Debate contribution: Paramilitary Groups: Transition from Violence and Crime

Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .

MLA
Ms Kellie Armstrong
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
10 March 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Paramilitary Groups: Transition from Violence and Crime
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4841673

Read the official Assembly record

Text

The UK and Irish Governments may believe that they are working towards peace by engaging with so-called paramilitaries — every paramilitary is illegal; for anybody who has belonged to a proscribed organisation, in the past or now, if they still hold membership, that is illegal — but, in their naivety, they will be engaging with active criminals whose activity includes drug dealing, prostitution, illegal lending and racist targeting. Hiding behind the terms of the Troubles, those criminals care more about the money that they can make than they do about any constitutional ideology. I come to the House to uphold the law. It is illegal to be a member of a proscribed organisation. I take umbrage at Mr Beattie's saying that there are good paramilitaries and bad paramilitaries. There are no good paramilitaries. Evidence of the threat that those criminals pose to civil society is easy to find. In my constituency, people have been put out of their home, houses and cars have been set on fire, illegal lending is rife and masked men have stood outside a courthouse trying to intimidate witnesses. Their behaviour is more like that of private militia and white supremacist groups that mobilise against local targets in order to maintain control and continue moneymaking. Intimidation by so-called paramilitary groups can have a chilling effect on participation in democratic processes or can stop people making reports to the PSNI by forcing individuals to choose between risking their safety and making their voice heard. An undercurrent of intimidation impacts on daily life across places where the most vulnerable live. In the past year, thugs have threatened Housing Executive staff in an attempt to prevent homes being allocated to people whom those thugs perceive as not being welcome, whether that is because of the colour of their skin, their religion or simply because the criminals want the home for a family member. Ministers met so-called loyalist representatives of a group that is well aware of the criminal activities that are taking place, but what did those meetings achieve? There has been no move towards an end of drug selling or the prostitution of young boys or girls to pay off debts. All that that achieved was to give a voice to the people who want to keep control and increase segregation. Coordinated intimidation is poisonous. No Government should entertain groups or individuals who are determined to control the community, particularly those that are in areas of deprivation. The risk of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland today looks different from how it did in 1998, but the situation remains gravely dangerous. Paramilitaries are engaged in unlawful efforts to bully, harass and force their perceived opponents out of the public square. Left unchecked, that creates a tinderbox for further unrest across Northern Ireland. It is in that context that the Irish and UK Governments are engaging with people who should have left the stage a long time ago. I will take you back to a 2016 interview by Kevin Magee from BBC Northern Ireland, when a member of the UDA outlined how he could not escape the control of paramilitaries. The UDA member claimed that the paramilitary group was heavily involved in serious crime in the south-east Antrim area. The BBC reported:

"Asked why he cannot just walk away from the illegal loyalist paramilitary organisation, the man said: 'It's not as simple as that. That's not the way it works.' He added: 'It's hard to explain to people the threat level they have against you and your family. If you walk away, they'll torture the life out of you. They will damage your property. They'll attack members of your family, they'll attack you. It's impossible. You just can't get out.'"

The man claimed that the UDA controlled "100%" of an illegal drug network in the south-east Antrim area:

"'Anybody that deals drugs, must go through the UDA, they must buy them from the UDA', he said. 'If they are not a member of the UDA, then they're taxed - so that they have to pay the UDA a certain percentage of the money that they get from them. Any stealing that goes on, if there are any break-ins in businesses or whatever, they take a cut of the money.' He said UDA members do not carry weapons but have them stashed away where they 'can get their hands on them within 20 minutes or half an hour'. The member claimed that many of these were guns left over from the 'so-called decommissioning' of paramilitary weapons earlier in the peace process. 'They kept all the good weapons,' the man said. 'They only destroyed rubbish - rusty ones, ones that had been used on jobs and they bought some newer weapons from drug gangs in Manchester.'"

When he was asked why he had changed his mind about being a member of a paramilitary group, the man said:

"They're a criminal gang. They have no interest in Ulster or politics or anything else. They just want to make money and I'm fed up with it."

In the same report, former Assistant Chief Constable Alan McQuillan was quoted as saying that the comments did not surprise him:

"I would argue there isn't a UDA anymore. The UDA was an organisation that existed at the start of the Troubles. It then broke up into criminal gangs. When you talk about engaging with the UDA, it's pointless."

901 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.16 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.71).
  • The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.92).
  • Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.12No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.13No
Cultural grievance politics0.03No
Dog-whistle messaging0.19No
Controversy escalation0.09No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.71Yes
Overall judgement0.16At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.06
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.92
Adopts it0.02
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.60
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.39
Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers0.01
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:07 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification