UVF and UDA thinking of the value of children – to their pockets…

THE UVF and UDA are experts at extortion, so it was no real surprise when the government announced a £33m fund bribe for loyalists. However, when an education board describes the two terrorist groups as “voluntary organisations” that it consults over the distribution of funds, it makes you wonder. Was it really a “mistake” that they were lumped in with consultees like Barnardos? After all, they were all consultees. Interestingly, the SDLP’s Margaret Ritchie will be the minister responsible for distributing this money to loyalist communities – her party is considering legal action to stop this happening, as Chris noted.

  • SuperSoupy

    Gonzo,

    The Brits clearly saw this coming as they fund dumped money on Protestant only projects in recent weeks. I believe they are called PUL projects. The UDA get money, the Community Conventions get money…pay them off before anyone holds these questionable projects to account…

    PUL – you’ve been PULing our legs.

  • The Dubliner

    [i]’Mrs Kelly says the funds violate the Northern Ireland Act, which bans public authorities from discriminating “against a person or class of person on the ground of religious belief”.’ – Irish Times[/i]

    It’s a strange point to argue that state money shouldn’t be used to fund projects that exclusively benefit one denomination when all states do exactly that. The Department of Education in NI funds a school system that is segregated by religion e.g. it funds the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, for example. In that sense, she can argue that money paid to catholic schools discriminates against protestant education and should also be withdrawn. I think she’s chasing her own tail here.

  • Rubicon

    Utter nonsense Dubliner. I’m no fan of state funding of sectarian education but a dual funding scheme that supports the educational needs of the 2 communities is a far cry from targeting funding on one community alone. The former is an inefficient mechanism but is the preference of one group of taxpayers. The latter is discriminatory funding that is illegal and uses the taxes of law-abiding citizens to fill the pockets of those who’ll murder them, beat them to death, extort their businesses, destroy areas and communities and sell their children drugs.

    I wish the SDLP well in taking legal action against all funding of paramilitary groups. It sullies the state and criminalises its citizens through involving them in aiding and abetting criminal organisations.

  • The Dubliner

    Rubicon, the distinction is pure semantics. The state has always discriminated by religion in how it allocates its resources. That is the normal operation of any state.

    If your argument is that the state should not give financial (or other) inducements to sectarian murders as a means of persuading them not to murder others, then I concur. That, however, is an entirely separate argument from claiming that the state shouldn’t allocate its resources by religious denomination. This isn’t money that was gifted to the state by an American billionaire with the proviso that it be distributed equally among the north’s citizens: it’s British taxpayer’s money and the state make allocate it as it deems fit.

    It is also an argument that the state has already conceded, not just by rewarding loyalists with funds but by rewarding PSF with political privilege, allowing them to retain the ill-gotten gains of their criminal empire, and releasing their gang members from prison, etc, and with a litany of other “sweeties” for the boys – all with the threat that they would continue to murder countless others if the state didn’t yield to their demands.

  • The Dubliner

    And before you rush in with more semantics to say that PSF/PIRA disarmed and loyalists did not: it is completely irrelevant since both are murder gangs and both are unrepentant – and both have been lavishly rewarded by the state for their criminality, nonetheless.

  • Comrade Stalin

    And before you rush in with more semantics to say that PSF/PIRA disarmed and loyalists did not: it is completely irrelevant since both are murder gangs and both are unrepentant – and both have been lavishly rewarded by the state for their criminality, nonetheless.

    You forgot that Sinn Fein has a mandate. The loyalists have no mandate and are consistently rejected at the polls. The UDA can’t even string together an assembly seat for themselves. Why fund an organization that people consistently reject ? Are the electorate trying to tell us something ?

  • Yokel

    Comrade Stalin

    In the words of Tony Blair to a member of the SDLP (rough translation) ‘the problem is that you don’t have guns’.

    You don’t need a mandate, you don’t need anything other than guns or the threat of using using guns. That is Blair World and its also a world that many here are prepared to accept, as long as its on their side.

  • Steaky

    Gonzo,
    “a £33m fund bribe for loyalists”
    poor choice of link used, that is for the conflict transformation initiative which involves the UPRG. The figure for this programme is £1.3m (only gives £400,000 per annum in the presser).

    The £33 Million comes from Renewing Communities, aimed mostly at Unionist areas but to call it a bribe to loyalists isnt accurate.

  • ejh

    it is completely irrelevant

    “We demand that people put down their guns. When they do, we call it irrelevant.”

  • peter

    How many millions did the provos get?

  • Concerned Loyalist

    “the SDLP’s Margaret Ritchie will be the minister responsible for distributing this money to loyalist communities – her party is considering legal action to stop this happening”

    Obviously the SDLP are sticking to their tried and tested formula of alienating Protestant communities (because that’s how they’re going to charm us into a so-called “united” Ireland you see). Obviously the Social Democratic and Labour Party could still just as accurately be described as the party that:

    Still
    .
    Don’t
    .
    Like
    .
    Protestants
    .

  • Obviously the SDLP are sticking to their tried and tested formula of alienating Protestant communities

    I think they manage to alienate some people from Protestant communities just by not being Protestants.

  • Concerned Loyalist

    “THE UVF and UDA are experts at extortion, so it was no real surprise when the government announced a £33m bribe for loyalists.”
    Belfast Gonzo @ 10:47 PM

    Using loaded language like the above is not helpful and what exactly does it contribute Belfast Gonzo? How can anyone have a civilised, erudite debate on a subject when your outlining of the subject in question is so biased? If you are commenting on the subject at a later stage then by all means give your personal opinion, but my problem is with the dogmatic approach you currently favour in your outlining of the thread. If you are initiating a subject/thread I believe you should do it objectively so a proper discussion can be had without you prejudicing it from the outset…

  • Concerned Loyalist

    I think they manage to alienate some people from Protestant communities just by not being Protestants.

    Posted by Justin Horton on Apr 19, 2007 @ 12:38 PM

    No, they do it by showing their true colours of base bigotry like above where they’re “considering legal action” to stop “distributing this money to loyalist communities”, money that our working-class areas are in dire need of…

  • ejh

    And of course they have no genuine reason to do so, do they?

  • Steaky

    I think the Renewing Communities Fund is safe, an enormous amount of effort, work and consultation was done previous to the initative in addition to an EQIA.

    However the 1.3million that the press release relates to is more controversial and is probably likely to come under the immediate attention of the new minister. Anything that involves the UPRG etc has nationalists and lets face it, many unionists eyeing it with suspicion.

  • Rubicon

    Concerned Loyalist – what are you concerned about? Aren’t you getting tax-payers money, still dealing drugs, still beating people to death, still destroying your own communities and still unelectable and unaccountable.

    You and yours are on the pigs back!

  • Concerned Loyalist

    Concerned Loyalist – what are you concerned about? Aren’t you getting tax-payers money, still dealing drugs, still beating people to death, still destroying your own communities and still unelectable and unaccountable.

    You and yours are on the pigs back!

    Posted by Rubicon on Apr 19, 2007 @ 02:59 PM

    I won’t even mertit the above comment with a response. “Rubicon” and his views represent everything that is wrong with our society – discrimination, prejudice and sectarianism…
    I would like to think one of the moderators would remove it asap as it is overtly racist and breaks the rule of playing the ball and not the man…

  • Munster Republic

    Quote ‘If special branch are not paying them someone else will have to’.

  • Roisin

    Rubicon,

    The Dubliner is a bit confused in his own version of ‘republicanism’. A couple of weeks ago he posted that the IRA post-1986 were no longer republicans but a sectarian nationalist group. His reasoning was that he claimed from 1986 on the IRA were seeking an internal six county solution and not an all Ireland republican solution, and that all killings they committed thereafter were sectarian, but before 1986 they weren’t sectarian. When I asked him if that meant the sectarian killings prior to 1986 committed by the IRA weren’t sectarian, he never replied. Don’t try to follow his logic, he can’t even follow it himself.

  • marty (not ingram)

    CL
    I would like to think one of the moderators would remove it asap as it is overtly racist and breaks the rule of playing the ball and not the man…

    What’s racist about it?

    If anything Rubicon has it spot on. Let’s see…

    * Aren’t you getting tax-payers money – check
    * still dealing drugs – check
    * still beating people to death – check
    * still destroying your own communities – check
    * still unelectable and unaccountable – check

    Doesn’t sound to good, does it?

  • qubol

    concerned loyalist: “is overtly racist”

    hmmmm, think you better check the meaning of racist.

  • Cahal

    Concerned Loyalist, seriously, are you for real?
    Or are you a republican trying to make prods look bad.

    As a SF voter, and a supporter of law and order (same thing these days ;-O), I expect the PSNI to crack down fully on armed UDA loyalist criminals, drug dealers, extortionists, murderers and rapists.

  • Rubicon

    Concerned Loyalist – I think you may need to rethink your Nome deplume if your going to be overly sensitive to remarks about loyalism.

    It s my contention that loyalists are a bunch of knuckle-dragging, drug-dealing, racketeering violent murderers that have no reason to exist apart from their own self-interest. It so happens that the vast majority in NI agree with me and governments reports confirm my descriptions to be accurate.

    That you (and yours) are now in receipt of one penny of public money appals me. It is a greater motivation to refuse the state my co-operation than the recent hikes in rates and the pending water rate that Bob McCartney would have me refuse to pay.

    Nothing in what I said was racist. What I point to are the behavioural aspects of those you support. If you don’t understand that yet then I think enforcement is the only option. That’s state enforcement of Her Majesty’s laws that you and yours have no regard for. I’m in no way expecting you to agree or even respect the law – you’ve shown scant regard for more fundamental principles that protect life, children and property.

    If state money is to be spent on you and yours it should be channelled through the police, the courts and the prison service.

  • Rubicon

    Roisin – I’m aware of Dubliner’s unusual view. His view on this occasion reveals an abhorrence with state sectarianism to the point of blindness. He’s correct in identifying state involvement in sectarian funding but that’s where his insight stops. For him, providing for the education of Catholic and Protestant children in the way that people want is equivalent to providing for only one of these groups, paying a stipend to the school bullies and doing so against the wishes of both communities.

    The comparison of loyalism with SF is a well worn argument stuck in a time warp. It ignore the moves made by SF and the IRA – that were once so relevant as to justify taking the political structures down. Now these moves are irrelevant. The Comrade has already made the valid point of SF having a mandate and loyalism having none. To Dubliner, these are all irrelevant.

    Pure brilliance really! One can only wonder what is relevant?

  • David

    It would seem the SDLP are raising objections so M. Ritchie can stop the funding for protestant areas. Then it can be redirected to catholic areas in vote bribing exercises. Civil Rights????? I think not when the SDLP is about.

  • The Dubliner

    [i]”The Dubliner is a bit confused in his own version of ‘republicanism’. A couple of weeks ago he posted that the IRA post-1986 were no longer republicans but a sectarian nationalist group. His reasoning was that he claimed from 1986 on the IRA were seeking an internal six county solution and not an all Ireland republican solution, and that all killings they committed thereafter were sectarian, but before 1986 they weren’t sectarian. When I asked him if that meant the sectarian killings prior to 1986 committed by the IRA weren’t sectarian, he never replied. Don’t try to follow his logic, he can’t even follow it himself.” – Roisin[/i]

    Roisin, there is a flaw in your thinking in that you assume that if the violence can be labelled ‘republican’ then it cannot be labelled sectarian. You incorrectly assume that the two words are antonyms. You also prefer to label the sectarian violence you support ‘republican’ because you feel that that label absolves you of sectarianism. That is merely a self-serving vanity and political expediency that has no basis in actuality. The violence you supported was not committed for a pluralistic purpose but rather for a purely sectarian purpose. In short, you did not support the sectarian murder of Protestants because you felt their best interests were served by bombing them into a united Ireland: you supported sectarian violence because you felt that campaign best served your sectarian (not pluralistic) interests.

    PSF/PIRA violence from the point at which the sociopaths who controlled it realised that it would not secure anything other than a sectarian bloodbath (would not secure a united Ireland) cannot be said to have had that militant republican purpose since, clearly, it did not. All PIRA violence from that point onward (and it could have been in the early 80s) had no republican purpose whatsoever. It was purely militant nationalist violence that was aimed at serving the interests of “the movement.” That is sociopathic sectarian murder in its vilest form. I’m not as kind to PSF/PIRA as those who put that date at 1996 (Ed Moloney) are. I tend to the view that republicanism was always used as a cover to disguise the true nature of the violent campaign by nationalists in the north. That part is debatable.

    It’s easier to call your self “republican” and see your murder campaign as semi-noble in purpose rather than to see yourself as being of the same murderous sectarian ilk as loyalists, isn’t it? Ah, the comfort of labels…

  • The Dubliner

    [i]”Roisin – I’m aware of Dubliner’s unusual view. His view on this occasion reveals an abhorrence with state sectarianism to the point of blindness. He’s correct in identifying state involvement in sectarian funding but that’s where his insight stops. For him, providing for the education of Catholic and Protestant children in the way that people want is equivalent to providing for only one of these groups, paying a stipend to the school bullies and doing so against the wishes of both communities.” – Rubicon[/i]

    Does it? I could have sworn I wrote in support of the state’s right to allocate funding as it sees fit. Just let me check…. “The state has always discriminated by religion in how it allocates its resources. That is the normal operation of any state.” Yup, I think you got that wrong, Ruby. Oh, and drop the third party narrative… I won’t bite you and it just makes you look weak if you write in agreement with another third party narrator.

    [i]”He’s correct in identifying state involvement in sectarian funding but that’s where his insight stops.” – Rubicon[/i]

    No, it is where your ‘sight’ stops. There is nothing improper in the state spending its own money for the exclusive benefit of the community to which it has allocated it. You seem to be of the view that a percentage of every cheque written by the state must be allocated on a pro rata basis to all sects within the state. Now, you might have a valid argument if the state used all of its cheques dispensing grants to one sect, but you don’t have that basis to support your claim, do you?

    [i]”The comparison of loyalism with SF is a well worn argument stuck in a time warp.” – Rubicon [/i]

    Time does not wither her…. nor is E=Mc2 rendered invalid by the passing of time. Truth, my friend, is not subject to time. And the particular truth you ignore is that the state has rewarded unrepentant murderers for criminality against the state and its citizens. This is not altered because loyalists war red hats and militant nationalists wear green hats – or any other irrelevant ad hoc details that are introduced to obfuscate or that the state improvises as a “litmus test” to make puppets think that the above principle doesn’t apply.

    [i]”It ignore the moves made by SF and the IRA – that were once so relevant as to justify taking the political structures down. Now these moves are irrelevant. The Comrade has already made the valid point of SF having a mandate and loyalism having none. To Dubliner, these are all irrelevant.” – Rubicon[/i]

    Yes, and Comrade Stalin has the spanner in the works: the citizens are just as guilty as the state.

    [i]”Pure brilliance really! One can only wonder what is relevant?” – Rubicon[/i]

    Yes, it is relevant not to politically sponsor or legitimise murdering scumbags. But that would mean we’d all have less of a circus to watch, wouldn’t it? Let the show go on… 😉

  • The Dubliner

    Slight correction: I’m not as kind to PSF/PIRA as those who put that date at [b]1986[/b] (Ed Moloney) are.

  • The Dubliner

    [i] I’ll simplify this point even more for you (as I know that your defence mechanism kicks in when confronted with objectionable truths). Physical force repubicanism, as practiced in Northern Ireland (where the society was roughly divided into two social groups), could never manifest itself in any form that couldn’t be defined as another synonym for sectarianism. Essentially, it was one social group using violence and demonisation to secure its own interests at the direct expense of the other social group. It was a zero-sum equation (one side wins and the other loses) that removed the pluralistic dynamic that is the hallmark to true Irish republicanism (and where “Protestant, Catholic and dissenter” are granted parity of esteem).[/i]

    I’ll simplify this point even more for you (as I know that your defence mechanism kicks in when confronted with objectionable truths). Physical force republicanism, as practiced in Northern Ireland (where the society was roughly divided into two social groups), could never manifest itself in any form that wasn’t sectarian. Essentially, it was one social group using violence and demonization to secure its own interests at the direct expense of the other social group (an apt definition of sectarianism). It was a zero-sum equation (one side wins and the other loses) that removed the pluralistic dynamic that is the hallmark to actual Irish republicanism.

    Members of PSF/PIRA did not use violence to seek the best interests of “Protestant, Catholic and dissenter”; they used violence to secure their own sectarian interests to the direct detriment of the other social group. It was a purely self-serving sectarian agenda by a minority social group that bore no valid comparison to the historical organisations whose names it stole (and defiled).

    The militant nationalists in Northern Ireland already had self-determination and electoral representation, so their claim to have launched their campaign to achieve those aims is invalid. It’s true that Northern Ireland was under British rule, but it is also true that reunification was a matter between the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain, and not a matter for a bunch of un-mandated violent thugs. Did the lunatics seriously think that the Irish government would accept Northern Ireland gift-wrapped in blood from said violent thugs or that the British government would withdraw as a result of their campaign? Undoubtedly some misguided (but unthinking) souls did, but treating such people is how mental health professionals make their living. I seriously doubt that the sociopaths who orchestrated the senseless sectarian violence did so for any purpose other than their own self-interests. Nothing about these thugs fits the proper definition of Irish Republican.

    The only logical outworking of its violence could have would be the outworking that was avoided by partition in 1921 i.e. civil war between catholic and protestant and the resultant ethnic cleansing. That logical outworking cannot be considered to be anything other than purely sectarian murder on a catastrophic scale. Ergo, those who used violence to engineer that outcome cannot be considered to be anything other than sectarian murderers.

    So, dearest Roisin, not only is ‘physical force republicanism’ (as the sectarian murderers in PSF/PIRA brand their campaign) not an antonym of ‘sectarianism’, it is, in fact, a synonym of it.

  • Rubicon

    “There is nothing improper in the state spending its own money for the exclusive benefit of the community to which it has allocated it.” (Dubliner)

    From the Office of the First & Deputy First Minister:

    “Section 75 and Schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 came into force on the 01 January 2000 and placed a statutory obligation on public authorities in carrying out their various functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity –

    between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation;
    between men and women generally;
    between persons with a disability and persons without; and
    between persons with dependants and persons without.

    In addition, without prejudice to this obligation, Public Authorities are also required to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, and racial group.”

    Dubliner, you may think proper for the state to allocate funds to the exclusive benefit of one community, the law suggests otherwise. A policy targeting funds for Protestant areas could be justified if an equivalent policy existing for Catholic areas. I’m not aware of any such funding programme and can think of no reason why a sectarian funding programme would be needed – EXCEPT that deprived unionist areas are blighted with a unique disease called loyalist paramilitaries.

    “And the particular truth you ignore is that the state has rewarded unrepentant murderers for criminality against the state and its citizens.” (Dubliner)

    Funding loyalism is not equivalent to recognising the mandate of a political party. SF was a minor player prior to the GFA. It has been SF’s movement towards exclusively democratic means that has been rewarded – first by the electorate and then by the state.

    “Yes, and Comrade Stalin has the spanner in the works: the citizens are just as guilty as the state. “ (Dubliner)

    So people who withheld support from SF are guilty of supporting criminality – having refused to support it? I think you’ll have to explain that one Dubliner. There is certainly a core of SF support that legitimised IRA activities but most of the support it has today did not.

    This state “rewarding” SF is a red-herring. “Rewarding” is pejorative and a thinly veiled attempt to justify funding loyalism (that is without a mandate) by claiming the state RECOGNISING SF’s mandate is not an obligation but a reward.

    Back to the point of this thread – why do Protestant areas in need of funding need a separate programme beyond the main government programme for Targeting Social Need? Most would support targeting social need – whether Catholic or Protestant.

    Unionist politicians have a poor record in tackling deprivation within their own areas. They have looked at the TSN programme with suspicion. The outcome is some dreadful social need occurring and echoing from one generation to the next. It is time unionism engaged with the problem of deprivation – they need to understand its causes and tackle these. Allocating funds because an area is “Protestant” is an avoidance of understanding and will fail as a consequence.

  • The Dubliner

    [i]“Section 75 and Schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 came into force on the 01 January 2000 and placed a statutory obligation on public authorities in carrying out their various functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity –

    between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation;
    between men and women generally;
    between persons with a disability and persons without; and
    between persons with dependants and persons without.

    In addition, without prejudice to this obligation, Public Authorities are also required to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, and racial group.” [/i]

    Yes, and they are doing this: it’s called writing separate cheques. One group gets a grant and another group gets a grant. It doesn’t address my comment: “You seem to be of the view that a percentage of every cheque written by the state must be allocated on a pro rata basis to all sects within the state. Now, you might have a valid argument if the state used all of its cheques dispensing grants to one sect, but you don’t have that basis to support your claim, do you?” At any rate, only the court may interpret the law, so this is not a matter that will be decided by you or I.

    [i]”I’m not aware of any such funding programme and can think of no reason why a sectarian funding programme would be needed – EXCEPT that deprived unionist areas are blighted with a unique disease called loyalist paramilitaries.” – Rubicon[/i]

    Again, I already said I agree with you on this point. However, it is a separate argument from claiming that the state shouldn’t allocate its resources by religious denomination. All states do that. It’s only a problem if they don’t treat all groups equally. Indeed, the Jewish community in Dublin received a nice grant recently – g-d forbid the Catholics hear tell of it and give the state hell.

    [i]”SF was a minor player prior to the GFA.” – Rubicon [/i]

    True, but they did rather well out of it for themselves, didn’t they? Top of their ‘reform’ agenda was to have all of their murderers unleashed upon society – and all of the murderers of the other sectarian murders gangs released along with them. Now, why was that done? Would it have been done under threat that if it wasn’t done then peace couldn’t be secured, i.e. they’d continue to murder others. Or was it done because we all have to kiss and make up? You can draw your own conclusions, but if you don’t accept that it was done under threat of murderers continuing to murder if their own interests weren’t served then….

  • The Dubliner

    Continued:

    [i]”It has been SF’s movement towards exclusively democratic means that has been rewarded – first by the electorate and then by the state.” – Rubicon [/i]

    Now that is spin. It was PSF threatening to murder a few thousand more of the state’s citizens if the state didn’t yield to its whims. PSF kept its sectarian murder campaign going for over a decade after they had decided to end it simply so that they could build up their political party during the interval. That is a hell of a lot of people slaughtered for no purpose other than to promote the political interests of PSF. Yes, do spin it too that the heads of the Army Council (Gerry and Martin) had a terrible job convincing themselves to cease their pointless sectarian murder campaign after they had already decided to cease it and that it took Gerry and Martin another 10 years of arguing with Gerry and Martin before Gerry and Martin agreed with Gerry and Martin that PSF’s political party was ready to reap the rewards of Gerry and Martin’s ceasefire. The sheep in PSF/PIRA would never be the type to vote 95% in support of policing, for example, since we all know that it took Gerry and Martin 9 years of arguing with Gerry and Martin before PSF/PIRA would persuade the 95% sheep to vote the way that Gerry and Martin told the sheep to vote. Lord, are not those two men saints with great perseverance and stamina? Interestingly enough, the only thing that PSF begged Tony Blair’s incoming government for in return for the second ceasefire (after they cancelled their first one and murdered several more, not to secure unity but to secure a favourable position for themselves in an internal settlement) was a seat for their bums at the negotiating table. Nope, not one mention of Irish unity was even made by PSF to Tony. Zero. Zilch. Zip. That doesn’t sound very ‘republican’ to me, but I guess Gerry and Martin changed their minds about wanting that, even if they fickle fools killed a few thousand for it (allegedly). Or may they just figured that partition served their best interests and, anyway, Tony would only say no so what was the point in even asking him, eh? Still, this is the party that nationalists choose to vote for.

    [i]“So people who withheld support from SF are guilty of supporting criminality – having refused to support it? I think you’ll have to explain that one Dubliner. There is certainly a core of SF support that legitimised IRA activities but most of the support it has today did not.” – Rubicon [/i]

    No, they’re guilty of voting for unrepentant criminals. Whether they see them as such or not is irrelevant to what they are: multiple murderers who have not repented. I think most PSF voters take a different view and think that if they label the Enniskillen bomb, for example, as “republican” then they don’t have to see the type of people they are actually voting for. Last week, PIRA (Gerry and Martin) issued a statement of regret for some murder they committed. That’s good, but it also implies that they don’t regret the other 2000, doesn’t it? Sickening.

    Anyway, I suspect that this (and your reply, if you make one) will be the last posts on this thread. I think my anti-Shinner rants are putting the punters off, do you?

  • Rubicon

    Dubliner – I enjoyed reading parts of your reply.

    Regarding SF and the IRA campaign, it doesn’t interest me whether it was sectarian or not. It was wrong.

    During the recent election campaign a SF election worker knocked on my brother’s door. The conversation went something like this:

    SF: – Can we rely on your vote in the election?
    Bro – No.
    SF – Why not?
    Bro. – I haven’t and don’t support your campaign of violence. I appreciate your support for the PSNI but regret you waited so long to do it. It’s good that you’ve moved on but I can’t vote for you.
    SF – I’m pleased you recognise we’ve moved on – why can’t you move on too?
    Bro. – Have you stopped commemorating the killings? No, you haven’t. I’m pleased you’ve stopped doing it but don’t ask me to support what you still celebrate.

    Fin.

    Dubliner, I think my brother and myself would agree with you on past IRA activity. I expect the association between SF and the violence of the past presents an impossible barrier for many nationalists. It’s not that ceasing the violence isn’t recognised and welcomed – but the commemoration of it that continues presents an impossible barrier. For you this is “unrepentant”. I don’t care much for repentance – it’s about as plausible as the Loyalists saying sorry.

    Given SF’s past I expect it’ll be impossible for them to recognise the past in the way you or I see it. Where we differ is that a state recognition of their mandate is required – its denial would give a greater cause for violence than any of SF’s previous rationales. In giving that recognition the state has provided for a better future. In no way do I see funding loyalism or targeting funds at Protestant areas (to the exclusion of Catholic deprived areas) as legitimate or legal. On this I expect we’ll not agree.

    I look forward to the SDLP putting this to the courts.

  • Rory

    “However, when an education board describes the two terrorist groups as a “mistake” that they were lumped in with consultees like Barnardos?”

    Mistake? There are some who think that a Divine mistake was made when, on an off day, God mistakenly breathed life into the murderous dead-beats.

  • Concerned Loyalist

    “you’ve shown scant regard for more fundamental principles that protect life, children and property.”

    Posted by Rubicon on Apr 19, 2007 @ 07:12 PM

    If I went was commenting under my real name here on Slugger instead of the pseudonym “Concerned Loyalist”, the above comment would be nothing short of libellous “Rubicon”, so be warned. You don’t know anything about me yet your prejudices dictate that I’m a thug and a neanderthal, comparing me to “knuckle-dragging, drug-dealing, racketeering violent murderers that have no reason to exist apart from their own self-interest.”

    Isn’t it great to see how much our country and the attitudes of it’s non-loyalist citizens has changed since the ceasefires of 1994? Loyalists are treated with so much respect nowadays and not like the “untermensch” they were prior to this period. I feel so proud that we’re now being treated as equals when it was members of our community that brought home to the Provos the realisation that they could never bomb us into a so-called “united” Ireland and that they would need to ditch the Amalite in favour of the ballot box…am I being ironic I hear you say?

    Our community want and deserve a lasting peace, the days of the gun and the bomb are in the past and we won’t let the republican haters and other dissident, maverick so-called “loyalists” divide us…Quis Separabit

  • Concerned Loyalist

    Ignore the word “went” at the beginning of the first line…

  • tasmin nipllethwaite

    the days of the gun are in the past eh concerned

    so why dont all your pals get rid of them or are they as I fear at the very core of their homo erotic get togethers?

  • gareth mccord

    Maybe its just me but do anyone of the representatives of the loyalist and republican bloggers admit “YOUR OWNS THE WORST”.
    Facts are the ira werent selling drugs to the protestant children and the uda werent selling to the nationalist children.
    The uvf have killed up to 30 people since their ceasesfire 80% protestants.
    The ira have killed more catholics than both the british army and ruc combined.
    I could go on and on but i think even the most ignorant loyalist and republican would say “ITS NOT JUST YOU GARETH”.

  • Concerned Loyalist

    “Facts are the ira werent selling drugs to the protestant children”

    You’re wrong there mate…

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Dubliner: “Yes, and they are doing this: it’s called writing separate cheques.”

    Ah, the not-so-fiction of “seperate, but equal…”

    CL: “If I went was commenting under my real name here on Slugger instead of the pseudonym “Concerned Loyalist”, the above comment would be nothing short of libellous “Rubicon”, so be warned. ”

    Ah, but you’re not posting under your own name, so what’s you point? Likewise, having claimed association and sympathy for drug-dealing, gun-running murders, some sort of commentary should be expected.

    Loyalism, on the whole, is disinterested in other folks human rights, full stop.

    CL: ” You don’t know anything about me yet your prejudices dictate that I’m a thug and a neanderthal, comparing me to “knuckle-dragging, drug-dealing, racketeering violent murderers that have no reason to exist apart from their own self-interest.” ”

    No, your chosen sobriquet identifies you as one who claims common-cause with “knuckle-dragging, drug-dealing, racketeering violent murderers that have no reason to exist apart from their own self-interest.” You lie down with dogs, you inevitably wake up with fleas.

    CL: “Our community want and deserve a lasting peace, the days of the gun and the bomb are in the past and we won’t let the republican haters and other dissident, maverick so-called “loyalists” divide us…Quis Separabit ”

    Riiiiiiiight. Which is why none of the Loyalist organizations have decomissioned their arms, ended their criminal activities, etc. Mayhap, when things are said and done, Loyalism has done more than it has said, you will be in a position to make moralistic pronouncements… but not before.