Wednesday, April 04, 2007
“I have always said that I will talk to anyone interested in policing.”
As expected, UDA leader Jackie McDonald - pictured [from the Irish News] greeting Irish President Mary McAleese at a Belfast primary school in 2005, as referenced in this post - did attend the conference at a Belfast hotel today to workshop how the £1.2milion of public funds might be spent. The Press Association report notes McDonald’s understanding of The Process™ as it now relates to the UDA, and his comments on decommissioning - “it`s still not on the radar” - which is not that different from what he had previosly said to UTV’s Ivan Little.
From the PA report
[Jackie McDonald] said: “If there`s political stability, and there still isn`t, and the loyalist people don`t feel threatened, it`s an inevitability in a future normal society that there`s no need for weapons.
“It (decommissioning) is a distinct possibility, but the way things stand at the moment, it`s still not on the radar.”
The loyalist chief said: “The British and Irish Governments basically bought the weapons off the IRA at the end of the day.
“Until loyalism is afforded the same respect and dialogue about their future, then the loyalist people still do feel threatened and still do feel left out.”
UTV’s Ivan Little was there too - the report will be online later is online here [approx 1/3 of the way through report] [Updated link] - and in that report Jackie McDonald expanded on the reasons why, he believes, weapons continue to be required by the UDA - citing threats within loyalist communities, such as drug dealing gangs, and elements of republicanism.
Something for Hugh Orde, the Chief Constable of the actual Police Service, to consider further, perhaps?
[Hugh Orde] said: “People will do well to recognise the complexities of policing in Northern Ireland.
“I have always said that I will talk to anyone interested in policing, and this is clear evidence of a group of people trying to move on.”
Oh, and as well as a quick reminder of the previously noted poisonous foundations of The Process™, there is a different school of thought on how to deal with for-profit terrorists..
Pete Baker @ 03:42 PM
Having poked around the FARSET site that came up on Google, there is nary a whisper regarding this initiative… It’s not that user friendly page—broken links and dead-end connections—a wonderful metaphor for the UDA, come to think of it.
The best one obtains from the DSD is a news release, with scant detail and the usually political “smiley faces” that get slapped on anything—not quite as much spin as Lofty, but enough to be noticeable…
Posted by on Apr 07, 2007 @ 07:36 PMI know the answers (and have explained them as best I can based on the fact that I am not authorised to go into details with an internet wannabe), you are just unwilling to seek them out for fear of hearing answers that may offend your limited sensibilities. You have been rumbled fair and square; invited to ask hard questions you bottle it and indulge in petty point scoring.
In my very limited way I am seeking a solution to the problems that blight this society. I am getting my hands dirty and facing up to my responsibilities. I am at the pit face pushing and prodding my colleagues and friends to face up to the new reality. What exactly are you doing?
Posted by on Apr 07, 2007 @ 08:09 PM“Having poked around the FARSET site that came up on Google, there is nary a whisper regarding this initiative… It’s not that user friendly page—broken links and dead-end connections—a wonderful metaphor for the UDA, come to think of it.”
Ever heard of the telephone? Ever thought of popping in to speak to a real live human being? Nope, internet,internet,internet. You need to get out more, not just for a pint but to engage with people. It might just open those blinkered eyes.
Posted by on Apr 07, 2007 @ 08:13 PMLHW: “I know the answers (and have explained them as best I can based on the fact that I am not authorised to go into details with an internet wannabe)”
Tut tut, Lofty—sticks and stones and all that.
You do not provide answers, you provide spin.
When asked about the means, you tell us the goal.
When asked about financial controls, you spin some more and refer us to other sources, often wondering why anyone would have doubts about handing monies out without a clear answer on what they will be doing.
And if you answer hasn’t changed, its going to take a hell of a lot more than a dozen social workers and three admin assistants to make a silk purse out of the sow’s ear that is the UDA.
LHW: “you are just unwilling to seek them out for fear of hearing answers that may offend your limited sensibilities.”
Actually, having looked at your recommended sources and their comments are little more than press releases. No detail, no real information.
LHW: “In my very limited way I am seeking a solution to the problems that blight this society. I am getting my hands dirty and facing up to my responsibilities. I am at the pit face pushing and prodding my colleagues and friends to face up to the new reality. What exactly are you doing? “
What I am doing—I am asking questions—one’s you have no concrete answers for. If one is unable or unwilling to see the flaws in a design, one is doomed to failure. I am questioning the wisdow of appeasement—to the granting of resources on the promise of improvement from what have been demonstrably incorrible hoods.
Monies have been poured into these areas before with little to show for the effort. You have given no answers as to why this time should be any different.
I am questioning the suggestion inherent to this process that there is a “good” UDA and and “bad” UDA.
Until and unless you have answers, there is no reason not to be skeptical of this boondoggle.
Posted by on Apr 07, 2007 @ 09:38 PMLHW: “Ever heard of the telephone? Ever thought of popping in to speak to a real live human being? Nope, internet,internet,internet. You need to get out more, not just for a pint but to engage with people. It might just open those blinkered eyes.”
Were this truly on the level and the greatest thing since sliced bread, I would think that they would want to make the information accessible to the maximum number of people possible, which would be publishing.
As for the other, I want to review the information at my leisure, develop questions and see for myself, rather than listen to another carnival barker going through their spiel.
I want something more than a tour through a Potemkin village and a grifter’s cant.
Posted by on Apr 07, 2007 @ 09:42 PM
