Friday, February 16, 2007
Sinn Fein ducking and weaving over policing…
Sometime in January, somewhere on Slugger, Pete argued that the Sinn Fein position on policing going into the election was dangerously vague. He argued that the party was effectively adopting a position not on its current real position, but on a future position. Yesterday on TalkBack Michelle Gildernew said she would not go tell the police about Republican guns. It seems consistent with Sinn Fein’s provisional position, but is it what they have promised Blair they were going to sign up to?
Mick Fealty @ 03:02 PM
Pete argued that the Sinn Fein position on policing going into the election was dangerously vague.
Should reasd:..."vague to everyone bar the Irish and British Governments, Hugh Orde and the DUP.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 04:20 PMGuns?
What guns?
Weren’t they all put beyond use?Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 05:09 PMI think the gun reference is to dissident republican guns.
Any help Sinn Fein give to stop dissident republicans is done under the utmost secracy.
Did anyone expect Sinn Fein to publicaly declare they have been thwarting dissident republicans antics for the last few years, or does anyone really think police have the competence to stop dissident republicans on their own?
Another red herring.
It is election time and each party is playing to its core support base as well as trying to attract new voters.
I think we should consider comments in this light rather than try and use each and every word as a “see I told you so” excuse.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 05:15 PMMick,
the idiomatic phrase is “ducking and diving” or “bobbing and weaving” they don’t juxtapose that easily.On the substance, it might be dangerous for one’s safety to go squealing to the police if you know where a gun is.
Its a trick question, and Michelle ought to have seen it coming and done better.Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 05:17 PMYeah Mick
I am interested to know would you be interested in handing that kind of information to the local police commander and have him congratulate you publicly for it?
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 05:23 PMJc,
Politicians are bound by party policy, and Gildernew was well within her rights to say what she did, on principle. The likelihood (or otherwise) of possible injury does not enter into it. As other politicians, who’s parties take a much less nuanced view of the issue can surely testify?
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 05:40 PMPeople can tell the police via confidential lines etc. They don’t have to give their name. So what we are talking about is SF-IRA saying there are two types of policing. They might have signed up to what they call ‘civic’ policing, but they haven’t signed up to anything else. If they don’t recommend letting the police know about guns etc, what should people do? Hand them over to a SF-IRA spokesperson for “safe-keeping”?! SF-IRA are still not fit for Government. Society needs to “put manners” on SF-IRA before they are let near political power. They have murdered and maimed - and have by in large, got away with it. But they shouldn’t be let into Government until they learn about democracy.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 05:45 PM‘On the substance, it might be dangerous for one’s safety to go squealing to the police if you know where a gun is.’
Parcifal:
I take it that you see the main issue with respect to terrorists in possession of guns as not the illegal possesion of guns by terrorists, but rather the possibility that someone might ‘go squealing to the police’ about it.
I thought most people signed up for peace? Provo SF certainly did, and endlessly tell us about peace etc etc.
Do the Provos and their supporters think society is better off if they don’t have to inform on true republicans illegally possessing guns?
If they do, then what is the difference between Provo people not having to inform on their own tribe, and some unionist choosing not to inform if they learn of guns being illegally held by loyalists?
Can everyone take this attitude of ‘doing the right thing doesn’t apply when it’s your own community that is involved. It’s only themmuns that need to do it’?
As usual we have the Provo double standards - unionists are supposed to do something about loyalists but Provos don’t have to do anything about non-Provo republicans due to some sort of tribal solidarity.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 05:46 PMMick
From memory, the question asked was actually whether Michelle Gildernew MP would advise the public to contact the police if they saw ‘dissident’ republicans with weapons.
The answer, eventually, was that she, personally, would not contact the police.
The question is, though, how would she, or anyone else, ascertain what the ideology of any armed group of men/women was.. or what they were intending to do?
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 05:46 PMSeems to me Michelle has taken the same stance as the DUP - I am still waiting for them to turn in thge people who were shooting at the Police and British Army during the Springfield Road riot. They must know the people involved as they were there on the ground so why have we not seen them show Sinn Fein how support is supposed to be delivered?
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 05:52 PMthe point gents is surely that with an assembly going, the old guns will rust.
anyone remember the phrase:
let’s take the gun out of norn iron politics?
That is why I repeat this is a trick question and a red herring.
harpo see realist for my answer; loyalists are still armed and dangerous FFS, and we don’t hear the cries from the DUP asking people to go to the PSNI>Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 06:03 PMIn an ideal world, Sinn Fein would inform the police on republicans planning violent acts, and the DUP would inform the police on the details of loyalists planning violent acts - such as the September 2005 rioting episode relating to the rerouted Whiterock parade mentioned already (Paisley’s comments at the time implied that he was aware of the plans for a violent backlash if the parade was rerouted, and the DUP refused to condemn gun and crossbow attacks on police lines).
We do not live in an ideal world, and people here need to face up to that.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 06:07 PMTrying to equate Sinn Fein-IRA and DUP positions is just Republicans wanting to deflect the issue. The DUP frequently call for people to go to the police. Despite the DUP’s ‘angry’ language in the past and their attempts to protect citizens from SF-IRA death squads, it is SF-IRA who were involved in a long terrorist campaign. It is SF-IRA who murdered people in front of their families and left others scarred for life. So when a SF-IRA member says she wouldn’t tell the police about illegal guns, people have every right to be concerned. I repeat, society needs to “put manners” on Sinn Fein-IRA before they are allowed to go into Government.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 06:21 PMParci,
That is another point entirely.
realist,
Michelle was dealing with a pristine point of principle, not a given incident.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 06:26 PMJust because she said it doesn’t mean it’s true ... she is a politician after all.
We don’t know what’s going on behind closed doors—who’s wink, wink, nudging at who. MG may have said that for a number of reasons (beyond simply meaning it): it may be her towing the SF line. it may be what SF and Blair’s people agreed they would say publicly (keeping their private agreements entirely that ... private). it may be that she’s too frigtened to admit publicly that she would indeed inform the psni—that she would do so anonymously.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 06:30 PMAnybody know what Gildernew actually said?
There is nothing in the link, just unionists saying what they think she said.
All the article says is that she “appeared” to say she would not go to the police.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 06:31 PMMick,
The more I think about it the more I agree with you. Its a tough and fair question to ask.Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 06:34 PM‘The question is, though, how would she, or anyone else, ascertain what the ideology of any armed group of men/women was.. or what they were intending to do?’
Pete:
Since she comes from those circles, I’m sure she’d be well versed in who the perps were allied to.
I have to ask though if she feels that everyone else in NI is entitled to do the same as her? - be selective when it comes to telling the police about folks with guns.
I doubt she would hold back if it was loyalists with guns. Informing would be fine in that case.
Can everyone else do this too? Either be selective with respect to what they report to the police, or even don’t report anything to the police on the basis that it might be one of your own tribe involved, and you just didn’t recognize them.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 06:40 PMharpo
Its very confusing for a politician to have to answer YES or NO?Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 06:47 PMGeorge,
It was on yesterday’s TalkBack… I would have transcribed it if I’d got to the playback version before today’s broadcast…
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 07:00 PMHi Mick,
Pity. I haven’t been able to find the quotes anywhere.At least I now where BBC Radio Ulster is on the website now.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 07:20 PM“Can everyone else do this too? Either be selective with respect to what they report to the police, or even don’t report anything to the police on the basis that it might be one of your own tribe involved, and you just didn’t recognize them.”
Funnily enough, yes. The law does not require you to report something you have seen, unless you are questioned on it by an officer of the court under caution.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 07:34 PMPeaceandJustice
Despite the DUP’s ‘angry’ language in the past and their attempts to protect citizens from SF-IRA death squadsHow did the DUP attempt to protect people? Can you elaborate? If not, I’ll have to assume your mean Ulster Resistance, Third Force and other shady dealings with loyalist paramilitaries.
But I hope I don’t have to make that assumption, otherwise it would make you a hypocrite.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 07:42 PMSorry to disappoint but the DUP didn’t make it up.
Thursday’s talkback is still online here (realplayer needed).
It is 1hr 16 minutes in. Barry from Tyrone, a former Sinn Fein member asked if he saw disaffected provisionals or dissident groups with guns should he go to the ‘RUC’ with the information.
Michelle Gildernew began with:
“I can’t tell people what to do” then began to refer to robberies and rape. Gerry McGeough then interuppted and pushed her to answer the question. The reply she gave was:“I personally wouldn’t but I am working very hard to ensure those guns are never used again.”
Then when pressed on the issue by Arlene Foster on whether Sinn Fein supported the police or not. She repeated about working to ensure guns where never used again and then went on about how there were outstanding issues and this was a transitional period.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 07:47 PMI think it is a silly thing to say,’the question is how would she or anyone else ascertain what the ideology of any armed group of men or women was’. that cannot be justified in this case. If it is suggested by that , its ok for you to hold a gun to free? ireland but not ok to hold a gun to rob a post office, then that is absurd. Total nonsense, utter bull. Either they support the police, the courts and the criminal justice system or they do not, they cannot in principle support part of it. This is more of the SF step by step process, a little bit at a time, support the police in ‘civic’ policing, but eventually the whole lot will have to follow. anyone who thinks differently should not be allowed out of doors. Policing is a done deal, as we could see from adams and his cohorts second meeting tonight with orde.
Posted by on Feb 16, 2007 @ 08:04 PM
