Thursday, January 19, 2006
clearly at odds with your position as stated
Earlier today I noted the NIO Security Minister Shaun Woodward’s attempt to clarify his comments on the Provisional IRA and organised crime, and I compared his clarification with what he had actually stated in December. The BBC now report that the Policing Board Chairman, Desmond Rea, has made public his response, “on the issues of organised crime the board is clear that PSNI and the other agencies advised that all paramilitary groups were still involved in organised crime. This is clearly at odds with your position as stated during the briefing and in your earlier statement of 13 December 2005.” Perhaps Shaun Woodward would also like to clarify what he said in this interview?
Pete Baker @ 07:49 PM
TD:
The activity of the “PSNI/RUC/whatever you want to call” is governed by a public complaints procedure. Just in the way that the massive hike in reported crime in West Belfast may indicate higher rate of reporting of crime, rather than a massive crime wave, high levels of complaints against officers may be an indication of the health of the reporting system.
It’s hard to know without drilling further down into the context. But it’s also hard to use these figures to stand the premise you’re presenting us with.
Posted by on Jan 20, 2006 @ 11:54 AMThe Butler did it! The sooner we get back to our own home grown incompetent, dissembling over promoted parish councillors running the affairs of state the better.
Posted by on Jan 20, 2006 @ 01:24 PMMick, the figrues are found on the website of the Ombudsman’s Office and available to all.
BettyBoo, try to acquiant yourself with the actual issue under discussion, there’s a good girl. It is this:
Pedantic semantics do not alter either the substance or logical correctness of Shaun Woodward’s statement that “There is clearly a distinction to be made between the activity of individuals and the intention of organisations.”
Now, let us suppose that Shaun Woodward is incorrect and that no distinction can be made between an organisation and the actions of its members. It then follows that all criminal actions by members on an organisation are criminal actions by that organisation. Since the PSNI is an organisation and members of that organisation have committed criminal actions, it then follows that the PSNI is a criminal organisation.
According to the Police Ombudsman, Nuala O’Loan, between November 2000 and March 2003, her office deemed 260 of the cases involving criminal allegations against the PSNI that it investigated to be so serious that it referred them to the DPP to prosecute. 30 criminal convictions of PSNI members followed and 50 cases are still pending.
Clearly, Sam Kincaid has condemned the PSNI as being a criminal organisation by his own logic.
Posted by on Jan 20, 2006 @ 01:30 PMMick, in case you missed the gist of it (through lack or sleep or whatever): the members of the PSNI are engaged in criminal activity. (See the figures from the Ombudsman’s Office for the extent of that criminal activity and the criminal convictions against members of the PSNI resulting from it.) Now, if the argument holds true that there is no distinction between the actions of members of an organisation and the organisation that those members belong to, then it follows that the PSNI is a criminal organisation.
In case folks are really thick. Here it is in simple syllogistic format:
An organisation whose members engage in criminal activity is a criminal organisation.
The PSNI is an organisation whose members engage in criminal activity.
Therefore, the PSNI is a criminal organisation.Clearly, a distinction (by whatever expedient) must be made between an organisation and the activities of some of its members, or we accept the false premises as true and therefore must except the conclusion as true. In this example, that the PNSI is a criminal organisation.
Posted by on Jan 20, 2006 @ 01:45 PMFeeling peckish today, TD?
Posted by on Jan 20, 2006 @ 02:00 PMTD:
I wasn’t doubting the veracity of the figures. I’ll let the readership be judge of the veracity of your syllogism.
But can you please drop the personal asides to other posters? It’s both condescending and it distracts from the core of the argument.
Posted by on Jan 20, 2006 @ 03:08 PMMick
“I’ll let the readership be judge of the veracity of your syllogism.”
The Dubliner has it spot on. He’s making the same point as Woodward, that we always need to make a distinction between the actions of individual members and the organisation as a whole. That’s a conflation that political opportunists will exploit if given half a chance. And we’ve seen enough of that already.
Otherwise, as he quite rightly pointed out we’d have to conclude that the PSNI was a criminal organisation too.
So more sense please, and less of the non sense.
Posted by on Jan 20, 2006 @ 03:35 PMErr, Dubliner, Sam Kinkaid didn’t set out any argument on Tuesday night therefore there is no ‘logic’ to extend. He merely stated that all paramilitary organisations remain involved in organised crime and there been no change in this in a year.
Applying the logic you applied to the PSNI would, however, confirm Ian Paisley jnr’s point about the IRA…
The only ‘logic’ applied so far in this debate involves making a distinction between the action of invidividuals and the intention of organisations. This argument was advanced by Shaun Woodward, in retrospect, to give Sinn Fein cover. It was not used by Sam Kinkaid, or by the chief constable for that matter.
In your determination to have a go at the police, I’m afraid that all you’ve managed to say is that they’re no better than the IRA. Is that really what you meant to imply?Posted by on Jan 20, 2006 @ 03:39 PMJames,
Please feel free to hammer home the criticism as hard as you like. The comments page is precisely to serve that purpose. But, whilst you are taking advantage of that freely offered platform, there really is no need to show such discourtesy in return.
Posted by on Jan 20, 2006 @ 03:57 PMMick, apologies for the uppidy asides.
Now, if it helps the “others” at all, it’s called Aristotle’s drawn-out “Barbara” syllogism. And it is valid. Object X that has property Y belongs to category z, object W is object X and has property Y, therefore, object W belongs to category z. ;)
P.S. Shore, kindly reading the comments presented. (Politeness added to appease Mick)
Posted by on Jan 20, 2006 @ 04:03 PMI’ve just spent more minutes that were justified juggling individual, organisation, criminal involvement and criminal intention into X, W, Y and Z and I still can’t explain - even using syllogism (with which I am familiar as a programmer) how that leads to state that:
“Clearly, Sam Kincaid has condemned the PSNI as being a criminal organisation by his own logic.”
Clearly, Shaun Woodward has employed a rationale that could make that point - however, Mr Woodward intended his rationale to imply that the IRA is not a criminal organisation. So he’s got himself tied up in a logical knot, and I’m afraid that you haven’t so much untangled it as picked it up and swung it around.
PS: I’d venture to suggest that fobbing people off with academic terms and concepts won’t work too well around here.
Posted by on Jan 21, 2006 @ 01:16 AMThere are two elements to the ongoing debate.
First, the IRA is an organisation that ordered its membership to “to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means.”
and “not engage in any other activities whatsoever.”It also an secret organization that does not disclose its membership, nor confirm or deny the membership status of individuals.
So what sanctions the IRA could apply to a member suspected but not convicted of criminal activity?
The only apparent sanction that the IRA could use which would comply with the first statement to deny membership to the individual.
Does anybody have any other suggestions?
What are the standards of proof to be used when asserting that the IRA or any organization is a criminal organisation?
Personally I believe in the established standard of innocent until proven guilt in a court of law.
(with all the usual established judicial safeguards and assuming that the Northern Irish judiciary are capable of delivering justice), therefore several people convicted of serious crime and IRA membership would indicate that that IRA is still engaged in criminal behaviour.Participants in this debate seem to reject as standards of proof:
the assessment of the British goverment (Haines)
the assessment of the IICD (an quango set up at the request of and designed to reassure Unionists)
but rely on the hearsay reports of a senior PSNI officer’s commentary.Is that the burden of proof required now??
Posted by on Jan 21, 2006 @ 08:22 AMI would say the Dubliner definitely won that round and I find Mick`s use of the word syllogism to be “objectionable “.
Posted by on Jan 27, 2006 @ 11:54 PM
