Friday, March 23, 2007
“significant evidence the UDA are involved in extortion”
Det Supt Esmond Adair of the PSNI’s anti-extortion team has confirmed what the government are well aware of - “significant evidence the UDA are involved in extortion”. Not to worry though, the Secretary of State for Wales, etc. has previously stated that it is “wilfully mischievous” to suggest “that the Government would ‘buy off’ paramilitaries”... and Processing™ onwards..
Pete Baker @ 11:34 AM
Oh, shock and dismay!
Do you mean to tell me that this group of thugs is acting like a common… well, group of thugs??
I was told that this was the start of a “new way” and “brighter dawn” for Northern Ireland—the start of something brilliant.
Instead, all we see is that the UDA is the same old collection of tattooed louts as ever, with perhaps the small difference that they are trying to extort the government in addition to the local shops and residents.
Is it any wonder the UPRG has a minimal political footprint?
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 12:08 PMDread
“Is it any wonder the UPRG has a minimal political footprint?”
Well, if this goes the way it’s apparently planned that political footprint can be expected to grow.. which is the other element to the financial incentive.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 12:13 PMThere really is only one way to deal with this and that is lock the bastards up. But of course that is difficult for various reasons not least of which is collusion.
There are times when a bit of honesty is the easiest option but politicians really do make a meal of it.
You cannot trust these people and you will never buy them off, they will just come back for more. Eventually you have to face them down.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 12:15 PMPete Baker: “Well, if this goes the way it’s apparently planned that political footprint can be expected to grow.. which is the other element to the financial incentive. “
Somehow, I’d like to believe that the people who actually had their neighborhoods run down by these hoods were smart enough—hell, they don’t even need smarts, just a memory that reaches back past Tuesday last—not to elect the same collection of hoods who created the problem that the guv’mint, in their infinite wisdow, are now paying to correct the problems they created. It’s akin to paying the KKK to provide diversity training.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 12:42 PMSomehow, I’d like to believe that the people who actually had their neighborhoods run down by these hoods were smart enough—
It didnt stop Sinn Fein
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 01:06 PMNo because SF didn’t run neighbourhoods down. You see the problem with facile comparisons such as observers is that they are complete nonsense.
SF is not the republican version of the UDA (Nor indeed was the IRA) by any wild stretch of the imagination.
The UDA are nipple piercing (now be honest - Martin McGuinness with his nipples pierced? I don’t think so), powder snortin, back-stabbing, lackies that did a considerable amount of leg work for the (in)security forces, thus guaranteeing a continuation of that way of life for them.I’m wondering though if that 1 million quid wasn’t just a crude sting operation to provide this “significant evidence that the UDA are involved in extortion”
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 01:17 PMobserver: “It didnt stop Sinn Fein “
Apples and Oranges, observer.
1) SF / PIRA always had a political track—they had seperate identities, if not wholly seperate memberships. The UDA is seeking to graft on a political wing, after yielding that field Unionism and the British, who “suddenly” have little use for the UDA anymore. Also, UPRG comes off looking like a sock-puppet—a thin facade—a bit of cover-up make-up to hide bad tattoos.
2) The RUC, et. al., were gracious enough to cast themselves as the Catholic communities enemies, giving support to SF’s political agenda and PIRA’s proclaimed role as their defenders.
3) As a result of some forty odd years of less-than-benign neglect and discrimination in employment, the Catholics communities were pretty broken from the start of the conflict.
If the UDA had been an actual neighborhood watch / defense association, rather than a drug-dealing criminal enterprise, and had had an interest in looking after the political well-being of their neighbors, rather than trying to make a quick buck selling them nose-candy and “protection,” it might be different.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 01:24 PMso whos running drugs in republican areas, the UDA? get real
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 01:24 PMso whos running drugs in republican areas, the UDA? get real
The UDA - supply. Crims and dissidents - distribution. I live in those areas so I know more than you.
Go back to the Daily Star. This is a political site.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 02:03 PM‘tis true what northsider says (in my experience).
Welcome to the real world observer - now you see that the big pease wall wasn’t a mirror after all! Things ARE actually different on either sidePosted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 02:07 PMThats right Circles, the Bon Jovis never did nuffink, any money they got from their own areas was from “voluntary donations”!
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 02:44 PMNow Cromwell - how did you get your ludicrous statement from what I wrote?
Read the posts and respond accordingly willya? Rather than simply making up what you think someone may have posted.Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 02:47 PMI can only agree with circles and northsider. Never bought dope from a chuck, and I’ve bought plenty…
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 02:47 PMYou said the SF, & by that i will assume you also mean the IRA, is not a republican version of the UDA.
So are you telling me the Bon Jovis/SF dont engage in extorsion? Dont oppress their “own” people in order to gain funds?Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 02:57 PMcircles: “Now Cromwell - how did you get your ludicrous statement from what I wrote?
Read the posts and respond accordingly willya? Rather than simply making up what you think someone may have posted. “I wouldn’t hold your breath… the would appear to be a dearth of literate, eloquent Loyalists.
It is worth a note that, in broad general terms, that PIRA, whilst funding their operations with criminal activities, had a couple of “political” advantages. First, there is the small matter of common cause—the police had allowed themselves to be cast as an enemy of the Catholic community. Second, much of their criminality had a tangible or intangible benefit—smuggled / converted petrol is cheaper, stolen goods cost less and both deny “the man” the taxes, which can be presented as political—no tax = no money for the RUC/UDR etc. Even protection payments, thanks to the excesses of the Protestant mobs and B-Specials in the early days of the Troubles, enjoyed a certain lustre, as it appeared at Catholics really did need protecting.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 03:02 PMCromwell - I still stand by my statement that SF (and the IRA) are in no way some kind of republican mirror image of Johnny Adair and the pierced tit brigades. The organisations do not have a similar history, a similar outlook, a similar membership, a similar ethos....
The only thing in common was that both the IRA and the UDA killed people, and both were involved in other extra-legal activites. How these were viewed and handled by the (in)security forces was however completely different.
Its a facile comparison as I said - but false.Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 03:07 PMCromwell: “So are you telling me the Bon Jovis/SF dont engage in extorsion?”
ex-: prefix, meaning out of or away from;
torsion: noun, meaning the act of twisting or turning or the condition of being twisted or turned.
Thusly, “extorsion” would mean, roughly “formerly being twisted”
Now, presumably, you meant “extortion.” And, yes, PIRA did fund themselves partly through that mechanism. However, given the behavior of the B-Specials and other parties allegedly there to preserve order, mayhap the Catholic community had a different opinion as to the necessity of “protection.”
Cromwell: “Dont (sic) oppress their “own” people in order to gain funds? “
Presumably, as you expressed this as a question, you meant “didn’t they oppress their own to gain funds?”
If the choice is oppression from one of your own or “the other,” most will choose one of their own. Additionally, as noted above, there were reasons that, in the beginning, would make such payments attractive or at least seemingly less onerous.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 03:13 PMRidiculous no-but themmuns posturing on this thread. Callers to the Nolan show made it quite clear that this is and remains a problem across the board, especially in the construction sector.
PS: I’ve bought pills off the Ogra. I’ve grown up since. Have they?
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 03:29 PMSure everyone knows that the loyalist paramilitaries / UDA are up to their necks in racketeering even the dogs that live in republican areas know this. How do you take the paramilitary out of any terrorist? This was easy money for the UDA, But will they be round on Saturday collecting for loyalist prisoner welfare or is every one afraid to tell them that these gangsters are back on the street except for Haddock. This money would have been more useful to the innocent victims of loyalists.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 03:31 PMDread,
Yawn.
I can do without the pedantry, but since you like making a fool of yourself maybe you should learn to spell “behaviour”!
Frankly, I don’t have time to engage the spellcheck or swallow a dictionary every time I post.
You should think about growing up.
Have, in your opinion, SF/IRA ever done anything wrong?Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 04:09 PMno-but themmuns
No shit. A thread on the UDA money, and we have four posts on the UDA and 16 posts about the IRA, (who decomissioned btw).
Have, in your opinion, SF/IRA ever done anything wrong?
Would need a definition of wrong, (incorrect, illegeal?) but in all likelihood the answer’s yes.
In your opinion is the IRA the only answer to any issue in any thread? What do you have to say about the UDA, other than nothing?
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 04:24 PMthe Secretary of State for Wales, etc. has previously stated that it is “wilfully mischievous” to suggest “that the Government would ‘buy off’ paramilitaries”.
Whom does the S O S think he is kidding. British Governments have been buying of both sets of paramilitaries for years, first it was the IRA and latterly the UDA. They are both scum. The UDA have destroyed their communities for years and now the S O S has rewarded them. What should have happened if there was any money going into any community it should have been channeled through legitimate sources in the community, not though hoods, extortionists and gangsters (confirmed today by the police). No matter how many checks and balances have been set in place the UDA will find a way to syphon of hundreds of pounds for their own nefarious activities. Sham on you S O S what about the law-abiding communities with no paramilitary connections, where their reward for being good citizens?
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 04:59 PMnmc,
you are right,
to qualify,The UDA are right up there on my list of scumbags, joint top with the Provos, but edging slightly ahead in the steriod enhanced moron column.
Enjoy your weekend, its about time I went home.Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 05:10 PMcromwell: “I can do without the pedantry, but since you like making a fool of yourself maybe you should learn to spell “behaviour”! “
Ah, but I do… the difference is, however, a matter of local mileage… ;)
cromwell: “Frankly, I don’t have time to engage the spellcheck or swallow a dictionary every time I post. You should think about growing up. “
Coming from a poster who is unwilling (or unable) to engage in a discussion of the issues rooted in fact, I find your criticism less than impressive.
Cromwell: “Have, in your opinion, SF/IRA ever done anything wrong? “
Certainly they have done wrong. As a matter of fact, at no point in this discussion have I denied they have done wrong. If you must know, I am ecumenical on the matter of criminality—hoods is hoods. Likewise, my politics, on a day-to-day basis, are hardly in-line with Sinn Fein. However, they, the IRA, were not the issue at hand in this thread, or hadn’t you noticed?
Cromwell: “The UDA are right up there on my list of scumbags, joint top with the Provos, but edging slightly ahead in the steriod enhanced moron column. “
Well, it would appear that we agree on at least one thing.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 05:36 PMAn absolute bloody disgrace.
Still no mention of decommissioning whatsoever.
Then again MI5 would probably object.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2007 @ 08:53 PM
