UDA on the streets.. reluctantly.. allegedly..
Several media reports on the ongoing tension within the social workers UDA and specifically in North Belfast. The BBC refers to a “public show of strength” yesterday, while the Sunday Life provides some detail on what has been going on over the last few days, and I note another mention of Brian Madden, previously spotted in discussions with the NIO. The Press Association report has the contradictory statement which was read out to a group of up to 800 men, and quotes Frankie Gallagher, last seen emerging from talks with Taoiseach Bertie AhernFrom the PA report
A statement was read out declaring that the organisation [UDA] would not allow any criminals to deter it from achieving its goal of a lasting peace for its community.
It said: “There were members who used their position to achieve personal gain and fortune, especially through drug trafficking and drug sales.
“This has resulted in those ex-loyalists attempting to protect their fiefdoms by whatever means available to them.”
The UDA urged the Police Service of Northern Ireland to stop criminals operating in north Belfast but went on to claim that a series of attacks in the Ballysillan and Tigers Bay areas had been carried out.
It added in the statement: “The organisation will not stand by and allow its community and its members to be attacked after 35 years of conflict with the Provisional IRA and republicans.
“We have fought the IRA, the RUC and our own army. If need be we will fight drug dealers.
“We believe that it`s the duty of the PSNI to influence law and order so we can all live in peace and safety.”
Also in the Sunday Life, more rhetoric from Frankie Gallagher.. who adds this in the PA report
“It was to demonstrate that the UDA is capable and willing to defend its people and its communities, but at the same time reluctant to go back.”
Worthwhile re-reading the BBC’s Vincent Kearney’s article on the UDA and criminality
Interestingly, the previously high-profile Jackie McDonald is, once again, noticeable by his absence.
And I keep asking this question, as I’ve yet to hear a good answer to it, but is this really the best we can hope for?
“The new brigadier was only allowed to return home last year after agreeing to be kneecapped.”
Lovely lads in McAllesse’s Own Borderers – and this is who HMG would have running restorative justice schemes? FFS, the world has gone mad!
The ‘morality’ of the peace process in full operation.
fd
Indeed.
“Lads, the kids miss me, can I go home”
“NO WAY, YOU TWOFACED BASTARD”
“Ach, go on, I’ll be no trouble, I promise”
“OK, BUT YOU’RE GONNA HAVE TO BE CAPPED FIRST”
“Why?”
“POLITICAL ADVICE”
“OK, a small one so”
“WHICH LEG? YOU DON’T WANT TO BE A LEFT-FOOTER”
“Go ahead, I don’t care”
BANG!
Ouch!
“OFF HOME WITH YE SO”
“Thanks. Any chance of a lift?”
bertie: “Not ggod enough. My point is that you seem more concerned with one type of snake, aligator, leech and accuse us all of being the same. ”
Seeing as one variety of ‘gator has turned in their weapons and recognized by the IMC and others as eschewing violence and winding down their criminality, it only stands to reason to worry more about the other. Once the Loyalists have turned in the bulk of their weapons, I’ll worry less about them, too. As I said, deeds, not words. Loyalism is short on deeds.
Frankie Gallagher has some neck talking about anybody fighting the IRA. Plenty of us in the east still remember where Frankie was hiding out when their was any fighting to be done.
Posted by eastbelfastloyalist on Jul 30, 2006 @ 04:46 PM
Where was he hiding then? Have you been out on the streets defending your area or are you too busy sitting at your keyboard slagging off TRUE Loyalists on Slugger?
DC
tsk tsk
still not good enough!
why did you talk about just unionists needing actions re the IRA and just nationalists needing actions ’round these gangsters?
Am I not allowed to need actions with respect to the UDA?
bertie: “why did you talk about just unionists needing actions re the IRA and just nationalists needing actions ‘round these gangsters? ”
Mayhaps because I can only speak for myself and I’m not a Republican, bertie. I’m also not a Unionist. You want to speak up, you don’t need my permission. Take it up with the UDA apologist. Frankly, men of goodwill should welcome points of agreement, not get insulted when one does not wish to speak for another’s point of view.
Besides, from this blog, is anything ever is good enough for Unionism?? Why would the goalposts keep slipping further and further out?
bertie: “Am I not allowed to need actions with respect to the UDA? ”
You can need anything you want, man. Christ on crutch, man, sing it out loud. I’m not a Unionist and wouldn’t presume to speak for Unionism, save on rare sarcastic moments, but taht’s just me. But it’s not *MY* job to make *your* arguement. Loyalism has enjoyed a certain level of official, if convert, support, I would suggest you take your argument up with the state. Who knows — if enough folks sing from the same sheet of music long enough, maybe the someone will realize there is the policital will to put the Murphys and the Shoukris and the rest of the criminal set into the clink.
DC
I;m not asking you to make my argument. I am just curious why you commented about unionists needing actions re the IRA and nationalists would need it re the loyalists. It wasn;t the state that made that comment it was you?
You din’t just speak for yourself you didn’t just say that you would need actions re the UDA. Do you speak for all nationalists? That will be handy to keep in mind for the furure.
Go on just admit it. It was because you think that it is somehow natural and expected for unionist to oppose the IRA and nationalists to oppose the UDA but somehow not for people to oppose the terrorists of “their side”. You’ll feel better for confession;)
bertie: “I;m not asking you to make my argument. I am just curious why you commented about unionists needing actions re the IRA and nationalists would need it re the loyalists. ”
Have you not been paying attention? The goal-posts keep creeping back every time progress is made? Invariably, there is alwas a new demand. Are not Nationalists entitled to a few reservations regarding Unionism’s les enfants des perdue?
bertie: “It was because you think that it is somehow natural and expected for unionist to oppose the IRA and nationalists to oppose the UDA but somehow not for people to oppose the terrorists of “their side”.”
Tried that tack before — got the verbal shrug and “spides will be spides” subtext. Unionism, vis-a-vis Loyalism, is a lot of talk. Loyalism talks about getting right with the law and the community, Unionism talks a good game about the horrible things that some Loyalists do and “ain’t it a damn shame.”
Unionism is… content is not the right word… murr…
Disarming and normalizing Loyalism is seemingly duplicitous on the subject. Big Ian blows hot and cold on the subject, Loyalists make a few noises about disarming, but nothing happens. So, frankly, you can want what you want, bertie. I just would suggest you not hold your breath waiting for it.
Nationalism is entitled to its reservations and desire for deeds. This does not deprive you of the right to reservations or to demand deeds. However, for Unionists to ignore the fact that Loyalism is, in part, a creation of the state is a trifle duplicitous.
“The goal-posts keep creeping back every time progress is made”
This is not relevant to the point that I was making butno matter.
I don’t agree. The goal posts have stayed the same. some have just chosen to interpret the goal as being so wide that anything the terrorist do is deemed to be a goal.
Tubruk:
Here, the pendulum of opinion swings very broadly. You are likely to agree with very little of what is stated here. I suggest you enjoy the learning experience.