Disgraceful. What's "politically motivated" about fingering a homicidal criminal?

The DUP seems to be using events to get at the PUP more than Sinn Fein so the can challenge for Ervine's seat next time round, the DUP are consistent opportunists. When will we here PROPER condemnation of attacks in north Antrim and the Glens?

Yes, I'm with you all the way on that one, Glensman.

All the same, there can never be too many voices clamouring for justice for that grieving family.

I heard Ruth Patterson gave a good speech last night.

Glensman

They don't need to bash Ervine. They have enough votes in East Belfast to take a third seat but they keep messing up their vote management.

"When will we here PROPER condemnation of attacks in north Antrim and the Glens?"

What parts of "condemn" "unequivocal" "desist" "stop" do you not understand?

glensman

I suggest you watch BBC NI Newsline 6.30 this evening. Just saw the BBC lunchtime news and they interviewed Ruth Patterson. If anyone had suspicions about Cllr Patterson's target being the PUP rather than Sinn Fein, it makes very interesting watching.

Martina Purdy asks her about the motion, and Patterson answers at length and makes a number of valid points about Sinn Fein's position on policing and how it is denying victims justice if they dissuade witnesses from giving evidence. She does not mention that the PUP walked out of the vote.

Patterson described Sinn Fein as "scum".

However, any moral authority she claimed was immediately lost when Purdy asked her if she would describe the PUP in the same terms. Given that the PUP is linked to the terrorist outfit that killed Craig McCausland - the subject of her motion - you'd think that Cllr Patterson, who has a habit of saying the first thing that comes into her head - would have no hesitation in doing such.

However, hesitate she did. For a verrrrrry long time. She virtually walked off camera for a second, as it became frighteningly obvious that she hadn't considered that she might be asked the most obvious follow-up question possible.

She described it as a very hard question. Really? You'd think the opposite, surely, given her motion. Eventually, she said she would class the PUP the same way. This is not the first time that Cllr Patterson's mask has slipped, but that's not important right now.

Shamefully for the DUP, this interview served to legitimise Sinn Fein's decision to abstain from the vote better than their own spokesman ever could. The UVF killed Craig McCausland, not Sinn Fein or the IRA.

When a politician finds it difficult to condemn the political representatives of the killers of the boy she claims to be seeking justice for, there is something very wrong - especially, as she had no hesitation about launching an angry and lengthy broadside at Sinn Fein seconds beforehand.

By seeking to make political capital in such a clumsy, obvious and sectarian fashion (the McCauslands don't even live in Patterson's constituency), Cllr Patterson is cheapening the McCausland family's search for justice, since she clearly has a difficulty criticising those advising the terrorists that killed Craig.

The McCausland family should consider carefully who chooses to represent their tragic and just case - they have suffered enough and deserve better.

The original motion was about the rape in west Belfast and murder of patrick devlin. Craig McCausland was included as a response to the request of support to politician for his family's campaign.

...and on the substantive point?

This is the kind of thing that feeds the belief amongst nationalists that unionists are duplicitous on the issue of loyalist violence.

Not all are, but I have serious suspicions about Ruth Patterson's position.

Fair Deal,

One vote Patterson may well have given a good speech at council last night. The difficulty is that she was beyond appalling on TV today, (as discribed above). How many people saw her last night compared to today? Perhaps her worst ever gaffe and given her trach record to date, that takes some doing.

Is this the same Ruth Patterson who speaks Irish, admitted to practicing Irish dancing with her Catholic friends as a child, is sure than Sinn Féin is linked to paramilitaries but doesn't know it the PUP and UPRG is, doesn't want to see a Chinese community centre in Donegall Pass or "anywhere in Belfast for that matter" and scraped in at the last council election on one vote?
Now that Rev Eric Smyth has left the council dear old Ruth is probably the only standard bearer for extreme loyalist bigotry.
Long may she hold onto her seat and disgrace her party further.
I also hear she can't stand the sight of her party colleague - South Belfast MLA Mark Robinson and the two are regularly at each others throats.

The "point" of the loathsome PUP is to pretend that somehow they can be equated to Sinn Fein and the UVF rewarded appropriately. The PUP, like Sinn Fein, should be outlawed. Instead they are celebrated by a media elite and political establishment who can no longer differentiate between right and wrong.

Ervine - hailed by so many pro-Agreement sycophants as "a breath of fresh air" - reeks of the stale stench of hypocrisy so essential to our political process. Don't diss the PUP folks -it's what YOU voted for. Shame on you.

"One vote Patterson" "scraped in at the last council election on one vote"

That is factual inaccurate. She beat Sinn Fein to the last seat in Balmoral by a few hundred votes and stopped Sinn Fein being the largest party on the Council. Looks like a few souls are still sore about that one lads?

"That is factual inaccurate. She beat Sinn Fein to the last seat in Balmoral..."

Actually if my memory serves me correct she only won the last seat by 0.9 of a vote more than Esmond Bernie of the UUP.

David

I agree. Although I don't think that they care about politcal/constitutional rewards, just having their egos fed (delusions of adequacy) and allowed to carry on being cock of the walk in their patches.

I must confess to not knowing much about Ruth Patterson. I saw her for the first time on tv this evening.

Although I thorougly enjoy anyone getting stuck in to terrorists and their sidekicks. I thought it a bit strange that she was commenting on how low they were being now (today, here - I can't remember the exact words but they implied the present) as if this was uncharacteristic and some sort of new low.

Regarding the fluster she got into, it did look a bit odd, but that doesn't necessaryily mean that she is "duplicitous on the issue of loyalist violence".

Having been interviewed myself on TV, I would be mortified if my similar gaffes, garbling because your brain and your tongue haven't caught up with each other, were aired, instead of take 4, when they had managed to get in synch. Not because of any connotation that might be associated, but just because I would look a prize twit. "that's a difficult question" is just the sort of rubbish that comes out at such times. When I was a novice I was really cringing with none too pleasurable anticipation, that these bits would be shown. However, I found that they didn't use that sort of stuff.

I don't believe that all news programmes don't have loads of such footage from our elected representatives.

I think there are two reasons this normally doesn't get shown 1) it looks like amateurish tv and 2) they would not get your co-operation again.

If I was this lady, I'd be worried that this signifyied that my political career didn't have much longevity and that they weren't worried if she never did another interview.

Is she considered a big player?

FYU,

As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions previously she beat Birnie at one of the count stages. A magnificent performance to gain an extra seat for the DUP in what used to be hard UUP ground.

At the final count she was well ahead of Sinn Fein; something Panther Paul seems very agrieved about.

Gonzo,

Coming as you do from a party which has supported IRA/sinn fein while they were still murdering and intimidating you are not in a position to lecture on supporting paramilitaries.

Ruth was told by Purdy that she would be asked on the subject of the IRA and her speech. She had not prepepared an answer to the question she was later asked.

In the past Ruth has been on record condemning UVF/PUP viloence and has no problem condenming it.

In asking for a moment it would appear obvious that she wished to think of a strong and forthright comment of condemnation which would have effect.

For IRA propogandists on this thread to criticise her is both farcical and disgusting.

Hypocritical Scum.

Enniskillen DUP wrote: "Hypocritical Scum."

Would you apply this statement to the PUP? *chortle*

"Ruth was told by Purdy that she would be asked on the subject of the IRA and her speech. She had not prepepared an answer to the question she was later asked."

this is what I was getting at - the garbleing tends to come when you have prepared a particular point, especially of its something with a bit of vehemence behind it, you are so releived that you did it, you get thrown to be asked something else.

It must have been hard for the Mc Causland family to be in the same room as someone with such connections to the murderers and to contemplate that people actually voted for him. As for them not being impressed, I doubt if they were going to find such a character impressive, in any positive sence.

Foggy,

Yes I would have no problem in doing that. I despise the worthless slime in the PUP + their friends in the UVF. THey are destroying their own communities and i hate them for that.

Thank good they seem to be on the out. Better vote management by the DUP in West+East Belfast should get any remaining dirt firmly cleared out by the next election.

'Ruth was told by Purdy that she would be asked on the subject of the IRA and her speech. She had not prepepared an answer to the question she was later asked. '

How difficult is it to prepare a one word answer?
murderers are murderers, gangsters are gangsters and criminals are criminals.

Ruth was told by Purdy that she would be asked on the subject of the IRA and her speech. She had not prepepared an answer to the question she was later asked.

This is incredible. She was simply asked if she would describe the PUP as "scum", as she had just described Sinn Fein as "scum".

As the UVF/PUP had just killed a member of the family she claimed to be politically representing, you'd think she'd have leapt at the opportunity.

If you saw the same interview as I did, you'd know that this was the most embarrassing piece of local TV news that has been broadcast this year. I just watched it again on the BBC site, just in case I thought I'd misconstrued her.

I hadn't. Sinn Fein was wrong. This wasn't a politically-motivated motion. It was worse; tribal opportunism of the worst kind.

In the past Ruth has been on record condemning UVF/PUP viloence and has no problem condenming it.

Not true. Ruth Patterson has been equally equivocal on loyalist paramilitarism on at least one occasion I can think of. There are other equally embarrassing moments, but I think they're mentioned here.

Sorry, there's no excuse for the inconsistent hypocrisy this woman comes out with. I'll post links tomorrow if you want them. She was not asked "the most difficult question". She was asked the most bleeding obvious question. Her answer should have been immediate and unequivocal, even if it had not been prepared.

I bet "some of her best friends are Roman Catholics". IMHO, she doesn't even sound like she means it. And if anyone doesn't believe me, the interview is here (the Newsline button near the bottom left-hand corner).

The BBC takes it off the air tomorrow, so hurry. It's well worth seeing. Some honorable defence of the councillor here, but I find the justifications for her words a tad embarrassing.

Given that this is just the latest in a line of blunders, how can anyone take Ruth Patterson seriously as a politician again?

Gonzo : "this is the kind of thing that feeds the belief amongst nationalists that unionists are duplicitous on the issue of loyalist violence."

I appreciate that you are probably trying to be diplomatic, but there's no need - everyone knows the unionists are duplicitous on loyalist violence when push actually comes to shove. Sure, they'll condemn it for the benefit of the comment columns on a blog, but when it actually comes to taking action against loyalists, they won't do it. After all, Patterson was the one who claimed she didn't know whether or not Frank McCoubrey or David Ervine were linked to loyalist paramilitarism, after she invited them to her High Sheriff party but declined to invite Sinn Fein.

The UUP have voted for one loyalist Lord Mayor and two loyalist deputy Lord Mayors within the past ten years (the DUP abstained rather than vote against IIRC) and after the elections this year the UUP wasted no time in recruiting Ervine into their voting block.

Enniskillen DUP : "THey are destroying their own communities and i hate them for that."

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about; it's a sentence that carries a hundred hidden meanings. Are loyalists bad only because they are damaging their own communities ? If they didn't damage their own communities would they be less bad ? What communities are they part of anyway, who is claiming them ?

"In the past Ruth has been on record condemning UVF/PUP viloence and has no problem condenming it."

Is that right, now. Why did she boycott Sinn Fein, but not the UVF/UDA representatives, from her inaugral dinner ?

David Vance, your condemnation is forthright but aimed in the wrong place. The PUP does not receive many votes. The problem is the DUP and why they apparently cannot bring themselves to condemn loyalist violence. When asked to condemn paramilitarism, Patterson had to stop and think about it. Is that really what you would expect from someone with an unequivocal view on violence ?

Gonzo : "this is the kind of thing that feeds the belief amongst nationalists that unionists are duplicitous on the issue of loyalist violence."

I appreciate that you are probably trying to be diplomatic, but there's no need - everyone knows the unionists are duplicitous on loyalist violence when push actually comes to shove. Sure, they'll condemn it for the benefit of the comment columns on a blog, but when it actually comes to taking action against loyalists, they won't do it. After all, Patterson was the one who claimed she didn't know whether or not Frank McCoubrey or David Ervine were linked to loyalist paramilitarism, after she invited them to her High Sheriff party but declined to invite Sinn Fein.

The UUP have voted for one loyalist Lord Mayor and two loyalist deputy Lord Mayors within the past ten years (the DUP abstained rather than vote against IIRC) and after the elections this year the UUP wasted no time in recruiting Ervine into their voting block.

Enniskillen DUP : "THey are destroying their own communities and i hate them for that."

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about; it's a sentence that carries a hundred hidden meanings. Are loyalists bad only because they are damaging their own communities ? If they didn't damage their own communities would they be less bad ? What communities are they part of anyway, who is claiming them ?

"In the past Ruth has been on record condemning UVF/PUP viloence and has no problem condenming it."

Is that right, now. Why did she boycott Sinn Fein, but not the UVF/UDA representatives, from her inaugral dinner ?

David Vance, your condemnation is forthright but aimed in the wrong place. The PUP does not receive many votes. The problem is the DUP and why they apparently cannot bring themselves to condemn loyalist violence. When asked to condemn paramilitarism, Patterson had to stop and think about it. Is that really what you would expect from someone with an unequivocal view on violence ?

I've just seen Gonzo's link to Newsline - you couldn't make this stuff up. The clip is about 10 minutes 30 seconds into the programme.

Patterson asked "how can a party refuse to come out regardless of their position on the PSNI" and then finds herself unable to do so regarding the PUP. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Comrade Stalin, your previous post was so good that Slugger ran it twice. I'm with Slugger on that ;-)

"Why did she boycott Sinn Fein, but not the UVF/UDA representatives, from her inaugral dinner ?"

There is absolutley no justification for this that I can think of.

Just to clarify my previous post, although I can't help empathising with someone gabbling on camera, I was very dispointed at a lost opportunity for someone to get stuck into terrorists. Of course, being a unionist, I can't possibly mean it.

On occasion, on other blogs, when I have condemned "loyalist" terrorists, I have responses of outrage, by people assuming that I am a nationalist [or worse;)] about my failure to condemn the IRA! It doesn't stop me.

"THey are destroying their own communities and i hate them for that." I understand how this is coming accross, even if I don't beleive that that was the intention. Also, at least it puts out the message that it is in unionists interests to condemn these people, even if only on our own account.

That being said, I accept that there is often a problem in how unionists express themselves, or fail to address themselves in this matter. As I have said before there have been issues with the media not broadcasting it, a tendancy to thing that it should go without saying (it should - but it doesn't!) and being miffed about our memories of nationalists being less than forceful in condemnation of the IRA. Gerry Fitt used to comment on the "but" of the words of condemnation by other nationalist commentators.

In all, I think that everyone, including unionist politicians, should take any and every opportunity to condemn all terrorism. Those of us who are just "ordinary" unionists should let our politicians know that this is what we want them to do. If people do not beleive unionist condemnation of "loyalist" terroism, this is irritating to say the least, but not really relevant. (It is actually more relevant that the message gets through to the "loyalist" terrorits.)

Those of you, who are not unionists, do not have to beleive us when we do condemn it, but you should be open to the possibility.

"Why did she boycott Sinn Fein, but not the UVF/UDA representatives, from her inaugral dinner ?"

There is absolutley no justification for this that I can think of.

Just to clarify my previous post, although I can't help empathising with someone gabbling on camera, I was very dispointed at a lost opportunity for someone to get stuck into terrorists. Of course, being a unionist, I can't possibly mean it.

On occasion, on other blogs, when I have condemned "loyalist" terrorists, I have responses of outrage, by people assuming that I am a nationalist [or worse;)] about my failure to condemn the IRA! It doesn't stop me.

"THey are destroying their own communities and i hate them for that." I understand how this is coming accross, even if I don't beleive that that was the intention. Also, at least it puts out the message that it is in unionists interests to condemn these people, even if only on our own account.

That being said, I accept that there is often a problem in how unionists express themselves, or fail to address themselves in this matter. As I have said before there have been issues with the media not broadcasting it, a tendancy to thing that it should go without saying (it should - but it doesn't!) and being miffed about our memories of nationalists being less than forceful in condemnation of the IRA. Gerry Fitt used to comment on the "but" of the words of condemnation by other nationalist commentators.

In all, I think that everyone, including unionist politicians, should take any and every opportunity to condemn all terrorism. Those of us who are just "ordinary" unionists should let our politicians know that this is what we want them to do. If people do not beleive unionist condemnation of "loyalist" terroism, this is irritating to say the least, but not really relevant. (It is actually more relevant that the message gets through to the "loyalist" terrorits.)

Those of you, who are not unionists, do not have to beleive us when we do condemn it, but you should be open to the possibility.

Ruth Patterson has never had many fans on here but a large amount of comment on this thread is woman not ball.

An opinion piece based on her speech is in today's News Letter (Page 29). It draws no distinction between paramilitary groups.

To some degree Martina was at her work. On the issue of paramilitarism there is no distinction between Sinn Fein and PUP. On the issue of rape and co-operation with the police the PUP will tell people to go to the police but Sinn Fein will not.

Esmond Birnie has attacked Cllr Patterson based on the Newsline interview. This is Cllr Patterson's response.

I am sad that Esmond Birnie lacks the good sense to realise the interview included a manipulation of footage to create a story where there was no story. In the interview I was discussing the rape of an innocent 15 year old girl. It could be clearly seen that was having an emotional impact on me. I was then asked a political question and I needed a few seconds to gather my thoughts. I then applied the same terminology to both parties. No distinction was drawn. If Esmond cannot understand how such a story would impact upon a woman then I feel sorry for him.

What/Who is South Belfast DUP, lifewise Enniskillen DUP? If it is official DUP comment, then it is a most worthwhile development, and we can only look forward to other parties following suit.

If Esmond cannot understand how such a story would impact upon a woman then I feel sorry for him

IMHO, a disgraceful use of the gender card in an attempt to save her bacon

Fair Deal

"To some degree Martina was at her work". Well, if her work as a senior journalist, is to ask pertinent questions of elected representatives who have agreed to an interview based on their debated motion, yes she was doing her work very well, in marked contrast to her interviewee.

Chris Gaskin

"IMHO, a disgraceful use of the gender card in an attempt to save her bacon"

Indeed it is. But the DUP/TF likes to play any card that will suit their sectarian agenda. There's Jeffrey Donaldson off to Columbia to interview victims of Farc terror. I can think of at least five other countries that at present are in the grip of worse terror, and presumably so can Donaldson.

But we know the real reason why he's going to Columbia, don't we?

"But we know the real reason why he's going to Columbia, don't we?". If the DUP are to enter into discussions and eventually an executive, then I think it imperative that they know what the Provos have been doing outside Northern Ireland.

The question is why were the Colombia 3 there? However I think we all know the answer to that.

"I can think of at least five other countries that at present are in the grip of worse terror"

How closely is this terrorism related to the IRA?

Jeffrey is going there because of common cause re IRA terrorism.

Keith M

So you don't think that Donaldson's time and energy can be better employed in helping to end unionist violence?

Did anyone hear Stalford on Evening Extra? He was scathing of the paramilitaries.

No

Willis

My reference was not to the question that was fine. It is not usual journalist practice to show footage between questions if the interviewee asks for a break.

"shameful use of woman card"

In the footage you can see her eyes beginning to well, her face reddens and her voice gets breaky so the footage would offer support to her version.

There is a lot of pseudo-psychology of "Her delay must mean this" despite the consistency in the message. Her equal treatement in her speech and News Letter article of all paramilitarism and she said the term scum could be applied to both the PUP and SF is what she ACTUALLY said in the interview.

The shamefulness of the brutal rape in West Belfast is the silence and inactivity of the feminists in Sinn Fein and the broader women's movement in Northern Ireland who have been silent on Sinn Fein's refusal to encourage direct co-operation with the police. The PSNI rape unit is considered to be of the highest standard, the Belfast Rape Crisis which the feminist movement and republicans played key roles in founding has no problem in endorsing working with the unit.

Denny Boy

A number of the political parties in Ulster have developed links with others throughout the world.
1. So why is the DUP doing it to be demonised e.g. sectarian agenda?
2. Would you please explain how highlighting ongoing IRA activity is sectarian?

"I am sad that Esmond Birnie lacks the good sense to realise the interview included a manipulation of footage to create a story where there was no story."

Utterly pathetic weasly crap from Patterson, seems to be par for the course. What technology do the BBC possess which caused Patterson to say the words "that's a difficult question" and hesitate for around five seconds when she was asked to give her opinions about the PUP ?

If Patterson had hesitated over condemning Sinn Fein in this way, the party would have likely disciplined her.

Chris Gaskin, I completely agree...

fair_deal

"A number of the political parties in Ulster have developed links with others throughout the world.
1. So why is the DUP doing it to be demonised e.g. sectarian agenda?
2. Would you please explain how highlighting ongoing IRA activity is sectarian?"

You're misreading my post(s). The DUP/TF has always been a sectarian party and to my mind shows little sign of changing.

This thread concerns ongoing loyalist murder, not republican murder, remember? Jeffrey Donaldson and his fellow party members could do much to lessen it. His going to Columbia will hardly achieve that.

"despite the consistency in the message"

That is the problem Fair Deal, she hasn't been consistant

Just watched the clip again.
there doesn't seem to be much argument she was ill prepared and the mask truly slipped. where is the difficulty in the question put to her?
Playing the gender card afterwards was pretty poor as well.
Doesn't take much more to convince me of the clear sectarian attitude of this woman.

Jon, I agree. Patterson's attitude has been in evidence since we got to hear her opining on the details behind the threats made against ethnic minorities in loyalist parts of Belfast.

Here's what Ruth Patterson says about herself:

"I am a former of Her Majesty's Ulster Defence Regiment serving in 7/10 UDR during the 'Troubles'. I became High Serriff of Belfast in January 2004 and served Her Majesty with honour once again."

1. A "former"? Is this a sort of informer but without much inside knowledge?

2. WTF is a "High Serriff? A typeface?

3. Doesn't she feel she's blowing her own little horn to say she served "with honour".

Hmm, why isn't that Ruth Patterson link working?

Lessee now... Ah yes!

"served Her Majesty with honour"

I'm hoping that she means that once again she had the honour to serve HM

Fair Deal

There is no agreed grammar for footage mid-question. It is all up for grabs. Which begs the question "Where were her minders?" You would not have seen Sammy Wilson or even Nelson McCausland caught out like this. Did the DUP decide to hang her out to dry?

Ok Ok Completely off topic. Can we please have a Pope - Beer - Pretzel - Derry News thread?

Fair Deal,

You do realise the people of West Belfast cooperated with the PSNI? The two prime suspects face trial? The ombudsman is investigating allegations of the police failing to collect evidence?

This refusing to talk to the police and think of the poor woman is a complete red herring.

It is those in Unionist communities not cooperating with the police out of the three cases raised in the motion.

This was politics. Poor politics. The Cllr and the DUP got caught red-handed.

I don't buy any of this noble but misguided defence of Cllr Patterson. I am not convinced.

The footage, the councillor's track record, and her instinctive reactions to certain situations tell me all I need to know. I just can't believe much of what Cllr Patterson says any more, I'm afraid and I have no confidence in her as a public representative at all.

Ekn DUP,

"As I have pointed out to you on numerous occasions previously she beat Birnie at one of the count stages"

Well you do realise that there are many different stages and it is quite irrelevant what stage a person gets elected on as long as they do, the fact that cllr Patterson was elected on less than 1 vote more than Esmond Birnie was the point I was making.

"Ruth was told by Purdy that she would be asked on the subject of the IRA and her speech. She had not prepepared an answer to the question she was later asked"

Well she is a politician and she should of had a least a feeling that the BBC would ask her something to do with the PUP's response to the loyalist fued murder. That is what Purdy is being paid for and it is good to see that she is doing her job freely.

"In asking for a moment it would appear obvious that she wished to think of a strong and forthright comment"

A simple yes or no answer would have been a lot better than her completely bizarre response.

fair_deal,

but a large amount of comment on this thread is woman not ball.

Unfortunately in this case we have to play the woman. I can't really see any ball that we could kick.

South_BelfastDUP

I was then asked a political question and I needed a few seconds to gather my thoughts

Yes-NO, doesn't take that long, surely she is not that afraid of 'offending' David Ervine or is she...

willis

If it is official DUP comment

Somehow I get the feeling that the DUP leadership will rather forget this than add fuel to it.

Gonzo,

As you should know Ruth has been very much on the record and in the media condemning UVF+UDA violence.

On of many instances was when the paramilitaries in Donegall Pass decided to intimidate a family who they toke a grudge against. After Ruth critisised the UVF she was threatened for making the comments. Don't pretend she doesn't speak out against UVF violence.


How rich of provo supporters on this thread to try and claim the moral high ground. It took Gerry Adams 10 years to condemn the Enniskillen bomb! The DUP and Ruth Patterson have consistently condemned all violence; paramilitary or otherwise fromno matter where it comes from.

In stark contrast Sinn Fein constantly try to shift the spotlight away from there own orchestrated violence. Namely when they start riots then blame the oplice for over reacting.

None of you are in a position to lecture on paramilitaries.

taughmonagh

"Namely when they start riots then blame the oplice for over reacting."

I know it was unintentional but I can't help thinking that your anagram of "police" is somehow apposite in describing the NIPS – oops, I'm at it myself now – I mean the PSNI.

:-\

Denny Boy

"This thread concerns ongoing loyalist murder, not republican murder, remember"

No as you will see in the first line it is about a coucil motion that BOTH Sinn Fein and the PUP refused to vote for.

"The DUP/TF has always been a sectarian party and to my mind shows little sign of changing."

The DUP organise a trip to see the victims of terror that transferred IRA technology helped contribute to and technology paid for with drug money. There was deep concern in the USA about the events in Colombia and the DUP is going to gather evidence to use in American lobbying.

Maybe you will answer my question this time what is sectarian about it?

At the moment all you offer is a circular argument I think the DUP are sectarian therefore if they are doing something that something must be sectarian. Everything must reinforce my preconceived notions.

Maybe the republican bloggers would be so kind as to provide the Unionists on here with a list of activities and political campaigning to further Unionism and to develop support for its case that they won't then describe as sectarian.

Crat

"You do realise the people of West Belfast cooperated with the PSNI?"

Glad to hear it. It is a pity their political leaders in Sinn Fein haven't the same good sense as their constituents. The IRA could learn a lesson too and not drive round Twinbrook falsely accusing a local man and threatening to kill him.

"The ombudsman is investigating allegations of the police failing to collect evidence?"

Is this the stuff about names not being acted on? Or is there more to it than that?

A friend in West Belfast had told me he'd rung in with the names he believed were the guys responsible and said he'd been told the police already had them so he challenged the policeman why hadn't they been acted on. The peeler's reply was they had been given a number of names that they had to work through.

Gonzo

"the councillor's track record..."

I think you've developed a bit of a blindspot on this one ie I won't judge her on her speech, her article, her application of the same term to both parties I'll pick on three seconds of footage because that's the only thing I can pick on to and interpret the way I want to maintain my preconceived notion.

And just incase some of you have yet not noticed the poster taughmonagh is EnniskillenDUP just using a different name in an attempt not to answer most of the points raised here by quite a few people.

"Gerry Adams 10 years to condemn the Enniskillen bomb! "

I remember some mealy mouthed stuff, but not condemnation.

FUY

"And just incase some of you have yet not noticed the poster taughmonagh is EnniskillenDUP..."

How do you know? Can you read his IP addy? If that's so, should we all be worried about who YOU are?

fair_deal

The DUP/TF was founded by Ian Paisley, a man renowned for being sectarian. The party reflects his ethos. Always has, and sadly always will, for a new generation of Paisleys are running with his baton. He is living proof that wisdom does not always come with age, and I fear that he will leave this earth still crying "never, never, never" a taig about the place.

Good enough for you?

denny boy,

Its simple really,

1. Firstly EknDUP has a habit of changing the name he uses when he wants to avoid specific questions. You can normally see when he does this.

2. Then secondly, both names use the the same email address!

Thank the Lord for that, FYU! You really had me going there.

FYU,

Atleast I have the guts to publish an e-mail address.
I have never tried to hide my identity. Why you continually get bogged down in personal slander I will never know. What is you're problem?

FYU,

Atleast I have the guts to publish an e-mail address.
I have never tried to hide my identity. Why you continually get bogged down in personal slander I will never know. What is you're problem?

FYU,

Atleast I have the guts to publish an e-mail address.
I have never tried to hide my identity. Why you continually get bogged down in personal slander I will never know. What is you're problem?

Denny Boy

"Good enough for you?"

The repetition of your circular argument is not good enough no.

The fact you have now failed to answer twice what is sectarian about the Colombia trip makes it clear you have no answer.

Atleast I have the guts to publish an e-mail address

Which probably doesn't exist. I don't see the point for a person like me to publish an address for I doubt many really care.

I have never tried to hide my identity

Why not continue to use the original name then.

Why you continually get bogged down in personal slander I will never know. What is you're problem

If you look I was not addressing you, I was pointing out to others who specificaly replied to your original post that they should not be expecting a reply from you... nothing personal.

FYU,

Why shouldn't they expect a response? How do you know I havn't moved to corresponding by msn or e-mail?

Why shouldn't they expect a response? How do you know I havn't moved to corresponding by msn or e-mail?

Methinks your getting a little too wound up about this... I only pointed out that you were now using a different name, maybe in the future you could stick to the one name for everyone’s benefit (instead of trolling: YU site etc.)

"Playing the gender card afterwards was pretty poor as well"

Not really effective to do the "women care more" thing in these circumstances. If I'd been her I would have been brazen and just gone straight for "lay off - its the time of the month".

"There was deep concern in the USA about the events in Colombia and the DUP is going to gather evidence to use in American lobbying."

My dear Mr Deal, you might want to look a little more closely at Columbia. This is a country with a government whose track record on human rights abuses has few equals. FARC are murderous terrorists, as we know, but do we know the how and why of FARC?

Look no further than the USA and its hysterical anti-socialist intervention in Latin America. (One of these days the Americans might learn the difference between socialism and communism, but let's not hold our breath.) There might be "deep concern" now but it's a situation of Washington's own making; you reap what you sow and all that. This follows a depressing pattern from Mexico to Tierra del Fuego. The Americans have fucked up most of Middle and South America, and we'll generously leave the rest of the world to one side.

The Irish government have no intention of extradicting the Three to the cesspit that is Columbia and that's that. There is neither law nor justice there. Perhaps you might let Jeffrey Donaldson know. And while you're about it, do remind him of the ongoing terror campaign by unionists on his own doorstep.

I repeat: he and his party are sectarian. He has chosen his side in Columbia, the side that happens to be contra-IRA, and turns a blind eye to government death-squads and police atrocities. No surprises there.

Denny boy

Nice try to change the topic of debate. Can you please point out were I have represented Colombia as a perfect state on this thread? The relevance of the standard whinge on failed US Policy is?

Concern about IRA and the drug lords of FARC in Washington was clear by the investigatve sessions held there. So a local party gathering evidence to assist in lobbying is politics plain and simple.

Are the victims of the IRA here not allowed to build links with the victims of IRA technology? The IRA is the common denominator. Should we not be concerned with a criminal network in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland building links with narco-terrorists?

"he and his party are sectarian"

Ok I get it if Jeffrey Donaldson breathes he commits an act of sectarianism. There are no permissible polticial activities that you will not describe as sectarian.

fair_deal

"Should we not be concerned with a criminal network in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland building links with narco-terrorists?"

Yes.

"Ok I get it if Jeffrey Donaldson breathes he commits an act of sectarianism."

No, every time he opens his mouth.

Denny Boy

"Yes."

If this is a common concern how is a politician highlighting it sectarian?

Any chance of an answer to the question on the victims you ignored?

I think some people on this thread have got far too distracted by their petty point scoring and have completly forgotten what this interview was about.

Most people on here havn't even focused on what it was about. A girl was raped, a boy was mudered and there is a bloody feud.

Ruth Patterson was the only one willing to stand up to Sinn Fein who havn't encouraged people with possibly crucial evidence to go the police. Lives have been lost and now sados on this thread would rather have a go at a brave politician.

The fact is that Ruth Patterson took on Sinn Fein and won. Some posters on this website should really get a life and focus on the danger situation that is emerging in this country.

"Some posters on this website should really get a life and focus on the danger situation that is emerging in this country."

I agree. Let me explain it for your and fair_deal's benefit.

Without the Americans backing successive corrupt governments in Columbia, the FARC as we know it would not exist.

Without the British backing successive corrupt governments in Northern Ireland, the IRA as we know it would not exist.

The DUP/TF and their unionist predecessors are the cause not the solution. Here's an interesting thought experiment. Remove Paisley entirely from the Ulster equation; pretend he never existed. Imagine the North without him.

Peaceful, isn't it?

Denny Boy,

How about removing Sinn Fein/IRA.

Sounds even better...

Check my post again, EDUP. They wouldn't be here in the absence of Paisley.

Ah, yes, Denny me Boy,

The problem is that "WhatIf" is as useless as "WhatAbout." The point is that both the DUP and SF are not only "here" they are the most popular parties in NI.

I don't believe that "What if" is completely futile, Alan. Lessons can be learned from the past. We are not all Ian Paisleys; some of us do learn and have learnt from our mistakes.

All the same it's with a sigh that I consider how easily the following scenario might well have happened in the absence of Paisley – well, Bunting too but he had a smaller mouth.

The civil rights marchers would have won the day and gathered even more support. The unionists would have realized that their iniquitous one-party rule could not continue. More fair-minded Protestants would have joined Ivan Cooper in the SDLP and totally overshadowed Sinn Féin. The Good Friday Agreement might have been signed on the day now known as Bloody Sunday because that massacre would not have happened either. Those thousands now in their graves would be growing old and dying of natural causes. The UUP and the SDLP would have shared power for more than three decades. Northern Ireland, having little or no brain drain, would rival the Republic in industry and enterprise, and no longer leech off the British taxpayer. Trebles all round.

But like I say, it's not too late.

Enniskillen DUP said:

Most people on here havn't even focused on what it was about. A girl was raped, a boy was mudered and there is a bloody feud.

Ruth Patterson was the only one willing to stand up to Sinn Fein who havn't encouraged people with possibly crucial evidence to go the police. Lives have been lost and now sados on this thread would rather have a go at a brave politician.

The fact is that Ruth Patterson took on Sinn Fein and won.

And my point is that she ran away when it came to taking on the PUP/UVF, who, since they killed the person Ruth was claiming to be concern about, might come across as hypocritical.

fair_deal said:

I think you've developed a bit of a blindspot on this one ie I won't judge her on her speech, her article, her application of the same term to both parties I'll pick on three seconds of footage because that's the only thing I can pick on to and interpret the way I want to maintain my preconceived notion.

That three seconds of TV was far more revealing than any speech.

But her track record also includes some of the stuff others have mentioned here already, so I'm not actually judging her on the TV appearance alone.

At least unionists like yourself are consistent and apply the same standards to all. Patterson may say she does, but who in their right mind would believe her any more?

Denny Boy

The "Everything is always everyone else's fault. We have no responsibility for our own actions. Anything we do is justified by what they did. It was them'uns line of reasoning" argument.

Is this not exactly the line of reasoning people (including you) on this thread have been claiming Ruth Patterson "secretly" believes yet and you yourself have simply repeated it from a republican perspective? Pot, kettle, black etc.

Now for some corrections to your previous post

"FARC as we know it would not exist"

There was this thing called the Cold War. There were two superpowers, one called America and one called FARC. In their pursuit of global political objectives they supported democratic governments, corrupt governments and rebel movements. The Russians were particularly keen on encouraging left wing rebel movements in poor countries. The blame for the problems of Colombia is not solely America's.

Was it the American's who made FARC become drug dealers?
Was it the American's who forced FARC to buy terrorist technology and expertise from the IRA during 'a peace process'?
Maybe the Provos threw in lessons of political duplicity for free with the mortar building classes?

"Without the British backing successive corrupt governments in Northern Ireland, the IRA as we know it would not exist."

The IRA was founded before Northern Ireland or Ian Paisley was born what was the republican excuse for murder then?

fair_deal

1. I am not a republican

2. You missed (2x) the words "as we know it".

Denny boy

Thanks for the clarification, i shall rephrase

Is this not exactly the line of reasoning people (including you) on this thread have been claiming Ruth Patterson "secretly" believes yet and you yourself have simply repeated it from a non-Unionist perspective? Pot, kettle, black etc

Here's a further three other questions you have also avoided answering
Are the victims of the IRA here not allowed to build links with the victims of IRA technology?
Was it the American's who made FARC become drug dealers?
Was it the American's who forced FARC to buy terrorist technology and expertise from the IRA during 'a peace process'?
Maybe the Provos threw in lessons of political duplicity for free with the mortar building classes

fair_deal

"Are the victims of the IRA here not allowed to build links with the victims of IRA technology?"

By all means.

"Was it the American's who made FARC become drug dealers?"

Yes. The USA is their biggest market.

"Was it the American's who forced FARC to buy terrorist technology and expertise from the IRA during 'a peace process'?
Maybe the Provos threw in lessons of political duplicity for free with the mortar building classes"

A court that was more inimical than most to FARC failed to uncover evidence of the above and dropped all charges save those relating to passport fraud. If you have some then I suggest you hand it over to the relevant authorities.

Denny Boy

Evidence of the transfer of IRA technology exists e.g. the leap and forms of improved bombing technology of FARC - the number of key IRA specialists visitng Colombia at that time etc.

The Lower Court was asked to consider whether the Colombia 3 played a individual role in that transfer and they ruled they hadn't (which was over-ruled on appeal and can be subject to further scrutiny by the Colombian supreme court)

fair_deal

"Evidence of the transfer of IRA technology exists e.g. the leap and forms of improved bombing technology of FARC "

Looks like Al Qaeda have made leaps too. Can you connect the IRA to them as well? Your evidence is a little thin.

"- the number of key IRA specialists visitng Colombia at that time etc."

And who might they be? Were they arrested?

Al Qaeda have always been a well trained well armed and well financed group. This is not surprising considering the West gave them a lot of those arms, training and money not unlike the Irish government and PIRA.

Security footage from Colombia airports identified if I remember correctly 11 provo activists. The arrest of the Colombia 3 led to the analysis of this information.

As they had left the country before this was discovered they were not arrested and as has been pointed out here there is no extradition treaty between the RoI and Colombia.

Good, you've worn me down on this one too. Like I said earlier, if you have evidence then do share it. Send it to Jeffrey Donaldson.

DUP woman met UVF

Ciarán Barnes



A Democratic Unionist Party councillor who described political parties with paramilitary links as “scum” held a secret meeting with the Ulster Volunteer Force last year.
Daily Ireland has learned that Ruth Patterson met the UVF leader in south Belfast in August 2004 after a Protestant family had been forced out of the loyalist Donegall Pass estate.
She helped the family find alternative accommodation before arranging a meeting with the UVF boss so she could ask for the family to be left alone.
The UVF leader to whom Ms Patterson spoke is well known as a paramilitary.
He has a conviction for rioting, spent time on remand in the loyalist wings of Maghaberry prison for his alleged involvement in an extortion racket, and is currently out on bail facing a number of serious criminal charges.
Although Ms Patterson spoke to the media about her efforts to help the family, she never mentioned her meeting with the UVF boss.
Last Friday during a television interview with the BBC, Ms Patterson claimed Sinn Féin members were “scum”.
After further questioning from a reporter, she hesitantly said she would describe the Progressive Unionist Party, which is associated with the UVF, in the same way.
Ms Patterson’s admission that she has met the paramilitaries of whom she has been so critical has led others to brand her a “hypocrite”.
PUP leader David Ervine said the DUP councillor’s willingness to condemn the PUP and paramilitaries yet meet the UVF to settle disputes highlighted her hypocrisy.
Referring to Ms Patterson’s television interview, he said: “It was one of the most interesting pieces of political television I have seen in a long time.
“The hypocrisy was there to be seen. There was no guessing. It required no imagination. The hypocrisy was there in living colour.”
Speaking to Daily Ireland yesterday about her work with the intimidated family, Ms Patterson was asked whether, following recent UVF violence, she could be sure the family would not be targeted again.
She was then asked if, during her meeting with paramilitaries, assurances had been given that the family would not be targeted.
Ms Patterson replied: “I wouldn’t have said they [the UVF] gave me an overall assurance but they certainly said they [the family] wouldn’t be harmed in any way.”
The DUP councillor then refused to answer a question on whether she believed this assurance. She said: “I need to think of an answer for that one. I am not going to allow you to do a Martina Purdy on me.”
Martina Purdy was the BBC reporter who interviewed Ms Patterson last Friday.
Ms Patterson said she would meet loyalist paramilitaries if she thought it could benefit people she believed were in trouble. She said she would never meet republican paramilitaries.
She added: “If, in the case of the family from Donegall Pass, the police could not do anything, I would be prepared to meet with paramilitaries to help.
“Paramilitaries are a fact of life in Northern Ireland. They are my constituents as well.
“People have a right to their thoughts but, when the safety of a family is concerned and I could make their position easier, I would meet with loyalist paramilitaries.”

WHAT A TWO-FACED HYPOCRITE!