The future's bright

Earlier this week as speculation took place on the DUP meeting Loyalists, their ceasefire was discussed and the future role of Loyalism was explored, Loyalists gave a hint at what they might do in the future.

  • Davros

    If as claimed there is no concerted attack on “protestant” territory, does the declaration of an Orange Line change anything Mark ?

    Is it to be welcomed that Loyalism has started to engage in more political posturing – assuming that one agrees with the idea that this is a PR gesture by Loyalists to try and define a more defensive-in effect saying leave our areas alone and we’ll leave your areas alone- and political role for themselves than the perceivedly exclusive role of “racketeering” ?

  • ShayPaul

    About time that a few Unionist politicians started “official” talks with these boys.

    What sort of society are we going to create together if these sort of statements from the biggest loyalist paramilitary force, slip by without comment ?

    The usual “heads in the sand” approach won’t do.

    The areas these guys recruit from are breeding grounds for drugs and racketeering poverty and unemployment are rife. These people need help (not assistance), and have been giving some important signs of late in that direction.

    Unionism with have to grasp the thorn sooner or later.

  • ShayPaul

    Davros

    That is really twisted logic your spinning.

    A barely disguised sectarian threat, underlined by no go areas and you use it unquestioningly to suggest that it proves republican aggression.

    When you unwind yourself from the twisted web, maybe you could address their message and not your own spin on it ?

  • ShayPaul

    Davros

    That is really twisted logic you’re spinning.

    A barely disguised sectarian threat, underlined by no go areas and you use it unquestioningly to suggest that it proves republican aggression.

    When you unwind yourself from the twisted web, maybe you could address their message and not your own spin on it ?

  • Davros

    Shay, I asked two questions.

  • ShayPaul

    No you spun the original thread.

    The first question is a side step, the UDA is setting up no go areas on sectarian lines – your position on that ?

    I already answered the second question, though its form is also an unacceptable spin :

    Answer :

    “About time that a few Unionist politicians started “official” talks with these boys.

    What sort of society are we going to create together if these sort of statements from the biggest loyalist paramilitary force, slip by without comment ?

    The usual “heads in the sand” approach won’t do.

    The areas these guys recruit from are breeding grounds for drugs and racketeering poverty and unemployment are rife. These people need help (not assistance), and have been giving some important signs of late in that direction.

    Unionism with have to grasp the thorn sooner or later.

  • ShayPaul

    Now Davros my question :

    What does Unionism intend to do to treat the problems posed by Loyalism and underlined in the posted statement?

    Here is some context, with which you seem to agree judging by your first post :

    About time that a few Unionist politicians started “official” talks with these boys.

    What sort of society are we going to create together if these sort of statements from the biggest loyalist paramilitary force, slip by without comment ?

    The usual “heads in the sand” approach won’t do.

    The areas these guys recruit from are breeding grounds for drugs and racketeering where poverty and unemployment are rife. These people need help (not assistance), and have been giving some important signs, of late, in that direction.

    Unionism with have to grasp the thorn sooner or later.

  • Davros

    when you ask nice you get answers Shay. You make a Loyalist look quick to learn 🙂

  • ShayPaul

    Davros

    Don’t hide behind artificial good manners when you’re evidently incapable of maintaining an intelligent debate going for any length of time before sliding into gratuitous sectarianism.

    Your last post is I suppose the height of your intellectual prowess.

    I’ll wait until a respectable member Unionist tradition wishes to comment on the thread.

  • ShayPaul

    Davros

    Don’t hide behind artificial good manners when you’re evidently incapable of maintaining an intelligent debate going for any length of time before sliding into gratuitous sectarianism.

    Your last post is I suppose the height of your intellectual prowess.

    I’ll wait until a respectable member of any tradition wishes to comment on the thread.

  • aquifer

    Tricky one this. Overcrowding on one side, dereliction on the other, and its unlikely that either side can buy themselves out of the situation. Redevelopment will result in expensive housing nobody can afford, and not enough affordable rental housing is being built new. Looks like the only option is to rigourously support multicultural housing areas everywhere, to allow property to change hands peacefully.

    Perhaps the Secretary of State can have some troops on rotation from Basra come along with a cherrypicker to take those silly flags down, should be some light relief for them. Good Commonwealth troops of course, maybe the Gurkhas. Why not tonight at 4am. Why must operations like Motorman be years too late?

  • Davros

    Aquifer, the contested houses are hardly slum dwellings.

  • Mick Fealty

    Dav, please pack in playing the man. It’s true that you’ve not said anything deeply offensive, but you’ll find you’ll be more effective if you kick the point your opponent’s making rather than the man himself thusly:

    when you ask nice you get answers Shay. You make a Loyalist look quick to learn 🙂

    Apart from anything else it makes for dull reading material!

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    The UDA and UVF have emptied many inner city unionist areas with their crminlality and thuggery. Many decent people taking to the hills to be well shot of them. Now in an effort to appear relevant they don the ragged flag of defenders.
    They are simply setting in place their alibis for future shootings, stabbings and bombings.

  • Davros

    Mick, there was NO man Playing from me.
    I asked two questions amd was treated to an abusive reply from Comrade Shay.

    The first question rather destroyed the intent of the thread.

  • ShayPaul

    The “Comrade” label is just another way of playing the man Davros.

    You don’t even notice you’re doing it.

    Please indicate where you construed from the thread that I was a communist ?

    And can you answer my question :

    What does Unionism intend to do to treat the problems posed by Loyalism and underlined in the posted statement?

  • Davros

    Shay – since when was ‘Comrade’ copyrighted by Communism ? It’s a term used by the broad left and the republican movement

    Are you saying that Gerry Adams is a Communist ?

    We have to open our party up to women comrades and to people who will bring their own life experiences and values

    Bodenstown 2004.

    Now Shay, I asked the first questions on this thread , and when you address the questions I asked than I’ll give you a nice and polite reply.

  • aquifer

    No Davros

    They are not slum dwellings, they are some of the few homes around that people can afford, although often in areas blighted by paramilitarism. However if the occupants sell, what can they afford to buy in place.

    Does ‘contested’ mean a site for persistent criminal behaviour and disorder. Should we have less contested and more arrested?

  • Davros

    Should we have less contested and more arrested?

    That would require a change of direction Aquifer and although a lot of people would cheer, I’m not sure that it would be productive in the long-term.

  • ShayPaul

    Davros

    I answered both your questions a long time ago.

    You are not the slugger schoolmaster, so please stop your condescending manners, and cataloguing and kkep it to the debate :

    What does Unionism intend to do to treat the problems posed by Loyalism and underlined in the posted statement?

    If you do not wish to reply, please state as such in simple english, and I will not insist.

  • Davros

    I answered both your questions a long time ago.

    “A barely disguised sectarian threat, underlined by no go areas and you use it unquestioningly to suggest that it proves republican aggression.

    When you unwind yourself from the twisted web, maybe you could address their message and not your own spin on it ? “

    Those were not answers. Those were an attempt to
    end a line of reasoning that you found uncomfortable.

  • ShayPaul

    Your first question was to Mark:

    “If as claimed there is no concerted attack on “protestant” territory, does the declaration of an Orange Line change anything Mark ?

    and received the reply :

    “That is really twisted logic you’re spinning. A barely disguised sectarian threat, underlined by no go areas and you use it unquestioningly to suggest that it proves republican aggression. When you unwind yourself from the twisted web, maybe you could address their message and not your own spin on it ?”

    Your second question was :

    “Is it to be welcomed that Loyalism has started to engage in more political posturing – assuming that one agrees with the idea that this is a PR gesture by Loyalists to try and define a more defensive-in effect saying leave our areas alone and we’ll leave your areas alone- and political role for themselves than the perceivedly exclusive role of “racketeering” ?”

    To which I replied :

    About time that a few Unionist politicians started “official” talks with these boys. What sort of society are we going to create together if these sort of statements from the biggest loyalist paramilitary force, slip by without comment ? The usual “heads in the sand” approach won’t do. The areas these guys recruit from are breeding grounds for drugs and racketeering poverty and unemployment are rife. These people need help (not assistance), and have been giving some important signs of late in that direction. Unionism with have to grasp the thorn sooner or later.

    My question was :

    What does Unionism intend to do to treat the problems posed by Loyalism and underlined in the posted statement?

  • Davros

    Sorry Shay, your approach is based on the “Have you stopped beating your wife” mode of discussion.

  • dave

    When the British population of Northern Ireland feel secure, the people via politicians will deal with the Loyalists paramilitaries, that will take place as soon as the Republican International Terror Organisation SF/IRA go out of “Business”

    Loyalists Paramilitaries DO NOT dictate to the British population.

    Loyalist paramilitaries have no right to state that an (Orange Line) will be drawn around any area.

    When the “Irish population” cease to support republican paramilitaries the British Population will cease to support loyalists paramilitaries. Lets face it, it won’t be long before Republican paramilitaries are out of Business, they have little choice thanks to Gerry and Martin and the firm stand taken by the DUP.

    Loyalist paramilitaries were needed to protect British interests, this is no longer required.

    The IRA military wing is now defunct.

    The people of Northern Ireland will win this battle and the War.

  • maca

    Laughable Dave, absolutely laughable.

  • chunkyguy

    One question for dave!
    How does murdering and bombing innocent civilians equate with…
    “…Loyalist paramilitaries were needed to protect British interests, this is no longer required….”

  • chunkyguy

    One question for dave!
    How does murdering and bombing innocent civilians equate with…
    “…Loyalist paramilitaries were needed to protect British interests, this is no longer required….”

  • Gerry O’Sullivan

    dave

    Loyalist paramilitaries were needed to protect British interests, this is no longer required

    Would the Miami Showband killers have been “protecting British interests”? Or the Shankill Butchers? Or the perpetrators of the Greysteel killings, maybe?

  • Alan

    Yes, it is important that we keep communications open with everyone. There’s no doubt about that.

    I also know the importance of boundaries to communities under threat. At one stage I was drafting a constitution with people in the Suffolk estate in Belfast. They wanted a clear definition of their area, along the middle of the river, across the field boundaries to the road etc. The area was contracting and there was a real sense of threat.

    That being the case, I don’t think that the UDA, UPRG or whoever should be drawing orange lines around anything. It’s a clear provocation and tantamount to their declaring areas of control. The Government and the political parties should denounce this for the self serving opportunism that it clearly is.

  • Davros

    “I don’t think that the UDA, UPRG or whoever should be drawing orange lines around anything. It’s a clear provocation and tantamount to their declaring areas of control.”

    Is the reality not that there are and have been since the 70’s “areas of Control” Alan ? I don’t like it or approve of it, but that’s the way it already IS.
    And that these areas of control have to a great extent been recognised both by the opposing factions and tacitly by the authorities.
    “Welcome to Free Derry”
    “You are Now entering Protestant East Belfast”

    Does anybody seriously believe that there isn’t a “green” line of control around Places like Short Strand ? Let’s remember the claims by republicans that they were defending “their” territory at the time of the Cluan Place /Short Strand dispute.

    We have a mosaic of tribal territories.

    I regard the “statement ” as Progress in this respect. Until now Both sides have denied that they were attacking each others territories. By this statement the Loyalists have admitted that they have been attacking and they are accepting boundaries. My disappointment is that nationalists and republicans are refusing to admit that THEY have been engaged in territorial aggression. And I’ll say this. IF there hasn’t been and isn’t going to be territorial aggression against what loyalists claim as their territory , then why should anybody claim that Loyalism retreating to a defensive position ( and this is after all the same position that has time and again been used to justify the existance of nationalist and republican vigilante groups/paramilitary groups)
    is “threatening” ?

  • slackjaw

    ‘then why should anybody claim that Loyalism retreating to a defensive position etc.
    is “threatening” ?’

    Because any non-loyalist that ventures into said territory would be liable to getting a good kicking/worse?

  • Davros

    And what’s changed SJ ?

    What would have happened a week ago to a non-loyalist who sat in a car flying the Tricolour in Rathcoole ? What would happen to a non-republican who sat in a car flying the Union Flag in a republican equivalent estate ?

    Look at what was said in the article , not the republican spin on it. There has been no change in the status of the areas. It’s being portrayed as a declaration that any Catholic found in a Protestant area will automatically be ‘executed’.

    From the “Loyalist Day of Culture”
    ( my Italics)

    And if the scenes that day on the Shankill reflect the savagery of loyalism turned upon itself, they also reflect another truth. That where ever you have loyalist paramilitaries, farce is not far behind.

    The farcical moment in that dark day, McDonald and Cusack recall, concerned a bus driver who had driven a coach load of UDA supporters from Londonderry to their “Day of Culture.”

    When the violence erupted the gentleman concerned, identified only as “Seamus from the Bogside”, was peacefully dozing in the cabin of his vehicle parked a few hundred yards from the epicentre of the violence.

    One of his Derry UDA passengers recognised the incongruity: “Seamus was, and is, a very popular driver with us. He gets on well with the lads and no one would lay a finger on him But it was certainly ironic that here was a Catholic from the Bogside sleeping in the middle of the Shankill while loyalists were kicking the s*** out of each other.”

    Seamus was a lucky man that day. For over the 33 years of its brutal existence many other Catholics – and indeed many other Protestants – have met their end at the UDA’s bloody hands.

    “Those scenes are described by authors Henry McDonald and Jim Cusack in their hefty and impressive new history of the UDA. (UDA: Inside the Heart of Loyalist Terror. Penguin.

  • chunkyguy

    Of course the reality shows there is orange and green areas in belfast- only a fool would deny otherwise – however the long term aim of the government and other agencies should be to graduallly merge the green and orange!- sounds optimistic! remember before 1969 and the present day troubles- areas werent so easily defined and although the likes of the shankhill was overwhelmingly prod and vice versa with the falls there were people “from the other side”living in these areas. IN summation the drawing of maps and borders only sets in stone these divides which we should looking on as only a temporary measure!

  • Davros

    Chunkyguy – which is better – a situation where Loyalists are trying to expand their territories or a situation where they cease trying to expand ?

    I would suggest the latter.

    Now all we need is for republicans to make a similar announcement and there will be a possibility of further progress.

    “he long term aim of the government and other agencies should be to graduallly merge the green and orange!”

    The problem isn’t about Government and other agencies. It’s a problem between Loyalist and republican gangs.

  • North Antrim Realist

    This debate shows all that is wrong with Northern Ireland and it competing tribes.

    The is an underlying assumption that the terrorists actually achieved something worthwhile apart from killing people and lining the pockets of mindless hoodlums.

    Without them the situation here would have been transformed much earlier and we would have a much less polarised society than we do today.

    This attempt to say what good people they all are for proposing stopping what they are doing is almost legitimising what they have done and that should never be the case. Criminals gangsters and hoodlums are what they were and are and they deserve no praise from any right thinking people in any society.

    I hope the Criminal Assets Board manages to confiscate all their ill gotten gains and to pay it to their victims.

  • Davros

    This attempt to say what good people they all are for proposing stopping what they are doing is almost legitimising what they have done

    NAR, who has said they are in any way good people ?
    This is not being looked at in terms of morality, it’s being looked at in terms of whether it is a move forwards or backwards.

    If I say that it is better that the IRA have stopped attacking Coppers and Soldiers, I’m in no way saying that I feel that the IRA are ‘Good People’ or that we should feel gratitude to them.
    The same applies to the Loyalists. IF they ARE going to stop attacking nationalist areas, it is a good thing. That doesn’t make them good people.

  • Moderate Unionist

    A pity this thread got off on the wrong tack. It all comes down to “Should you negoitate with terrorists (defenders, freedom fighters) before they have laid down their arms completely?” Should we have negoitated on Ken Bigley’s behalf?

    IMHO, if the desire to stop violent activity is genuine, I think that negoitations should be entered into. I don’t think this contaiminates the negoitators. I do think that it should be applied equally (to both the IRA and the UDA for example)assuming.

    As for the orange lines, a poor solution and unacceptable to the majority, but are they genuinely looking for a solution? If so a way should be found.

  • Davros

    “As for the orange lines, a poor solution and unacceptable to the majority”

    But is it better than what went before MU ?
    Would you prefer that Loyalists and Republicans keep chipping away at each other’s territory ?

  • Moderate Unionist

    Actually Davros, I think I would want a better solution – Unaccountable “policing” is a huge threat to democracy and no matter what the initial objectives always degenerates into criminality.

    The police must be allowed (supported,empowered whatever) to re-establish the rule of law and order and to provide the protection that the citizens require. Drugs and criminal activity must be confronted. If this means a heavy police presence with alot of dialogue with local people and significant economic support to tackle unemployment and social deprivation then so be it, but it will require strong political support and any local support should be nurtured.

    Loyalist Paramilitary organisations probably represent the biggest threat to the communities in which they reside.

    So the short answer is, the message is wrong but the fact that there is a message is good. We must build on it.

  • Davros

    In and Ideal world , sure . But let’s recognise that at least it’s a step in the right direction.

  • dave

    For those that enquired.

    “Loyalist paramilitaries were needed to protect British interests, this is no longer required.”

    Close the back door? this is no longer required, hence the reason Northern Ireland is no longer of stragtegical value.

    The defence of the British population.

    fare thee well

  • dave

    I notice that there has not been any comments on this topic, shy?

    IMC to link IRA to cigarette raid?

  • Moderate Unionist

    Davros

    If it means what you think it means, I agree that it is positive. It should not be overlooked nor ridiculed BUT and it is a big but, it represents an opportunity rather than a result…

    …and there are implications regarding direct discussions with other “parties” in similar circumstances.

  • Gerry O’Sullivan

    dave

    Your post of 9.47pm makes no sense whatsoever.

    Close the back door? this is no longer required, hence the reason Northern Ireland is no longer of stragtegical value.

    The defence of the British population.

    fare thee well

    Been at your Mum’s sherry, have you?

  • dave

    FAO gerry.
    I really don’t have the time to give you a history lesson, sorry.