Wednesday, September 20, 2006
UDA forces out Irish Diplomat?
Anyone know what’s behind this?
Update: Barry McCaffery, in the Irish News today:
The threat is understood to have come from loyalists aligned to Andre and Ihab Shoukri, who were expelled from the mainstream UDA earlier this year. Ms de Baroid is one of the Republic�s most senior civil servants to be stationed in Northern Ireland and is a member of the North/South Ministerial Council. She regularly meets senior loyalist and republican community leaders in working-class areas across the north. However, it is understood that she was informed in recent weeks that dissident loyalists were actively targeting her.
Hat Tip to bemused (even if he was on a ‘Red Card’) and mayoman.
Mick Fealty @ 08:36 AM
The Irish News are reporting that it’s emanated from the Shoukris who have made the threat to try to embarass Jackie McDonald.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 09:41 AMMick,
I’m afraid that “this” appears to require registration.
Are you able to elaborate, please?
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 09:44 AMthats the first time i heard the phrase ‘dissident loyalists’. interesting. can a group that is not on ceasefore and openly takes over housing estates from time to time have ‘dissidents?’
what do you have to do to get labelled as such?
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 09:54 AMtry it now Rory.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 09:58 AMBeeb version here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/5362468.stm
The phrase dissident loyalist has been bandied about before, chiefly as a UVF/ PUP description of the LVF. So it appears to be a phrase used to describe former comrades who’ve fallen out with their old friends or leaders.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 10:03 AMI think a better term might be “diffident loyalists”. They are diffident about engaging in any activity where bully force and firearms are not employed against defenceless citizenry. A hangover from the methods of the old state, Ulster, to which they once pledged loyalty, no doubt.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 10:03 AMThe headline is obviously not only wrong but mischievous, untrue and designed to pander to Sunday World type readers who have the attention span of a two year old. The UDA has threatened no one. In fact, via the UPRG and assorted Loyalist representatives, it has a good working relationship and a healthy respect for the person concerned, whose removal is a blow to good community work and progress. This all stems back to the local problems in North Belfast a while back. The UDA can hardly stop a couple of cretins making a phone call and issuing silly threats. The UPRG spokesman has reiterated today that the threat does not come from any mainstream grouping and is bogus.
It is always worth remembering that those who can’t get things done tend to threaten and those that can get things done tend to not announce it but just do it.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 10:19 AMMick
Equally interesting is the use of publicly paid civil servants by Martin McAleese - in what was previously described as his “work in a private capacity”.
As for the idea that this threat came from a break-away group from the UDA… well, once again, how convenient..
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 10:22 AM“Ms De Baroid was moved in August” and this is only in the news today, to coincide with what? Is this story being controlled by a mini-Max Clifford somewhere, I wonder.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 10:36 AMThe latest from the PA
http://www.mediapointireland.press.net/article.jsp?id=675119#page5The threat was also labelled a disgrace by Sinn Fein Assembly member Alex Maskey.
The South Belfast Assembly member observed: “This threat is clearly being taken seriously by the Irish Government, given the fact that all of the main unionist paramilitary gangs remain highly active and have given no indication that they are prepared to end their anti-Catholic campaigns.
“This individual is credited for doing much good work within working-class unionist areas and the threat to her life is disgraceful.
“At a wider political level, what it does is expose the folly of the current DUP position of attempting to create excuses not to move forward because of an IRA which has ended its campaign while on the other hand turning a blind eye to the activities of unionist paramilitary gangs.
“The DUP, as the lead unionist party, have a clear responsibility to address and tackle the issue of unionist paramilitary violence.”
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 10:43 AMThe UPRG spokesman has reiterated today that the threat does not come from any mainstream grouping and is bogus.
No doubt it’ll turn out to be the work of those dastardly Red Hand Defenders. On the bright side, I’m sure you’ll still get the £135K.
Ps Is Jackie off to the K Club this weekend?
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 10:56 AM“Ps Is Jackie off to the K Club this weekend?”
With the weather forecast as it is I have advised him to just watch it on Sky instead.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 11:07 AMHain should cancel the £135k he has given to loyalists and give it to the Victims of Loyalist Violence.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 11:30 AMWith the weather forecast as it is I have advised him to just watch it on Sky instead.
We shall never forsake the blue skies of Ulster for the grey mists of an Irish Republic, not least when Sky is covering every shot in HD.Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 11:33 AM“We shall never forsake the blue skies of Ulster for the grey mists of an Irish Republic, not least when Sky is covering every shot in HD.”
Come on now. Surely you don’t think that we have the funds to watch it in glorious HD? Nope, it’s a bog standard 28” cheapo Beko TV, a cup of tea courtesy of the wife and a clutch of bookies betting slips (no, not the same bookies that Andre used) all with the name USA on them (it’s a hunch - and they were odds against).
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 11:42 AMCyberscribe, it appears to be a case of ‘I’ll see your amputated limb and raise you an Irish diplomatic displacement’ vis a vis the timing.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 11:46 AMThis is what happens when you try to divide and rule loyalists through the use of exclusive golf clubs. Someone always gets jealous at not being invited.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 12:49 PMwell you know loftholdingswood there was a time when loyalists understood that their whole raison d’etre was to stop Dublin interference. it’s a measure of how far they have deviated from even a nod in the general direction of that-albeit always a very fragile- attachment to Unionist principles, that they’re falling over themselves to hug a Dub. I don’t condone the threat for a minute, but one less interfering Iveagh House suit is good news.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 12:59 PMVery ‘unionist’ in your ‘i don’t condone, but i like the outcome’ vibe there darth. No wonder people question unionists commitment to ridding their own community of paramilataries.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 01:06 PM“well you know loftholdingswood there was a time when loyalists understood that their whole raison d’etre was to stop Dublin interference. it’s a measure of how far they have deviated from even a nod in the general direction of that-albeit always a very fragile- attachment to Unionist principles, that they’re falling over themselves to hug a Dub. I don’t condone the threat for a minute, but one less interfering Iveagh House suit is good news.”
It is not a question of hugging a Dub (or anyone else for that matter) but an exercise in pragmatism and diplomacy. If someone (from any background or place) genuinely wants an input into what we are about and where we are going then we should listen to what they have to say. Are we that lacking in confidence of our own position that we don’t want to hear what anyone else has to say? It is the lexicon of the fool to just bury their heads in the sand and go along a certain path without looking at different aspects or different thinking. If we have a raison d’etre it is to lead our people away from an insular, frightened existence into a positive and prosperous future (prosperous meaning not necessarily shedloads of money) . If that means meeting people from different backgrounds and stating our case then so be it. It can’t harm us. It is a well told tale now but when I went to Dublin (along with a coach load of others) to visit the President I went there as a Loyalist, listened to her as a Loyalist, spoke as a Loyalist and returned from there still a Loyalist. It irks people (UUP, DUP, liberal types) that we are finding our feet and discovering that the only way to rise above the deprivation, that others would love to see us remain in, is to look inward at ourselves, change ourselves and demand to be part of the new status quo.
If that means speaking to whoever we wish to speak to then so be it. I don’t see the point of threatening people who want to play a part in our transformation.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 01:19 PMcynic moi,
Maybe it proves that British diplomats are tougher than Irish ones. eg…
David Reddaway, the new British ambassador to Ireland, is used to being in a tight spot. During the Iranian Revolution in 1979, he was a junior official in an embassy that was bombed and attacked on an almost daily basis. As the staff dwindled from 70 people to just four, it often fell to Reddaway to personally eject armed rioters from the premises. http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqid=17295-qqqx=1.asp
or is it “no job for a woman” ;-)
will I get hit by Mrs Fitzzz now?Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 01:21 PMNow, now, Mayoman (btw, v. poor showing in Croker) you shouldn’t call it ‘unionist’ as the technical term is a “pre emptive disclaimer” often invoked by those with similarities to those who initiated the technique… the good ol’ boys in the southern states of USA in relation to attacks on uppity blacks.
The Dubs played a poor semi and the sporting public then had to suffer. Ath Cliath abu.
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 01:21 PM‘If we have a raison d’etre it is to lead our people away from an insular, frightened existence into a positive and prosperous future (prosperous meaning not necessarily shedloads of money) . If that means meeting people from different backgrounds and stating our case then so be it. It can’t harm us.’
Very true and the other side of the coin is that the people you deal with might actually begin to see loyalists as something other than bogeymen from the back of beyond . Why they might even have a case as well as a raison d’etre .
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 01:27 PMspeak to whoever you want lofty- just don’t think inviting Dublin civil servants round for tea and being brought a wee coffee cake as a present means you can then complain when they decide to poke their noses in seven days a week.It’s no wonder the Unionist electorate spurn political analysis form UPRG if it’s so weak. This person’s job is to liase with loyalists, to collate information on them, to find out what can buy them off in one scenario, or crush them in another eventuality. The only thing she can do that a suit from the NIO is offer better junkets or bribes in euros not sterling. It may not harm your case talking to her, but it sure as hell won’t advance it either.
And you’re right mayoman, I wouldn’t shed a tear if every Dublin civil servant was helicoptered out of Notting Hill or Windsor House or whereever in his pyjamas a la Saigon- but I wouldn’t shed a tear either if every loyalist paramilitary leeching off working class communities was locked up and the key thrown away.The idea that loyalist paramilitaries can pull their communities out of the deprivation they have exploited for years flies in the face of all the evidencePosted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 01:32 PMIn the meantime (before the Siagon-like episode occurs), darth, you’re happy, just like your mealy-mouthed unionist politicians, for the “loyalist paramilitary leeching off working class”-types to do your dirty work for you. And furher more, claim in public that the outcomes of thir actions can be a good thing! What would you have said if she was shot? You were gonna throw a party?
Posted by on Sep 20, 2006 @ 02:00 PM
