The PSNI, illegal road blocking charges and prospective New Year’s resolutions
Question: When is illegal road blocking not an offence? Answer: When the road blockers are of a unionist persuasion, it would appear.The news that 26 individuals have received fines of £400 plus for staging a sit down protest in advance of the loyalist 12th July parade along the Crumlin Road earlier in the year is newsworthy for the fact that it represents a departure from how the PSNI and judiciary have previously- and subsequently- dealt with those who illegally blocked roads to make political statements; the difference being that those traditionally associated with road blocking have been of a loyalist persuasion.
As the Irish News noted in an article last week, loyalists have been known to block roads for a variety of reasons without facing similar charges from the PSNI. For example, in July 2010 loyalists in north Belfast blocked access to ASDA after a convicted loyalist member of staff had been suspended for making inappropriate comments to customers.
Just a matter of weeks ago, loyalists blocked the road in front of Belfast city hall during a protest which also involved kicking cars belonging to nationalist elected representatives. Again, no arrests were made in relation to this incident.
Ironically, loyalists in north Belfast have been quick to block roads when parade routes have been curtailed by Parades Commission determinations in the past- again, without facing similar charges from the PSNI.
In June 2011, loyalists blocked Twaddell Avenue as part of a parade protest in relation to the controversial Tour of the North parade. That illegal road blocking incident was described as “disciplined and |dignified” by the North Belfast DUP MLA William Humphrey.
Again, no charges were brought by the PSNI in relation to this illegal road blocking incident.
Perhaps this marks a new departure for the PSNI, though the evidence would suggest otherwise, given that these charges were brought in relation to a parade in July but were not subsequently followed through in relation to loyalist road blockers at Belfast city hall a matter of weeks ago or previous to that incident at Twaddell Avenue.
Perhaps the PSNI need to realise that the consistent application of the law (a theme already visited earlier in the year) is an infinitely more preferable and effective strategy to convince people of the sincerity of their intentions than, for example, seeking to engage in PR visits to catholic schools.
Perhaps there’s the basis of a good New Year’s resolution for Matt Baggott and his team in there somewhere……
Never mind the disjoint of repulicans sharing power at stormont but can’t share a roundabout on the crumlin road.
FairDeal
1. With regard to sharing roundabouts, I believe we’ve been over this ground before but now that you’re an elected representative for the area, then perhaps you can outline now for us on Slugger whether or not you’d be willing to support a republican parade from Ligoneil down through Ballysillan and into Ardoyne? After all, it’d only involve sharing a wee stretch of road…..
2. Regarding unionist attitudes to the Mayor’s action, I’d imagine those attitudes were similar to nationalist attitudes to Sammy Wilson’s DUP Conference remarks and the similarly offensive remarks attributed to a unionist councillor in Belfast regarding the Irish language.
The key difference is that the nationalist political parties did not proceed to ratchet up the issue by their subsequent actions, including supporting protests which proved to be sectarian and violent in character.
Oh, and at least the Mayor had the decency to apologise for his regrettable actions. We’re still awaiting similar expressions of remorse from Sammy and that Belfast unionist councillor.
Perhaps you can share with us whether you’d like to call on such statements of remorse at this time? After all, there hardly consistent with your party leaders expressed support for a unionism capable of garnering support from beyond the core PUL base of which you are so familiar……
Fair Deal,
Good to see you back contributing. Any chance of blogging again?
“In the midst of your infantile waffling” …. there you go again playing the man not the issue when you cannot cope, Perhaps my post was infantile in point out that your Party Reps haven’t even raised this. Are they too lazy or is it just not an issue. Your post suggests the former. Better be careful or you may get a visit for , what shall we say, ‘teacher training’ for being off message
Decimus,
if you believe that the PSNI took the right decision at the behest of the UVF and UDA then that is a matter for yourself, leave me out of that particular scenario. It least it throws a bit of light of where you are coming from.
Cynic
There’s no need to spit the dummy out now. It is hardly man playing to point out that the accusation that I am against any rights for loyalists is utterly ridiculous, not least when the issue at hand is one of seeking to ensure that both communities are treated in precisely the same manner by the authorities.
Thankfully I am less sensitive than you as, judging by your criteria, I could have labelled multiple contributions on this thread directed at myself as man-playing.
Perhaps a thicker skin is required from the New Year sales? ;>
I’ll have to repost the same post I typed yesterday because Pat McLarnon has yet to answer….Wonder why?
“Pat McLarnon you stated in an earlier post that;
‘the chair of the democratically elected CARA’…
Who was he elected by? Was it the whole community in Greater Ardoyne? If so, where and when did this election take place? Likewise, just how many members of CARA are also members of Provisional Sinn Fein?
After all, the above questions are in the interests of fair play and of course community accountability!”
Decimus,
if you believe that the PSNI took the right decision at the behest of the UVF and UDA then that is a matter for yourself, leave me out of that particular scenario. It least it throws a bit of light of where you are coming from.
Pat,
Clearly the UVF and UDA had nothing to do with the decision. The took their decision based on information given to them by the political wing of PIRA. You explained that earlier.
Decimus,
it was a protest organised by the unionist paramilitary UDA and UVF and the PSNI helped to facilitate it with use of force.
This was on the 16th of June and a few days later one party to the protest, the unionist UVF, launched their sectarian attack on the Short Strand. The PSNI displayed a traditional appeasing role to the unionist paramilitaries. Something that some of us are working to end.
“both communities are treated in precisely the same manner by the authorities”
…but as others have pointed out you were trying to compare apples with pears and challenge the right of Loyalists to protest LAWFULLY and peacefully
Pat,
For the purpose of continuity I think it would be helpful at this stage to remind ourselves of the sequence of events which you outlined for us earlier in this thread.
For some reason the loyalists insisted that some of those on protest (who hadn’t been blocking the road) be allowed onto the island at the main junction.
In order to facilitate this request the PSNI asked SF councillor Gerry Mc Cabe if this would be okay. When informed that this would inflame the situation, as crowds were gathering, the PSNI then decided to circumvent the SF councillor and then asked the Chairperson of CARA. They were then told the very same thing.
At that the PSNI moved their vehicles to face the Ardoyne residents who had gathered. Riot police were then deployed, again to face the Ardoyne residents.
So just to be clear the Sinner councillor and the chairperson of ‘CARA’ informed the police that the situation was about to become inflamed. The police then very sensibly deployed their officers in order to ensure that any inflamed situation could be dealt with without unneccesary casualties.
Decimus,
Your dishonesty is now becoming quite ridiculous. Having been pulled up on a blatant lie about the Chairperson of CARA it appears that rather than actually discuss the subject you maintain your dishonesty. Not very bright, but at least consistent.
The unionist UDA and UVF brought their members and camp followers to that junction. That in itself inflamed the situation. They sought to inflame the situation by having their unionist camp followers at the roundabout.
The capitulation by the PSNI emboldened the UVF in particular and they responded in type a few days later at Short Strand.
Joe
No I don’t have the time.
CD
Ignoring my questions and challenges and then trying to shift the topic, I wonder why? Care to respond to why the Robinson case slipped your mind and why the different attitudes at Stormont and Ardoyne?
No it wasn’t the same as Sammy’s conference speech a living breathing actual child was discriminated against.
“at least the Mayor had the decency to apologise for his regrettable actions”
Sorry the Lord Mayor took days to apologise (after SF had publicly said he wouldn’t) and did it so hamfistedly the first time he had to issue a second one. On the same day as the apology he told a journalist he wouldn’t rule doing the same again (cutting the legs from under the apology).
Asked three days later to say he wouldn’t behave the same way he refused and his group leader said to ask him to do so was to ask him to become a Unionist. Yet the next morning his group leader promised on the radio the Lord Mayor would not do the same again (this was mysteriously achieved without him changing into a Unionist) so what was too much to ask the night before became possible within hours. This was a SF media mess not a Unionist conspiracy.
Fair Deal: This was a SF media mess not a Unionist conspiracy.
To be fair, though, SF have been a lot less sure-footed ever since the Blairites left.
The unionist UDA and UVF brought their members and camp followers to that junction. That in itself inflamed the situation. They sought to inflame the situation by having their unionist camp followers at the roundabout.
Pat,
The only threat of violence the police were facing was from republicans. The Sinner rep and the CARA rep both made that clear to them as you have highlighted above. Therefore the police deployed in order to face that threat. An extremely sensible precaution given what they had been told.
The capitulation by the PSNI emboldened the UVF in particular and they responded in type a few days later at Short Strand.
There was no capitulation. The police successfully faced the threat down. Just as they successfully dealt with the mobs, from both sides, at Short Strand.
To be fair, though, SF have been a lot less sure-footed ever since the Blairites left.
Specifically since Jonathon Powell stopped writing the script for them.
Fair Deal
I take it from your unwillingness to state a position on a republican parade from Ligoneil to Ardoyne that you would be opposed to sharing ‘that’ stretch of road, yet are quite happy to moan about republicans not sharing the bit of the Crumlin Road just down from Ballysillan.
That tells us all we need to know about the willingness of unionist politicians to create genuinely shared space.
Your stance regarding the mayor’s apology and Sammy Wilson’s non-apology is completely hypocritical. All the waffle about the extent and nature of the Mayor’s apology doesn’t detract from the fact that at least he had the decency to so do, unlike Sammy Wilson who used the Stormont assembly to further boast about his ability to make sectarian comments to annoy the ‘other.’ Again, please explain how this is consistent with Peter’s stance on attracting non-protestants to the Union?
Oh, and what of your fellow unionist councillor’s remarks about the Irish language in the Belfast council chamber? Do you condemn such remarks and call on him to be even more unequivocal than you believe the Mayor was in expressing his regret?
Decimus,
“The only threat of violence the police were facing was from republicans. The Sinner rep and the CARA rep both made that clear to them as you have highlighted above.”
Your resort to lying is now reaching the point of cringeworthy. The SF rep and the CARA Chairperson explained that the unionist UVF and UDA were there for violence. At no stage was republican violence mentioned. You have invented that and it can be added to your ever growing list of lies.
The unionists faced down the PSNI and this emboldened those very same unionists to launch attacks on the Short Strand.
FD
“No it wasn’t the same as Sammy’s conference speech a living breathing actual child was discriminated against.”
Discriminated against? In the list of unionist hyperbole and fury this is right up there.
The family of the girl accepted the apology. Unionists decided to run with the issue despite that and as on previous occasions the UVF attack dogs were sent onto the streets. Cue attacks on cars at the City Hall.
Your resort to lying is now reaching the point of cringeworthy. The SF rep and the CARA Chairperson explained that the unionist UVF and UDA were there for violence. At no stage was republican violence mentioned. You have invented that and it can be added to your ever growing list of lies.
Pat,
So now you are saying that the Sinner and the CARA punter were warning the police that allowing the loyalists to stage a small protest on a traffic island would result in the said loyalists using violence? Really? How exactly does that work in your head?