violence does not pay..

According to Peter Hain, that is.. After months, and months, and months, of dithering, Secretary of State Peter Hain has formally [eventually? – Ed] accepted that the UVF ceasefire is non-existent, a move he described last week as a quick procedural fix.. of course, it would be more than procedural if it was followed up by arrests and charges against members of said specified organisations.. but that would require Peter Hain et al to be on the side of law and order.. ANYway.. he has a dinner to attend.. In the meantime his “door is open to loyalist representatives to find out what their agenda is”.. sheesh. Update Sort of.. Here’s Peter Hain’s statement

12 thoughts on “violence does not pay..”

  1. “ANYway.. he has a dinner to attend.”

    Bon appetit, Peter. You’re aware at any rate that the inner man is always more important than the dead one.

  2. What was the delay? How exactly did the violence of the UVF over the past number of weeks constitute being on ceasefire? Anyway, does he think they’ll actually care if they’ve been specified anyway? It’s not as if they generally care anyway about maintaining ‘the Queen’s law’.

  3. Interesting to see Pete talking about the United Volunteer Force on GMTV on Monday morning. It’s good to see that he’s earning his money, I mean, if I had his job, I wouldn’t learn what UVF stood for either. He’s another w*n*er that doesn’t care at all.

  4. surely the implication of the ceasefire being declared over is that those uvf prisoners that were released under the terms of the agreement are locked up again under the terms of the agreement. is this not the case?

  5. “surely the implication of the ceasefire being declared over is that those uvf prisoners that were released under the terms of the agreement are locked up again under the terms of the agreement. is this not the case?”

    Actually wha?, believe it or not it doesn’t. I had a look on lawtel today to find out what other orders in council had been made specifying groups and the most recent one of 2004 (can’t remember the SI number) in its explanatory memoranda stated that former prisoners “may be liable” to having their licences revoked. I didn’t have enough time to check the primary legislation but I think it relates to becoming involved with that proscribed organisation again

  6. Not that I have much sympathy for westminster ministers in whatever colonial office, they are generally fooked here. The nationalist/republican side what rid of them, meanwhile the loyal Queen’s subjects seem to detest Her Majesties Government more and more day-by-day. Makes me wonder what idea of British statehood they are hanging on to…?

  7. “surely the implication of the ceasefire being declared over is that those uvf prisoners that were released under the terms of the agreement are locked up again under the terms of the agreement. is this not the case?”

    Actually wha?, believe it or not it doesn’t. I had a look on lawtel today to find out what other orders in council had been made specifying groups and the most recent one of 2004 (can’t remember the SI number) in its explanatory memoranda stated that former prisoners “may be liable” to having their licences revoked. I didn’t have enough time to check the primary legislation but I think it relates to becoming involved with that proscribed organisation again

  8. wha

    “surely the implication of the ceasefire being declared over is that those uvf prisoners that were released under the terms of the agreement are locked up again under the terms of the agreement. is this not the case?”

    Could you vote in NI in 1998? If you could did you vote for the Belfast Agreement? Did you read what you voted for? Did you understand the prisoner release provisions? There were enough people warning of the one way street of concessions to criminals back then. Perhaps you should have listened.

Comments are closed.