Sunday, July 29, 2007
“the good guys in Carrickfergus..”
Thanks to commenter Dewi for this link to the Economist’s take on the unfolding saga of the ‘good’ and ‘not so good’ UDA.. or as David Ford put it recently, “the notion that there is somehow one baddie faction of the UDA and one goodie faction of the UDA seems to me to be absolute rubbish.” According to the Economist, where “stupid” questions are apparently off the menu, “The UDA’s attempt to be the good guys in Carrickfergus may be yet another advance.” Needless to say I don’t agree, not least for the reasons given by David Ford, the description of one faction as “the good guys” nor of it being “an advance”, and while the Economist is being a well-behaved very co-operative witness, they do add one usefully succinct paragraph on The Process™
The British and Irish governments, desperate to bring peace, have flattered loyalist leaders with meetings in London and Dublin, and provided funds to clean up objectionable graffiti. Mary McAleese, a Belfast Catholic and Ireland’s president, has spent much of her time in office trying to lessen loyalist suspicion of the Irish state. Her husband, Martin, has introduced loyalists to potential donors, and the couple treat Mr McDonald as a friend: Mrs McAleese greets him with hugs and her husband takes him golfing.
That would be this Jackie McDonald.. or this one.. or this one.. or even this one.. and on that ‘good’ UDA.. I’ve asked it before - “the right balance?”
Pete Baker @ 06:32 PM
any idea who wrote that?
Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 08:23 PMany idea who wrote that?
Dunno - Economist funny like that - don’t say who writes things. Often surprised at how insightful it is though.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 08:27 PMdave
That would be ‘playing the man’ territory.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 08:27 PMIt’s tradition that the Economist never uses bylines… a slightly bizarre 19th Century habit. Though some do say it is the Borg. The paper itself explains:
“It is written anonymously, because it is a paper whose collective voice and personality matter more than the identities of individual journalists. This ensures a continuity of tradition and view which few other publications have matched”.
It would be a pleasant departure from tradition if people could just deal with what it says, rather than looking for another scapegoat.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 08:30 PMWith all due respect, that is illogical, pious nonsense. Of course the identity of the author of an opinion piece (or a report which certainly has a degree of opinion expressed) is relevant to how we digest it. It provides context. As it happens in this instance I was just genuinely curious, I have no particular problem with what is said.
It’s fairly tame and obvious stuff, while pretty well written.Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 09:26 PMPS I have seen Fionulla O’Connor bylined in that organ many times.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 09:28 PMdave,
It’s only that I have lost count of the times that the messenger has been shot… The argument should stand (or fall) on it’s own merits…
Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 09:38 PMI don’t doubt it Mick, but I don’t think that negates my point :)
Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 09:50 PM“..I have no particular problem with what is said. It’s fairly tame and obvious stuff, while pretty well written.”
If you agree with the article, dave, then it would be better to argue the case..
Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 09:51 PMI was curious is all! Sheesh. It’s far from irrelevant. I like to know who is talking to me.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 09:57 PM“dave
That would be ‘playing the man’ territory.”
Posted by Pete Baker on Jul 29, 2007 @ 10:27 PM
Eh? How is it playing the man to ask who wrote a piece in the Economist?
To address the subject in question;
1) Why all this - “That would be this Jackie McDonald.. or this one.. or this one.. or even this one.. and on that ‘good’ UDA..”
That infers that Jackie has two sides to him, that he cuddles up to the McAleese’s one minute and is off running the Wombles the next…that is just not true. If you read all five of those links you’ll find he has been 100% consistent in everything he says - No decommisioning until the political and social climate of Ulster is right and that the criminals within the D.A. need to be marginalised and ultimately expelled from the ranks of the UDA to enable the other members who are committed to transforming the Association into a force for good within loyalist communities, can continue their work without others within the ranks undoing all their good work by pursuing “the dollar”...
2) In response to David Ford - what does he know? He’s an Englishman, how can he comment from his high moral ground on the “evil” UDA when he hasn’t lived in a loyalist housing estate/area. I can say, hand on heart, that I know no “evil” UDA men and I live in a loyalist estate. I’m not saying there aren’t any within the ranks, that would be naive of me, but there are plenty of bent peelers, screws and squaddies, yet that doesn’t make the PSNI, NI Prison Service or RIR corrupt organisations. As for his remark that “the notion that there is somehow one baddie faction of the UDA and one goodie faction of the UDA seems to me to be absolute rubbish” - he’s right, there isn’t a “goodie” and a “baddie” UDA, there is ONE UDA, made up of some 40,000 members, all with one thing in common - they are loyalist in their ideals. The “Beyond Conflict” faction of South-East Antrim have not overnight become a bunch of scumbags and they are not a separate entity to the so-called “mainstream”. They have just lost their way somewhat thanks to poor advice and political leadership from their officers. There are criminals within S.E.A. and that element needs rooted out and told they are no longer welcome within any area under S.E.A. control. If, or as I hope, when this happens, I don’t think it will be too long before the “Beyond Conflict” grouping come round to the way of thinking of the majority of the S.E.A. Brigade - that any community initiative or request for funding for community projects would be better served by working together towards the same goal and that by establishing an independent “Beyond Conflict” group, they are doing more harm than good and are undermining the UPRG’s tireless work to help the UDA in conflict transformation work…it’s not the guns and bombs that need decommisioned, it’s the mindsets of, in particular, the young UYM and UDA/UFF volunteers.
Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 11:43 PMBy the way, are you all glad to see me back. I was on hiatus there for a few months. I decided to stop posting in protest at my treatment by some republican commentators (you know who you are). I was treated with utter contempt, disrespect and prejudice and if it happens again I’ll bid Slugger farewell for good…just so you know.
On a lighter note, it’s good to be back and I trust everyone enjoyed their Twelfth fortnight holidays, even though some of you may not enjoy the actual parades as much because you mistake our pride in our culture and heritage for blind bigotry and triumphalism…
Posted by on Jul 29, 2007 @ 11:51 PMConcerned Loyalist: “That infers that Jackie has two sides to him,”
No, it *implies* that he has two faces…
A statement does “infer” anything. Statements imply, readers infer.
Concerned Loyalist: “No decommisioning until the political and social climate of Ulster is right and that the criminals within the D.A. need to be marginalised and ultimately expelled from the ranks of the UDA to enable the other members who are committed to transforming the Association into a force for good within loyalist communities, can continue their work without others within the ranks undoing all their good work by pursuing “the dollar”… “
So, we are treated to the spectacle of armed hoodlums continuing their extortion businesses under the pretense of defending NI, whilst listening to the repeated spin of a “good” UDA and a “bad” UDA, whilst “demostrations of strength” occur in the streets. Bravo.
Concerned Loyalist: “I can say, hand on heart, that I know no “evil” UDA men and I live in a loyalist estate.”
Mayhap, but what would a fish know about water? There can be the matter of being too close to an issue or organization.
Concerned Loyalist: “By the way, are you all glad to see me back. I was on hiatus there for a few months.”
Hadn’t noticed, actually…
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 01:20 AMI have to say that I deeply resent a great deal about these attempts of flattery and bribery by the British and Irish Governments to woo loyalists on board - their tack with republicans was very much the stick while it seems to be the carrot with the loyalists.
One of the most galling aspects of it is the golf trips to the K Club for Jackie McDonald as the guest of Martin McAleese. I have an interest in golf but would never dream of playing at a venue which would cost a week’s wages or more in green fees. I play an occasional round of golf at a public golf course in the south Belfast area, a place which by all accounts is in the bailiwick of Jackie McDonald. On the fourth green still visible after four years, are the ugly UDA/UFF initials, spoiling the green and intimidating players. Golf is intimidating enough with natural hazards without the introduction of paramilitary hazards!
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 07:56 AMConcerned Loyalist: “I can say, hand on heart, that I know no “evil” UDA men and I live in a loyalist estate.”
There are no evil psychos either, only misunderstood ones.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 08:07 AMCL: From Sunday Life “In the ranks of the “good” UDA there are people who have lifestyles made out of criminality - racketeering, extortion, robbing their own people and their own community.
They live well as others live poorly.”
...and you don’t consider this evil?
Which UDA are were you referring to? The lot referred to in Sunday Life or the fluffy, cute, bastions of morality and doers of good deeds that you seem to imply exist?
If they are so good and beloved by their community, why does no-one vote for them? Because they are a blight, a cancer, perhaps?
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 08:41 AMOh yeah the good old UPRG representatives of the Loyalist Community that no-one f-ing well appointed. In the old days they used to hold their own community to ransom now they seem to have moved on to bigger targets and can bully whole goverments.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 09:01 AMCrazy world - the Maze is lying empty and these riff-raff are walking the streets.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 09:07 AMCL
By the way, are you all glad to see me back. I was on hiatus there for a few months. I decided to stop posting in protest at my treatment by some republican commentators (you know who you are). I was treated with utter contempt, disrespect and prejudice and if it happens again I’ll bid Slugger farewell for good…just so you know.Christ! Talk about an inflated sense of your on self-importance.
Out of interest CL - at election time do you vote for the UPRG?
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 11:13 AMmarty, do the UPRG even bother standing any more or do they save themselves entry fee and just assume they’re important.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 11:20 AMPounder - good point. I’d assumed they were running, however a quick look at the recent results suggests otherwise.
Good of them to demand the golden goose without even putting themselves up for a vote.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 11:35 AMGeorge Gay: “There are no evil psychos either, only misunderstood ones. “
Not even that, alas and alack… they’re *his* psychos and, given his text, can do no real wrong…
Pounder: “Oh yeah the good old UPRG representatives of the Loyalist Community that no-one f-ing well appointed. In the old days they used to hold their own community to ransom now they seem to have moved on to bigger targets and can bully whole goverments. “
Which gives us the truth on disarmament—how can they maintain their control over their neighborhoods (an’ their drug turf, extortion rackets, etc.), let alone seek to bully the gov’t, without their guns? For all their rhetoric about transformation and “the need for confidence,” it boils down to hoods wanting one more bite at the apple and not being arrested for their criminal activities in the aftermath.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 11:43 AMI would not anticipate any UPRG spokesman standing for election as that is not their purpose. Nor do they claim to be representatives of the Loyalist Community that ‘no one f-ing well appointed’. They are normally senior ‘Loyalists’ who have undertaken to speak for a particular section of the Protestant Loyalist community and that is UDA members. They give ‘analysis’ to those that would listen to the analysis and prepare written reports and articles that stir up debate in an attempt to find a way forward.
I have read the Economist article and to my mind it adds little to the debate and simply rehashes the same old tired stuff. Many journalists (and slugger types) enjoy the golfing jokes but in a sense it not only pokes fun at Jackie McDonald but at Mary and Martin McAleese and reduces any input that they have had to ridicule. I think that they deserve better and believe them to be genuine people as I know Jackie McDonald to be genuine. Genuine progressive types in Northern Ireland (do they even exist on Slugger? - the vitriol sometimes seems designed to keep things going as the middle classes love a battle that they can watch from a distance and comment on) should welcome any attempt to ‘normalise’ our society.
The weekend attempts by the Alliance party ( being savaged by them is akin to my old granny scolding me for stealing a biscuit from the cookie jar) to call for the funding to cease will not produce the expected result. The success of the CTI scheme has already seen some remarkable results and long may it continue.
Do you see all those people in the street when you walk by? Many of them live in working class areas and vote DUP/UUP (delete where appropriate) when the time comes. that is all they know. When they have a problem in their community who do they turn to? when they close their curtains at night and find out the next day that the ‘problem’ has been moved on do you think they pause at the moral conundrum that they have placed themselves in?
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 02:05 PMLofty,
I would not anticipate any UPRG spokesman standing for election as that is not their purpose.
So they style themselves as community reps yet won’t put themselves forward for election? The only reason for that can be is that they know they don’t have the support on the ground as was evidenced with the electoral fortunes of the UPRG forerunners.Do you see all those people in the street when you walk by? Many of them live in working class areas and vote DUP/UUP (delete where appropriate) when the time comes. that is all they know. When they have a problem in their community who do they turn to? when they close their curtains at night and find out the next day that the ‘problem’ has been moved on do you think they pause at the moral conundrum that they have placed themselves in?
Or alternatively do they think to themselves ‘why did I not vote for the people who provide “analysis” for the people I asked to remove my “problem” last night?’ Is it because the majority of them don’t use the “community service” you’ve talked-up above as most of the “problems” that need dealt with come from that same organisation?
You put your argument forward that it’s the middle-class posters on Slugger that enjoy putting the boot into all this talk of CTI i.e. it enjoys huge support from the working classes. Again, I would put it to you that the votes for the “politcal reps” shows that there is no such working class support.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 02:35 PMAlso…
The success of the CTI scheme has already seen some remarkable results and long may it continue.Can you quantify or qualify what these are? If you can it could advance your argument and people might think better.
Posted by on Jul 30, 2007 @ 02:38 PM
