“encouraging support for an illegal organisation…”

The Belfast Telegraph report, transcribed by Newshound, has some details of the arrest of Marian Price and the subsequent search of her house.  But the reports of the charge she now faces, encouraging support for an illegal organisation, link it specifically to the 32 County Sovereignty Movement’s Easter Monday rally in Londonderry – where she was the main speaker.

Just as she was in 2010.

As the News Letter report notes

The PSNI said this morning that a 57-year-old woman, understood to be Ms Price, will appear in Londonderry Magistrates Court tomorrow, Monday 15 May.

Police said she was being charged in relation to her involvement in an Easter Monday Parade on 25 April in Londonderry, specifically, encouraging support for a proscribed organisation.

A spokesman said she had been arrested by the PSNI Serious Crime Branch in west Belfast on Friday, under section 12.3 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

That particular section (12.3) notes

(3) A person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting and the purpose of his address is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or to further its activities.

Marian Price, her sister, Dolours, and Sinn Féin MLA Gerry Kelly, were convicted for their involvement in a Provisional IRA bombing campaign in London in 1973.

Meanwhile, a 25-year-old man from Lurgan and a 26-year-old woman from Armagh will appear in Lisburn Magistrates Court on Monday charged with encouraging acts of terrorism.

Again from the News Letter report

The 25-year-old man from Lurgan, and the 26-year-old woman from Armagh, will appear before Lisburn Magistrates Court on Monday. The PSNI said each had been charged with one count of encouraging acts of terrorism under section one of the Terrorism Act.

The report doesn’t specify it, but that can only mean section one of the Terrorism Act 2006, since section 1 of the 2000 Act concerns “Terrorism: interpretation”.

That particular section, of the 2006 Act, which includes a ban on the glorification of acts of terrorism, was the subject of some controversy at the time.

Update The BBC are now reporting that

The secretary of state has revoked the release from prison on licence of Old Bailey bomber Marian Price.

Owen Paterson said he made the decision because the threat posed by Price had “significantly increased”.

According to the report

In a statement Mr Paterson said: “My priority is the safety of the people of Northern Ireland.

“The Government will not hesitate to use all the powers at its disposal under the law to counter the residual terrorist threat.”

Further Update  A BBC report on the pair who were charged with “encouraging acts of terrorism under section one of the Terrorism Act[2006]” notes

The charges are connected to interviews they gave to Channel 4 News last year.

Both were released on bail of £500 each on condition that they report twice weekly to their local police station, do not give media interviews or make public statements, and do not take part in any illegal parades.

Final Update  According to Sinn Féin

“Marian Price is entitled to due process and the revoking of her licence is completely unacceptable.

The move by Owen Patterson amounts to detention without trial; this runs contrary to natural justice. The justice system needs to be based on human rights protection; the revoking of Marian Price’s licence runs contrary to that.

We have already raised our concerns on this issue with the British Secretary of State and will do the same with the Justice Minister as a matter of urgency.”

It’s not the Northern Ireland Justice Minister’s call…

Final Final Update  From the Northern Ireland Secretary of State’s statement

The Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, has revoked the life licence of Marian McGlinchey after she was charged with offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and following the recommendation of the Parole Commissioners that the risk of serious harm posed by Marian McGlinchey has increased significantly.

Mr Paterson has used the powers conferred on him by Parliament in the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.

Mrs McGlinchey has the right to make representations to the Parole Commissioners which they will consider.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Cynic2

    Politics for slow learners

  • perseus

    the shifting goal-posts of the legal arm of the law.
    where what’s acceptable changes too with the times there in it.

    To tie it all up with a ribbon and bow
    make April 1914 (whence home rule was due to take place )
    the date of Irish Independence!
    acceptable also to unionists;
    who may wish to return to the fold,

    the renting of ireland into two parts
    and the sinking of the titanic.
    can thus be observed with memories cleansed
    by a positive unity referendum to coincide.

    Neat !
    by slugger’s unofficial unionist outreach worker 😉

  • lamhdearg

    in 1995, jonny adira was charge with directing terrorism, martin and gerry where not.

  • granni trixie

    Looks to me like they are keeping “certain people” out of ahem ‘harms way’ for the Queens visit.

  • Cynic2

    lamhdearg

    If it were in English it would have more impact

  • Cynic2

    Granni

    Hopefully for perhaps 5 years if convicted

  • Comrade Stalin

    in 1995, jonny adira was charge with directing terrorism, martin and gerry where not.

    For the sake of accuracy, Jonny Adair was charged with directing terrorism after he allowed himself to be secretly taped boasting about organizing murders and attacks to uniformed police officers.

    SF were never quite that stupid.

  • changeisneeded

    “encouraging support for an illegal
    organisation…

    isn’t that what the queen is doing with the UDA in Dublin?

  • anne warren
  • Rory Carr

    Naughty, Changeisneeded. But nice. Very nice indeed.

  • Alias

    “encouraging support for an illegal organisation…”

    I thought that referred to the UK’s head of state and Ireland’s head of state inviting a proscribed murder gang – the UDA – to a ceremony at the Garden of Remembrance. That murder gang is still involved is serious criminality according to the 25th report from the IMC, and it is still an illegal organisation according to UK statute.

    Will we see the law applied equally or are some above it?

  • Mark McGregor

    As noted above; we await the International arrest warrant for the McAleeses and the PSNI swooping on the UVF mural painters etc…..what, they are the right sort of ‘terrorist’ supporters?

  • Alf

    “isn’t that what the queen is doing with the UDA in Dublin?”

    Change,

    Isn’t Dublin in the ROI? If you want to point the finger of blame then you are pointing it in the wrong direction. Her Majesty does not control the guest list for her visit.

  • latcheeco

    Anything to do with Boston College?

  • changeisneeded

    i ain’t pointing no fingers alfie.. you seem a tad miffed at my suggestion…..

  • Alf

    change,

    I’m just pointing out that you are wrong. The blame lies at the door of the ROI authorities. I suppose that given their own history they are more tolerant of sectarian terrorists than we are.

  • andnowwhat

    And yet they invite the UDA to the party?

  • Crubeen

    Comrade S,

    “For the sake of accuracy, Jonny Adair was charged with directing terrorism after he allowed himself to be secretly taped boasting about organizing murders and attacks to uniformed police officers.

    SF were never quite that stupid.”

    Providing you discount the Boston Archive …. ahem!

  • RNU Criticise British Attempt to Criminalise Irish Republicanism

    REPUBLICAN NETWORK for UNITY (RNU) spokesperson, Martin Óg Meehan has strongly criticised the charging of three Irish citizens including Veteran Republican, Marion Price as an attempt to criminalise the voice of radical republicanism.

    Mr. Meehan said; “These ridiculous charges against Ms. Price and two members of Republican Sinn Fein are a travesty of justice and designed to limit the growth of radical republicanism in British occupied Ireland. The blatant use of Political Policing, Special Legislation and Non-Jury Courts will not achieve the end of progressive political activities. On the contary, they will breed further resistance”.

    The RNU Ard Chomhairle member concluded; “We call on those genuinely interested in free speech against oppression and imperialism to rally behind the Irish Republican message and expose the British denial of the Irish people’s right to national self-determination”.

  • Mac

    “I’m just pointing out that you are wrong. The blame lies at the door of the ROI authorities.”

    Do you honestly believe that guests are not cleared with the relevant UK authorities when it comes to who the queen will be rubbing shoulders with? Are they really so cavalier with the queen’s person that they don’t ask for a list of attendees so that they can veto anyone they feel is unsuitable?
    This isn’t a chance meeting between Straw and Mugabe in a packed UN corridor. It’s the most significant visit to the ROI by a British person in the last century.

    But don’t let a little thing like thinking about it get in the way of the chance to paint a whole country in a manner that reinforces your own little prejudices.

  • Alf

    Mac,

    The visit is taking place in the ROI and therefore the decisions on who attends are ultimately the remit of the ROI government. I’m sure Her Majesty’s people were consulted on the matter, but the decisions were made by the Irish. The Duke of Edinburgh does not go golfing with the UDA. McAleese’s husband does. Do the math.

    Btw it was Change who was applying his prejudices to Her Majesty. In a ridiculous manner.

  • Mac

    “he visit is taking place in the ROI and therefore the decisions on who attends are ultimately the remit of the ROI government”

    Nonsense
    Leaving aside the obvious blood sucking analogies, is the queen a vampire? Does she become powerless by crossing a body of water, does he just have to suck it up as regards who is present or not? (that’s probably a pun too many, but well)

    Are we expected to believe that the most significant visit she’s made in decades has had no input for the UK government and her staff? That they are powerless to object if the country she was visiting decided the guest list was to comprises entirely of people she found objectionable?

    Not much of a head of state is she?

  • Alf

    Mac,

    Ireland isn’t much of a state if the evil Brits are dictating who turns up at their state events.

  • Mac

    “Ireland isn’t much of a state if the evil Brits are dictating who turns up at their state events.”

    You see, disagreeing with you doesn’t mean I disagree with which of the two states dictates the plan of events whilst the other has no input. I’m disagreeing with the notion entirely.

  • changeisneeded

    Here Alf. You are a bit sensitive tonight…pull those union knicker outa yer arsecraic

    Now i know the ROI are supposed to have made the guest list (with input from the NIO etc.. im sure,) not denying that..

    But if your queenie turns up, meets and has her photo taken with a bunch of UDA boyos then surely she is breaking her own laws…ie. she is giving them support by legitimising their position..

    take off the ould blinkers there ye boy ye and dont be so defensive….

  • lamhdearg

    In 1995 Jonny adIRA was charged with directing terrorism, gerry and martin where not.
    Any better CYNIC.

  • Alf

    “You see, disagreeing with you doesn’t mean I disagree with which of the two states dictates the plan of events whilst the other has no input. I’m disagreeing with the notion entirely.”

    Mac,

    I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

  • Alf

    “But if your queenie turns up, meets and has her photo taken with a bunch of UDA boyos then surely she is breaking her own laws…ie. she is giving them support by legitimising their position..”

    change,

    The only person likely to be posing for photos with the UDA ‘boyos’ is the husband of the President of the ROI, who happens to be BFF with their CO.

  • changeisneeded

    ahhh that was worth it though……..thanks slugger….i promise to be good from now on…!

  • Mac

    “I have no idea what you are trying to say here.”

    It’s been explained multiple times, but I’ll give it another go as you seem a bit slow tonight.

    Your hissy fit on behalf of the queen is based on the idea that the UK authorities had no input, veto, or were even informed for that matter, on who she would be rubbing shoulders with.
    It’s a silly idea, and you only cling to it to fuel prejudices you were already displaying.

    To subscribe to your view, a person would have to swallow the idea that the planning of one of the most significant/contentious trips the queen has made in her time in office required the UK authorities to relinquish all control over the trip and just sit back and agree to everything proposed by the ROI without so much as the right to disagree.

    It’s nonsense.

  • lamhdearg

    To suggest that a visiting head off state(or that side) is in total control off the guest list is nonsense.

  • Cynic2

    “REPUBLICAN NETWORK for UNITY (RNU)”

    what a delicious name – so symbolic

  • Zachariah Tiffins Foot

    Given the shinners have absented themselves I suppose the understudies had to be called. Without a few thugs in suits in attendance it wouldn’t have been a proper Irish political event.

  • granni trixie

    An interesting aspect is how SF have changed their tune in responding to the visit eg GA patronising remarks about Queenie “lets face it shes a little old lady” and “SF is not about elites”. My take on this is that SF is reflectiing a more accurate reading of the current mood of the people in the South – they have moved on – want less of the rhetoric of the past than good relationships.SF also want to distiinguish themselves from how the dissidents see the Queens visit.

  • Mac

    “To suggest that a visiting head off state(or that side) is in total control off the guest list is nonsense.”

    I agree, but then again, why wouldn’t I, it’s not like I suggested it, that would have been Alf.

  • Nunoftheabove

    ArdEoin Republican

    You are much more likely to put off anyone likely to be interested in this case and any possible freedom of expression issue and unreasonable legal infringement with reference to your puerile sloganeering. You don’t help your cause – still less Ms Price’s case – at all with this self-pitying, solipsistic, distorted and heavily exaggerated rubbish. You’re also of course routinely stating opinion as fact. That’s what spoilt children and grownups with character disorders do mate.

    You clearly imply that something is being denied to the Irish people (meaning either all of them or the majority of them, or perhaps one particular definition of Irish persons) that there is no substantial evidence – of any kind – that they currently either feel badly bereft as a consequence of being denied or even feel any great sense of denial at all about. Let’s be clear, the obstacle to the (very particularly formulated) form of national self-determination that you insist on having (whether anyone else wants it or not) could rightly be said to be the British government….but that’s an irrelevance while there is no groundswell of opinion in favour of that outcome on the island of Ireland to begin with. When there is and if/when the British are resolutely determined to deny that, if needs be by force and in violation of international law, then you can reach for your pea-shooter.

    One doesn’t need to be a republican or an anti-imperialist to take an interest in and at least consider lending one’s support to Ms Price – why introduce all this silly white noise when the issue may or may not be perfectly capable of supporting its own weight ?

  • Zachariah Tiffins Foot

    The BBC is reporting that Price has had her early release licence revoked and she’s on her way back to chokey! Result!

    The first of many one hopes

  • Crubeen

    Zachariah,

    “The BBC is reporting that Price has had her early release licence revoked and she’s on her way back to chokey! Result!”

    Well! Certainly for the lawyers! Watch for the Judicial Review!

  • Pete Baker

    Update The BBC are now reporting that

    The secretary of state has revoked the release from prison on licence of Old Bailey bomber Marian Price.

    Owen Paterson said he made the decision because the threat posed by Price had “significantly increased”.

    According to the report

    In a statement Mr Paterson said: “My priority is the safety of the people of Northern Ireland.

    “The Government will not hesitate to use all the powers at its disposal under the law to counter the residual terrorist threat.”

  • granni trixie

    Now that this story has arisen,wasn’t it odd that it was not adequately explained why the Price sisters were being released. Seemed to be due to the mysterious influence of Lord Longford and as the authorities wanted to avoid another own goal (in the wake of the Hunger Strike. Looks like they were aneorixic and went on hunger strike. They were also force fed, which I think lead to a change in the law so that in future noone in jail could be force fed.

    Memory on which this interpretation is based may be at fault here. (but what’s new on Slugger?)

  • granni trixie

    oops ..ought to have clarified at the outset …I was referring to the release of the Price sisters around 1983.

    I also seem to have mixed up an aneorixic condition and hunger strike. Infact I read somewhere about them having an eating disorder,separate from their act of striking.

    Strikes me that Marion Price has resurrected a whole identity constructed from the past. But then maybe like Mairead Farrell she wants it that way – and no new start.

  • Alias

    Well, it does show the utter contempt for which the right to free speech is now held by the NI statelet. That is as great a violation of human rights as any that occured in the run up to the troubles, and confirms that the state is more respressive now than it was before.

  • Alias

    “To suggest that a visiting head off state(or that side) is in total control off the guest list is nonsense.”

    That might be relevant in defence if she didn’t have prior knowledge that she would be “encouraging support for an illegal organisation…” However, she is now aware that she would be encouraging support for the UDA by meeting them. If she chooses t meet them regardless, then that is a willing act.

  • Alias

    Why is it an abuse of free speech if it is an agreed part of her parole licence? Not that in general I disagree, abuses do take place, check recent uproar over super injunctions. I’m just not convinced that this is such an abuse.

    I’m a bit surprised that Marian Price would encourage anyone to do anything against the democratic process. She must see that it is working better than anything she did in the past.

  • Crubeen

    Alias,

    “Well, it does show the utter contempt for which the right to free speech is now held by the NI statelet. That is as great a violation of human rights as any that occured in the run up to the troubles, and confirms that the state is more respressive now than it was before.”

    Free speech is not to be confused with sedition. The charges allege that she is “encouraging support for an illegal organisation” that advocates violence to achieve its political ends thus breaching the most fundamental human right of all – the right to life.

  • Alias

    It is an abuse of free political speech as she is not allowed to freely express her ideas, and is sanctioned by the statelet under draconian legislation for doing so.

  • Alias

    Crubeen, unionists are fond of pointing out that Paisley, Robinson and Trimble, et al, expressed ideas or lent support to dubious causes and oganisations but that such ‘incitement’ wasn’t the same as commiting crinimal acts. Why the different standard for Ms Price?

  • andnowwhat

    Zachariah Tiffins Foot (profile) 16 May 2011 at 9:25 am
    Given the shinners have absented themselves I suppose the understudies had to be called. Without a few thugs in suits in attendance it wouldn’t have been a proper Irish political event.

    I thought Fianna Fail were invited?

  • Zachariah Tiffins Foot

    Apparently Chamberlain had also not read that piece of paper given to him by that German chappy. If he had even glanced at it before he waved it around at Heston Aerodrome he would have known it read ” we’re heading for Poland you English swinehund”.

  • Dewi

    They were not released Ms Trixie – transferred to prison in NI.

  • granni trixie

    Dewi: that may be the case but am I wrong in thinking that there is mystery concerning why they were then released before their sentence was up?

  • Dewi

    I thought it was Dolours only…let me check…

  • Dewi

    Apologies – both released in 1980:

    “In 1980 she received the Royal Prerogative of Mercy and was freed on humanitarian grounds suffering from anorexia nervosa.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1378002/Marion-Price-voice-of-extremism.html

  • Crubeen

    Alias,
    “It is an abuse of free political speech as she is not allowed to freely express her ideas, and is sanctioned by the statelet under draconian legislation for doing so.”

    It is for a Court to decide whether she was exercising her right to free speech OR ““encouraging support for an illegal organisation”. It is reported that a police segeant stated in Court that she “she held a piece of paper for a masked man who read a speech from it.” Her lawyer argued that “she had been asked to hold it because it was a windy day and that she had no idea what the speech contained.”

    I do wonder why one has to be masked to exercise a right to free speech

    All quotes: – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13404212

  • granni trixie

    Dewi: thanks for the link,it is an aide memoire. It still is curious that the sisters were released “on humanarian grounds of their anexeria nervosa”. There is more to come out on this I am sure now that by her actions Marion P has revived the story of how they planted 4 bombs. How can they not have learnt from mistakes made when they were young?

    I took an interest in the case as in the 80s it was divisive in the teacher training college on the Falls Rd they (and I) attended. Their training ended prematurely when they were placed in the care of HM prisons. Later there were also rumours about the case and why the sisters were released. Also keep going in WB because Stephen Rea and Dolores were said to be living in an estate up the Glen Rd (where I lived).

    And good grief Dewi..not often my memory gets it right!.

  • joeCanuck

    anorexia nervosa?

    Something stinks. All of the hunger strikers could have had that diagnosis!

  • It looks to me as though Ms Price fell off the head of the pin she was dancing on.

    It was windy so the heavily disguised man she was standing beside asked her to hold the paper… Hmm. Or she tried to take the p**s, the wind blew from the wrong direction and she got caught in the shower.

    If she was released under licence, she had to agree to the terms of that licence.

  • Pete Baker

    Further Update A BBC report on the pair who were charged with “encouraging acts of terrorism under section one of the Terrorism Act[2006]” notes

    The charges are connected to interviews they gave to Channel 4 News last year.

    Both were released on bail of £500 each on condition that they report twice weekly to their local police station, do not give media interviews or make public statements, and do not take part in any illegal parades.

  • granni trixie

    And whilst pondering their medical condition dont forget there was a role played by Lord Longford, who appeeared to teke a shine to them, visiting them in jail I think. Seem to remember it was a Catholic thing (wasnt he a convert?).
    The morality of compassion in his trying to influence a decision to release them to me is overidden by their actions since they were released.

  • tacapall

    Is this not the same woman who alledged Gerry Adams give the order for her to carry out certain acts, seems no-one took any notice because it was claimed Marion was, well not all there, so is she ok now, can we now take it those accusations she made are being investigated upon.

  • Crubeen

    Granni,

    “Also keep going in WB because Stephen Rea and Dolores were said to be living in an estate up the Glen Rd (where I lived).”

    According to IMDB Stephen Rea was married to Dolours Price for twenty years – two kids and divorced in 2003: –

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001653/bio

  • granni trixie

    NO it is not the same women,this women is MARION Price-McGlinchey whilst Dolores Price-Rea is the person you are referring to. And dont you remember previous posts on Slugger debating SF/GA strategic line that people such as Brendan Hughes and Dolores Price who maintined thatg GA was in the IRA “were off their heads” (due to drink and mental health issues, any wonder if this is so?).
    Its an old tactic,not rocket science. Trust you are innocently repeating this line Tiscali,not part of the propaganda machine?

  • granni trixie

    Crubeen: yes I was aware that some time ago that they had moved ‘down south’ (Dublin or Dundalk,somewhere like that (a man fixing my roof in recent years told me hat they had split up but where living not togrether but near each other!).

    But really what for me is the issue is how the current Marion Price case shows that some people dont appear to have wised up.

  • Alias

    “It is for a Court to decide whether she was exercising her right to free… ”

    Indeed, and it is the full jurisdiction of the High Court to decide all matters of law and fact (Article 34.3.1). So it is also for a court to decide if you have a beard or not. Would you not dare to deduce yourself this by consulting a dictionary and a mirror?

    “I do wonder why one has to be masked to exercise a right to free speech”

    No, you just have to make sure that your free political speech is state-approved, and promotes British national interests, not undermines them.

    Pippakin, the issue is free political speech and the censorship of it by the British state. This censorship is delivered by a threat to remove basic civil liberties from those who use political speech to promote ‘republianism.’

    This speech is censored by the British state because it has used its murder gang to redefine ‘republianism’ as a political movement that formally rejects the former right of the Irish nation in that part of the Unied Kingdom to national self-determination and as a movement that supports jurisdiction.

    Those who point out that ‘republianism’ does not mean ‘contented constitutional catholics within a legitimised British state’ are regarded as deeply unhelpful to the promotion of British national interests, and so they are harrassed by the British state.

    To put your blinkers and advance the British state’s claim that British law, however that foreign state determines it, must be complied with by Irish nationalists to the calculated detriment of Irish nationalism is to completely miss the wider point about violation of basic human rights and the self-serving purpose for which the British state violates that right.

    Now, if you are so anal about British law, why don’t you demand that the head of the British state should be arrested for “encouraging support for an illegal organisation” under the same draconian legislation as Ms Price? The UDA is an illegl organisation, still actively involved in criminalty, so lets see you demand that all are equal before the law and that the law is not applied arbitrarily or maliciously? Not likely, is it?

  • Alias

    Sorry about the typos above.

    Now the key point about how the British state applies its law arbitrarily to censor free political speech that does not promote its national interests but does not apply its law when it is violated to promote British national interests could not be more glaringly obvious from the arrest of Mr Price for associating with a non-approved llegal group and the lauding of Ms Windsor for associating with a state-approved illegal group. Or is the critical difference that Ms Windsor should take great care not to hold a UDA brigadeer’s speech?

  • granni trixie

    Surely the point is that of one accepts the rule of law, then a person knows they can have their license revoked should one return to what got them into troujble in the first place? Lifers are in this position. Thhis is the reality. Comply or else. Plus even with freedom of speech one is not allowwed under the law to incite people to hatred. Price now has the opportunity to show evidence she was not part of incitement. (I know, it was the weathers fault she w3as holding the paper).

  • Alias

    Spare me the flannel. I am saying that in order for Ms Price to be released from prison she, as far as I know, must have agreed to the terms of the licence granted. If that is the case then she recognised the state to win her freedom and must continue to recognise its rules to keep that freedom.

    Life sentence prisoners are not just released, regardless of status, they are on lifetime parole. Ms Price must have known the risks. I’m not about to sympathise with someone who has no problem killing or encouraging others to kill. I don’t care which side they are on.

  • Pete Baker

    Final Update According to Sinn Féin

    “Marian Price is entitled to due process and the revoking of her licence is completely unacceptable.

    The move by Owen Patterson amounts to detention without trial; this runs contrary to natural justice. The justice system needs to be based on human rights protection; the revoking of Marian Price’s licence runs contrary to that.

    We have already raised our concerns on this issue with the British Secretary of State and will do the same with the Justice Minister as a matter of urgency.”

    It’s not the Northern Ireland Justice Minister’s call…

  • Skinner

    Alias

    It seems you cannot see the difference between (1) a prisoner out on licence attending a terrorist rally and assisting a man to issue threats to kill; and (2) a head of state being invited to visit another country, where she may or may not be in the company of other invitees of that state who are members of a terrorist organisation but who have declared that they will not kill people anymore.

    Please stop trying to manufacture some injustice out of this scenario because there really isn’t any.

  • Rory Carr

    I am indebted to Skinner (and indeed delighted to learn) that the UDA “have declared that they will not kill people anymore.” Indeed so taken am I with this glowing example of man’s ability to control his grosser appetites that I have decided that I will also promise to do my very best not to kill anybody – for at least the rest of the week.

  • Skinner

    Good man Rory

  • braveheart

    The Queen today remembered the Irishmen who fought for Independence. Is she not encouraging support for an illegal organisation? Should she be arrested?

  • Alias

    Skinner, thanks for the laugh. It is not for an illegal organisation to self-declare that it is in compliance with the law. That is a ‘reserved matter.’ Last time I looked, the UDA was still a proscribed organisation.

    Stil, if Ms Windsor wants to offer support to an organisation that is comprised of drug-pushers, pimps, exhortionists, and murders then she can exercise her human rights to do so in my opinion. The same goes for her counterpart, Ms Price.

  • Alf

    “To suggest that a visiting head off state(or that side) is in total control off the guest list is nonsense.”

    “I agree, but then again, why wouldn’t I, it’s not like I suggested it, that would have been Alf.”

    Mac,

    Alf did no such thing. He pointed out that any such suggestion was absurd.

  • Alf

    Alias,

    Your argument about the Queen is nonsense. It was the President of the ROI who invited the UDA to attend this event. Since she is a native of Ardoyne presumably you should be arguing that she be arrested if she ever ventures north.

  • Skinner

    Alias

    “Skinner, thanks for the laugh. It is not for an illegal organisation to self-declare that it is in compliance with the law. That is a ‘reserved matter.’ Last time I looked, the UDA was still a proscribed organisation.”

    I completely agree with all of the above and I think it is a terrible decision to have UDA representatives in Dublin for the Queen’s visit. You are completely missing my point. Let me try again:

    On the one hand we have the actions of Marion Price, who has assisted a man to issue more death threats.

    On the other hand we have the actions of the Queen, who has accepted an invite to make a state visit to Dublin in circumstances where people from the UDA (who have done the opposite of issue death threats, believe them or not) may attend some event/s.

    You have tried to suggest that these two actions are commensurate, which is clearly nonsense.

  • Pete Baker

    Final Final Update From the Northern Ireland Secretary of State’s statement

    The Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, has revoked the life licence of Marian McGlinchey after she was charged with offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and following the recommendation of the Parole Commissioners that the risk of serious harm posed by Marian McGlinchey has increased significantly.

    Mr Paterson has used the powers conferred on him by Parliament in the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.

    Mrs McGlinchey has the right to make representations to the Parole Commissioners which they will consider.

  • jimmacdonaldstash

    It seems reading some of the posts that its reasonable to turn up with masked men in military uniform,who then go on to issue death threats.
    I think what they’re doing is using the freedom of speech argument as another weapon in their arsenal.
    I don’t think the people who fought and died for our rights(and still are in the middle east) would have had this in mind.
    If the B N P or any other organisation did this in England they would be scooped straight away.
    Maybe we should take a leaf out of France’s book and like the burqa make it illegal to wear balaclavas.Be interesting to see how many illiterate buffoons would be volunteering to express their right to free speech then.

  • Rory Carr

    If jimmacdonaldstash believes that making an action illegal will have any affect upon preventing it being taken then he has a very limited connection with Irish history.

    Even those whose only reading might have been Delaney and Feehan’s A Comic History of Ireland will know that, ever since the days of the Penal Laws when “Catholics were forbidden to come within four miles of any person, place or thing”, we have been well up for ignoring your bloody laws.

  • jimmacdonaldstash

    Rory who mentioned catholics or the irish i mean the same for anybody covering their face and spouting hatred.Do you really think the freedom of speech should apply to the faceless who cant then be challenged personally for what they say?

  • Rory Carr

    It matters not a hoot what I think. Such transcriptive laws only have the effect of making what is transcribed all the more attractive to flout – at least to those on the republican side which is the one under consideration at the moment.

    In any case those who wear balaclavas and such do so in order to prevent easy identification from any distance short of being apprehended – so how on earth would outlawing the wearing of such apparel have any effect? The problem for the police remains as it is now for those making speeches deemed unlawful – how can the wearer be identified unless apprehended?