade then you said there WASNT universal agreement on the parade.
Now where do you want to meet me and I will take you to my relatives.
pat can you point out where you have identified me lying please. thanks.
Pat if you don’t want to meet pass your number on to mick who will pass it on to me and I will tell you who my relatives are.
can’t be fairer than that.
still waiting on where you said I lied pat? O yes anyone who disagrees with you lies, isn;t that it?
Will the members of Whiterock Temperance LOL 974 act in the same sectarian and abusive manner as they did during last years parade ?
The loyal members can be seen acting in a very dignified and non-threatening way in the link below.
http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/marches.htm
A credit to the organisation !!
Aw well pat the challenge is there if you want it.
at least its clear who is lying, and who isn’t.
You haven’t identified where I lied because I didn’t.
You changed your position first saying there was universal agreement on the parade and then saying there wasn’t.
You threw down a challenge to see if I have relatives in ardoyne, which I have, the offer is there, but not taken up.
I offered to meet.
It is clear you discredit or try to discredit opponents of SF by trying to blacken them rather than argument.
If you want to take up the offer send your number to mick who hopefully will be good enough to send it on to me, and we can take it from there.
Guys,
This thread has turned into another flaming session. Not helped by Harry’s calling ‘you people’ nutters – ball Harry???
This ad hominem stuff just leads to dull personal bun fights, which I have no time for. And, for the record, I have absolutely no intention of refereeing one, on or offline!!
For the ‘n’th time in the last few days: engage civilly or not at all!!
Sorry Mick. I thought the simple phrase contained the distilled substance of a viewpoint, the better understood for its simplicity. By so doing I hoped to allow unionists, for a brief moment, comprehend how they are seen by others, quickly live it for a moment. Through defamiliarisation, as the structuralists would say.
Then again, maybe I was just being rude.
posted by Kathy C
Hi all, Sinn Fein has a big problem. Back in 97 they objected to the orange order marches as hate marches akin to the kkk/nazi’s. Recently Gerry Adams states and it is the new policy of SF that orange marches are expressions of cultures…but SF just objects to a few….SF has caused some of the problems by their waffling on the issue and giving out conflicting signals to the orange order and unionist. It’s just too bad that the local people have to suffer and be humilitated by the orange order marchers.
where ya been kathy?
posted by Kathy C
Hi all,
Brenda, I’ve been here…just reading not commenting…but thanks for noticing….
This crap really highlights what a totally dysfunctional and failed sectarian entity ‘northern Ireland’ is.
If people actually left that hole for a few weeks surely they would realize just how abnormal it is to be marching around towns with banners honoring murdering scum. This DOES NOT happen in a normal society.
Is it any wonder the world has zero sympathy for the unionist position. If it walks like a bigot, and talks like a bigot…..
Ban the Klan.
Yep, word banning is back…
What, you’ve banned the word *duck*?
It’s time for nationalists to withdraw co-operation from the Parades Commission. That approach seems to work for the Orange Order.
I have a funny feeling that Slugger may have some exiles from another place moving in… some of the trolling in this thread has an air of familiarity about it!
The best bit was the republicans arguing that violence cannot be allowed to pay. A unionist might well ask: “Where have you been for the last 10 years?!”
Gonzo: “The best bit was the republicans arguing that violence cannot be allowed to pay. A unionist might well ask: “Where have you been for the last 10 years?!””
Should the cycle continue, Gonzo? Is that the lesson one wants to teach the next two generations?
Fair_Deal: “Thanks for that clarification. No need for apologies.”
De nada… I was right church, wrong pew, but you had a decent point as well. Call it a push.
Fair_Deal: “The memory is not a perfect instrument and it happens to all regular commentators on here at some stage. ”
*sigh*
Memory is the first thing to go… :/
Mick point taken.
There is a broader question for nationalists and republicans around parades. It is the Parades Commission that ultimately decides on these sectarian marches. It is clear from recent court proceedings that the present make up of the current commission was manipulated to ensure a weighted unionist majority and thus a likelihood that contentious sectarian marches would get the go ahead.
Therefore, what do nationalist do when these parades are given the go ahead? It is clear that hundreds of PSNI storm troopers and British Army personnel will be used to enforce the decisions. Their decision to use water cannons 45 seconds after the first minor incident at Ardoyne shops last July is an indicator of their willingness to enforce those decisions on nationalists with gusto.
Given that areas like Ardoyne are invaded by these troops there is a likelihood of confrontation between young locals and those who invade. Should locals just let things develop? Should locals let the inevitable confrontations take place?
I have no doubt there are those who would sit knitting by the bottom of the guillotine as the dead passed by, silently pleased at the goings on as it enforces there own agenda. Unfortunately for them not everyone sees that as an option.
Gonzo,
violence from unionism has been ongoing for more than the past ten years. They have beeen practising it and getting benefits from it. So of course they know it pays.
Brenda
“don’t go where you’re not wanted IMO applies to all sides.
”
Could not agree more republicans are not wanted in N Ireland – clear off ???
Dread Cthulhu, “The OO is still an anti-Catholic organization”
Fair _Deal, “No, it is a Protestant organisation.”
Fair_Deal, can you confirm all protestants would agree with that?
In some near future NI parliament, what is the likelihood of a referendum coming about that sought to ban OO parading?
How would such a referendum be supported?
My prediction is virtually 95% of nationalists would support it, and in all likelihood a significant proportion of protestants would support it. Quite probably the combination of both communities vote (remembering the proportion of the nationalist vote is increasing) could be significantly greater than 50%?
How likely is such a referendum, or something similar to it? Its hard to answer of course, but there was a time in the recent past when an IRA ceasefire was highly unlikely, never mind disarmament. Who would have predicted the parades commission, never mind the DUP and Sein Fein becoming the largest parties?
Fair_Deal, you asked about “wording” to be used in dialog between communities regarding OO parading (or something like that). Regardless if the OO is “an anti-catholic organization”, or it is a “protestant” organization”, the clear fact remains, virtually all catholics regard the OO as an anti catholic organization. Every catholic I ask considers it to be. (Im sure there is some opinion poll to be quoted here).
The heart of the problem isn’t wording, the heart of the problem is perception. Bring about practices that convince the the catholic population that the OO isn’t anti-catholic, and Id say you can march just about were ever you like, in peace.
Now Fair-Deal, instead of looking for loopholes to avoid answering or to provide construed answers to what I have asked, consider the spirit of what I am asking and give me your thoughts.
McGrath – it’s not a case of every protestant supporting the OO, rather that the ethos of the OO is to uphold the protestant faith. Not dissimilar to the RC principle of one true church, albeit in the context of a social organisation. I agree that perception is important however; see my points on adaption below.
Dread – sorry it took me so long to reply, re: your post on page 1 about Darwinism. If you look at other topics, e.g. bonfires/murals, you will see that I am a strong advocate of change and adaption in order to further the loyalist tradition – NI is dramatically changing and groups who previously would have stood either side of the peaceline are now coming face to face. The OO and loyalism in general needs to learn to work with this.
Is it too much to ask, then, that the Catholic population of NI also learns to adapt to an extent, to deal with the new challenges presented by having to work closely with elements of the protestant community they (and I!) would deem unsavoury?
Comments such as ‘no orange feet on our road’ and ‘go where you’re wanted’ aren’t very indicative of a willingness to address the issues at hand, and isn’t going to encourage reciprocal gestures from loyalists. Neither is the instant slating of the PC as soon as it appoints one or two orangemen…
The most gratifying thing about this debate from a unionist perspective is that Brenda is completely right. SF has sold out on a monumental level, every single holy cow has been sacrificed on the altar of the political careers of a small cabal of pragmatic opportunists.
Principle of consent? Enshrined in international law and not the slightest indication the demographics will change it.
Policing? PSNI largely a re-branded RUC, more Catholics joining to uphold British law and order. Excellent and long overdue.
No return to Stormont? ‘I want to nominate Ian Paisley as First Minister’. Ahem.
Not a bullet not an ounce? Complete and verfiable decommissioning. Cheers!
The only reason why Gerry et al have been able to sell this utter crock is that every time an orange march is re-routed 4 yards away, loyalists react like its a direct threat to their existence. Their clarion hysteria makes it much easier for SF to convince their supporters that it must be good for them, cos look at the prods ‘squealing’.
Whatever. Thinking unionists are happy to kick back, enjoy this farce playing out before their disbelieving eyes and bask in their consitutional, guaranteed security in an almost entirely non peaceful environment.
I don’t understand how there hasn’t been a massive uprising against the SF leadership by ‘real ‘ republicans…or rather I do: incredibly clever, drawn out management and dissembling.
I’m extremely glad their hasn’t been. Militant republicanism is neutered for good and we’re all better off for it.
Should read “an almost entirely *peaceful* environment.”
LOL. all out, nail and head comes to mind.
posted by Kathy C
Hi all,
I find it interesting how the protestants defending the OO state Catholics should be more understanding to different cultures and respect others…
The orange order is a hate group…and should be resisted as such…not one ounce of respectability should be given that organization.
The orange order marches in support of their queen and their fraternity. Their queen/monarch is enshrined by law not to marry a papist/Catholic. The orange order members are enshrined by their requirement not to marry a papist/Catholic. Both are anti Catholic and both get to rule the north as superior beings. No equality with the papist/Catholics .
““The OO is still an anti-Catholic organization,”
No, it is a Protestant organisation. ”
Wrong. And we’ve been through this at least 3 times already. While the OO continues, for example, to ban members from atending Catholic services including funerals under threat of explusion then it is an anti-Catholic organisation.
As I have stated above, the OO is an organisation with an ethos of defending the protestant faith – no-one is denying that the restrictions mentioned by kensei exist, rather I am arguing that these are the result of the main aim of the Order – to maintain protestantism, and not simply some sort of anti-catholic practice for the sake of it.
The challenge for the OO and loyalism is to work to alter these negative perceptions of the Order and show that it is in fact a spiritual organisation at a base level.
Kathy – phrases like “hate group” don’t serve to aid understanding, and are also particularly offensive to people such as myself who wish to conduct a reasoned debate without seeing friends and relatives indirectly insulted in such a way.
I don’t for one second expect you to undergo some sort of radical change of opinion, however a little tact when expressing dissent would be appreciated.
Proud: “If you look at other topics, e.g. bonfires/murals, you will see that I am a strong advocate of change and adaption in order to further the loyalist tradition – NI is dramatically changing and groups who previously would have stood either side of the peaceline are now coming face to face. The OO and loyalism in general needs to learn to work with this. ”
And how, pray tell, is enabling their insecure knee-jerk reaction to express their dominance helping them “learn to work with this,” Proud? Frankly, allowing them to ‘meander to their own accordian’ in the face of reality strikes me as a disservice, not a helping hand.
Proud: “Is it too much to ask, then, that the Catholic population of NI also learns to adapt to an extent, to deal with the new challenges presented by having to work closely with elements of the protestant community they (and I!) would deem unsavoury? ”
Given last year’s antics, I would have to say that it is unreasonable. In a society where the police cannot be depended upon to enforce the law, then the best approach would be to limit the opportunities for the less enlightened to run amok. The area they wish to march through is 95% Catholic. To what good purpose does the OO wish to march through this area? What benefit accrues to the Catholics for tolerating this triumphalist display? Certainly not goodwill from the Loyalists or the OO. All it would do is increase the demands the following year, leading to a tantrum / riot when the OO / Loyalists don’t get their way — as you pointed out previously, these are not so much parades as expressions of insecurity and attempts to express dominance.
Proud: “Comments such as ‘no orange feet on our road’ and ‘go where you’re wanted’ aren’t very indicative of a willingness to address the issues at hand, and isn’t going to encourage reciprocal gestures from loyalists. Neither is the instant slating of the PC as soon as it appoints one or two orangemen… ”
Given the actics of the OO and their Loyalist cling-ons, how enthused would you expect the Catholic population to be, Proud? As for reciprocal gestures, you’re now into the realm of fantasy. Were the Catholics to allow the whole parade the whole root, it would not generate goodwill. As you have noted previously, iirc, these marches are expression of insecurity — an attempt to express dominance in the face of changing demographics. Allowing the parade uncontested would only provide them the illusion of dominance and encourage greater foolishness at a later date.
As for the appointment of OO members to PC, would you put a fox in charge of a hen house? How are the neighborhood groups supposed to view the PC as an honest party when there is the appearance of partisanship? Hoiw are they supposed to have a modicum of trust in the Parades Commission when the organization that pushes the parades is not on an equal footing with the neighborhood groups, vis-a-vis the PC? Again, if they weren’t challenge, it would only reinforce the illusion of dominance and encourage greater foolishness.
“to maintain protestantism”
Why not set up a Sunday school then? What has tens of thousands of men walking in military footstep to martial drumbeats got to do with Protestantism? Is it mentioned in the Bible? Did Luther suggest it? John Knox? Calvin? Is there any other religious organisation in the world that processes in paramilitary fashion?
At a time when the rest of Ireland is taking apart catholicism in the name of secularism there are those in the north who are attempting to consolidate the old certainties through the use of what have, until now, been handy and effective sectarian labels.
The OO is not a religious organisation, it is a political organisation. OO marches are political not religious acts.
Proud: “As I have stated above, the OO is an organisation with an ethos of defending the protestant faith – no-one is denying that the restrictions mentioned by kensei exist, rather I am arguing that these are the result of the main aim of the Order – to maintain protestantism, and not simply some sort of anti-catholic practice for the sake of it. ”
I care little for the rationalizations they make, merely what they do. They members have demonstrated themselves to be anti-Catholic, as opposed to “pro-Protestant,” on no few occasions, Proud. The Orange Order is simply a manifestation of the “siege mythology” of the Ulster Protestants. It serves only to divide. Why should its antic be tolerated, given its occasional dalliances with the Loyalist-affiliated bands and worse?
Likewise, one could argue that the American Klu Klux Klan was a organization to defend the Protestant faith, among other things, and not simply anti-Catholic for the sake of being anti-Catholic. The distinction may help them sleep at night, but it doesn’t change their behavior.
posted by Kathy C
hi all,
Proud, The Wikipedia defines a ‘hate group’ as an orgnaized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility or violence towards members of a race, ethnicitiy, religion or other sector of society.”
Now, I see the orange order as meeting that definition. It is an organizsed group that advocates per their requirements for entry…hostility towards member of the Catholic religion. The orange order member is called to oppose the fatal errors and doctrines of the Catholic CHurch…the orange order member can not have a Catholic wife…the orange order member should resist the ascendancey of the Catholic Church…its encroachments and the extension of its power…….to me it is a hate group and if you have friends or relatives in it….then you should do what you can to have them leave it…because it’s not a nice group of people. I have stated I see the orange order as akin to the kkk and nazi’s….and if that offends members of your family or your friends then so be it. I stand against hate groups such as the kkk nazi’s and the orange order.
And how, pray tell, is enabling their insecure knee-jerk reaction to express their dominance helping them “learn to work with this,”
It’s not – hence my point that a lot of work needs to be done. There is no one voice on the ground, something which is badly needed if we are to improve matters.
You make reference several times to the fact that I believe many of these disputed parades to be the result of communal insecurity, and I will stand by that. However I appreciate what you say with regards to letting the whole parade through – it would not aid the situation come next year, and would only serve to forment more bad feeling.
Rather I would like to see a more reasoned reaction from residents’ groups when the OO is allowed through in restricted numbers, such as with this year’s parade for example. it would help give the impression that compromise is achievable, at a time when the Order is finally waking up to its obligations to talk.
You are also right on the matter of hangers-on, again another good reason why a cohesive voice is needed within loyalism – the sight of various local bully boys will not help acceptance of the Order within the Catholic community, and this needs to be addressed by those on the ground who are willing to make it their responsability to ensure a peaceful and legal event.
As regards the PC, it is my view that some step was needed to make the Commission more acceptable to the Order and unionism in general, all the better to give its rulings more credibility. You make a very good point regarding the lake of parity with the residents’ groups, this is something which needs addressed quickly.
However in the meantime we are living with the fact that the PC is a quango, something which the Order has long objected to, and so issues like this are inevitable.
Pat McLarnon tells us that he usually calls all bluffers “cowboys” and goes on immediately to accuse Brenda of “trying to bluff that the interview at the bookies…”. By that token then Brenda is a “cowboy” or perhaps, “cowgirl”. All I can say is, that if Brenda is a cowgirl, she’s singing like Shania Twain on this track.
I think it has not escaped readers’ attentions that, when engaging on topics of this nature, I often seem to be wearing a green shirt but I am afraid, Pat, that in this particular tussle between Brenda and you the score looks remarkably like 6-0 in Brenda’s favour at the moment. She certainly has provided enough to give you cause to pause for serious reflection.
Harry, Kathy, etc.,
Some Orange parades are political, and indeed sectarian, acts, but many are not. It is a massive organisation, and contains a divergence of opinion within it. There are those in it for genuine religious reasons, just as there are those in it who appear to have a political motive (e.g. the lodge that carries Brian Robinson’s picture). At the height of the trouble over the parades, PSF were saying that 12 were contentious out of 3,000. A tiny proportion, with many offending nobody.
I don’t think therefore that the OO can be likened to the KKK in its purpose. Elements within it definitely are protestant supremacist. But to say that simply by virtue of it being a protestant organisation it is anti-Catholic is mistaken. Just as the Catholic church has the right to demand that its members do not take communion in non-Catholic church, the OO has the right to demand that its members don’t attend Catholic services.
Let’s not forget that it is a voluntary association, and people who break the rules of any such organisation can be punished by it.
I don’t have much time for any of the loyal orders myself. Its very existence feeds sectarianism but I think comparisons to the KKK or the Nazis are overblown, if not hysterical.
Proud: “Rather I would like to see a more reasoned reaction from residents’ groups when the OO is allowed through in restricted numbers, such as with this year’s parade for example. it would help give the impression that compromise is achievable, at a time when the Order is finally waking up to its obligations to talk. ”
Personally, I have no problem with *LOCAL* bands and the local chapter of the OO marching up and down whatever local streets they want. They (or at least ought to be ) stakeholders in what happens in the town the other 364 days a year and, assuming arguendo, a level of common sense, won’t muck things up too badly.
Proud: “You are also right on the matter of hangers-on, again another good reason why a cohesive voice is needed within loyalism – the sight of various local bully boys will not help acceptance of the Order within the Catholic community, and this needs to be addressed by those on the ground who are willing to make it their responsability to ensure a peaceful and legal event. ”
Proud, I admire your optimism. Loyalism is so far from a “cohesive voice” that it would be amusing if the cost weren’t so tragic. To put it plain, the Loyalist “defenders of the Protestant faith” appear willing to entertain themselves shooting other Protestants in the event that there isn’t a handy Catholic to shoot. If anything, some of these Loyalist groups will drag down more legitimate voices long before the relatively Utopian vista you describe comes to pass. Which leads to the next problem — a willingness to address the problem. There is none, at least to my admittedly cynical eye. The city fathers and police wring their hands and hold meetings, but the political will to actually act is disturbingly absent.
Proud: “As regards the PC, it is my view that some step was needed to make the Commission more acceptable to the Order and unionism in general, all the better to give its rulings more credibility. You make a very good point regarding the lake of parity with the residents’ groups, this is something which needs addressed quickly.”
Ah, but adding OO members had the equal but opposite effect, delegitimizing the Commission in the eyes of the resident groups and ensuring trouble, all in the name of humoring the source of the problem. Throw in the idosyncratic problems of the nominees, just for laughs, and the credibility of the Commission was more damaged than enhanced.
Proud: “However in the meantime we are living with the fact that the PC is a quango, something which the Order has long objected to, and so issues like this are inevitable. ”
Proud, the whole of the state is a quango, except for the shadow-legislature, which is more of a jobs program, keeping some folks in the public eye and out of trouble. The state represents some 70+% of the economic output. Meanwhile, the Loyalists want to argue about the arrangement on the deck chairs whilst the bands play on…
Garibaldy: “I don’t have much time for any of the loyal orders myself. Its very existence feeds sectarianism but I think comparisons to the KKK or the Nazis are overblown, if not hysterical. ”
Perhaps it was porrly phrased, but the purpose of my post was to attack the rationale. To be fair, there are differences between the two groups — differences greater than their similarities.
However, on the single aspect that I addressed with Proud — that their purpose was “defending Protestantism,” not “anti-Catholicism for its own sake,” is a shared value between the two groups.
Oh, and may I suggest to Proud that the best way to “combat negative perceptions” is to abandon the behaviour that creates these negative images in the first place. It makes little sense for a falling-down obnoxious drunk to hire a PR man to counter any perceptions that he might possibly be an alcoholic.
P.S. SET FREE THE DUCKS!
That’s my campaigning warcry for today.
to me it is a hate group and if you have friends or relatives in it….then you should do what you can to have them leave it…because it’s not a nice group of people. I have stated I see the orange order as akin to the kkk and nazi’s….and if that offends members of your family or your friends then so be it. I stand against hate groups such as the kkk nazi’s and the orange order.
The problem with this point, Kathy, is that you have defined the entire Order as “not a nice group of people”. I cannot reconcile this with my own experiences of the Order and its members, given that large numbers of my social circle are members or have family who are members, and no-one in their right minds could conveivably call these people nazis or supporters of the KKK. Neither their character or their behaviour could give rise to such comparisons.
OO marches are political not religious acts.”
I care little for the rationalizations they make
Two comments which illustrate what I feel to be an important point. While it is clear that we will never agree on the role of the Order or its ethos, it is important that you make some attempt to understand the rationalizations of its members – this will go along way towards enabling you to further engage with them on these issues.
Proud: “While it is clear that we will never agree on the role of the Order or its ethos, it is important that you make some attempt to understand the rationalizations of its members – this will go along way towards enabling you to further engage with them on these issues. ”
By your own admission, these parade have an aspect of insecurity / dominance/ This supremecist aspect actively prevents any engagement — the attitude is off-putting to the Catholics and the OO, in their fear-laced delusion of supremecy, sees compromise as weakness.
Garibaldy, the OO brings together 2 of the most important elements of politics in n. ireland – control of turf & unionism. It is effectively a militia-in-waiting which yearly radicalises the unionist community, not unlike a strange form of annual ‘national service’. The national holiday of n. ireland, which is the culmination of the OO’s activities, celebrates protestantism and unionism. A unionist state for a protestant people, first and foremost.
Protestantism is politicised in the OO and those within it who happen to be there for religious reasons are also no doubt unionists, however devout they are.
It is politics, not religion, which is behind these things.
Dread, I will not deny that I am being extremely optimistic. You’re also spot on in that loyalism is a long way from being cohesive, my first step to address this would be the complete removal from the equation of all paramilitary groupings. I don’t think I could overstate my dislike for them tbh, the sooner they pack it in the better, as you say the problem is a lack of willingness to tackle the problem.
Maybe Empey/Ervine will be the start of a widespread movement to get to grips with the whole issue, although more than likely not.
rory: couldn’t agree more, hence the need for, you guessed it, real leadership in loyalist areas that doesn’t revolve around the local Billy Hardnut and his beer-bellied cronies. Incidentally might I also put forward an alternative “BAN THE WHALE!” for consideration as today’s warcry?
Rory,
you can troll with the others if you so like, however if there is anything in my posts about O.O. parades that you disagree with then please feel free to put up an argument. Calling your self green and acting as a cheer leader for an anonymous poster is hardly the basis for a discussion.
Proud: “You’re also spot on in that loyalism is a long way from being cohesive, my first step to address this would be the complete removal from the equation of all paramilitary groupings. I don’t think I could overstate my dislike for them tbh, the sooner they pack it in the better, as you say the problem is a lack of willingness to tackle the problem. ”
Too many armed factions with their own rackets, their own turf and their own axes to grind. The Loyalist gangs have devolved into little more than for-profit criminal enterprises. While there are some indications that a part of the UDA has some notions of “going straight,” the UVF and the LVF seem to be squaring off for another spate of shootings. The Shoukri mess may put any nobler notions the UDA may have on hold.
Proud: “Maybe Empey/Ervine will be the start of a widespread movement to get to grips with the whole issue, although more than likely not. ”
I wouldn’t hold your breath, Proud. Emptey and his murderous muppet don’t inspire a great deal of confidence.