The Conclusion of the explanation of the First Finding is also worth looking at from Volume 1 [pages 65-68]

As is the subsequent discussion to the Recommendation to the Legislature. [pages 79-81]

In this case, there has been much said about the level of frustration that existed on the part of Sarah Palin’s father Chuck Heath who filed the original complaint against Trooper Michael Wooten, and on the part of Sarah and Todd Palin, who attempted to learn the status of the investigation only to be told be Colonel Grimes that the matter was confidential by reason of AS 39.25.080.  I believe their frustration was real as was their skepticism about whether their complaints were being zealously investigated.  The irony is that the complaints were taken very seriously, and a thorough investigation was underway.  However, the law prevented the Troopers from giving them any feedback whatsoever.

While we’re on Iceland, the Daily Mash explained how those councils got it wrong.

COUNCILS INVESTED £1BN IN TINY VOLCANO SURROUNDED BY FISH
Julian Cook, director of finance at the Local Government Association, said: “I meant Luxembourg - shit!

“I suppose the haddock-shaped piece of lava with every new account was probably a clue.”

AN Wilson in the Mail goes retro with memories of austerity forties he hopes will return.
“My reason for being hopeful as we look ahead towards the lean years is that austerity binds us all together - as communities and as families.”

Even more alarming is a surprisingly sensible Sun leader – have they lost their bottle altogether?

“The lesson of history is that good times DO return.

But the wait is going to be long and painful.”

The left are in a bit of bind at the moment. They’re itching to condemn capitalism of course but they’re not sure of their audience and David Cameron had already nabbed the “punish the master of the universe” line. Michael Meacher of the traditional left of the Labour party comes right out and says it.

“The tax havens hiding billions offshore should be opened up by law and the vast wealth illegally accumulated there over decades should be repatriated to replenish Treasury coffers. And in an unprecedented crisis like this, a significant tax surcharge needs to be levied on the broadest shoulders – the hedge funds and private equity operators, the higher rate taxpayers (particularly the 1% richest) and the biggest businesses. It will hurt, but not doing so will hurt much more.”

Quote of the week goes to Ian Paisley, in the Commons on Monday.

“I am sure that the whole House will realise the very terrible times that we are in. I remember being a lad in Ulster and the soup kitchens, the poverty and the terrible happenings that took place. We must all, in our own way, do what we can to help one another to get some way through this very dark hour for our nation. I know that there are many beliefs in this House; my belief in God is well known and my religious convictions are known. I trust that our whole nation will turn in repentance and cry to God for an intervention so that the calamity will not come on our children and on the babes in their cots.”

Also from the iol report

In an attack on Mr Adams’s role as MP for West Belfast, Mr Robinson added: “West Belfast has some of the most deprived communities in Northern Ireland - both Protestant and Roman Catholic – and what is their MP doing about it? Banging on about his party-political objectives.”

Mr Robinson said: “People will rightly judge this as yet another sad outburst from a man who is frustrated that he is no longer able to control events in the way he once did.”

Still, “This isn’t something we are going to fall out about.” Is it?

More from the Newsletter report

Sinn Fein was putting the “ideological approach” before the “logical one”, the First Minister claimed.

“Gerry Adams comments are to be treated more in pity than in scorn,” he added.

“They betray a fundamentally sectarian mindset – not only does he fail to comprehend that unionism is not a religion but that it is also possible to be a Roman Catholic and a unionist at the same time.

“If Gerry Adams thinks that by resorting to such behaviour he will rally his grassroot supporters who are disillusioned at the distance Sinn Fein has had to travel it is a sad commentary on republicanism.”

It used to be reasonably easy to define - primarily those demanding complete independence from Britain and the establishment of a Republican government. After that various elements had differing significance for various parties:

· Socialism - pretty much a perquisite
· Secularism
· The 1916 Proclamation
· The 1919 Democratic Programme
· Articles 2 & 3

After the GFA the definitions altered for many with FF overseeing the removal of Articles 2 & 3 from the 26 county constitution, previously the foundations of state Republicanism; SF accepting and enthusiastically promoting an ‘Agreement’ based on partition and enshrining the ‘consent principle’ (Unionist veto) as the way forward, now for them the only way to unity despite often declaring it ‘not a Republican document’.

Did the nature of Republicanism suddenly change when the ‘Agreement’ came about? Has Republicanism changed from outright rejection of British influence in Ireland to working within,or supporting from outside, partitioned structures in the north of Ireland and no guarantee of future unity never mind the Socialist Republic? Has constitutional Nationalism become Republicanism? Or has traditional Republicanism ceased to exist for many and been sidelined?

These are not unique Irish questions in modern politics as the meanings of ‘Left’ and ‘Socialism’ are facing attempted redefinition in popular consciousness. Topics on Splintered Sunrise raised this as an
attempt by those in certain movements, who had always been opposed to Socialism, attempting to set acceptable limits on where political discourse lies by defining themselves as the ideology and more traditional views as beyond the pale.

Is similar occurring within Republicanism? Is the claim to ownership from FF, SF and the SDLP from positions closer to those normally viewed as constitutional nationalism trying to limit where acceptable discourse on Irish politics can be held? Is there a move to the centre and a fire walling of the approved limits for debate? Is the traditional view on Republicanism being treated as abnormal?

As Socialism, also claimed by FF, SF and the SDLP, takes a backseat in the policies and actions of government in Ireland and those declaring it involve themselves in privatisation, strike-breaking, non-unionised labour promotion and other policies more often associated with the right have the twin and interlinked foundations of Republicanism/Socialism been distorted into something else?

Of course there are other smaller groups still proclaiming to be truly Republican, like those proclaiming true Socialism elsewhere but is their form of Republicanism and Socialism a thing of the past? Can ideologies really alter through time? Can definitions change? Or are some not facing the fact they have changed while the ideology remains unaltered?

So where is Republicanism in modern Ireland? Certainly not where it was before. 

Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point gives a compelling account of how New York tackled its crime epidemic during the 90’s (the original New Yorker article that led to the book can be found here, and follows a similar theme). The book offers Broken Window Theory as the method for achieving a tipping point in crime. Broken window theory states that small crime acts as enabler for big crime; having a “broken window” in a street suggests it may be easier to get away with a crime. By tackling the small problems, we tackle the bigger ones.

It’s an interesting theory, but as you can see if you follow the Wikipedia link above, like all theories it has it’s critics. However, I’m not so sure it matters if the overall theory works; despite the recent spate of murders in West Belfast, low level antisocial crime is much more likely to be encountered on an everyday basis and much more likely to cause a climate of fear. So it’s worth looking at the policy prescriptions.

• They announced a policy of zero tolerance. I think this is significant in itself: I think it is important that the expectation for crime is set at: you will get caught, and you will get punished.
• Low level offences, however trivial, were rigorously enforced. If you peed on the street, you were going to jail.
• Steps were taken to facilitate that. The biggest barrier in arresting someone for small crimes was the trip to the station involved and the level of paperwork that needs processed. Buses were turned into mobile police stations, and the paperwork reduced to increase turnaround time. I suggest in our society, human rights issues may also be a problem, and some protocol would need developed to deal with that.
• Random “safety checks” were implemented to try and proactively look for and deal with low level crime, stolen cars, or drink driving. This tied in with a pattern of a more general increase in activity – more arrests, more cars stop, more moves against drug dealers.
• Resources were targeted at problem areas.Computer models were used to map patterns of crime, and resources targeted at specific areas. It’s unlikely that sophisticated models would be needed here, but the principle is the same; put people where needed. There are again sensitivities here (on both sides) that would need some thought, but I don’t believe that it should be used as a blocking issue.
• There was a steady increase in the number of police on the street.

Most of that is sensible, I feel, and none of it is rocket science. Some might see it as a lurch to the right, but I think the biggest mistake made on the right in terms of crime is ever tougher sentencing (particularly if it involves mandatory sentencing) regardless of how much sense it makes, what reoffending rates are like or how overcrowded the prisons get. This doesn’t deal with that: the target here is simply to ensure that the current law is better and more consistently enforced, and proper expectations are set.

I have another idea too: totally ditch current drugs policy, but that’s for another day. What do you think needs done?

According to Robinson:

These are critical months for Northern Ireland not just in relation to building for our long term economic wellbeing but also in dealing with the present economic difficulties. The refusal of Sinn Fein to agree to an Executive meeting since last June has not only damaged the credibility of devolution in the eyes of the public but it is also damaging to the credibility of Northern Ireland in the wider world.

At a time when Governments around the world are acting to deal with the financial crisis our Executive is not even meeting.  The role of the Executive in dealing with global problems is limited but the very least that people expect is that their politicians seek to deal with their problems.  Again let me make it plain.  I want the Executive to meet.  I want it to meet immediately and I am placing no conditions on it meeting.  Sinn Fein alone is blocking the process.

He continues:

International investors will not wait around forever and in an ever increasingly competitive market we can simply not afford the present Sinn Fein obstruction of the Executive. Nor can we delay getting to grips with the necessary reforms that Northern Ireland needs in order to move ahead.

In contrast, last March Secretary for State for Northern Ireland Shaun Woodward also expressed his concerns about international investors being scared off by the continuing logjam in Northern Ireland but he seemed to be blaming the lack of a completion of devolution, namely policing and justice powers, as the main cause:

But no-one should be under any illusion that the completion of devolution is crucial for the long term stability and prosperity of Northern Ireland. When it happens, it will send out a clear signal around the world that Northern Ireland is a sound investment for the future.

But rather than do the simple thing and hold a line similar to Woodward in the ongoing impasse with the DUP, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has returned to familiar ground, preferring instead to accuse unionists of simply not wanting to share power with Catholics:

It is obvious that there are elements with the DUP who do not agree with power sharing and partnership as a political model or a practical politics. In addition, there are clearly elements of the DUP who really don’t want to have a Catholic about the place. They are opposed to power sharing in any form. And some of them clearly believe that by stalling and delaying they can hollow out the Good Friday and St Andrews Agreements. As a result of this opposition the DUP has been retreating from its obligations under the St Andrews Agreement.

Meanwhile, the Dow Jones dropped 700 points in the first few minutes of trade before recovering as the rollercoaster ride continues on the stock markets, while the ISEQ is probably languishing at a level lower than it was when the Good Friday Agreement was signed over a decade ago.

The Nobel committee is often accused of naivety and too much establishment thinking. Most winners fall into two main categories – big international groups doing good works, like the International Atomic Energy Authority and politicians on either side of conflict, Mandela and de Klerk, Arafat, and Rabin and Peres; Kissinger and the North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho. Not all of the prizes stand the test of time like Arafat and Kissinger.  Among the most heartfelt were our other Nobel winners, the Peace People Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan. I followed them from that very moment of the movement’s genesis in 1976 when I inadvertently broke the news to Mairead that her little nephew had died. Here is a visionary account which captures some of the atmosphere of the time.  The Community of the Peace People began in tragedy and launched in a great emotional surge. Huge public demonstrations were the biggest between the civil rights movement and the hunger strike. For a moment they had a real cross community character about them. But the movement petered out in sad anti-climax, because the it never did and never could acquire a convincing political ideology to surmount sectarianism and continuing conflict.  A purely “peace” ideology was and remains too bland. The “ordinary people” concerned were buried under the weight of the Prize itself. It became more of a curse than a blessing. The politicians picked on the bones; some of them were still doing it a few years ago. “Sinn Fein’s Alex Maskey, reflecting on republican attitudes to the Peace People, said their good intentions were hijacked by the British government intent on an anti-republican peace.” Sinn Fein were no exception, they all did it.

Perhaps on reflection, the Nobel Prize is best left to professionals – even though without grass roots nominees, it’s much less well founded in public affection and esteem.

Returning to fundamentals, Republicanism must ultimately be about better government. Nationalism must be about the idea that Irish people are better equipped to govern themselves than anyone else. In order for this to be the case, new powers devolved are not enough: they must be a vehicle for new policy. The discussion paper on which powers would be devolved lists a wide range of powers that could be transferred, including the ability to specific new offences; devolution in itself would give control of both the purse strings and appointments. Together that would form a powerful platform to get new ideas implemented.

Unfortunately, Sinn Fein does not seem to have many. The policy section of the website produces only three papers on “Justice & the Community”, one of which dates form the 90’s. Similarly, the Sinn Féin Manifesto for the 2007 Dáil Election can be vague on the issues: Ensure robust enforcement of the law and prosecution of offenders involved in criminal behaviour hardly counts as an actionable policy. Where they are strong or specific tends to be when dealing with the accountability of the system – create an Ombudsman, organise policing partnerships, implement a system for victims liaisons. On initiatives to actually tackle crime however, they are largely silent.

But the accountability mechanisms in the North have largely been built. Recent events in West Belfast have sharply illustrated the need for new ideas to tackle anti-social and violent crime. Dissident Republicans can no longer be dealt with by the threat of swift reprisals by the Provisionals. There is a pressing need within their own communities for new ideas on crime. There is a second level to this failure. Regardless of the spin, the figures for supporting the transfer of powers are fairly healthy, even among Unionists. Accountability has never been a particularly hot button issue among Unionists, but law and order issues gain reliable support. Presenting devolution of Policing and Justice in this context allows SF to attempt to attempt to build support for the move outside their own community, set the direction of policy and expose the paucity of Unionist thinking.

This after all, was the promise of devolution for Republicans: the ability to shape the government and win new converts through superior argument. That is true outreach. It is perhaps naive to think that an argument on the merits would be successful in the face of a DUP apparently hell bent on causing Nationalism as much pain as possible. But it is an important plank that needs built if we are to move beyond current sectarian silos. Republicans need to get on it.

Edit: In response the question in the comments - I am a Belfast based Republican with no ties to any party. I am conviction republican with a small ‘r’ and consider myself an Irish patriot. It’s not perfect, but I generally like and am proud of Ireland. In terms of left-right..... a bit left of New Labour but a good bit right of Old Labour, maybe, with a certain amount of pragmatism thrown in. For example, I don’t have any inherent problem with public ownership, if a strong case is made, but generally like markets and take a dim view of people peddling what amounts to Communism. Generally, what I’d like to do here is throw out a few ideas on things within those spheres so smarter people than me can discuss them and come up with better ideas. Hopefully that will come through. I’d generally like to avoid “Look at this bad stuff” type threads, but no doubt some stupid stuff here will break my rage threshold. Oh and I may or may not have lots of time to do this, so don’t expect Walker levels of posts, here.

From Pro Choice press release, Thursday 9 October

Yesterday pro-choice supporters flocked into the Commons to launch their
campaigning ahead of expected votes at the Report stage of the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Bill now likely to be on the 22 October.

Diane Abbott Labour MP who has tabled New Clause 30 to extend access to
safe, legal abortion to women in Northern Ireland said:
“Now we have been able to do something historic, to [table an amendment
to] extend the rights that all women of the Britain already have into
Northern Ireland. The issue here is, should there be a group of women in
the United Kingdom who are essentially second-class citizens?”
Speaking of the anti abortion lobby Ms Abbott said “These are a set of
people who are the greatest hypocrites, their real problem is with women’s
enfranchisement. Given their way, they would take back the economic
progress and social progress that women have been able to make in the last
40 years.”

From Hansard. Questions to the Leader of the House (and minister for women).

Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): The remaining stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill are due to be taken on 22 October. Will the Leader of the House accept that that Bill is a highly inappropriate vehicle to impose a fundamental change in relation to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland? Given that the communities and all parties in Northern Ireland are united on the issue, if devolution is to mean anything, the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland should be respected in that regard.

Ms Harman: Obviously it is very important that the question of the view of the parties in Northern Ireland is taken into account, irrespective of the issue that is being raised. It is also important that the views of men and women are taken into account in all parts of the United Kingdom when services are being considered. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will come before the House next week, and no doubt he will be able to make his points in the debate.

.

Henry said earlier in the piece: “Following the heist on December 20 2004, the PSNI chief constable, Sir Hugh Orde, claimed it was “the biggest theft of waste paper in history”. Orde was referring to the bank’s decision to immediately recall all its notes and reprint an entire set of new ones that were radically different in colour and design.

But he goes on to give weight to this contradiction:

“The IRA southern commander turned police spy Sean O’Callaghan was adamant the Provisionals had the ability to absorb and “wash” the cash through their various assets relatively quickly. Most of the stolen money, O’Callaghan said, was digested through the IRA’s financial system even before the Northern Bank’s reprinted notes hit the streets.”

If this is true, Orde is bound to have known it so why did he play down the scale of the financial loss?

David Sharrock in the Times points out that Sir Hugh Orde has scored three of the UK’s most controversial cases – the 1998 Omagh bombing, the Northern Bank robbery and the murder of Robert McCartney – at the end of which he has scored a legal 0-3 with not a single conviction achieved.

“A harder question to answer is how much blame should be shouldered by Sir Hugh and how much is the result of the peculiarities created by the peace process and the blurred point at which justice and politics meet in Northern Ireland.”

David concludes: “Almost three weeks after the raid he told a news conference in Belfast: “In my opinion the Provisional IRA were responsible for this crime.” His delay in publicly attributing blame – in a province where the police were usually more swift to do so – may have been because of the febrile political atmosphere of the time.” (What’s the precise suggestion here?)

These reports seem to imply first, that Orde had to have the IRA attribution dragged out of him at the time and second, that he played down the significance of the real money loss of £20 million – contrary to O’Callaghan’s view that the loss was real and substantial - a view which Orde is bound to have shared from his knowledge of the IRA racketeering.  Did Orde take this line ( if he did), in order to minimise the threat to the peace process, or did he do the opposite - defy pressure to get him not to give the IRA attribution at all? There’s a suspicion of cover-up of prior knowledge held by either by MI5 or the CID. There’s no conclusive knowledge of this that’s fit to print - it’s hard to imagine anybody fessing up - but I think I’ve got the message.  The further impression I’m left with is that Ward was put up for a show trial that was bound to fail, so that yet again the book can be closed on a politically inconvenient case. What I’m confused about is whether the suggestion is that it’s the prior knowledge is being covered up as such or a cover up for political reasons or both.  I somehow doubt if that’s all we’ll hear of the Northern Bank saga…

Whatever the truth behind the murk, this is not the best of times for Hugh Orde to get such coverage

I remember many years ago when I was a young, foolish member of the UUP (I am now merely foolish) suggesting that a Labour victory would not be the disaster for unionism which many feared; I suggested that Blair represented a very significant shift from the policies expounded by the likes of Kevin McNamara. I also used to point out that it was Roy Mason who brought the SAS to Northern Ireland and as our deputy first minister is supposed to have said “Beat the s**t out of us.” The us there seeming to be the organisation he was only very briefly a member of.

Blair’s approach was of course very different to both McNamara and Mason’s. However, although he probably wanted to be seen as even handed, he ended up being lauded by SF and viewed with at best suspicion by unionists. One can discuss at length whether or not SF were accurate in their assessment of him (certainly some rejectionist republicans probably think that Blair tricked SF into compromise); such analyses are not the purpose of this blog other than to observe that SF regarded Blair as useful to them and their “Naïve Idiot.”

As such they probably (incorrectly as it may be turning out) assumed that Brown would behave similarly and push Robinson to compromise the same way as Blair did Trimble and indeed Paisley. It is not only disgruntled former members of the UUP who will remember Trimble’s “No guns no government” and his “Mr Adams, it is over to you. We have jumped, you follow” followed by the humiliating compromises usually forced upon him by Blair. Since Brown had never expressed any significant contrary opinions on Northern Ireland and since the established order seemed to be that unionists drew lines in the sand only to have the British government push them over them; SF must have assumed that whatever else had changed with the Brown accession, normal service in Northern Ireland would continue.

I would submit that SF assumed that Brown would, after a suitable hiatus, help force Robinson and the DUP into agreeing that there was public support for devolution of policing and justice and that “a political life time” would be even shorter than a life sentence is here provided one has only murdered people in a bar or a fish shop.

Of course DUP supporters will probably submit that in Robinson and the DUP, SF and Brown are dealing with a very different man and party to Trimble and the UUP. There is no doubt some truth in that but one only need study this document and their comments prior to entering government to see that the DUP can also perform political volte faces.

No: the central difference is that for whatever reason, possibly including the parliamentary arithmetic but mainly I suggest due to a different outlook and priorities, Brown is not inclined to drag the DUP into accepting the devolution of P&J, the building of the shrine or the provision of an ILA; at least not yet. Brown’s refusal thus far to do any of this has allowed the DUP to proclaim a series of victories and has resulted in SF’s current rather impotent anger and complaining that the DUP are going back on agreements. SF’s discomfiture is only shown in starker relief by their inability to produce any sanctions against the DUP apart from stalling the whole system of government here which itself damages themselves as much as anyone else. However, I would suggest that should he feel the need to force the DUP to accept these issues, Brown will try and very likely succeed. Exactly why Brown might do this is unclear but anyone can construct a series of possible reasons. The DUP might then be able to resist but just as Paisley eventually bowed the knee nearly two years ago, I have little confidence in Robinson’s ability to stick to Never, Never, Never, never. Unionists are left hoping that Mr. Brown in terms of his position on Northern Ireland is more a Roy Mason than a Tony Blair.

The DUP having surrendered in the past could end up with their position on policing and justice being a Dien Bien Phu or since I have not quoted Shakespeare recently unionists could end up like Troilus with the fall of Troy certain, impotently vowing revenge on his enemies “Strike a free march to Troy! With comfort go: Hope of revenge shall hide our inward foe.” (The Tragedy of Troilus and Cressida Act 5, Scene x).