One way around that polaroid moment?

Here’s a suggestion of one way forward for the IRA from the boys down in Cork… Thanks to Padraig for the heads up.

  • peteb

    Where’s the suggestion, Mick?

  • Mick Fealty

    It’s subtle Pete. You’ve really got to think laterally! Or like a Corkman obviously! 😉

  • peteb

    Obviously I’m not from Cork then.. and I must also be more tired and hungover than I thought.. or is there supposed to be an external link?

  • Davros

    Padraig ? Is that what the P stands for then ? 😉

  • Mick Fealty

    It’s your computer that’s hungover Pete. I’m sure it’s still there!

  • peteb

    How dare you, sir! There is nothing wrong with my machine! 😉

  • ShayPaul

    Fantastic

    Thanks for that one Mick.

  • maca

    Pete, photoshop is a graphics program, often used to alter or create photos…

  • maca

    Do images work here now?
    If so here’s my effort from yesterday, if not here’s some black space:

  • maca

    Blank that should have been … and was in fact …

  • ShayPaul

    Maca

    have a beer and try again.

  • maca

    Done! The beer anyway 😉

  • James
  • Davros

    If you do not trust your honest broker, the IICD, what is the point of continuing the charade?

    Good question. The IICD was mortally wounded when it allowed itself to be muzzled by the IRA and SF.

  • ShayPaul

    Davros

    Please stop feeding the mushrooms.

    Do you really believe your last post ?

  • Roger W. Christ XVII

    Davros, the point of the IICD is that you’re supposed to trust it. If you don’t, explain why.

  • Davros

    Shay – yes.

    Roger – why don’t I truct the IICD ? It was nobbled.

  • George

    Davros,
    The objective of the Commission is “to facilitate the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition, explosives and explosive substances in accordance with the Report of the International Body, and regulations or arrangements made under the Decommissioning Act, 1997 and any decommissioning schemes within the meaning of section 1 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.”

    So how has it been nobbled from this aim?

  • Davros

    George : This explains it better than I can.

    In brief :

    “There are two schemes and sets of decommissioning regulations published by the British and Irish governments. The first became public on June 29th, 1998. Paragraph 26 of that document deals with confidentiality. It reads:

    “The Commission shall ensure that all information received by it in relation to the decommissioning process is kept confidential and that any records maintained by the Commission are kept secure. Disclosure of information received by the Commission may occur where disclosure is necessary:

    for reasons of public safety;

    to confirm the legitimate participation in the decommissioning process by those eligible to do so;

    to fulfil the Commission’s duty to report to the two governments.”

    There is nothing in that paragraph which bestows a right of confidentiality upon the IRA interlocutor or anyone else. To the contrary, the Commission, and General de Chastelain, have the right to reveal information, such as the quantities and significance of a decommissioning act, in three sets of circumstances, each one of which, it could be argued, applied last week.”

    There you go George – Nobbled!

  • ShayPaul

    Davros

    Your distorted argument, in no way proves that the IICD got nobbled at all, rather the opposite.

    The real problem you have is that it refused to act as a nodding dog to the continually evolving unionist demands on what did or did not constitute the D word.

    It seems now that the arms must not only disappear, but they must do so in a way that satisfies Dr No, and don’t hold your breath for clarification from him on that issue.

    Where in the IICD mission do you see :

    Sackcloth and ashes, transparency , photographs, movies ….

  • ShayPaul

    Maybe Tony Blair could clear this up for you:

    Mr Blair told MPs: “Under the decommissioning legislation, it is open to a paramilitary organisation to decommission with confidentiality. That is the arrangement they entered into with General de Chastelain.”

    He added: “We are not at liberty to disclose that information, but we are working hard to find a way to try and disclose it.”

    Unionists move goal posts again.

  • Davros

    Shay – your prejudices are showing 🙂
    The terms under which the IICD was mandated to operate clearly allowed for disclosure. The IRA blackmailed the IICD into confidentiality. In any reasonable person’s eye’s that is nobbling 🙂

    Hint : Blair’s comments came in 2003 ! AFTER the nobbling had occurred.

  • ShayPaul

    Man not ball Davros.

    Remember it’s you that has the problem with sectarianism.

    The facts are there to be seen, your nobbling theory doesn’t hold water.

    The I for independent is what really bothered the Unionists, not being used to state bodies that don’t behave like nodding dogs.

    That is why the IICD was set up as the honest broker.

    Dr No found it too honest and set out to break it.

  • Davros

    Shay, where was the man play ? I ignored your man play. I pointed out that you approach the debate from a different side of the fence than I do … and I note you haven’t addressed my central point.

    The IICD is operating under a different mandate than originally agreed. The IRA corrupted the process. Rather than spend your time insulting Unionists, could you address the issue ?

  • ShayPaul

    Man play – example :

    “Shay your prejudices are showing” = condescending food for mushrooms

    Your “central point” is unsubstantiated, I do not accept it.

    The IICD was set up as pointed out as an honest broker, I find the attacks by DUP and UUP politicians on the body as particularly unjustified.

    This habit of considering that all bodies established by the state are only acceptable if they show loyalty to all things Unionist is particularly revealing of the impact that many years of uncontrolled majority rule has had on the mindset of that political family.

    Any person or institute that resists their will is immediately deemed doubtful, corrupt, infiltrated, or as you put it nobbled.

    This leads to “our police” “our courts” “our army” “our state” “our people” “our community” knee jerk reactions that play into the hands of the divisive elements of this society.

    This polarisation leads to sectarianism in its worst forms, alienation and ultimately to violence and the destruction of society.

    Politicians that play on these parameters have an enormous responsibility. Their lack of leadership and unhealthy use of the sectarian instrument to nourish their unhealthy thirst for power has at worst contributed directly and at best indirectly to the loss of life.

    A time is coming when the majority of people in NI will no longer accept these antics, and polaroids for paranoids will be replaced by no nonsense politicians who want arms destroyed and off the streets more than humiliation, power or justification for their past acts.

    If every armament possessed by the IRA was destroyed tonight, there would be nothing to stop the sceptical Dr No telling us that he must stand steady against the evil forces of rome and republicanism which plot and contrive and import arms as he speaks.

    The dogs on the streets know what is going on Davros. I cannot believe that you really believe your position as you outline it here, that is why I asked you that question straight earlier.

    Of course if you want to play out an exercise in debating techniques and avoidance etc. etc. this could go on for hours.

    I really don’t see the point to be honest.

    Regards and enjoy the rest of your weekend,

  • Davros

    Sorry Shay, I think you are unwilling to address the point. It was agreed that the IICD COULD release details. THAT was changed by a side-deal with the IRA. That destroyed the IICD credibility.
    was asked a specific question as to why I had no faith in the IICD. I have answered the question honestly.

    And I’ll remind you that you played man with mushroom speak when you butted in to a dialogue between Roger, George and me :)Since then all you want to do is indulge yourself in Unionist bashing, which is your right, but it’s hardly man playing if I point this out.

    Do you accept that under the rules first published
    the IICD had the right, if not duty, to reveal details ?

  • James

    You guys are all great fellas but this debate is absurd.

    The crux of the problem is that one of the two parties, broadly speaking, involved in the peace process in Northern Ireland does not trust the IICD. Which of the two parties involved withdrew the trust is inconsequential. The governments just made it worse and institutionalized it by including the photographic evidence clause in the unagreements. Pity, those photos would have made DUP posters and TV hit pieces that would have Karl Rove salivating.

    What everyone is arguing about is not that the IICD has been gelded (that is obvious) and how to start over but about who is responisible.

    The legislation that established the IICD in 1997 stated that it would report to both governments and to other participants in the peace process. The GFA, however, stripped out the language that would let anyone other than the two governments in on it. (Perhaps they were preescent) This was the deal that everyone voted on, north and south and, for my money, de Chastelain still doesn’t have to say squat to anyone other than the two governments unless you hold another plebicite. The absurd part is that what de Chastelain says and to whom is inconsequential.

    If de Chastelain was perceived as an honest broker, trusted by all, he could have appeared dolled up in rouge, wearing a tutu and twirling a feather boa last October and sold everyone that the Provos had flushed a huge quantity of arms. That didn’t happen. Dress it up in any fashion you wish, unionism called him a liar or a dupe and both governments went along with it. So get on with it and find someone else. I’d put my money on the people who ran the disarmament in El Salvador.

    I don’t know how de Chastelain manages to stomach this, working for suits who are effectively labeling him a liar and a fool. Were I him, I’d quit this farce and head back home.

    Other than you guys, the General is the only loser I can see here. The DUP got what they wanted, direct rule. Sinn Fein got what they wanted, more fear and loathing in Northern Ireland. Hell, perhaps the Shinners got more than they hoped for if Fianna Fail’s unease with the Progressive Democrats grows any more.

  • James

    Sorry ’bout the spelling errors, kiddies, I’m in the middle of trimming the tree.

  • Davros

    Couple of comments James:

    The IICD was muzzled after The GFA was signed.
    De Chastelaine didn’t have to take the muzzling. He should have stood up on his hind legs and said no.
    The referenda were in May ’98. What unionists signed up to was that de chastelaine COULD release details “to confirm the legitimate participation in the decommissioning process by those eligible to do so”

    Secondly there is widespread mistrust of the whole process because of under the counter deals.

    We have the ridiculous position where in 2002 after Weston Park revised rules were released

    Paragraph 5 allowed him to say anything he wanted about decommisioning. It reads:

    “The Commission may provide to a person who seeks it, such information in relation to the making of arms permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable in accordance with this scheme as it considers appropriate”.

    Yet de Chastelaine had earler agreed with IRA representatives that he WOULDN’T release details.

  • George

    Thanks for the article Davros, which, however, certainly doesn’t leave me with the view the IICD was muzzled.

    On confidentiality (no legal requirement) and transparency (no legal requirement):

    “His decision seems to have been shaped by the outcome of a balancing act between conflicting needs, on one scale weighed the sensitivities of the Unionists, on the other the doubts and anxieties of the Provo leadership about their base.
    The argument that Adams and McGuinness might be consumed by their own angry supporters once the scales fell off their eyes and they realised the full magnitude of their leadership’s lies and betrayal, seems to have won the day.”

    The decommissioning body wasn’t nobbled, it just made a judgement call on modalities that weren’t to the liking of unionism.

  • Davros

    OK George, let’s try a different tack.

    Can you see how, from a unionist perspective, it might looks as if the IICD has been nobbled ?