Dawn Purvis has a good cheerlead

I blogged in March about the suggestion that the PUP and UVF might split. They apparently were having a series of meetings. Now, however, Dawn Purvis is back in cheerleading mode. She states: “The important thing to note is that the UVF has lived up to its word and their commitment in that weapons have been put beyond reach and have not been used”

Explaining the complete lack of UVF decommissioning “The retention of weapons is probably an indication of the lack of confidence — that the dividends from peace have not materialised in loyalist working class areas.”
And on continuing criminality “I think there is less criminality. I think people are making a real effort to civilianise.
“They are not being allowed to play a full role,”

“So what sort of message does that send out to people who were involved in the conflict and who want a peaceful future?” she asked.
This issue, she said, is linked to the question of how to deal with Northern Ireland’s past.
“If we are trying to come to terms with the past, then people should be entitled to share in that future.”
“We should look at how we should remove those barriers.”

I find the idea that the UVF are attempting to civilianise yet still need guns almost amusing were it not so serious that a band of sectarian murderers and general criminals are in possession of firearms and a public representative sees fit to try to justify this. I suppose loyalist terrorist criminals do find themselves more confident with the threat of firearms in the background. I am sure it makes one much more confident when one has a bit of intimidation or other criminality to perform.
Ms. Purvis seems most distressed that loyalist paramilitaries find it difficult to find gainful employment. Maybe that is because they usually seem disinclined to work for a living like the rest of us: preferring the more lucrative and easier profits to be made from criminality.

Of course when Ms. Purvis laments the failure for the peace dividend to materialise for working class unionist communities she is correct. One of the biggest failures of peace for these areas is that the UVF and the other assorted members of the alphabet soup continue to exist. That is a major burden to the communities which the UVF et al. feed off like some sort of parasitical monster destroying their communities, selling drugs to their children, running protection and prostitution rackets and periodically assaulting or murdering predominantly members of the working class unionist community. Indeed Ms. Purvis is correct that these communities have seen too little of the peace dividend and it is her friends, for whom she cheerleads, that keep it that way.

  • Any possibility of ‘transformation’, Turgon?

    UVF > TUVF > TUV

  • Quiz master

    Cecil carvet and the orange volunteers springs to mind- DUP/TUV/OV

  • disappointed

    Another completely useless posting on slugger as the standard continues to drop and postings become more mundane and useless.

    With this post there is little actually to debate due to how this is written, it isnt really raising a point and asking for debate which is when things work best, this is a platform for a rant from the poster.

    On topic, I dont even think this qualifies as cheerleading, she said very little more than the IMC and they said it first so are they the cheerleaders?

    There will always be the type to take the worst out of any comment and twist it to suit their argument, it is a continual disappointment and slugger is infested.

  • truth and justice

    If you look at Unionist areas they are being rebuilt amd millions is being pumped into them as a result of the peace process the problem is the paramiltarys wont go away!

  • Jo

    “the idea that the UVF are attempting to civilianise yet still need guns ”

    2 points:

    I take it that this reflects a unionist belief that the IRA havent any guns.

    I would be of the view that in order to keep order in this sort of organisation, any element of it would indeed need guns as those dissarming or decommissioning would almost certainly be killed or at risk from that element unconvinced of the need or desirability of disarming.

  • Jo

    “this sort of organisation”

    By which I mean the UVF, whose political motivation, I think is generally agreed to be somewhat less identity-crucial than the IRA.

  • Turgon

    disappointed,
    I do not usually answer comments like yours. I am sorry that I have disappointed you.

    I freely admit to a particular loathing of loyalist paramilitaries. If you want a debate on loyalist paramilitaries how about this: They should go away, the police should pursue them relentlessly and they should be locked up for prolonged periods. Incidentally I have had a number of blogs debating loyalist paramilitaries just for starters: here, here and here.

    The blog merely answered Purvis’s remarks. If you want to debate that how about the problem of them getting jobs. Now let us see, I presume they still want to be able to afford 4x4s etc. I guess then we should ensure they all get jobs as stockbrokers and bankers, maybe as top hospital consultants (as long as they can do a lot of private work to get their salaries up), I guess if we let some become barristers, maybe some could be given large property portfolios to manage. Such hyperbole seems not actually that far from what the loyalist paramilitary leaders seem to want from society: money, power and respect. In their case of course they also want a bit of “street respect” and fear as well.

    I am by no means accusing you of supporting such a thing. I am pointing out that it is actually rather difficult to debate Purvis’s remarks as they are such patent nonsense.

    If there was an element of rant it is true: I despise loyalist paramilitaries and what they have done to working class loyalist areas and the way they have utterly destroyed their communities; making everyone who can get out and trapping the others in thraldom. But for the accident of birth into a middle class family I could have been trapped in such a community.

  • disappointed

    @Turgon

    I wasn’t really specifically talking about you, your post just happens to represent a growing trend, take for example paragraph 3 of your reply – that could have been written by any of the ranting random posters who come here to troll, which is where my disappointment comes in, I expect more or at least better quality from those chosen to ‘inform’ and ‘direct’ the debate here.

    “The retention of weapons is probably an indication of the lack of confidence — that the dividends from peace have not materialised in loyalist working class areas.” On reading the IMC report, they seem to agree with this.

    “I think there is less criminality. I think people are making a real effort to civilianise.” – Again also said by IMC

    “If we are trying to come to terms with the past, then people should be entitled to share in that future.” – Can anyone seriously disagree with this, especially given the role SF have, I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume that everyone gets a fair chance in the ‘new northern ireland’ – the point about barristers and property portfolios is a nonsense, surely she was talking a normalised role in the community and about fairer employment practices not suggesting we give away jobs!

    Purvis’ comments seem all very average to me and not at all worth a rant, sensible if not impressive on her part.

    She says that loyalist areas have not seen the full benefits, which is true, nowhere do I see a denial that paramilitaries have some responsibility for that.

    I live in a loyalist area, while sharing your dislike of paramilitaries, the problem is that they do not all fall into your or my neat boxes and many prove your theories wrong….by having jobs and trying to stop the other type, the scumbag gangsters from polluting the community.

    I would rather they both went away but life isnt as simple as your rant makes out.

    But even looking for it, I cant see anything in Purvis’ comments to anger me or stoke my dislike of paramilitaries further, as I say general fairly dull comments from her but none wrong.

  • Jo

    TG:

    I completely understand your atttiude to Loyalist paramilitaries but I think you underestaimte the level to which they received active support and sympathy during the Troubles.

    The golf club Prod may not have marched in ’74 – and God forbid they might have been filmed conversing and laughing with the UDA – but loads of former RUC men did exactly that. Why wouldnt they?

    It wasnt just Catholics who could see what happened in the UWC strike, but many ordinary, decent Prods, such as your good self.

    What many forget is that the RUC beat the UDA off the streets in 1977, in a strike organised by our soon to be ex-First Minister. It was the start of the professional police srvice we have today.

    Nonetheless, it wasnt the murder of Peter Ward in 1966 that triggered Unionist revulsion at paramilitaries, but a couple of bombs in Silent Valley (not IRA) that horrified the middle classes and wrecked the career of a decent, honest (if aloof) Unionist Prime Minister.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Disappointed, I think Turgon is trying to get across that he loathes loyalist paramilitaries.

    I have no trouble accepting that, but I have no tolerance for the idea that distancing yourself publicly from paramilitarism is some sort of solution. The fact remains that large numbers of people support the UVF/UDA, one way or another. Those supporters, with the exception of a rump who vote for their mouthpieces, all vote for unionist politicians.

  • Jo

    CS:

    “large numbers of people support the UVF/UDA, one way or another. ”

    Indeed.

    And though this number is probably less than it might have been in the 70s, what is one to make of it?

    Is part of the DUP vote similar to part of the SF vote in that some people believe in a violent solution (but hold their tongues)? I think, given disaffection from Paisley in the aftermath of the SAA, that those elements remain and that, sadly for Turgon, they could rally behind TUV.

  • TAFKABO

    Turgon

    I find it difficult to square you assertion to loathe Loyalist paramilitaries with your membership of an organisation called traditional Unionist voice.
    Surely Loyalist paramilitarism is one of the oldest unionist traditions we have?
    Then again, having them and playing lip service to denouncing them is also a great unionist tradition, so maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh?

    By the way, I speak as someone who was briefly a member of the PUP, but soon left when it became clear exactly how much the UVF tail was wagging the dog (or is that pup ?).

  • McKelvey

    “The blog merely answered Purvis’s remarks. If you want to debate that how about the problem of them getting jobs. Now let us see, I presume they still want to be able to afford 4x4s etc. I guess then we should ensure they all get jobs as stockbrokers and bankers, maybe as top hospital consultants (as long as they can do a lot of private work to get their salaries up), I guess if we let some become barristers, maybe some could be given large property portfolios to manage. Such hyperbole seems not actually that far from what the loyalist paramilitary leaders seem to want from society: money, power and respect. In their case of course they also want a bit of “street respect” and fear as well.”

    I suspect the average person in the unionist paramilitaries and more broadly the unionist working class, to which they are inextricably linked, would be content enough with reasonably secure employment with a wage high enough to ensure a stable life for themselves and to ensure reasonably good prospects for their children, something that had they, by accident of birth, been born into a middle class family they would likely have.

  • disappointed

    Comrade stalin

    This is part of my point about the simplictistic nature of the post nothing purvis said was controversial or cheerleading as I said all fairly sensible if dull and nothing the IMC didn’t say so this doesnt even qualify her as a mouthpiece.

    She has about 3000 votes and I would guess that many of them were middle class votes who felt guilty for nor supporting ervine while he was alive and a smattering of female voters

    I would estimate UVF associated people in east Belfast past, present members and family could number 10,000 thats without factoring in supportive community members so it is the DUP and to a lesser extent the UUP who are mouthpieces and or cheerleaders. If anything I would see a purvis vote as one against the UVF she is clearly not one of them, a much further step away than ervine.

  • gareth mccord

    Again we hear a load of crap from P.U.P./U.V.F. puppet purvis. A simple question for her and her friends is why wont the U.V.F. issue a statement saying they are not targeting my father?
    Then try and tell me the U.V.F. have and are going to be on ceasefire.
    Why have the U.V.F. failed to address the paid killers in their ranks? Simple they are all as corrupt and paid for as Davy “Denial” Ervine.
    If puppet purvis is serious about the U.V.F. now behaving then will she walk with our family into Mount Vermin Rathcoole New Mossley Monkstown and the Shankill to show the reality that is the U.V.F. and the guns and intimidation will always be in our areas.
    Puppet Purvis actually thinks the U.V.F. deserve credit for not killing anyone lately what a joke!!
    She actually defends murderers that cant get jobs? Maybe she should tell her scummy friends that they should be grateful they are alive not like their victims or the families seeking justice for their actions.
    If the U.V.F. were in a war against the I.R.A. defending their communities then why have they killed up to 27 protestants since their ceasefire?????
    How many I.R.A. members did the U.V.F. kill my guess would be very little and pointless.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Jo,

    Is part of the DUP vote similar to part of the SF vote in that some people believe in a violent solution (but hold their tongues)? I think, given disaffection from Paisley in the aftermath of the SAA, that those elements remain and that, sadly for Turgon, they could rally behind TUV.

    I think a lot of unionist politicians regard the loyalists as “understandable” and a “reaction” to republicanism. Some of them are even stupid enough to say it out loud, like Ruth Patterson. Others do what Peter Robinson did and turn up at their marches, or like William McCrea did and turn up on a podium in a show of solidarity.

    As disappointed mentioned, the UVF and UDA supporters all turn out and vote, and they did so before the PUP/UDP/etc existed. It’s not hard to guess who they might be voting for, and I’m damn sure the TUV will be high on the list. I remember during the last election the UDA were telling their supporters to vote for Bob McCartney.

  • disappointed

    comrade stalin

    there is no “before the PUP..” needed when the PUP was formed they may have started to vote for them but due to the left of centre and open minded PUP policies moved wholesale to the DUP so the PUP have never been the ‘voice of the UVF’ that people slap them with, if aything the DUP speak for the UVF or as you say…could move to be TUV but I doubt it.

  • disappointed

    @Gareth McCord

    This is copy and pasted from the Assembly website for 28th April 2008, what is wrong with this? where were all the other unionists, actually she seemed to be the only one supportive of the motion.

    “Ms Purvis:

    When the Police Ombudsman released her 2007 report on the investigation into the circumstances of the death of Raymond McCord Jnr, society was shocked by its contents. However, the Progressive Unionist Party and I were not surprised. The late David Ervine consistently and continually raised with Government Ministers and Secretaries of State — from 1992 or 1993 onwards — the manipulation of some loyalist paramilitaries by RUC Special Branch. We consistently demanded an investigation and, although the dogs on the street knew the truth, Secretaries of State and Government Ministers did not seem to notice.

    The report highlights the failure of some RUC Special Branch handlers to uphold law and order and to perform their duties with integrity and honesty. That failure allowed informants to, literally, get away with murder. I am disappointed that so few unionists are in the Chamber to contribute or listen to the debate. When the report was released, I said that the unionist community needed to wake up and smell the coffee; they needed to lift the rocks and look underneath. Those in working-class loyalist areas know the truth — and it is indefensible.

    I want to put on record — as the Police Ombudsman did at the time — that I welcome the changes made by the PSNI since 2003 to secure effective management of covert human intelligence sources. The Policing Board must ensure that those recommendations are implemented and reviewed regularly. The report has had ramifications for wider society and has challenged how we collectively deal with the past. Although the House has not yet reached consensus, I look forward to further debate on that matter.

    My party has consistently condemned threats against or intimidation of the McCord family. Although we do not agree entirely with the family’s approach, the killers of Raymond McCord Jnr must face justice. I encourage those with the ability to assist the police with their investigations to do so.”

  • gareth mccord

    Dissapointed you should be as what murders or attempted murders since the 1994 ceasefire by the u.v.f. has the p.u.p. said it was the u.v.f.???
    Why didnt the p.u.p. co-operate with the ombudsman report???
    Wake up and smell the spin!