Friday, September 28, 2007
General to ride to the rescue..?
Rumours on the BBC [and in our comments zone - Ed] that the UDA’s response to the recent meeting with the Social Development minister, and that deadline, will be to call on the services of General de Chastelain [Now why would he do that.. - Ed]. But while the BBC report claims that, “Decommissioning was not part of the contract when the government agreed to fund the three-year project in loyalist areas”, at the time the government made it clear that the funding was dependent on certain conditions being met - “In return for the funding, the government wants to see the end of all UDA violence and criminality, including extortion rackets and drug dealing. If there is no noticeable reduction in these activities, the UPRG has been told that the funding will be withdrawn.” And, besides the limited assessment of the last IMC report [and the fallacy of there being ‘good guys’ - Ed], if that’s the objective, what need of weapons? The UDA and the UPRG, on the other hand, see other inducements connected to decommissioning. Adds Mark Devenport points to criticism of that deadline from the Enterprise minister, Nigel Dodds, to be broadcast tomorrow - although he has his own concerns.. and he’s not the only one who’s been criticising.
Pete Baker @ 08:16 PM
See my comment on the previous thread.
Let the sequencing begin.............
Posted by on Sep 28, 2007 @ 08:50 PMPete - that’s 15 links - why not stick to a limit of about 6 odd ? Difficult to follow honest.
Posted by on Sep 28, 2007 @ 09:58 PMPete
Interesting to read that Nigel Dodds will be resorting to form and accusing nationalists of hypocrisy later today in a vain effort to stem the tide of pressure growing on loyalists.
All of which underlines why it was correct for Sinn Fein to play this one in an understated manner. How much easier would it have been for Dodds to wave his union flag and shout hypocrisy at a republican-inspired deadline?
As it is, much more difficult agin Ritchie.
Perhaps you should spend less time finding links for every three words you write and more time thinking about the subject of your posts…
Posted by on Sep 29, 2007 @ 06:27 AMI agree with Nigel Dodds who said Ms Ritchie’s position contrasts with her party’s failure to back sanctions against the IRA when it was engaged in violence.
Of course, Chris Donnelly didn’t want any sanctions on the Sinn Fein IRA terrorist group when their death squads were killing people.
Nigel Dodds is right to point out the usual double standards from the Pan-Nationalist Front.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2007 @ 08:55 AMIt must irk Nigel that one of his executive colleagues comes from a party that never had any links to paramilitarism.
Perhaps Maragaret should instead insist that Ulster Resistance decommission or she’ll pull the plug on loyalist funding.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2007 @ 09:10 AMP&J;: Nigel Dodds is right to point out the usual double standards from the Pan-Nationalist Front.
But there’s no point in complaining too much now that they are finally getting it right. Mention it, move on, let her concentrate on squeezing the terrorists.
Posted by on Sep 29, 2007 @ 12:04 PMEven by his grubby standards this sets a new low for Dodds in his breath-taking, on-going compunction to provide cover for every sort of malodorous knuckle-dragger within the Unionist family. Shame on him.
Posted by on Sep 30, 2007 @ 02:46 PM
