Thursday, October 05, 2006
“we could end up with an absolutely fantastic society..”
On Monday regular Slugger commenter, loftholdingswood, predicted “further announcements later in the week from the mainstream” [the ‘good’ UDA? -Ed] in response to the South East Antrim UDA’s Beyond Conflict document.. and today, as reported by the BBC, Frankie Gallagher of the ‘good’ UPRG announced that - A pamphlet outlining ways of transforming loyalist areas is set to be published. Added link below
Here’s the reported comment from Mr Gallagher
“If we applied the same type of resource and the same type of structures to help loyalism move on - that republicanism successfully dealt with - I think we could end up with an absolutely fantastic society where there would be no paramilitarism.
Time to get that chequebook out, Mr Hain.. yet again..
Adds The BBC report also states
It follows a consultation within working class Protestant areas and includes the views of UDA members.
Added link to a previously asked, and still relevant, question - “the basis of a civilised society?
Pete Baker @ 12:18 PM
A pamphlet????
I thought a 64-page full-colour extravaganza was de rigueur for such things—funded by the taxpayer of course.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:50 PMAnd that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.-- Kipling
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:54 PMAgreed Dread. If people like the loyalist leadership were actually capable of doing what was right for ‘their people’ in the first place, they would have no need for further money to be thrown at them to clean up their mess.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:59 PMCome on boys
How can the “Brigadeers” sell this to their “men” if they can’t point to their new top of the range Rangerover as proof that they’ve won.
Instead, why not just give the money to an expanded ARA and f*ck the lot of them, one ar*ehole at a time!
Sorry but I have even less time for loyalist criminals than I have for Republican criminals!
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 01:05 PMI think Frankie Gallagher and his likeminded colleagues should be congratulated and encouraged for trying to lead their organisations out of the past, and not mocked and ridiculed from the comfort of your laptops and ‘workstations’.
This sort of initiative takes courage and should be supported.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 01:51 PMthis sort of initiative does not take millions of extra pounds, on top of that which they get at the moment
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 02:06 PMDublin Exile: “I think Frankie Gallagher and his likeminded colleagues should be congratulated and encouraged for trying to lead their organisations out of the past, and not mocked and ridiculed from the comfort of your laptops and ‘workstations’. “
Frankie Gallagher and his like-minded “collegues” *ARE* the problem, DE. They are the drug-dealers on their patch, so “hiring” them to address the “problem” of drugs on their patch smacks of the absurd.
That they wish to lead their “colleagues” out of criminality should be lauded. What I find absurd are their disingenuous rationales and their “requests” for dane-geld.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 02:23 PMI think Frankie Gallagher and his likeminded colleagues should be congratulated and encouraged for trying to lead their organisations out of the past, and not mocked and ridiculed from the comfort of your laptops and ‘workstations’.
Dublin Exile
Considering many here (myself included) have buried relatives murdered by those ‘likeminded colleagues’, you might cut us a bit of slack for our cynicism every time they produce their (rather large) begging bowls.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 02:23 PMSome rather snotty comments so far (with the exception of Dublin Exile). Seeing as no one has actually read the document yet (I am off shortly to the official publication launch) it is disappointing to see such a reaction. This publication (which I have made reference to before) is the result of a long, wide ranging consultation with members of the UDA, their families and other Loyalists in the broad definition of that title. It does not gloss over some difficult aspects and it does not ask for a blank cheque in exchange for a “jobs for the boys” jamboree. Please at least read it before passing the usual judgment. Possibly later tonight or certainly tomorrow I’ll be able to fully answer questions that relate to what we have said. As a contributor to the publication I’ll be more than interested to give it a once over myself tonight when I go to the launch and receive my copy.
There has been a great deal of time and effort put into this publication with some real debates within the organisation as to where we can go from here. As I’ve said before we want to bring everyone on board and that is the most difficult task of all.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 02:27 PMLHW: “This publication (which I have made reference to before) is the result of a long, wide ranging consultation with members of the UDA, their families and other Loyalists in the broad definition of that title. It does not gloss over some difficult aspects and it does not ask for a blank cheque in exchange for a “jobs for the boys” jamboree. “
No, I’m certain it doesn’t—it asks for a signed check, in the sum of, what, the low to mid eight figures.
The problem, LHW, is a matter of credibility. The problems Frankie and the boys are offering to “help fix” are the problems they’ve so lovingly worked to create over the years. One does not hire the fox to guard the chicken-coop, LHW, nor does one pay criminals not to commit crimes.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 02:37 PMDec-
Cynicism is all well and good and indeed understandable. But shouldn’t we be cutting those within loyalism who seem to be willing to change ‘some slack’?
Lets see the document before it gets written off.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 02:59 PMDublin Exile: “But shouldn’t we be cutting those within loyalism who seem to be willing to change ‘some slack’?”
Why pay them dane-geld, DE?
When this sort of operation is performed on a more personal level—the transfer of funds to an agent to prevent the transferer from being the target of criminality—its called extortion. Why should this process, when performed on a far grander scale, be given the time of day?
They *ARE* the problem in most respects. They are the ones committing violence, dealing the drugs, etc. Paying them to not do these things is absurd. If they truly represented the interests of the masses, why have they such a dearth of elected politicians to show for it?
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:20 PM“There has been a great deal of time and effort put into this publication… “
Someone’s started a book here, loftholdingswood, and you can settle it for us.
The smart money is on a 4-colour job with an extra spot colour. I’m betting on its being gold; others are saying it’ll be gunmetal blue.
You’ll let us know right away, won’t you?
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:20 PMDublin Exile
What it looks like they are asking for (Loftholdingthewoods wait and see comments notwithstanding) is that the government funds their transfer from the illegimate power of the gun to the power of something else.
Result, they have some kind of community power and influence gifted to them without the wider communities, which they are a section of,asking for it or agreeing to it.
Is that a good idea? You don’t need millions to create peace, you need people to stop pissing their communities about. I haven’t heard about any independent survey in Rathcoole or the Shankill or Taughmonagh or wherever asking residents what they think. Maybe there has been, maybe there will be or maybe the consultations &surveys;will be restricted to loyalists, ie the lads.
Bear in mind that the loyalist groupings involved have overall carried comparatively little support in their wider communities when they’ve put themselves up for the vote.
Loftholdingthewoods, you know as well as I do that this initiative will stick in the throats of a majority of the unionist population including working class unionists that live on teh same housing estates that theseloyalists come from. What do you think the reasons for that are?
Are we going to say goodbye to the following?
If I have an argument with a known player for whatever reason after a few pints, am I going to have 5 of his player mates come round with pickaxe handles to beat the crap out of me?
When one of these players dies, is my small shop going to be asked by 3 large blokes to close ‘as a mark of respect’ when in fact they shouldnt be coming in and suggesting I do anything?
Are people with no visible means of inclome (other than their community workers salary) still going to be driving about in cars worth more than my family’s combined annual salary?
These are just a mere few of the things that occur that need to go. But will they? Are the people people behind this initiative going to be subject to the same meritocracy as the rest of us?
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:24 PMOn Good Morning Ulster (or part of it) this morning, Frankie Gallagher was asked if he supported the 8.7 million pound proposal for SE Antrim Brigade and he said he did, but reckoned to finish the job of dismantling the UDA may cost 700 million. I nearly choked on my orange juice.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:26 PMFanny
A tenner on the blue skies of Ulster.....
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:27 PMJD: “On Good Morning Ulster (or part of it) this morning, Frankie Gallagher was asked if he supported the 8.7 million pound proposal for SE Antrim Brigade and he said he did, but reckoned to finish the job of dismantling the UDA may cost 700 million. I nearly choked on my orange juice. “
Okay… In terms of just how ludicrous this proposal is, I think we have just gone plaid…
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:29 PMNew detached bungalows cost a lot of money JD.
700 million, now lets have a bit of honesty.
That would be the greatest swindle of modern times...well no thats the Iraqi Oil for Food programme but it comes close.
Maybe if they stopped talking about the money and started talking about the principles it would be well helpful.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:31 PMFanny: “The smart money is on a 4-colour job with an extra spot colour. I’m betting on its being gold; others are saying it’ll be gunmetal blue. “
Nah, not flashy enough, the gun-metal…
The fifth color is the color of money, plain and simple.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:33 PM“A tenner on the blue skies of Ulster.....”
Nah, Yokel, easily arrived at with 42% cyan, 11% magenta and 5% black.
It’ll have to be a metallic I reckon. Or maybe a white, powdery finish.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:34 PM“The fifth color is the color of money, plain and simple.”
Tricky, Cthulhu. Too many different bank-notes in circulation in NI. What colour were the Ulster Bank using a coupla years ago? Or am I confusing suspects here?
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:37 PM700 million!
How many major bank robberies would that be equivalent to?Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:37 PMAny betting on the logo?
Just wondering if there were odds on a steroidal red arm with a big red hand on the end of it.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:39 PM“There has been a great deal of time and effort put into this publication… “
I reckon I could spend a fair bit of time on my shopping list too
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:43 PMFanny: “Tricky, Cthulhu. Too many different bank-notes in circulation in NI. What colour were the Ulster Bank using a coupla years ago? Or am I confusing suspects here? “
Gold… although, with a 700 million price-tag, maybe platinum or a sparkly “diamond” finish would be more appropriate.
Frankie G was not going far enough… this could be more than fantastic—we could reach “Chav-tastic,” with plenty of heavy gold chains and new Nike trainers for everyone!
Yokel: “Just wondering if there were odds on a steroidal red arm with a big red hand on the end of it. “
With the title “An Offer you Can’t Refuse” across the top… or better yet, tattooed on the bicep.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:46 PM
