'Loyalist paramilitary transitioning has failed' ex-watchdog says
The process aimed at disbanding loyalist paramilitary groups has failed, a former security watchdog has told BBC Northern Ireland's Spotlight programme.Lord Alderdice, the former Alliance Party leader who was a member of the Independent Monitoring Commission, said talks about loyalist transition should stop.He was responding to the arrest and conviction on firearms charges of Winston Irvine, who worked as an interlocutor with the Loyalist Communities Council (LCC), which represents mainstream loyalist groups.A senior LCC source told Spotlight that loyalist transition is on course to be concluded this autumn, with an announcement of the complete dismantling of all paramilitary structures.
Irvine, of Ballysillan Road in north Belfast, was a well-known community worker before being given a two and a half year sentence over guns and ammunition found in the boot of his car in 2022.The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) is appealing the sentence for being "unduly lenient".Irvine's conviction has returned attention to loyalist funding and paramilitary groups.Set up in 2015, the LCC says it represents a loyalist leadership committed to transition, the scaling back of criminality and ultimately disbandment.A source in the organisation told Spotlight that Winston Irvine has been instrumental in moving the mainstream Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) away from criminality, and that a final push for loyalist transition is imminent.
Lord Alderdice spent seven years on the Independent Monitoring Commission, which was given access to secret intelligence to report on paramilitary activities, before it was wound up in 2011.He said the transition process is "not working". "A halt should be called, and you can't call a halt now sooner than today."There comes a point when you have to say no, this hasn't been delivered."It's not going to be delivered. And, actually, by continuing we are making it worse."Lord Alderdice told the programme he does not believe the loyalist paramilitaries are making a genuine effort to transition away from criminality."What I've seen is more talking about transition, and transformation, and no doubt with an invoice provided, for how much money is needed to be made available from public services in order to pay off these people."
Cathy McIlvenny's sister, Lorraine, was murdered by UDA members in 1987.She previously told Spotlight, in 2013, that she dealt with Winston Irvine when he arranged a punishment shooting of her nephew, Craig, in 2002.Cathy believes the sentence given to Irvine is not enough, and says loyalist paramilitaries will continue as long as funding is still available."They're just being given money to keep them quiet and make it look to the rest of the world now that the British government has solved the Northern Ireland problem."But, it hasn't. It's made it worse for the communities."In 2013 it was alleged to Spotlight that Winston Irvine was a UVF leader, something which he has denied as "preposterous".
No explanation was given in court as to why Irvine and his co-accused had the guns.Following the arrest, police discovered UVF paraphernalia in Irvine's home, and that of his co-accused Robin Workman.However, in sentencing, Judge Gordon Kerr KC concluded the movement of weapons had not been directly connected to terrorism.54-year-old, Workman, of Shore Road in Larne, was sentenced to five years - the minimum custodial sentence, which the PPS said it would not be appealing.The guns were found by covert police six weeks after a hoax bomb, which targeted a peace event in Belfast attended by then Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney in March 2022.Police said UVF involvement in the hoax attack was a primary line of inquiry.
Prior to his arrest and conviction, Winston Irvine spent more than a decade as a paid community worker.That role gave him access to high-level contacts and enhanced his credibility as a peace builder.The 49-year-old, who received a number of supportive character references during the case, provided a pre-prepared statement in which he claimed to be a "trusted interlocutor" in community relations and the peace process.However, his arrest sent shock waves through the British and Irish governments because of how they often rely on community workers to engage with loyalist communities.Following his arrest, Irvine was suspended from his role at the north Belfast community group Intercomm Ireland, in line with its internal disciplinary procedures.He left the organisation several months later.Intercomm said it was "difficult to convey the impact" the case had on its team who were "shocked, disappointed and felt let down" by Winston Irvine's actions.A statement added that "significant reorganisation (was) required to continue to deliver on our commitments to projects and fulfil obligations to funders and to the community".But Irvine continued to work on funded projects in unionist and loyalist areas while on bail for the weapons charges.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EDEN CONFIDENTIAL: Art dealer's withering verdict on Petra Ecclestone's ex James Stunt
Cleared of all charges relating to a £266 million money-laundering scam – unlike his four fellow co-defendants, three of whom are on the run – James Stunt, who was declared bankrupt in 2019, argues that the value of his artworks, currently held by museums and galleries, is greater in value than his debts. But I can disclose that perhaps the most impeccably informed of Stunt's old acquaintances disagrees. New York art dealer Ezra Chowaiki, released from a US prison in 2020 after a 13-month stretch for fraud, first met the self-styled gold bullion dealer one weekend in 2015, when Stunt was still married to Formula 1 heiress Petra Ecclestone. What followed was so extraordinary that it helped spur Chowaiki into writing an eye-popping expose of the art world, the basis for a documentary now in development. 'Even within the absurd circus that is the high-end art world, Stunt stood out as a master clown,' Chowaiki tells me from New York, recalling their first encounter during which Stunt asserted that his Rolls was 'the only truly bulletproof car in England' and 'worth £1 million'. At his Mayfair office – which resembled 'something between Miami Vice and Succession' – Stunt reached into a safe, threw an object into Chowaiki's lap and asked: 'Do you know how much that's worth?' It was a gold ingot. Chowaiki then offered Stunt a painting. It was, aptly, a clown by Salvador Dali, priced £1.16million. Stunt responded by getting out his phone, showing Chowaiki two paintings by French artist Georges Braque and saying that he'd trade them for the Dali and $1million. Saying that he'd think about it, Chowaiki left London. In the following week, he alleges, he was 'hounded' by Stunt, who now offered the Braques for the Dali plus $500,000, and sent a series of 'increasingly deranged and voluminous texts'. Chowaiki insisted that Stunt send him photos of the Braques in their frames. 'The images he had sent could have been scanned from books,' reflects Chowaiki, who says that he had severe doubts about the authenticity of one of the paintings in particular. He had one last exchange with Stunt, who lent several paintings to Dumfries House – saved for the nation by King Charles – only for it to emerge that a number of them were fakes. Called by Stunt, who was seeking guidance about how to have the Picassos in his collection authenticated, Chowaiki explained that they should be submitted to Picasso's son, Claude. He recalls that Stunt asked in a 'hushed' tone: 'Do you think Claude could The comment (presumably a joke) made Chowaiki laugh, he recalls, before he explained to Stunt that Claude 'would never compromise himself'. A source close to Stunt says that the visit to his office couldn't have happened as he did not have access to his office at weekend. Doubtless Stunt is speaking in good faith, besides which, as his former butler, John Gilmour, told the Mail On Sunday last month, he frequently enjoyed Sunday lunch with his godfather, convicted crime baron Terry Adams. But one wonders if he has failed, in this instance, to take into account his past cocaine addiction and the consequent damage that it might have done to his memory. Chowaiki's texts for the weekend in question unequivocally show that Stunt asked to meet him on September 27, 2015. The source additionally insists he did not toss a gold ingot as Chowaiki suggests and denies that Stunt ever asked whether Claude Picasso could be influenced. Chowaiki, aware that he blotted his own copybook, counters: 'As unreliable a narrator as I may be, I'm still better than most in this field. Plus, I keep my texts.' Double take as 'Kate' parties at Annabel's The Princess of Wales's absence from Royal Ascot was much remarked-upon, and some at Annabel's summer solstice party were convinced they had spotted her at the private members club in Mayfair. However, on closer inspection, they realised it was Meg Bellamy, who played the younger version of Catherine in drama The Crown. The actress, 22, wore a white mini dress, and one guest tells me: 'I had to do a double take.' Hancock's new ink Matt Hancock's reinvention continues. The former Tory MP, 46, resigned as health secretary after CCTV showed him kissing and embracing Gina Coladangelo, his aide, at Whitehall in breach of Covid distancing restrictions in 2021. The pair were both married to other people. This week, his daughter Hope, 18, announced online: 'My dad got a tattoo today. Mid-life crisis.' Hancock declines to say which design is now inked on his body – or on which part of his anatomy – telling me: 'I'm not commenting.' Not like him… Brian's boozy podcast appearance Recalling actor Brian Cox's recent appearance on her podcast, chef Angela Hartnett mischievously claims the Succession star, 79, got tipsy on margaritas before going on the West End stage that night. With Cox playing JS Bach in The Score at the time, Hartnett quips: 'We just got Brian Cox drunk, it was fine. He went on to do a show later, it was amazing.' Podcast co-host Nick Grimshaw says: 'He got right on it.' Surely not! Dominic West and Alexandra Tolstoy share trek's appeal Dominic West once trekked to the South Pole with Prince Harry, who later shunned him. But The Affair star's latest adventure found him saddling up with a far more appealing companion. Alexandra Tolstoy, 51, rode horseback across Kyrgyzstan with West, 55, for a new documentary. 'It's a bit embarrassing I haven't watched The Wire,' she says of one of the actor's most celebrated TV dramas. 'But it's been so much fun.' Author and broadcaster Tolstoy is a tourism ambassador for the former Soviet state. Royal fiction is foul play The Royal Family may feel they have enough to contend with from America, especially its West Coast. But things can deteriorate further, judging by a play now being performed off Broadway. It would be a challenge to summarise Prince Faggot – the play's title – as merely 'imaginative', given that it features a fetish mask and recreational drugs and other activities which would look more in place in Fifty Shades Of Grey. A programme note asserts that all the text is fictional and adds that 'any resemblance to real events is purely coincidental'. Yet playwright Jordan Tannahill opts for a central character called Prince George, son of the Prince and Princess of Wales, William and Kate. Shame on Tannahill. The smart set's talking about Henry's Royal Ascot role Carriage three in the Royal Procession caught the eye at Royal Ascot, thanks to the elegant figure of Harriet Sperling, the paediatric nurse accompanying the King's nephew, Peter Phillips, just over a year after the couple – both divorced – were first seen together in public. Their marital histories would once have made their attendance unthinkable, but this more forgiving era had another beneficiary – in carriage four. Not Lady Joanna Morton Jack, the Earl and Countess of Halifax's only daughter, but Joanna's husband, judge's son Henry Morton Jack. A barrister of brilliance, he's described as 'hugely talented' by Chambers legal directory. But he's not always been quite so upright... most memorably at a Madonna film premiere party in his youth when he and his chum, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent's son, Lord Freddie Windsor, took a little too much refreshment. Tuesday was certainly a day to build up a thirst but, happily, Henry, 46, remained splendidly vertical. How divorced Luke finally beat drugs Rupert Murdoch's former grandson-in-law, British rapper Luke 'Lukey' Storey, has spoken publicly for the first time about the addiction that destroyed his marriage to the media magnate's granddaughter – just 12 hours after they said 'I do'. Charlotte Freud, 24, daughter of media executive Elisabeth Murdoch and PR supremo Matthew Freud, married Luke in 2022 in a star-studded Cotswolds wedding with guests including Woody Harrelson and Claudia Winkleman. But behind the spectacle, the couple were already teetering on the brink. 'We had been married for 12 hours when our whole world fell apart,' Charlotte later admitted. Luke relapsed on the way to their honeymoon. What followed was a turbulent, 14-month marriage marked by mutual attempts at recovery – and frequent collapse. for Sarah's memoir, How Not To Be A Political Wife, at Hatchards in Piccadilly, London. 'It wasn't easy writing this book – and for some it will be an equally difficult read,' she admits. Luke, 39, now says: 'I ruined a lot of relationships while I was using – people I loved dearly, close friends, family. You can't heal relationships while you're still actively hurting yourself.' Sarah's bond with Kemi She may have fallen out with David 'man-baby' Cameron, but my colleague Sarah Vine enjoys warmer relations with the current Tory leader. Kemi Badenoch joined guests including Kirstie Allsopp and Piers Morgan at the launch party for Sarah's memoir, How Not To Be A Political Wife, at Hatchards in Piccadilly, London. 'It wasn't easy writing this book – and for some it will be an equally difficult read,' she admits. (Very) modern manners The love lives of Fern Britton's daughters are providing inspiration for her novels. 'Grace has a lovely partner, but Winnie is single, and whilst she's a very attractive girl, it all seems so difficult now,' says Fern, 67, who separated from their father, TV chef Phil Vickery, in 2020. 'In the 1970s, a man would come and say, 'Oh, do you want to go out?' and you'd reply, 'Yes, thank you'. Now, it seems they're all giving each other therapy about someone they've been seeing for ten days.' She tells Saga magazine: 'I was intrigued about how these relationships work and wanted to explore that a bit.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action to be banned after vandalism of planes at RAF base
The Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being also investigated by counter terror police. A spokesperson for Palestine Action accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group. Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Friday's incident at Brize Norton, described by the Prime Minister as 'disgraceful', prompted calls for Palestine Action to be banned. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe the group, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' CAA chief executive Gideon Falter urged the Home Secretary to proscribe the Houthi rebel group and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, adding: 'This country needs to clamp down on the domestic and foreign terrorists running amok on our soil.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'. But Tom Southerden, of Amnesty International UK, said the human rights organisation was 'deeply concerned at the use of counter terrorism powers to target protest groups'. Mr Southerden said: 'Terrorism powers should never have been used to aggravate criminal charges against Palestine Action activists and they certainly shouldn't be used to ban them. 'Instead of suppressing protest against the UK's military support for Israel, the UK should be taking urgent action to prevent Israel's genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
