Deliberately Delphic?
In the old days we all used to pore over ambiguous IRA statements trying to determine their meaning. Today we have this from the UDA, in the run up to Margaret Ritchie's decommissioning deadline.
"The UDA has always intended, as part of the continued process of consultation with its membership, and has agreed a course of action and a timetable for those actions. It will adhere to that timetable, no more and no less. Quis Separabit."
Are they being deliberately delphic? Or are there some words missing?
I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
I don't think they know what delphic is. You have to go to school to find out stuff like that.
Are there some words missing? Yes, on the last sentence.
It should read "Quis Separabit absque Adairum et Australis Oriens Antrum".
Good on Margaret Ritchie. I hope she gives the money to a drug rehab charity on monday.
Mark
DELIBERATELY DELPHIC AND THE MISSING WORDS鈥
When it comes to the 'final' on October 9, i.e. Minister Ritchie -v- UDA, I suspect that 'Quis Separabit' [Who Shall Separate Us?] 鈥渇rom our weapons. It will not be the Minister" - are the missing words!
I note that Minister Ritchie has threatened the UDA, that if they do not make positive progress with the IICD, she will redirect the 拢1.2m to other projects,
Perhaps the Minister should receive some legal advice that she may be in breach of the legislation on this matter of redirection. This 拢1.2m belongs to the tax payer, not the Department for Social Development. It would appear from the IICD Report of January 19, 2006 (para 2) that an agreement was reached; that money would be forthcoming in exchange for decommissioning. If there is to be no decommissioning, then the money must be returned to the Treasury.
hard to know Mark but at least the NIO can always rely on the good old BBc NI to be its press officer. tonight's online headline story is a total stitch up on Ritchie from Woodward. pathetic.
Mark
OPEN LETTER TO MARGARET RITCHIE, MINISTER, DEPARTMENT FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Dear Margaret
BOADICEA OR BOTTLER?
I write to offer my support as your decommissioning deadline fast approaches and nerves jangle with so much riding on the outcome.
Evil forces are massing against you and, unbelievably, they are being buttressed by Shaun Woodward who has now become an advocate for the UDA in its dealings with the IICD His unhelpful intervention ahead of your decommissioning deadline, coupled with no support for you in the Executive means that, come Tuesday, you鈥檙e going to be standing in Brussels High Street* with both arms the one length. In short, you鈥檙e on your own.
My advice to you, Margaret, is T.I.N.A.; There Is No Alternative to you holding your stated position on decommissioning, irrespective of the cowardly, self-serving lack of support from fellow Ministers and the impudence of Woodward鈥檚 interference. The Public don鈥檛 want to witness any more prevarication or equivocation on decommissioning. No more shilly-shallying. No more fudges. No more compromise. Definitely they don鈥檛 want to hear you say on Tuesday that you are 鈥渞eviewing鈥 the situation because that sick-making word 鈥渞eview鈥 will signal a cave-in to the criminal UDA. If you fold on this one, Margaret, you鈥檙e finished.
OK, Margaret, come Tuesday, the Public want you to stick it to 鈥檈m. Your actions will define your political worth in the Public鈥檚 eyes for the rest of your life. In blunt terms, do you want to be remembered as a Boadicea or a Bottler?
*
Yours sincerely
Susie
Carryduff
Too right Susie. The UDA have been rejected by the community, rejected by the electorate and rejected by the peace process.
Mark
[Second] OPEN LETTER TO MARGARET RITCHIE, MINISTER, DEPARTMENT FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Dear Margaret
THE ANSWER TO LAST WEEK鈥橲 QUESTION IS: BOUDICEA
Further to my Open Letter of 8 October I write again to congratulate you on your brave decision to axe DSD support to the CTI.
Do words have power? Yes has to be the answer from anyone who heard your Statement. It was delicately worded and memorable. There was no fancy wrapping, no hidden meanings, just bare facts. The message was clear, the logic irrefutable. More importantly, the decision to cease supporting the CTI was politically and morally correct and, in a normal legislature, would have had the unbridled support of Ministerial colleagues. Their cowardice is unimportant because the law-abiding Public supports your decision wholeheartedly.
That your Executive colleagues left you isolated is simply another portent that the fall of the Assembly will occur in the not-too-distant future. Their behaviour, and that of Shaun Woodward, is totally consistent with the political machinations (plotting, lies, deceit, side deals) that achieved the restoration of the Assembly, including deliberate scheming by the authorities not to apply the criminal justice system even-handedly. The machinations continue, as does Government courtship of terrorist groups. Respect for law and order is being eroded at a rate of knots, perhaps irreparably. Against this background, what chance for a successful local administration? Zilch!!!
Margaret, the truth of it is that we are living in a political La-La Land where integrity, honesty, justice and morality (have I left anything out?) are alien concepts. You have courageously smashed your way out of that unholy loop. In my previous letter I posed a question: 鈥渄o you want to be remembered as a Boadicea or a Bottler?鈥 You have answered in spades. Margaret, whatever that nest of Vipers in the Executive throws at you in the future, keep in mind that you have done the right thing.
I finish by asking you another question to which I already know your answer.
SF: Margaret, are you up for the fight?
MR: TOO BLOODY RIGHT, SUSIE, BRING IT ON!
Yours Sincerely
Susie
Carryduff