PSNI open minds or eyes wide shut?

After comments from Deputy Chief Constable Paul Leighton that a series of sectarian attacks in Ahoghill may be down to bad neighbours rather than sectarianism, the difficulty the PSNI have in admitting 15yr old Thomas Devlin’s murder was sectarian, PSNI Supt Terry Shelvin getting ‘fed up’ over criticism and wasting his resources dealing (or not) with the attacks, another PSNI officer, Paul Bailey, district commander for Moyle, has joined the PSNI in Antrim finding difficulty defining (or admitting) what is a sectarian attack.

In this instance Mr Bailey is keeping an open mind on if an attack outside Ballymoney was sectarian, the petrol bomb and ‘Taigs Out’ graffiti don’t seem to have helped him make his mind up. Sinn Féin MLA Philip McGuigan has raised criticisms,

“It is becoming very clear to nationalists that there is a tolerance of unionist paramilitary violence amongst senior figures within the PSNI. There can be no other explanation for their failure to tackle this campaign or at the very least publicly acknowledge that it is happening at all.”

  • slug

    “It is becoming very clear to nationalists that there is a tolerance of unionist paramilitary violence amongst senior figures within the PSNI.”

    Why is it necessary to insert the word “to nationalists” in sentences like these?

  • curious

    I find it quite fascinating that this thread has been up for 3 days and there has only been the one post. The thrust of the thread being that when it comes to unionist violence the police are incapable/unwilling to call a spade a spade and declare that this is sectarian unionist violence. What’s even more interesting is that it’s not in reaction to any violence perpetrated by republican paramilitaries. And yet, on the Gerry Fitt thread there is something of a debate.. [ed Mod].. the motion being : Catholics/nationalists have a morally ambiguous stance on violence whereas the good “Pradastant” people of NI don’t….. Interesting

  • bertie

    Curious

    there have been many (quite rightly) threads on “loyalist” violence recently.

    What do you want this unionist to say?

    I abhor all terrorism from whatever quarter. Whatever the criterion the police use to categorise sectarian crime to be applied objectively accross the board and such as to increase the effacacy of efforts to catch the bastards who did this. Whether they are “loyalist” scum (and I put nothing past them)or unaligned scum. I want them caught and put away as soon as possible. I further hope that there will never be a “deal” in the future that would have him/her or it out on the streets again.

    Regarding sides, i consider myself on the side of his greiving family.

    Now have I missed anything!

  • curious

    Bertie,

    I have been reading slugger for some time now though rarely ever comment. I have no reason to doubt what you say given that you maintain the standard line that I myself uphold – violence is to be abhorred from no matter which quarter it originates. My point was that there was a debate on the Gerry Fitt thread which seemed to suggest that Catholics/nationalists were not inclined to condemn violence – that it was a quality inherent to unionism/protestantism solely, but that there had been little posting of condemnations on this thread.

  • bertie

    Curious

    I saw what Jo wrote but I think I knew what she meant and I don’t think they were actually the same thing, but I’ll leave her to fight her own corner as she is well able to do so and I tremble incase she has a go at me. She can be a firey bird!

    I would have to say again though that there have been quite a few of these threads and sometimes we get a little weary with the same old – same old. That being said I’m sure that I shall repeat myself on many many themes before Slugger and I part company.

  • Jo

    No doubt there was something in an earlier post here which was of such value to the discussion that it had to be moderated…!

    I will NOT be misrepresented as saying that there is a “Protestant superiority in morals” when I said no such damn thing.

    I was characterising a typical Ulster and unionist perspective on moral issues, if I may be allowed to make such an observation, as being a pretty stark one: “there is wrong and there is right and the Bible tends to be a good guide as to what’s what.” Now I can say something like that without being classed a Bible-thumper, can I? Good!

    No-one is happy with the Loyalist feuding – no-one at all. I posted elswhere on where police intervened in a riot situation in Lurgan a while back – nothing but criticism for being heavy-handed. Then when they decide NOT to be heavy handed, in a situation where there ISN’T a riot – what is there? Criticism from the same sources. Leave policing judgements to those who police.

    As for the GF debate, I think selective reading and then posting a judgement on the selection you have filtered) is something to be avoided – I appreciate that the thread is now 126 posts but there is a lot of good stuff there.

    The point was that GF thought the hunger strikes morally wrong, his view was not shared by most of the minority community but in moral terms it was suicide, it caused immense community division and increased tension and almost all deaths of the strikers led directly to other deaths of working class people people on the streets.

    After that time many Unionists could not understand the moral perspective of the other community and have since been driven to conclude when IRA leaders get tens of thousands of votes that somehow the IRA violence is believed by those voting to be a good thing.

  • bertie

    told you!

  • Jo

    Bertie:
    LOL!!!

  • curious

    Jo,

    Just to get this out of the way in case you come back at me with it, I have no idea who you are or what your background is, and quite frankly I’m not particularly interested.

    However, your post on the Gerry Fitt thread could quite blatantly be construed as meaning that when it comes to the use of violence in NI, “the minority community,” as you put it, take a morally ambivalent stance. If that was not the construction that you had intended people to take from your post perhaps you ought to have articulated yourself somewhat better. Something akin to your recent post on Sinn Fein thinking that eastern European migrant workers would vote for them because they had a shared religious background, in which you implied that Sinn Fein voters, i.e. Catholics, were not hard working. If you don’t want to be taken up as a bigot then perhaps you shouldn’t produce such “ambibvalent” posts.

  • curious

    That should of course say “ambivalent” and not “ambibvalent”

  • bertie

    Oh no curious don’t wake her!

    Only joking Jo!

    She’s not that bad really. 😉

  • bertie

    Oh no curious don’t wake her!

    Only joking Jo!

    She’s not that bad really. 😉

  • Jo

    GF was not ambivalent about the hunger strikes.

    He was rejected by the electorate.

    What, logically, does that tell you about the electorate?

    Read what I write before making up your mind