Ms Ritchie, let's face it, had a gun put to her head. By the peace process.

If she hadn't put the money on the table there was a distinct possibility that the UDA would have used this as an excuse for racking up the violence and gangsterism. ("Don't blame us. This is what you can expect when frustrations within the loyalist community boil over.")

Also, the UDA would have argued that they were not being treated the same as republicans. ("The IRA got millions from the Government - our community believes it is being victimised.")

And, shockingly, this latter is an argument founded in fact. It's the Government which has been piecing off the paramilitaries for years, which set the shabby precedent that is now the template for the process.

But supposing Margaret Ritchie had said she was withholding the money, full stop - what then?

If the UDA upped their violence, who would cop the blame? Not actually the vile, contemptible UDA. That's not the way we work in Northern Ireland.

No, the flak would inevitably land upon naysayer, Margaret. She'd be the one blamed for failing to help the Wholesome UDA hack its way out of the jungles of the past, blah, blah, blah, towards a new dawn of peace, harmony and taxpayer-funded conflict resolution projects.

So, what the hell choice did she ever have when it came to deciding if the UDA was to get its £1.2 mill?

The Process had put a gun to her head. But cleverly, the Social Development minister in turn put a gun to the UDA's head.

They would only get their pay-off she, explained, if they decommissioned in 60 days.

So, will they or won't they? If you were a betting brigadier would you put your £1.2m on it?

Even as we speak, doubtless the Rev Good and Fr

Reid are contacting the cement suppliers putting them on standby for another seismic act of decommissioning.

But the thing is this: even if the UDA do come up with the required weaponry, the necessary clear-out doesn't end there. There's still so much more they need to chuck.

Perhaps something along the lines of a UDA car boot sale would be in order. You know the sort of thing that could be on offer.

"Numerous balaclavas, masks and military headgear. Suitable for bank robberies, shows of strength etc.

"Large quantity of pharmaceutical equipment.

"Quantity baseball bats. Six inch nails hammered through ends but could be recycled as firewood. Or used for extortion/punishment purposes.

"Counterfeiting equipment. Enough to stock several factories. Print your own banknotes, sports gear, designer labels, vodka etc.

"Assorted properties. Including paramilitary party pads and numerous brothels.

"Miscellaneous. Including uniforms (assorted sizes and varying international armed force origins), paramilitary flags, paint suitable for murals and large quantity Johnny Adair 'His Only Crime Was Loyalty' posters - mostly defaced ... "

Even writing these things, even jokingly, you can't help but be reminded of the salt this sort of paramilitary pay-off rubs in the wounds of the victims.

I wonder, for example, how the police officer shot in the back in Carrick feels about it.

I wonder if he wonders how the pittance in compensation he'll receive for his injuries will compare with the UDA windfall.

And that is why, while I have total respect for Margaret Ritchie and sympathy over the impossible position in which she has been placed by the Process, I still think that even with a 60-day deadline, the handout is wrong.

But I also believe that, whatever happens, the UDA will get their blood money.

The giveaway was that bit in Margaret Ritchie's statement where she warned about the UDA being in "the last chance saloon".

For we have learnt from bleak experience that when it comes to paramilitaries, "last chance saloon" threats have all the clout of a soggy beer mat.

In Northern Ireland we have learnt the last chance saloon has a very, very late licence.

The truth facing Gerry

There are individuals and organisations who just seem to have the PR thing nailed. They can't put a PR foot wrong. Their every move reaps dividends.

And then, oddly, they just lose it. Why?

Who's to say? Maybe their approach changes. Maybe the public mood changes. Maybe the times change. Are the times a-changing for Gerry Adams?

Certainly, he's no longer the sure shot of republican spin he once was.

Take his new Campaign for Truth. Isn't there a possibility that this could badly rebound upon him? Say in the form of a retaliatory Campaign for the Truth about Gerry? The weekend march - it attracted around two thousand, hardly a record republican crowd - featured street theatre with a pretend soldier, a pretend cop and a pretend paramilitary.

The paramilitary was presumably meant to look loyalist. The problem for the producers was he also looked republican. Thus uncomfortably pointing up the question of republican collusion with the security forces. It's all become a bit pot, kettle, black ribbon campaign. Down south, republicans are understandably concerned about losing electoral support. Closer to home, are they also in danger of losing the plot?

Boys in Blue

Thames Valley police have apparently recruited two 16-year-old cops. They're not regulars. They're community police officers. But reportedly they still have the powers to detain offenders, to stop and search, to issue penalty notices and to stop vehicles.

This could be a very clever plan. One way to get teenagers off the streets - get them to patrol the streets.

Then again you have to imagine the conversations between the hapless offenders and the stroppy teenage arresting officers. Particularly the female teenage arresting officers.

"You are under arrest because you are so, like, well, sooo badly parked. Your car is just so off the pavement. It is just sooo unfair. I mean to say, see if I care, you know what I mean, but it is like just sooo unfair. You're nicked. Know what I mean. Whatever."

Story of the week had to be davy gordon's report in this paper on the dup mla who, while collecting disability allowance, still turned out for team stormont in an assembly football fixture. earning somewhere in the region of 40 grand a year (before expen ses) he did not apparently see there could be any problem with this. That it might be deeply offensive not only to taxpayers - but to all those poor souls who should be on DLA but are routinely turned down. His excuse was that during the game he "stood like a statue" and he was only there "to fill an Assembly shirt." Great attitude, all round.