Sandy Row drug dealers are warned

This warning notice greeted me as I entered my place of work. Plastered along Donegall Road and Sandy Row.

 

  • Looks like a photoshop exercise, Mr Ulster, and Slugger trying to move into circles of ……. well, brain-washing/social engineering/intimidation/media manipulation of reality?

    Take care there, IT does not suffer fools for tools.

  • Rory Carr

    I have to say, Mr Ulster, that ManfromMars seems to have a keen eye here, this photograph does indeed look suspiciously cosmetic.

    Do you have any explanation why this should be so?

  • socaire

    At last! Something we can all agree on.

  • andnowwhat

    Agree with above.

    There’s nevef been a shortage of posters witcrap written on them, adorning the gable ends of the statelet. We ha e a fair idea what they look like.

  • Trust me, this is a real image. Do you want to see the geotag on the EXIF data? I’ve only increased the contrast in Instagram. Saw several more of these on the bridge over the City Hospital train halt.

  • andnowwhat

    Surely it should read, “Any one else caught dewling drugs in Sandy Row will be put out”?

  • Quincey Dougan

    Its a real image. There are plenty of them up

  • tacapall

    Most likely written by the same posse than almost beat a young catholic lad to death a few weeks back for the crime of working in Sandy Row.

  • DC

    The local GP surgeries will require police patrols as the doctors there must be crapping themselves and fearing for the safety of staff!

  • andnowwhat

    Surely this needs referred to the Monopoly Commision

  • Mark

    What kinda drug dealers have you got up there at all ? The last thing anyone needs is a turf war breakin out in Belfast over unpaid drug taxes . Does nobody watch the Wire ? .

    A vaccum has been created with these supergrass trials going on and the new breed of dealers on the street don’t know who to pay .

    If the fella who has been sticking the posters up could maybe scribble an account no. on the bottom of the next bunch ……

  • andnowwhat

    Getting to the end of a financial year and the beginning of a new one Mark.

    Time for us to pay our protection money to loyalists. They have to be seen to be doing summit tl get their dosh

  • carl marks

    tacapall says
    “Most likely written by the same posse than almost beat a young catholic lad to death a few weeks back for the crime of working in Sandy Row.”
    They were not from Sandy Row, we had a local councillor on talkback or Nolan explaining that they were outsiders who carried out this cowardly attack. He wasn’t able to give any proof of this or explain how “outsiders” knew the young lad was a catholic or how he knew they were outsiders.
    Another point about that attempted murder is that i have yet to see one of our morally superior unionist bloggers comment on or condemn it.
    But I’m quite sure that one or two might attack the showing of this pic as another slur on the decent people of Sandy Row.

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    There was a thread about that attack here recently, blogged by Chris Donnelly. Commented on by Turgon (condemning) and Drumlin Rocks (condemning).
    It took me all of 2 minutes to find that.

  • carl marks

    babyface finlayson

    I still can’t find that but no doubt your right so i would apologise to DR and Turgon.
    However two out of so many ( when you consider the massed outrage that comes to the fore if a window gets broke in Rasharkin) does say something about the rest.
    If u look at spleen vented when a picture of a mural showing a loyalist paramilitary or a bit of sectarian graffiti is published and the amount of moral hectoring we get subjected to by many posters on this site, i think my point is still valid.

  • Skinner

    Carl, you’ve been completely caught out taking a unfounded swipe at all unionist posters on here and you should have the good grace to stop flailing. More than just Turgon and Drumlins Rock condemned that attack so you are still wrong. But that is not the point. In your world, every time a sectarian attack is reported the ‘other side’ should log on to tick the condemnation box. Don’t be ridiculous. Such attacks are not carried out in the name of any unionist posters and there should be no presumption that they condone it. Sectarian attacks are carried out by mindless thugs no matter which ‘side’ they are from. The true ‘sides’ in these matters are the thugs of whatever persuasion on one side and the rest of us (of whatever persuasion) on the other.

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    As you originally referred to bloggers I only mentioned those two
    . If you meant all commenters, then I am sure many more condemned this attack too.
    As far as I can see on Slugger, most people no matter what their loyalties tend to condemn this type of thing. Some may go on to attempt to explain it, or put it in context (aka whataboutery, depending on your point of view).
    Maybe you should ease up on the sweeping generalisations.

  • carl marks

    babyface finlayson, Skinner,
    I apoligised to turgon and DR, but the point still stands ad if the two of you can get of your high horses and maybe take a good look at the way that a awful lot of PUL posters treat attacks on catholics (either ignored or excused or in many cases mealy mouthed condemmations).
    babyface finlayson
    perhaps since i did refer to bloggers perhaps you could point out the others, i also referred to politicians and there statements. It interesting to note that a attempted murder does not warrent a press release by any of the unionist partys.( wonder if it was because it was a catholic attacked)
    so lads/ ladies less of the righteous indignation and a few more facts please.

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    I am not indignant though I am most righteous. I simply pointed out that your generalisation was not accurate.
    You are still sticking to your guns but without providing any evidence.
    Stop reacting to what you think people might be saying and concentrate on what they actually say.
    I have no interest in defending Unionist parties and I don’t know what they said about this attack. I feel there was a statement from a local Unionist, but I could be wrong.
    All I can say is I don’t see an awful lot of PUL posters excusing this or any other attack. So name them and shame them.

  • carl marks

    babyface finlayson
    Again i ask show me where i am wrong, who do I owe a apology to, so what I’m saying is that you name them and shame me. And i have only been able to find two statements from unionist politicians. One went down the “it wasn’t us it was people from somewhere else done it” route without of course any proof. Dawn Purvis is the only one who gives a non mealy-mouthed condemnation. The general silence from the PUL community on this and on similar events in breathtaking.
    I cant help believing that if you had proof of your claims (press statements, post’s etc) we would have seen it by now, and since its is hard to prove a negative (eg no mass outpouring of righteous anger) but if you would care to referrence your press statements and posts, i will be only to happy to apoligise to whoever i have misjudged.

  • carl marks

    Just found the thread you mentioned, did you actually read it.
    168 posts and you can only present 2 posters to back up your argument.
    If this was a school report card it would have the phrase “must try harder” on it.

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    Your original comment was;

    “Another point about that attempted murder is that i have yet to see one of our morally superior unionist bloggers comment on or condemn it.”

    I pointed out not one but two Unionist bloggers who condemned the attack. At which point you started moving the goalposts.
    I do not know the loyalties of all the posters on Slugger so I am not sure how you expect me to check them all for you.
    I made no claims about any Unionist press statements.
    By the way, you obviously made your original comment without even reading the thread on the topic.

  • carl marks

    Your powers of observation astound me, apart from me stating that I had just read the thread today what give me away.
    When i was proved wrong i apologised.
    as to moving the goalposts (care to point out were i do this) read my first post on the subject. Then go back and read the thread that you put forward as evidence. The vast majority of posters from the PUL section of the community try either to minimalise the attack or engage in truly sad whataboutry or some even to deny it altogether.
    I would suggest that you went to the effort to read a 168 post thread to back up your case and could only find 2 posts to support your case, says it all doesn’t it.
    i also find it amusing that you don’t want to bring the unionist parties into this, perhaps the silence of the people elected to represent unionism is in itself very damaging to your argument. Now enough of the waffle put up or shut up.
    Show me the proof as i asked you to do, as i said before I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong perhaps with a bit of maturity on your side you might be able to do the same.

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    Less of the sarcasm please. You are the man who commented without actually reading the relevant thread.
    Yes you moved the goalposts. You claimed not one Unionist blogger had condemned the attack. In fact you actually said they had neither commented or condemned. Patently untrue.
    I pointed to two who did.
    As I said before I have no interest in defending Unionist parties and I made no argument about them.

  • tacapall

    “As I said before I have no interest in defending Unionist parties and I made no argument about them”

    Exactly the point the man is making. Little or no condemnation of those who should speak out but dont.

  • carl marks

    So you regard as sarcasm the fact that i corrected your rather clumsy putdown by pointing out that a considerable time ago I had not seen the thread ( something i would not have had to do if you had actually read what i wrote), may I point out (again) that I apologised to the two people that I misjudged.
    Reading the thread you quoted i am even more convinced of the truth of my statements (unless you are claiming that turgon and DR are the sum of all PUL thinking on this point).
    Of course you have no intention of defending unionist parties in this point, the complete failure to show any concern for the actions of sectarian bigots inside unionism is indefensible, and going down that road would take away what little credibility your argument has.
    But perhaps you could explain how these people manage to get elected again and again if the politics and worldview displayed by them is not shared by those who elect them.
    Also your definition of moving the goalposts is what most people would call moving the argument forward.
    Now tell me can you produce any evidence of the great concern that you seem to think exists inside the PUL community for this nasty sectarian attack a few press releases maybe something from the churches in the area, so let’s see the evidence I would truly be delighted if unionists and unionism was truly moving away from its habit of turning a blind eye to this sort of thing.

  • babyface finlayson

    tacapall
    No the point he was making was that Unionist bloggers failed to condemn the attack. How many times do I have to say it. He was wrong.
    carl marks
    Here is a qoutation from Chris Donnelly from the blogpost in question;
    “there has been strong condemnation from many other unionist representatives of the attack- including local UUP representative Bob Stoker and former loyalist MLA Dawn Purvis.”

    And here are a few more apologies for you to make.

    LiberalUnionistBFC “I condemned this attack as I do any violent act.”

    Cynic2 “Oh and by the way I do hope that PSNI catch those involved a quickly as possible and that they all get at least 5 years. Its an appalling attack and should be dealt with.

    Decimus “I condemned the assault.”

    sonofstrongbow “I, and I expect the vast majority of unionists would agree with me, have no problem with recognising this attack as a sectarian hate crime and condemning it as such.”
    Can’t believe I’m wasting my sunday spelling this out for you.

  • carl marks

    Noticed ( and correct me if I’m wrong) that your contribution to the thread in question was to query a definition of sectarianism. No condemnation of the attack?
    Decimus. Implied the attack was exaggerated
    Son of strongbow, had a go at SF.
    Cynic 2, doesn’t believe every sectarian attack should be reported.
    Liberal unionist can’t find anything from him but a threat of legal action.
    A lot of PUL posters seem to be under the opinion that the young lad didn’t get much of a beating.
    Bob stoker condemned it then came out with that old nonsense about outsiders being responsible.
    Dawn Purvis is the only one of those you quoted whose condemnation was not followed by the preverbal but .

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    Of course I condemn the attack, but as I am not actually a Unionist I don’t suppose it helps.
    Of course all those commenters went on to put their own spin on the events as they are entitled to.
    You started out claiming no Unionist poster, not even one, had condemned the attack. I’ve provided at least six examples of how you are wrong. Stop digging.

  • carl marks

    Now you condemn the attack better late than never i suppose, would have taken you more seriously if you had done on the thread you quoted. Of the six you quoted only two condemned it without trying to spin the blame on someone else but the brutes who committed it.
    For someone who is not a unionist you seem to able to get into the mindset ok. Your repeated failure to deal with the problem of politicians, church leaders. and many posters ( really read decimus posts and tell me if they are condemning the attack or excusing it) on this site.
    it is both sad and disturbing to debate with someone who in order to excuse sectarian violence tries to get sectarianism redefined to suit himself and will only condemn such acts when challenged on it.
    The point of first post still stands unionism and unionists have a blind spot when it comes to violence carried out by unionists against Catholics or indeed protestants who fail to toe the line.
    You have repeatedly ignored my requests for evidence of either any of the unionist parties’ the churches in the area or ”community workers” wholeheartly and without reservation this vile attack (and apart from turgon and DR) any unionist poster on the site,
    I really didn’t need to dig you have already made a very big hole big enough for us all I wish you luck with it. Try a peek over the top someday there’s a big world out there

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    If you read the thread you will see that I was responding to a commenter trying to use a narrow religious definition of sectarian.
    I was pointing out that the term has a broader meaning and thus the perpetrators did not necessarily have to be church going calvanists as he implied. Read it again and you will see that.
    I suppose I should have prefaced that comment with a clear condemnation of the attack. Anyone failing to do so obviously condoned it.
    I cannot help you with the other evidence you seek. I hope they all did condemn this attack.
    I pulled you on your lazy generalization. Be more specific in future.

  • carl marks

    You pulled me on my lazy generalization, very good and here was me thinking that you were being a apologist for unionist myopic attitude to sectarian (unionist not nationalist they have no problem with that one) violence. as for the lazy bit scanning a thread and using completely unsuitable examples because you couldn’t be bothered reading them all is a bit on the lazy side.
    Now who claimed that only church going Calvinists’ could be sectarian bigots seems like a get out clause for non church going bigots.
    You can’t help me with the other evidence i seek because the lack of its existence is proof of the truth my statements.
    Your foolhardy leap to try to defend bigotry is to be regretted. How long i wonder will it be till we hear the phase “salt of the earth” is applied to these animals.
    And finally your failure to condemn the cowardly attack and attempt to divert the debate with a distraction on the semantics of hatred can and in my case will be taken as condoning this sort of thing.

  • carl marks

    now im away to watch the billy plays. you think about our we debate and good luck to you.

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    For goodness sake, the point you are making about the the non church going bigots etc is exactly the point I was making on the other thread.
    I would suggest that making broad generalisations about the ‘other’
    is a sign of bigotry.
    Also a lack of evidence is not proof of anything.
    Enjoy Billy. It is clearly too late to talk to you.

  • carl marks

    “Also a lack of evidence is not proof of anything”

    it is if you are looking for statements from politicians, church leaders, “community workers” or posters, then with all the ways of spreading info at the moment then not being able to find a statement condemning something without being mealy mouthed (or as you call it putting their own spin on something), then that indeed is evidence. By the way it’s quite simple you go to the websites of the people involved and if they have no statement on it then a logical conclusion is that they either didn’t think it was important enough to comment on, Or they see nought wrong with it in the first place. After all we are talking about a attempted murder by a mob of bigots not a parking offence.
    of course if you are indeed a apologist for loyalist bigotry then it is to be assumed you didn’t look to hard.
    but I’m afraid i sent you on a fools errand as i had already checked out the relevant websites, what i didn’t do was check out your post as I rather foolishly assumed from the level of righteous indignation that you would have condemned the attack,
    imagine my shock when i discovered that you were one of the people i as talking about.

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    As I can’t see your comment on that thread condemning the attack I am going to take that as proof you must have condoned it.
    Also do you now accept that my post on the thread was pointing out that the attackers could be sectarian even if they were not necessarily regular church goers? A strange thing to do if I condoned the attack.

  • carl marks

    that was sad.
    as i was out of the country when the thread was opened, and i only discovered it’s existance from yourself as i pointed out to you several times)i think im clear on this one.
    As i said earlier if this was a school report it would say “must try harder” i also think that your teacher would implore you to pay attention in class.

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    Nothing to say about the comment I made on that thread which you misinterpreted.
    Try to avoid personal insults please.

  • carl marks

    SHALL I SAY IT AGAIN?

    YOU DID NOT COMDEMM THE ATTACK; INSTEAD YOU TRIED TO DIVERT THE DEBATE INTO A BLIND ALLY ON THE MEANING OF SECTERIANISN.

    This having to repeat myself so often is the reason I used the school report language.
    Now go back and read the posts you used as examples, one of the posters you held up as a example inquired that perhaps the victim wasn’t decorous enough and by extension had it coming. The others (apart from Turgon, DR and Dawn Purvis) all were to say the least ambiguous in their condemnation.
    They are de facto apologists for the thugs who carried out the attack you are acting as a apologist for them.

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    No I think you will find I was pointing out to another poster how the attack was in fact sectarian. I don’t know why you can’t see that.
    What you are repeating is nonsense.
    I poined out to you the condemnations you couldn’t find yourself. I cannot say how sincere thet were, only that they were there.
    For all your bluster those are the facts.

  • babyface finlayson

    carl marks
    I suggest we agree to differ on this.
    Your perception of me is wrong but I am not going to persuade you of that.
    I can assure you I would never in any way condone this kind of thuggery. I hope you can accept that.
    Good luck to you.