Thursday, August 03, 2006
Jackie earns his payout after bloodless expulsion…
THE UDA feud appears to be over. After the flight of Shoukri supporter Alan McClean to England last night, the remnants of the north Belfast ‘dissidents’ were accepted back by the ‘inner council’.
Belfast Gonzo @ 08:40 PM
‘THE UDA feud appears to be over’
I love a happy ending.
We all know that Northern Ireland will be a better place with a united UDA that’s isn’t engaged in factional infighting.
Don’t we?
Now they can get back to normal business.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 08:53 PMHarpo: “We all know that Northern Ireland will be a better place with a united UDA that’s isn’t engaged in factional infighting.
Don’t we? “
Sure we do—that many fewer stray bullets to get hit by…
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 08:56 PMI’d suggest that it’s a premature verdict, Gonzo, and it’s a verdict from those who arranged last night’s massing on the streets - complete with the threats of violence and weaponry on display.
McLean’s exit was already noted… as was Brian Feeney’s late arrival on the scene..
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 08:57 PMI know that we have to know what these bastards are up to but I hate the pleasure that they will take in the fact that we do!
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:04 PMcurious as to why the dig at Brian Feeney, Pete?
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:06 PMIt’s not a dig at Brian Feeney, alan, the article is linked and commented on in my earlier post.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:08 PMapologies Pete-missed the link first time.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:10 PM“I’d suggest that it’s a premature verdict, Gonzo, and it’s a verdict from those who arranged last night’s massing on the streets - complete with the threats of violence and weaponry on display”
Pete, I was there. There were no weapons on display. In fact it was calm and orderly if not a little bizarre due to the proximity of local Sinn Fein reps being reassured by our reps that nothing untoward was going to happen!. It was cold though.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:10 PMlofty
I trust you’re not contradicting the word of the Rev Brian Madden? Who stated that loaded weapons were being passed around in the house in which he was having talks with the ‘good’ UDA faction.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:14 PMI wonder how well the political and UDA leadership in South-East Antrim will sleep tonight?
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:14 PM“I trust you’re not contradicting the word of the Rev Brian Madden? Who stated that loaded weapons were being passed around in the house in which he was having talks with the ‘good’ UDA faction.”
No,no you misunderstand. Rev Madden was in talks in the holed up “house” of the “bad” ones and stated that they were passing guns and ammo around. He was trying to broker the deal but no one in the “good” side was actually present there if you see what I mean. All those outside were holding a peaceful protest. Not a beer bottle or club or rock in sight and you’ll find that can be verified by the SF reps who were standing less than a stones throw away and did indeed talk to reps from the protesting group.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:21 PMMy apologies, lofty, Brian Madden’s comments related to the ‘bad’ UDA faction last night.
Of course the ‘good’ UDA faction wouldn’t have had any guns around…
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:21 PMAs I was just about to say, lofty…
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:22 PMApology accepted Pete. So hard to tell the difference I’m sure!. Suffice to say it all ended peacefully and we can all be chums again.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:26 PMPete
McClean wasn’t mentioned in your blog entry, although his exit was in a BBC story you linked to - which I hadn’t clicked.
I just wanted to make it clear to casual readers who don’t click every single link that there had been a major development.
I certainly wouldn’t have guessed from your entry which led off about the Ballysillan meeting that the feud was virtually over.
The issue du jour was *ahem* buried.
/pedantic [off]
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 09:50 PMWell the exiting convoy was mentioned in the extract I used, although McLean’s name doesn’t appear.
In any case, the major development is an announcement by the ‘good’ UDA faction… an issue I’ve, previously, dealt with extensively.. whether the casual reader would appreciate the difference is entirely a different matter.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 10:35 PMAye, fair play to the UPRG.
This signals that they have established their authority within the UDA. According to Davy Nicholl they want to see engagement with the decommissioning commission and has said this about the broad political process:
There is one agreement. People must sign up to it. The Good Friday Agreement is the only way forward.
That’s progressive stuff from coming from UDA aligned people. Good luck to them.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 10:47 PM“Aye, fair play to the UPRG.
This signals that they have established their authority within the UDA.”
A plague on the lot of them! but then that are already diseased.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 10:51 PMThe only thing it signals, Dualta, is possibly fewer uncomfortable headlines for those other interested parties.. for a while.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 10:54 PMBertie, fair point. The UPRG are, after all, linked to violence and criminality through their association with the UDA who are a plague on this society.
But if the UPRG can bring about a situation where the group does address the violence issue and the endemic criminality then more power to their elbow.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 10:56 PMThat’s a cynical view to take Pete, but a giggle nonetheless.
I think the moves being made towards the UDA from across the border are the very sort of moves Nationalists need to be making to move things forward.
A senior UDA man once said to me, and I was very shocked when he said it, that if Nationalists were court Unionists and offer them a viable alternative to the Union then they’d be surprised at the response.
“Many Prods reckon a UI is inevitable and could live with it if we were treated right, but we’ll not be murdered into it by the IRA.”
That’s what he said.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 11:04 PMHaving a situation where any of these thugs are putting on a mask of decency, is bad enough but having people lap it up is dangerous. Yet again real decency is sidelined.
These people just want to make sure that any criminality that goes on is under their control.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 11:05 PMNot cynical, Dualta, sceptical..
As for being “a giggle”..
You may think so.. there are, of course, other views on just that sort of approach.
Posted by on Aug 03, 2006 @ 11:12 PMAha...but where is this money going to go?
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 01:03 AMPete,
It all comes back to the same central question. How do we deal with paramilitary groups and their close-knit community support structures?
They are a cultural entity. They are the way large amounts of people in our society live. They derive things like their identities, social standing, personal-esteem, reason for getting up in the morning and their weekly wages from being involved in them. Therefore, these organisations will not go away easily.
Those involved in trying to lead paramilitary groups away from violence and criminality see that they have got to first help those involved find ways of getting these things.
A new group is now leading the UDA. There will be pay-offs in the shape of funding for community development initiatives. That means jobs for the boys of course, but if it promotes pro-social activity within their ranks then great.
Those within that group are moving in new circles. They are meeting political and economic leaders, movers and shakers, and they are deriving a new sense of self-esteem and social standing from that. Their supporters will see that these men are able to move in these circles and deliver political and economic benefits to their community and their positions will be solidified and the process of their transformation will, hopefully, be bedded down.
This strategy is, of course, risky. It is also very difficult for many people to watch those who have terrorised us to be treated in such as way. They as individuals and organisations just don’t seem to deserve it.
But what is the alternative? If it delivers a better society then it will have been worthwhile.
The big stick might well make matters worse. It usually does.
Posted by on Aug 04, 2006 @ 05:12 AM
