No Popcorn for Michelle
I'm off again for a week and once again Martina will be taking the blogging strain. Before going I should say I've been interested by your continuing comments on our Assembly footballers. Earlier today the SDLP's Thomas Burns, a former player for Crumlin United, put out a news release on the match praising the manager Pat Jennings and boasting about his prowess from the six yard spot. "I was very happy with my performance in both games. I felt I took my penalty very well. I'm no David Healy, but I gave the keeper no chance." Yes, he said so himself.
My Inside Politics guest at 12.45 tomorrow on Radio Ulster is the Agriculture Minister Michelle Gildernew who reveals how she heard about the foot and mouth outbreak in England whilst sitting in a cinema in Dungannon watching a movie with her children. And she doesn't appear to see eye to eye with her Executive colleague Margaret Ritchie over the 60 day "guns or cash" deadline to the UDA, something which Ms Ritchie herself trailed in a previous Inside Politics appearance.
I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
I am not surprised Michelle Gildernew does not see eye to eye with Margaret Ritchie over the "guns or cash". For years a majority of Co Down people havent seen eye to eye with Miss Ritchie either. Has Miss Ritchie got her own hot air balloon? All i can see is empty promises. She always seeks urgent meetings and urgent representations on various issues but it never comes to anything. If only the people of Co Down had someone like Jeffrey Donaldson to represent them, there wouldnt be such an issue with anti social behaviour and the infrastructure wouldnt be a mess.
Martina
UDA: QUIDS SEPARATE US! *
In giving the UDA wriggle room over 鈥渃ash or guns鈥 Margaret Ritchie鈥檚 stance evokes memories of Peter Hain who constantly pandered to Sinn Fein/IRA by way of inducements, bribes and willingness to overlook clear law-breaking (eg Northern Bank and Robert McCartney). Margaret鈥檚 tough words do not disguise the immorality of offering a bribe as a quid pro quo for ceasing criminal activity. Would the same offer ever be made to groups of shoplifters, rapists or drunken drivers? If people within loyalist-controlled areas are suffering socio-economic disadvantage they should be helped without reference to the UDA. The proscribed UDA is a criminal enterprise and, as such, is a law and order problem. Politicians should not dignify it by talking to its mouthpiece, the UPRG (Unpleasant People Representing Gangsters). Clearly the police are not willing to move against this illegal organisation whose leaders are well known. At the very least, the Assets Recovery Agency and Tax Authorities should be all over the Brigadiers like a rash. As for Margaret Ritchie, it鈥檚 time for tough decisions, not tough talk!
* Source: Chewnic at Slugger O鈥橳oole, 2 August, 2007
Susie
Carryduff