{"id":4531,"date":"2018-12-18T13:27:13","date_gmt":"2018-12-18T13:27:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.longkeshinsideout.co.uk\/?p=4531"},"modified":"2018-12-18T13:28:00","modified_gmt":"2018-12-18T13:28:00","slug":"loyalist-refutes-malicious-allegations-published-in-sunday-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.longkeshinsideout.co.uk\/?p=4531","title":{"rendered":"Loyalist refutes \u201cmalicious\u201d allegations published in Sunday World"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Loyalist Willie Young has told Unionist Voice that he is has felt \u201ccompelled to respond\u201d after a Sunday World article published\u00a0 (16th December) made a number of allegations against him, including that he was a \u2018tout\u2019.<\/p>\n

The article alleged that Mr Young had been ejected from a pub in east Belfast and further went on to state that the North Belfast loyalist had been \u201cexposed as a police informer\u201d in a 2007 Police Ombudsman\u2019s report.<\/p>\n

Despite the severity of the allegations, Mr Young was not contacted for comment and the loyalist has told Unionist Voice that he feels this is \u201cplainly unfair\u201d.<\/p>\n

In line with our commitment to provide a voice to all sections of the grassroots unionist community, especially those persons who have been demonised and isolated, we have published in full the statement released exclusively by Mr Young to Unionist Voice tonight.<\/p>\n

\u201cI was not approached nor offered any opportunity to comment on any of the allegations printed about me in today\u2019s (16 December) Sunday World newspaper.<\/p>\n

\u201cI am a private individual and wish to lead a quiet life. However, I have felt compelled to respond to the serious allegations made against me.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cOn the substantive part of today\u2019s story I entirely and completely refute any suggestion that I had any altercation with any individual or group, verbal or otherwise, in East Belfast and nor was I asked to leave any bar, social club or premises in that or any other area.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cI am entitled to socialise with friends as part of my basic rights to enjoy privacy and freedom of association. There is no crime in this, nor is there anything immoral with that. I fail to see how the public interest test has been passed in relation to infringing upon my right to privacy.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cOn the most damaging allegation, namely that I am, or have been, a police informer I utterly reject this baseless and malicious allegation. It is disgraceful that such slurs and allegations can be made without the subject of such allegations, in this instance me, having the opportunity to refute such claims.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cI am entitled to the same due process, protections of the law and application of fair journalistic standards as everyone else. I do not feel today\u2019s story treats me fairly in relation to any of the aforementioned standards.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cI feel that people like myself do not usually complain when malicious or untrue stories are published and instead just take it on the chin. But why should I? Why do I not deserve to be treated like everyone else and contacted to be offered a right of reply?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cI think because loyalists have traditionally refused to comment that there is a laziness in sections of the media that just presume that will be the case and as such bypass the normal courtesy of reaching out for comment. This is plainly unfair.\u201d<\/div>\n

\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026<\/p>\n

Analysis-By Jamie Bryson <\/strong><\/p>\n

Willie Young is a name many people will recognise due to the large volume of unsubstantiated newspaper stories and articles he has been the subject of over the years.<\/p>\n

The typical defence of this type of journalism is that it is in the public interest, another school of thought is that it can \u2013 and has \u2013 placed people\u2019s lives and the lives of their family members at risk over the years.<\/p>\n

Willie Young has a past, he\u2019s not alone, there are many people in Northern Ireland who do, some of whom are currently in government or hold high profile influential positions in \u2018civic\u2019 society.<\/p>\n

If he ever was, or is, involved in crime then he should be subject to the same due process of the criminal justice system as everyone else. I make no plea for anyone to have immunity for criminal offences or to evade legitimate public interest scrutiny.<\/p>\n

But the case of Mr Young raises more fundamental points. Does he deserve to be treated equally in terms of journalistic protocol, and does he deserve the same privacy considerations under the law as everyone else? I say yes.<\/p>\n

This weekend the Sunday World ran an article which made a serious allegation against Willie Young- namely that he was a police informant. I do not know as a cast iron fact whether this is true, or not, but the man has went on the record and said it is false and malicious. I believe him.<\/p>\n

The thought process I have just described outlines the harm done to Willie Young by virtue of the allegation made against him. How does the man ever disapprove the allegation? Each person will make a judgement call on whether to believe him, or believe an unproven allegation advanced against him. And not just any allegation but one which is almost impossible to disapprove regardless of your innocence or guilt. That seems unbalanced and unfair to me.<\/p>\n

Willie Young was not identified as an informer in the 2007 Police Ombudsman report. Ciphers were identified. Others, some who may have their own moral or immoral agendas, have identified him based on a cipher, but where is the proof to substantiate this?<\/p>\n

This allegation alone is enough to place a person\u2019s life at risk and don\u2019t just take my word for it \u2013 in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan\u2019s judgement in an appeal brought by dissident republican Brendan Conway in 2014 \u2013 the court held that it was not in the public interest to identify an informant.<\/p>\n

Therefore if the allegation, which he furiously denies, against Mr Young was true then on what basis did the Sunday World identity him. This could put his life at risk.<\/p>\n

If, as Mr Young has been abundantly clear, it is not true, then this could still put his life in danger.<\/p>\n

The media even add a caveat when referring to Freddie Scappaticci as \u2018Stakeknife\u2019, a man who is subject to an ongoing police investigation and linked to up to 40 murders, a man convicted of having extreme pornographic images \u2013 and yet afford no such caveat to Willie Young who strongly denies the allegations against him.<\/p>\n

I simply advance the argument that Willie Young is entitled to be afforded the same journalistic courtesy as everyone else. He should be offered a right to comment if an allegation is to be made about him.<\/p>\n

I do accept there is a deeply embedded culture within loyalism of refusing to engage with the media. I have argued against this; some people do not agree with my argument and others do agree and see the strategic benefit it in. Self isolation and self censorship makes for an easy target.<\/p>\n

My personal view is you should always comment and provide a counter balance. Stories and allegations about loyalists are unbalanced by default due to the fact that loyalists for the most part refuse to comment, or more accurately are rarely given the opportunity to do so.<\/p>\n

Regardless what you think of Willie Young, as of today he has decided to break that cycle, to speak out and challenge the narrative. That isn\u2019t an easy thing to do.<\/p>\n

Loyalists must demand fair treatment and balance, not simply complain about the imbalance- but actively and strategically challenge it. That is why I think Unionist Voice is serving the public interest by providing Willie Young with a platform.<\/p>\n

This article first appeared in the Unionist Voice<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Share\"\/<\/a>