Monday, October 08, 2007
“But not one involving violence or intimidation or any kind of paramilitary activity.”
The latest on that impending decision.. The UPRG’s Frankie Gallagher has been speaking to the BBC again..
“Everybody is trying to double their efforts to maintain the peace process and if this derails the peace process because a minister connects social need with decommissioning, then we are in a disastrous place.”
And a quick reminder of what was said when the funding was initially announced.. That’s paramilitary politics for you.. Adds The BBC have been running a clip of the NIO Security Minister Paul Goggins, MP, clarifying the NIO’s position. The clip is available here until tomorrow [approx 6mins in RealPlayer file].
“Further meetings are now planned between the UDA interlocutors and representatives of the Commission, members of the Commission. Those meetings should take place sooner rather than later and I look forward to further developments along those lines. But let nobody be in any doubt whatsoever. As far as Ministers of the Northern Ireland Office are concerned, the UDA should decommission and they should decommission now.”
Pete Baker @ 08:42 AM
what’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
IRA/Sinn fein were continuously courted into politics while they kept their arsenal of weapons. Their decommissioning process took over 10 years and they never gave over weapons until they had firmly secured a place in the running of Stormont.
Why should the UDA be treated any different?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 10:06 AMUMH:
er, because the UDA don’t get any votes?
Not pretty that the IRA do, I know, but there you go.
Are you suggesting that the UDA should first be voted into power before they disarm? They’ve put themselves up for election and failed miserably, so that looks like a non-runner.
The UDA has also had about as much time as republicans to disarm. Still waiting…
Perhaps a better question to ask would be ‘Why do the UDA need weapons?’
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 10:49 AMLets forget the votes thing.
the UDA has had 13 years to decomision and haven done anything about it
Had no intention to do anything about it
Until their hand was forced, Congratulations Mrs. Ritchie on making a positive change in circumstances
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 10:59 AMCormac: “Perhaps a better question to ask would be ‘Why do the UDA need weapons?’ “
Aw, c’mon, Cormac… you know that answer to that—it’s not like the shop-keepers voluntarily empty their wallets to these hoods. Then there is defending the drug turf, back-shooting police and “show of strength”—all the traditional UDA values.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 11:14 AMI know the answer, Dread - would love to hear justification from the UDA types, though!
I also await the ‘but the IRA haven’t COMPLETELY finished decomissioning’ argument. Any bets on how long we’ll have to wait for that?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 11:30 AM“er, because the UDA don’t get any votes?”
Cormac:-
Treating like with like, there once was a time when IRA/Sinn fein was in the same situation regarding votes. We most certainly don’t want the UDA to copy IRA/Sinn fein’s road to politics, or else we will end up with another decade or two of murder and mayhem.“The UDA has also had about as much time as republicans to disarm. Still waiting…”
I disagree, as the UDA never seen themselves as the aggressors during the troubles, so they ultimately had to wait until IRA/Sinn Fein had changed from a terrorist unit to a political one. The UDA’s transformation cannot be seen as running in parallel with IRA/Sinn Fein, it’s just begun.
“Perhaps a better question to ask would be ‘Why do the UDA need weapons?’”
To barter for political concessions, the same as IRA/Sinn Fein. What comes around goes around.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 11:40 AM“it’s just begun.”
The IICD was set up for ALL paramilitaries. The UDA have had since then - still waiting.
“To barter for political concessions”
Surely this would mean you would first have to have substantial support? What political concessions do the UDA need that legitimate, elected Unionist representatives cannot call for and get for the same communities?
Seriously, what are the political concessions you guys want? A brief list would be helpful.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 11:53 AMWell they got their concession which was £1.2 million and jobs for the boys in the Farset initiative.Problem is they can’t deliver, not interested in the graft that is needed, some of the workers don’t have the talent, not able to respond to needs of working class communities. the UPRG and UDA wants what’s good for the UPRg and UDA and not for working class loyalist
“Everybody is trying to double their efforts to maintain the peace process and if this derails the peace process because a minister connects social need with decommissioning, then we are in a disastrous place.”
Fuck sake—is that not a threat?
Mind you it takes some ego to think that cuting off £1.2 million tio Frankie gallagher and his cronies will derail the peace process—I don;t think so!
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 11:57 AMBribing dosey thugs like Frankie Gallagher and Sammy Duddy by giving them 20k a year makework jobs at the taxpayer’s expense has nothing to do with social justice.
The idea that this is somehow connected with the IRA (now de-armed) is also a laugh. “To defend Ulster from Republican terrorists, we had to stick pipebombs outside a few fenian houses, shoot or exile any Prod who was a threat, and sell loads of drugs.” No, it doesn’t work for me, either.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 12:47 PMUMH: “I disagree, as the UDA never seen themselves as the aggressors during the troubles, so they ultimately had to wait until IRA/Sinn Fein had changed from a terrorist unit to a political one. “
Thier own internal delusions are of little interest. I’d call them organized criminal organizations, but only on a good day.
UMH: “The UDA’s transformation cannot be seen as running in parallel with IRA/Sinn Fein, it’s just begun. “
Any slower and they’d be on the half-a-loaf bus.
UMH: “To barter for political concessions, the same as IRA/Sinn Fein. What comes around goes around. “
Bollocks. Frankie G is out there trying to “make an offer you can’t refuse” to the government and you have the gall to call it a bartering session? What do you call it when they try to kill one another? “Managing head count?”
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 01:34 PMUpdate to the original post.
With Woodward now having no immediate boss here, it’s fallen to NIO Security minister Paul Goggins to clarify the NIO’s position…
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 02:00 PM“The IICD was set up for ALL paramilitaries. The UDA have had since then - still waiting.”
Cormac, the IRA/Sinn Fein delayed that process by 10 years. The UDA could not move unless it seen that IRA/Sinn Fein were genuine in their transition from terrorism to politics.
“Surely this would mean you would first have to have substantial support?”
support will be increased as the transition phase moves positively from arms to politics.
“Seriously, what are the political concessions you guys want? A brief list would be helpful.”
I don’t speak for the UDA, I’m simply replying to this thread because I hate hypocrisy. I try to take a neutral, balanced view regarding the topic at hand and this is one where I feel the same process isn’t being offered to Loyalism as it was offered to.
don’t blame me or the UDA, if it all goes belly up.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 03:00 PM“The UDA could not move “
The UDA didn’t want to move - and well you know it (see Dread’s post @ 1.14 for reasons not wanting to give up their guns).
As pointed out in another thread there has been talk regarding a ‘significant statement’ coming from the UDA to supposedly coincide with at least the last 3 Rememberance Sundays. We are still waiting, and now that a deadline has been imposed the UDA are finally forced to act. Although they will try and push the deadline out in order to save face and so say they are working to their own timetable.
No-one believes them.
I admire your dislike of hypocrisy - but surely there are better people to be jumping to the defence of than the UDA?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 03:25 PMUMH: “the IRA/Sinn Fein delayed that process by 10 years. The UDA could not move unless it seen that IRA/Sinn Fein were genuine in their transition from terrorism to politics. “
Pull the other leg, UMH, its got bells…
The UDA is a collection of hoods, dope peddlers and pimps seeking money to repair the communities they broke with their own hands. Had they truly had an interest in defending their communities, they could have taken far more legitimate actions than organizing a street gang. Frankie G is out there trying his best “offers a body can’t refuse” on the gov’t—“gives us the dough of the peace process get’s it”—whilst UDA apologists peddle this tripe.
UMH: “support will be increased as the transition phase moves positively from arms to politics.”
Assumes facts not in evidence—the UDA has no “political wing,” leastwise no since it was blown out of the water. The UPRG is, at best, a think tank, although there is considerable suggestion that half of that term might not fully apply.
UMH: “
Given that this collection of hoods does their best (and only) persuading with a gun to someone’s head, their transition to politics is unlikely.
UMH: “I don’t speak for the UDA”But you do make rationalizations and excuses for them, apparently.
UMH: “I’m simply replying to this thread because I hate hypocrisy.”
Uh-huh… and the UDA claiming to defend Protestants while selling drugs, back-shooting cops, extorting monies and committing murders, yea verily, killing the Protestants they claim to be defending is *what,* UMH?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 03:54 PM“The UDA didn’t want to move - and well you know it (see Dread’s post @ 1.14 for reasons not wanting to give up their guns).”
Dread’s reasons don’t count for the the whole situation. At present, there are IRA men still selling drugs, organising gansterism, but not under the authority of the IRA. If Dread’s reasons were the real focus for not giving up guns, why doesn’t the UDA just simply follow the IRA’s example.
“No-one believes them.”
...and who believed the IRA 10 years ago?
“I admire your dislike of hypocrisy - but surely there are better people to be jumping to the defence of than the UDA?”
Quite true, that organisation has been involved with killing many an innocent life, just like IRA/Sinn Fein. I believe it should have it’s place on the same table as IRA/Sinn Fein, as much as I deteste any murderers having say over my homeland Ulster.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 03:55 PMUMH: “Dread’s reasons don’t count for the the whole situation. At present, there are IRA men still selling drugs, organising gansterism, but not under the authority of the IRA. If Dread’s reasons were the real focus for not giving up guns, why doesn’t the UDA just simply follow the IRA’s example. “
What, you mean putting guns beyond use and standing down? That would be progress, UMH, and it certainly beats rioting in the streets and back-shooting policemen, now wouldn’t it?
Likewise, I would point out that the IMC reports have made clear the IRA’s progress and the UDA’s wheel-spinning—J-Mack and his “head-spides what am in charge may talk a good game, but actual progress has been fairly lacking on the UDA front.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 04:00 PMWho was it who used to know about this stuff ? Would be very interested to know what is happening at the front line.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 04:27 PMOf course there is rank hypocracy here. Of course the IRA had years to disarm and were painfully slow about it, we also of course do not know whether or not they fully diasrmed especially of the things like handguns which whilst less impressive than machine guns are a lot more use in terms of terrorising communities. We have the word of Alec Reid and Harold Good but whilst they may be honest they would believe it if someone told them they had seen the tooth fairy. Of course we still do not know who actually killed Donaldson and we know who killed McCartney. So yes there is rank hypocracy.
That is the nature of the current “peace process” whereby if a woman killed her husband after years of abuse and was found guilty of manslaughter she would spend several years in prison or a teenager who kills someone whilst driving foolishly spends years in prison. If, however, someone murders lots of people in cold blood as long as it was for “Ireland” or for “Ulster” they are not really killers are they and so they can lget out after 2 years and we still have people bleating that it is unfair that employers can see that they have been in prison.
The fact that this process is hypocritical and amoral does not, however, mean that the UDA should also get yet more concessions. They may claim that they should, they may claim that they are being treated unfairly but the reality is they are being a bit less favourably than before; it is just previously they and others have been treated even more favourably.
The reality is that the UDA subserves no useful or credible purpose. Indeed it never did and I have yet to have an answer from any loyalist terrorist apologist on the site to my question What did the UDA defend Ulster from? They have no political importance nor any relevance. They derive importance from being semi-organised criminals. They demand money to be less criminal and sadly have in the past managed to receive it. Now they are being required to give up the one thing that gives them importance (weapons) in exchange for money. That will mean that although they get the money they will loose their importance for the future. Hence, of course they want to have their cake and eat it. Even this deal is far too good for them. Indeed they are still getting massive favouritism compared to normal law abiding people.
Yet again, however, they may well be pandered to and yet again one group especially looses out: the working class Protestant communities which are stuck with them.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 04:41 PM“The fact that this process is hypocritical and amoral does not, however, mean that the UDA should also get yet more concessions. They may claim that they should, they may claim that they are being treated unfairly but the reality is they are being a bit less favourably than before; it is just previously they and others have been treated even more favourably.”
Bollocks. You know as well as I do that the process was between Westminster and Dublin. Dublin pimps out the IRA/Sinn Fein to Westminster in the hope they might forward the hope of unification, but they end up appeased. Meanwhile, the Ulster Nationalists in the UDA are continually ignored and sidelined, as Ulster means fuck all to Westminster.What westminster and Dublin forgets, is that Ulster is central to this very problem, without all it’s people the process will fail.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 05:10 PMUlster’s my homeland,
Most of us “Ulster” people continually rejected the UDA and all their works. The vast majority of the unionist community irrespective of how hardline unionist they are or their social class have repeatedly rejected the UDA. The unionist community has sidelined the UDA because they did not want them or anything to do with them.
The UDA is what it has always been a group of criminals. The only difference is that rather than a group of criminals who were involved in drugs, racketeering, prostitution and murdering Protestant and Roman Catholic people the UDA are now a group of criminals who were involved in drugs, racketeering, prostitution and murdering Protestant people.
Yes of course there was a process and of course the UDA have been sidelined and the vast majority of unionists are well pleased by them being sidelined.
What did the UDA ever do to help or defend the unionist population?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 06:35 PMYeah Turgon - but why not have a go at stopping this lot as well ? there’s a whole strand of opinion that reckon the UDA et al were just a bunch of mugs for Paisley - why not do every thing possible to engage with them ?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 06:41 PMDewi,
I see no point in engaging with them. We all know what we want of them namely to go away, disarm and stop being criminals. These people only derive importance from their criminal activities. That is how they gain money and “respect”/fear in “their” communities, the communities they prey on.We also know that they want which is to be given money and importance and be continually bought off with money and status. Why should a democratic society tolerate this? Why should we leave these people to have control of working class Protestant communities? Why shouild we continue to let them blight the lives of people in “their” communities? These very communities have repeatedly rejected their “defenders”. Is it not about time we supported the communities and not their oppressors?
There are presumably groups of semi-orgainsed criminals in Wales, are they allowed to run around controlling “their” areas? Are they given money and asked to be a bit better?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 06:50 PM“There are presumably groups of semi-orgainsed criminals in Wales” - there’s not a lot - and those who are here were never encouraged by political leaders - which these organisations were - by your first minister no less. I have every sympathy with a patient approach towards dis-arming the people who were some of the real victims.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 06:56 PMDewi,
“a patient approach towards dis-arming the people who were some of the real victims.”I have a lot of time for many of your views Dewi and I am sorry to go after you on this but I do not think calling the UDA godfathers “victims” is terribly fair or accurate. They were the perpetrators of very many murders and immumerable other crimes.
A patient approach whilst it sounds moderate and kind is actually saying to working class Protestant communities that you do not want to help them but to appease their oppressors. It is actually saying to the children who will get addicted to drugs that you will not try to help them. It is actually saying to the old people too frightened to go out of their own houses that you do not care. It is actually saying to the women trapped in prostitution that they should just tolerate it. It is saying to whole communities that the social and economic depravation ithey suffer is unfortunate but you are too busy being “patient” with their oppressors to help them. How many more people’s lives will be blighted by the UDA before you loose your patience?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 07:28 PMTurgon,
I agree totally.
Paying danegeld has never ever worked.
Force is the only thing these people understand so we need to show them our side of what force can do.Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 07:34 PM
