Sunday, March 05, 2006
a shoot-out without guns?
The police raid on the loyalist bar in Tiger’s Bay garnered the publicity it deserved, what with CS gas being used and reports of gunfire, and the 18 arrests that followed. Those arrests have now turned into charges.. 11 men charged with membership of a proscribed organisation, while 7 people were released with files sent to the PPS.. apart from that the only other reported charges are that 7 of the men arrested were “charged with wearing an item of clothing in such a way as to arose reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”.. not quite the “items of use to terrorism” that initial reports may have suggested were present.
Pete Baker @ 01:28 PM
It was simply a wake up call - go out of business now, or we will close you down.
Posted by on Mar 05, 2006 @ 08:25 PMThis looks like an excellent piece of police work on behalf of the PSNI. Their intelligence sources provided information, which they acted upon in a robust but measured way - no-one was hurt and no shots were fired. Given that we are dealing with a powerful and extremely dangerous paramilitary organization with a recent history of firing live rounds at police officers, the level of force shown was, as far as I can see, more than appropriate.
However, what is quite clear about this once again is the ambivalent attitude to loyalist paramilitarism that unionist politicians show. I’ve always had a problem with the mealy mouthed equivocation that constitutes the response of unionism to ongoing loyalist paramilitarism, but this raid and the response to it has made this more clear than ever.
Had this been a raid on a republican bar, we would have heard :
- praise for the PSNI’s excellent and well-managed operation
- calls for further arrests and raids
- calls for an IMC report
- arguments in favour of the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the assemblyHowever, because the raid was not on a republican bar, unionists :
- condemned the operation as being heavy handed
- refused to give any indication that they supported action by the police against a clear example of ongoing paramilitarism
- Nigel Dodds has even written to the Chief Constable to complain about the raid.The above responses are what I expect to hear from the likes of Sinn Fein or the PUP/UPRG. However, the DUP says that it is not linked to paramilitarism and opposes all of it. Why did it have so much difficulty in supporting an operation against the UDA ?
It is pretty clear from the media articles on the matter here that Nigel Dodds is not happy that loyalist paramilitaries are being arrested and charged with membership of a proscribed organization. Instead, his letter seems to suggest that loyalists should be treated with the same alleged leniency that is shown to republicans (although where he gets the ideas about leniency I don’t know; I have no recollection of Mr Dodds condemning the PSNI raids of SF offices at Stormont, or the raids against those who were charged in connection with the Northern Bank robbery).
It is unfortunate that Dodds, a person who likes people to think he is resolutely opposed to terrorism, studiously avoids calling for charges to be brought for paramilitary membership in other cases such as the example in Strabane that he mentioned in his letter.
I hope that the unionist contributors to Slugger who believe that the DUP is consistent in it’s opposition to paramilitarism will take a long and hard think about why unionist politicians are content to act as the political wing of the paramilitary organizations in this way. Are they democrats ? Are they fit for government ? How can the DUP call for Sinn Fein to show their support for the police when they refuse to do so themselves ?
Posted by on Mar 05, 2006 @ 08:26 PMWith the entire leadership of the north Belfast UDA out of the picture, incidentally the one’s who refused to tow Jackie’s new line, the opportunity exists for him to replace the likes of Shoukri with his stooges.
Everyone’s happy - Jackie, the cops, the NIO and McAleese. It’s amazing the things that can be gained through partnership.Posted by on Mar 05, 2006 @ 08:33 PMisnt dodds letter asking why such action not taken against the IRA who are still in operation, rather than asking why it was taken against the UDA
Posted by on Mar 05, 2006 @ 09:02 PMObserver, yes, but surely he could have asked the question at the time of the IRA incident. What do you think Dodds’ position is ?
Dodds’ response shows a distinct lack of enthusiasm for police operations in shutting down loyalist paramilitarism. I find that very, very worrying. Loyalist paramilitaries are not merely a danger to republicans, they are clearly a danger and a blight in the areas they dominate. If the local politicians are not going to take a firm line against them, who will ?
Posted by on Mar 05, 2006 @ 09:08 PMAny politico will encourage votes from those who may vote for him or his party - that’s democracy. Potential voters from the ‘other side’ could be said to be a lost cause. In light of events is Dodds action not ‘robust but measured’?
Is there anything the police could do on any of our paramilitaries that would not be criticised by someone?
Posted by on Mar 05, 2006 @ 10:17 PMIn light of events is Dodds action not ‘robust but measured’?
I think the IMC should be asked to make a determination into whether or not the DUP is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, and whether or not it upholds the authority of the police.
I don’t know how you can talk about sides and votes. The people who were arrested last night are a danger to non-republicans.
Dodd’s position is hypocritical. On the one hand, those who apologize for terrorism and refuse to support the police are said to be unfit for government. On the other hand, DUP politicians carefully avoids backing efforts by the security forces to squash loyalist paramilitarism, and criticize the police when they do so.
How can the DUP be considered fit for government on the basis of their own policies ?
Posted by on Mar 05, 2006 @ 10:31 PMwhen was the last time anyone got arrested for being a memebr of the IRA?
Posted by on Mar 05, 2006 @ 10:36 PM“7 of the men arrested were “charged with wearing an item of clothing in such a way as to arose reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”.. “
We’re in for an interesting marching season!
Posted by on Mar 05, 2006 @ 11:06 PMThe DUP need an armed UDA just in case the two governments move towards joint authority in the absence of devolution.
That’s why Paisley made his comments about the IRA having guns ‘for use against Protestants’ - his code language for ‘hold onto your guns boys’.
That’s why Dodd’s criticises the PSNI and treats the UDA with kid gloves. One day soon the DUP might just need a bit of muscle to thwart the governments’ plans. No use in alienating them.
An age old unionist tactic.
Posted by on Mar 05, 2006 @ 11:23 PMelfinto
There are too many people treating the UDA with kid gloves.. and they’re not all in the DUP, or Unionists.
Posted by on Mar 05, 2006 @ 11:28 PMThere are too many people treating the UDA with kid gloves.. and they’re not all in the DUP, or Unionists.
The problem is the DUP’s hypocrisy. If the DUP admitted to being the effective political wing of the UDA, then perhaps we could get somewhere, without all of this silly holier than thou nonsense they go on about concerning democratic and peaceful bona fides.
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 12:19 AMI don’t really undertsand the argument on here at all. Everyone knows that the DUP are de facto the political wing of most of the loyalist paramilitaries and Sinn Fein are the political wing of the IRA. The one thing that has always united both parties is their pathetic attempts to distance themselves from the aforementioned paramilitaries and to take a moral high ground on condemning each others associations.
What amuses me is that in 2006 people are still gullible enough to defend both of their moral high-grounds as if the dogs in the street might actually believe them. But unfortunately, of course, their electoral mandates would lead me to conclude that they’re clever at what they do.
Paramilitarianism keeps money in all the right pockets and lets the rest of us know exactly where our place is on our respective communities.
Never bite the hand that feeds and the British Government has very large pockets.
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 12:58 AMThe above post is mine
Pacman
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 01:02 AMUrquhart,
The charges are about as dodgy as the people charged and the goons will walk. But it was goos to see some intent from the PSNI at long last. Was it a one off or will it be followed up?
CS, Pacman
The intelligence services must have tonnes of dirt on the DUP’s links with paramilitaries. It’s long past time that some of it was put in the public domain.
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 01:28 AMyes i agree with the implicit sentiments of comrade stalin - once again this is the securocrats at work, raiding a uda bar knowing there was nothing really there and then going softly-softly on the thugs rehearsing for their show so that the contrast with their behaviour towards republicans in the same sitiation - dead bodies everywhere - would be impossible to ignore - the result is that sinn fein’s noble enterprise of re-erecting the GFA is frustrated - is there nothing, no level too low, that the securocrats will not do or reach to frustrate the will of the risen people!! comrades, beware the securocrats, they are everywhere. just listen to comrade stalin and his wise friend pat mclarnon and you won’t go wrong - and if you do, expect a visit from big bobby!
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 01:40 AMNone of this, I am sure, is designed to help the golf-playing wing of the UDA who might benefit if certain people due in court later today were offside for a while.
My guess is that this is an attempt to disrupt the north Belfast UDA - essentially an organised crime gang - which might give more politically-minded UDA leaders a chance to get a grip on the organisation.
Just a hunch, but isn’t a dove in the hand worth two Bush in the bar? :o/
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 04:30 AM“Had this been a raid on a republican bar, we would have heard :
- praise for the PSNI’s excellent and well-managed operation
- calls for further arrests and raids
- calls for an IMC report
- arguments in favour of the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the assembly “Yes, but what from Sinn Fein et al?
- the peace process is in crisis?
Our politicians are unfit to hold policing powers.
That Dodds would write in complaint about this brave and effective police action is an utter disgrace.
By humiliating paramilitaries this operation may well have put some teenagers off the bling and blow choice and rescued them for life.
Nice Work.
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 09:57 AMCS
People allegedly doing something illegal were caught, the PSNI did there job. However, the PSNI said they adopted such tactics because the individuals were armed but it would seem they weren’t (not even replicas).
It probably wasn’t such a great intelligence coup either, most of the Belfast media knew about it that morning.
observer
“when was the last time anyone got arrested for being a memebr of the IRA?”
You can’t be arrested for this as you can’t be charged with it. If your ceasefire is recognised by the government then you cannot be charged with membership of that group.
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 10:12 AMIhab Shoukri now confirmed as having been released ‘pending a report from the PPS’. How the fuck can Order continue to stand over this sort of nonsense. Ihab Shoukri is currently on bail. One of his bail conditions is that he does not associate with loyalist paramilitaries. Last year a High Court Judge practically directed the police to arrest him for breaching his bail conditions so appalled was he by the way in which Shoukri was breaching them willy nilly on a daily basis. Now - yes you’ve guessed it - he breaches his conditions in the most spectacular fashion possible and what do the cops say - “sorry about that Ihab, on your way now.”
This is fucking Garnerville and ‘fire blankets for taigs’ all over again. The PSNI might as well just shut up shop and go home.
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 10:15 AMPerhaps Mr Shoukri has been assisting the police and has been given the benfit of the doubt.
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 03:11 PMelfinto: “Was it a one off or will it be followed up?”
A very good question. Although they have s et a prcedent and described it in terms that’s going to make it difficult to wriggle out when the ‘traditional’ shows of strength appear on the streets this summer.
Is there any word of what happened in Strabane re th Provo parade? Are there going to be charges brought against those who arrested were “wearing an item of clothing in such a way as to [cause] reasonable suspicion that [they were] a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 03:33 PMThe above post (Comrade Stalin 1) is from urquhart
The second para should read:
Is there any word of what happened in Strabane re the Provo parade? Are there going to be charges brought against those who were “wearing an item of clothing in such a way as to [cause] reasonable suspicion that [they were] a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”
SorryPosted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 03:36 PMAn absolute disgrace. As the North Belfast UPRG representative Sammy Duddy said, the PSNI must of thought they were taking part in a shoot-out at the OK-Karal (no idea how to spell it but I know it was a Western). There were children playing on bikes outside at the time and the PSNI thought nothing of firing indescriminantly at the Alexandra - they might have been “non-irritant” rounds but if they’d ricocheted they could have injured the children.
Would this have happened in a nationalist/republican area at a Provie bar…me thinks not - it seems what applies to “The Bay” doesn’t apply to the nearby New Lodge.
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 03:41 PMThe 2:41pm post came courtesy of “Concerned Loyalist” and not “Comrade Stalin3”
Posted by on Mar 06, 2006 @ 03:52 PM
