Wednesday, April 11, 2007
No go areas or events?
Sinn Fein Councillor Peter Anderson has questioned a police presence at an unnotified parade by dissident republicans. A gang of youths attacked police with bricks and petrol bombs. He said:
The question has to be asked, however, what were the police doing at a republican commemoration in a republican area.
Fair Deal @ 02:40 PM
“The question has to be asked, however, what were the police doing at a republican commemoration in a republican area”
Perhaps they were policing it.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 02:49 PM“Sinn Fein Councillor Peter Anderson has questioned a police presence at an unnotified parade by dissident republicans. A gang of youths attacked police with bricks and petrol bombs.”
There is always some idiot who doesn’t get the memo, isn’t there, Mr. Anderson? Or does the consigiere consider petrol bombs an ordinary fashion accessory?
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 02:54 PM“The question has to be asked, however, what were the police doing at a republican commemoration in a republican area”
Maybe they were handing out application forms.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 02:55 PM“The question has to be asked, however, what were the police doing at a republican commemoration in a republican area.”
LOL!
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 02:56 PMSurely anyone who now acknowledges the legitmacy of the police would recognise that they should be applying the law equally in all areas, in which case what point is this SF councillor trying make about their presence in a ‘republican area’? Does an Ireland of Equals not mean that all people in all areas should be treated, well, equally?
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 02:58 PMDr. S-
“Maybe they were handing out application forms”
or paycheques ;)
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 03:00 PM“The question has to be asked, however, what were the police doing at a republican commemoration in a republican area”
‘’Hello Peter? It’s Gerry here. You’re fired.’’
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 03:25 PMAs hard as they try Gerry and Martin just cant control the big mouths like this clown Anderson and Gildernew in their party.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 03:34 PMBole: “As hard as they try Gerry and Martin just cant control the big mouths like this clown Anderson and Gildernew in their party. “
Yeah, but that’s just the human condition… regardless of how disciplined a group is, there is always a handful of crack-pots willing to sound off at the drop of hat.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 03:36 PMPerhaps Mr Anderson took the opportunity to point out the obvious. Could there have been a decision by the PSNI at some level in the locality to have a wee pull the strings of the puppets like El Mat and the usual suspects who have always moved so predictably when prompted?
At best it was an ill advised policing decision, at worst it was a deliberate attempt at provoking just such a kerfufle as this.
Dissidents will eventually fade as they lose the arguments. No one should be in any doubt that there are also “dissidents” within the ranks of the police who will still want to have a little sly nip and stoke the dying embers of their dirtly little war just for another day here and there.
It’s naive to believe otherwise. Whilst the state systematically colluded with Loyalists, the self same pontificators always did swallow the simple, uncluttered official reality hook, line and sinker. So what are SF do, stick their fingers in their ears and effectively give these guys carte blanche? We saw what that approach by El Mats predecessors produced.
The police have to earn the allegiance of the people, not the other way round. SF are entitled to raise any reasonable criticism in relation to the police, and it does not affect thier commitment to make a success of those structures. Or have the SDLP and Unionists on the Policing Board heretofore merely been handing out awards and certificates?
Shall we apply the same reasoning to our new ministers and have any criticism of their actions branded treasonous.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 03:37 PMNicky-
Can you address the points raised by me earlier in the thread vis-a-vis equal policing of all areas?
It’s perfectly legitimate to criticise the police when the need arises. However, what the SF councillor in question is suggesting is that police should stay away from ‘republican areas’ and events per se- that’s an entirely different kettle of fish, and one which prompts the question- ‘Why should these people be treated any differently from anyone else?’
Regardless of the details of this particular incident, it’s not unheard of for police to accompany parades- I witnessed a small orange march being tailed by uniformed officers just two days ago. Additionally, the fact that the dissident republican parade mentioned hadn’t been approved just increased the likelihood of a police presence.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 03:46 PMToo true Dread Cthulhu, and as the last few days have shown, the DUP also have their own fair share of big-mouth crack pots!
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 03:47 PM“SF are entitled to raise any reasonable criticism in relation to the police, and it does not affect thier commitment to make a success of those structures.”
And this was a “reasonable criticism”?
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 03:48 PMUnbelievable. When are the Shinners going to start dealing with half-wits like this Anderson flat-earther? The party should now be hounded publicly to either condemn or endorse his preposterous comments. Scum like Anderson genuinely seem to think that they have the right to live in some lawless netherworld where Republicans are only policed when they want to be policed.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 04:11 PMIn fairness, I think the “Republican parade in a Republican area” comment has been siezed upon and wilfully taken to mean something not intended.
The essence of Mr Andersons comments were, quite simply “Look everyone knows those marchers didn’t agree with the policing decision, they still don’t accept their legitimacy. They are marching around in thier own little patch so why are their antoginizers in cheif deliberately making a policing decision they know will be counter productive.” It’s a red rag to a bull. Stupid. In my opinion deleiberately so. Anyone ignoring these realities should perhaps come and live in the real world.
Objectively, can any sane person say that it would not have been a better policing decision to let this thing run it’s course for an hour or two, where the only people who would have heard of it would have been the participants themselves? Anyone?
Unless of course there was something else at play. It seems, at the very least, possible.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 04:12 PMHere’s a clue NickyG - the parade was unnotified i.e., illegal. Presumably you’d be happy for all sorts of loyalist scum to have whatever sort of obnoxious gatherings they feel like having without any lawful authority just so long as these parades/marches/whatever consist of people ‘marching around their own little patch’? Presumably you’d be happy for all sorts of illegal loyalist nonsense to be allowed to ‘run it’s course for an hour or two’? Like fuck you would. Grow up - you and you’re entitlement complex-suffering ilk are a boil on the arse of northern society.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 04:33 PMLads and lasses, could I just point out that there’s been a load of slagging about OO trying to get a LEGAL march down at Garvaghy on another thread but there’s no comment about this being an ILLEGAL parade. Level playing field please!! If prods can’t march legally then how is it equitable if republicans march illegally? Mebbe the OO shd just leg it down the Garvaghy Road and hope no one notices.
Nickyg- are you mad? doesn’t matter if they’re in their own area! Reality is SF have decied to accept rulwe of law - ALL of it, not just the bits that suit youPosted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 04:35 PMBefore people go nuts on the ‘illegal parade’ stuff:
“They had planned to gather at the gates of the City Cemetery before making their way to the republican plot to hold an Easter Rising commemoration”
That’s not a parade, that’s walking from one area of private property to another.
The petrol bombs, stone-throwing and reasons behind it are definitely the issue not this ‘illegal parade’ nonsense.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 04:42 PMnickyg: “In fairness, I think the “Republican parade in a Republican area” comment has been siezed upon and wilfully taken to mean something not intended. “
Really? Let’s take a look at your analysis…
nickyg: “The essence of Mr Andersons comments were, quite simply “Look everyone knows those marchers didn’t agree with the policing decision, they still don’t accept their legitimacy. They are marching around in thier own little patch so why are their antoginizers in cheif deliberately making a policing decision they know will be counter productive.””
First of all, as a politician and, putatively, a leader, Mr. Anderson should understand that he needs to watch his words. Secondly, as a member of an organization that has signed on for policing, I would think that countenancing the behavior of these dead-enders would stand in stark contrast to the position of the party to which he belongs. His words are simply more of the same drivel that went on previously.
nickyg: “It’s a red rag to a bull. Stupid. In my opinion deleiberately so. Anyone ignoring these realities should perhaps come and live in the real world. “
Given the self-deluded nature of the dissidents, perhaps your advice is mis-aimed…
nickyg: “Objectively, can any sane person say that it would not have been a better policing decision to let this thing run it’s course for an hour or two, where the only people who would have heard of it would have been the participants themselves? Anyone?”
Hardly. It would set a precedent in this new period that the same old bad behaviors were going to be allowed. Best to disabuse them early than let the idea go that they and not the police and the elected officials were the powers that be.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 04:46 PMNickyg,
Good points, well made.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 04:47 PMThis does raise a wider question of the relationship between the police and political activity in the new era. For example, the police film participants in Easter parades. So are we looking at a situation where in the future the Justice minister is being filmed attending a parade because the police regard it as potentially seditious? This will have to be sorted out at some point. None of which necessarily has anything to do with an illegal parade such as this under discussion, but it might.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 04:50 PMDC,
To me it seems as if they were acting entirely legally at the start.
They were gathering at the gates of a cemetery to hold a commemoration within the cemetery.
This doesn’t seem like an event that needs policed, just as other rememberances in cemeteries don’t need policed or protests.
However, whatever the reason behind deciding to ‘police’ remembering the dead in a legal manner the response was unjustified and completely wrong.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 04:52 PMHere’s another clue. If Sinn Fein decided to show up and picket these “Loyalist obnoxious gatherings” in thier own areas.. perhaps that would be a better comparison? Actually any number of illegal, obnoxious Loyalist gatherings have gone on for years. I don’t think the sight of a Tricolour waving protestor would have went down too well at Jim Allisters pres conference, eh? That’s teh flipsid, like it or not. Play your staraight as a die, law and order this and that approach all you like, just keep burying your head in the sand as to the incendiary nature of northern politics. Hint, it’s caused a bit of bother over the decades.
Of course, for your purposes you’re conveniently forgetting the distinction between Loyalist and Dissident Republican (are sure you’re in the right site?). Dissident Reoublicans raison d’etre is opposition to the PSNI. Loyalists not so much. Geddit?
Therefore it is highly questionable in terms of effective tactics, for the PSNI to fan the flames. It seems that if political policing is to be indulged in, there is a worrying trend towards the politically mischevious throwing of a spanner in the works, rather than taking the politically nuanced decision to let the thing slide and fizzle out. That deserves to be challenged. There’s no harm in “putting the manners on the police” when they seem to be at something questionable.
As for entitlement complex yah-dah yah-dah.. as I almost certainly contribute more tax to “northern society” than your good self, I’ll put that down to desperation and stereotyping ignorance on your part (now there’s a new phenomea in the North).
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 04:58 PMDA: “Lads and lasses, could I just point out that there’s been a load of slagging about OO trying to get a LEGAL march down at Garvaghy on another thread but there’s no comment about this being an ILLEGAL parade.”
Ah, but there is no OO parade, given the OO’s unwillingness to abide by the process, DA. It won;t be a legal parade until the OO comes to terms with the resident’s group. Likewise, what is there really to discuss—an non-noticed parade was attempted, the police intervened and there was unpleasentness, the end. Arguably, that’s what passes for normal in Northern Ireland. Given the outcome of the most recent OO parade to make the news, even the legal one’s are not something to be desired.
DA: “Level playing field please!! If prods can’t march legally then how is it equitable if republicans march illegally?”
Um, point of fact, the dissident group did not get to march. If the police were sufficiently reliable to give the same treatment to the OO were they to attempt to march illegally, then it would be a level playing field.
DA: “Mebbe the OO shd just leg it down the Garvaghy Road and hope no one notices. “
A risible notion on its face, DA. The pissed Loyalists who come out for these events are difficult to hide, if only for the trail of broken glass in their wake, let alone the parades themselves.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 05:01 PMConsidering these people intended to process between the gates of the cemetery and the memorial it could hardly be described as an “unnotified parade”. I attended two commemorations on Easter Sunday and the PSNI were not present at either cemetery, so the question as to be asked why they turned up at this one, unless it was with the intention of provoking a response.
Posted by on Apr 11, 2007 @ 05:07 PM
