“local action rather than organised action by any paramilitary group..”

The Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, is reported to have described the recent tarring-and-feathering of a man in Belfast as an “isolated” incident and that it was a “local action rather than organised action by any paramilitary group”. On the first point I can see how it can be described as such – in terms of the action itself, it is an isolated incident. On the second point.. let’s just say I’m sceptical. It’s also worth noting that the victim of that attack has not been positively identified. And while there were some who expressed an understanding of the motives behind that attack it will be interesting to see how many also understand the motive behind the shooting, in both knees, of a man in the Galliagh area of Londonderry – described in this report as a “suspected punishment shooting”.. and how the Chief Constable reacts. Additionally, as I have mentioned before – “Either there is law or no law. That is the basis of a civilised society.”One additional point, from the Belfast Telegraph report on the earlier attack

DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson appealed to the UDA to “desist from this kind of activity” and cooperate with legitimate law enforcement agencies. The Lagan Valley MP said he did not believe the incident should lead to Ms Ritchie changing the terms which had been laid down to the UDA.

You can appeal all you like, Jeffrey. There’s a different game afoot.

Whether a certain group will address the implications of that game remains unknown..

, , , , ,

  • Rory

    Additionally, as I have mentioned before – “Either there is law or no law. That is the basis of a civilised society.”

    What tosh! There is always law of a kind in any gathering of human beings and “civilised” is such a subjective term as to be risible.

    But perhaps you really mean the measure of law within a state. And there we must apply the rule of what system of law is tolerable, acceptable to all its citizens and how that law is applied.

    In the case of the Northern Ireland state that existed from 1922 that was not the case and certainly after 1966 became such to the extent that the state itself collapsed as a result of the rejection of its idea of civilisation.

    Our task is now to develop a meaningful, inclusive system of law that springs from within the community and can then be respected. The state itself has no moral authority nor stamp of impramatur on civilisation, nor must it be allowed to steal that assumption.

  • Pete Baker

    Rory

    “But perhaps you really mean the measure of law within a state.”

    Since, if you followed the links, you’d see that I’m quoting someone else and with my referencing of actions described as local and, in one case for now, understandable you can assume that I understand the concept.

    Hence my pointing to the other issues in the original post.

  • The Penguin

    Hardly as bad as this risible tosh.

    “And there we must apply the rule of what system of law is tolerable, acceptable to all its citizens and how that law is applied.”

    There has never been any law of any state that was “acceptable to all its citizens”.
    That which is acceptable to a critical mass is the best that can ever be acheived.

    “Our task is now to develop a meaningful, inclusive system of law that springs from within the community and can then be respected.”

    Another dollop of essentially meaningless, wishy-washy twaddle. It sails close to the mindset of mob rule.
    Incidentally, every piece of research on the subject shows clearly that a substancial majority of citizens would favour the re-introduction of capital punishment. Does this mean, by your reckoning, it should be brought back?

    “…and certainly after 1966 became such to the extent that the state itself collapsed as a result of the rejection of its idea of civilisation.”
    Strange that a “collapsed” state remains in exactly the same constitutional position as it was before it collapsed, contrary to all efforts by those who collapsed it.

    With your ideas on law and order, I don’t think any of us will be taking lessons from you on what constitutes a proper “civilisation”.

  • joeCanuck

    There are so many people in this boat trying to stop it rocking that it must be close to being swamped.
    Meanwhile nobody is listening to the woman with the megaphone on shore, shouting “Come in, your time is up”.

  • Gum

    Orde should be utterly ashamed of himself. He has FAILED in his responsibility to make our streets safer. The tarring and feathering was a despicable act and the fact that he cannot point the finger at the UDA and McDonald shows how little courage he has.

  • Gum

    The same incident also speaks very badly of the community involved itself. What sort of people would cheer that?

  • Briso

    People terrorised by drug dealers? People whose houses have been vandalised and threatened when they protested? People who’ve had their cars damaged and their neighbourhoods turned into ‘sink estates’ by local hoodlums apparently unafraid of any condequences?

    Vigilantism is wrong, but it is not always unpopular WHERE THERE IS NO LAW!!!

  • Pounder

    While I’m no fan of drug dealers, if thats what the tarred and feathered fella was, every man and his dog knows who did it. Orde is making himself a joke. How can we be expected to take him seriously after brushing this under the carpet. How can we be expected to have faith in the police when their top cop covers for paramilitary groups.

  • Michael

    Sinn Féin’s response to the Derry shooting has been interesting. The Derry Journal reports that a local Sinn Féin councillor described it as ‘wrong’ and ‘counterproductive’. He also said that this type of action didn’t work in the past. That seems strange. Would his colleagues have been saying the same thing a few years ago?

  • Reader

    Briso: Vigilantism is wrong, but it is not always unpopular WHERE THERE IS NO LAW!!!
    That’s where vigilantism starts. Actually in this case it’s worse than that – here wasn’t it just cover for a gang holding it’s turf? But even if vigiliantism rises up from genuine grass roots, soon enough it becomes either corrupt, or repressive, or both.

  • Briso

    Posted by Reader on Sep 07, 2007 @ 08:54 AM
    That’s where vigilantism starts. Actually in this case it’s worse than that – here wasn’t it just cover for a gang holding it’s turf? But even if vigiliantism rises up from genuine grass roots, soon enough it becomes either corrupt, or repressive, or both.

    It is immediately corrupt and repressive. From the first act. How can you be sure the punished is guilty? What test has been applied to the witnesses?

    But why are people acting shocked? “What sort of people would cheer that?” says Gum. Normal people who have been badly let down by the law. “Either there is law or no law. That is the basis of a civilised society.” says Pete B. That very much cuts two ways.

  • Granni Trixie

    Is there not consensus that vigilantism is one part of ‘the past’we have to put behind us? Leaders who express “understanding” of community support for such actions often give the impression that they accept what is a crude ‘justice’system.I also think that this discusion brings up leftovers such as “exiles” – who is giving leadership to their right to return to NI?

  • Briso

    >Is there not consensus that vigilantism is one part of ‘the past’we have to put behind us?

    There is, especially among the criminals.

  • Dessertspoon

    Anyone else noticed that the primary concern following the shooting in Derry was that it happened near a school and the end of the school day. Not that the shooting happened at all!!!!

  • Pounder

    I just want to know when Orde started taking PR lessons from the former Iraqi Information Minister.

  • Gum

    Briso – sick people who are filling their children with a perverted sense of what is right and wrong, not to mention what is and what is not funny.

    I know people in parts of Belfast are plagued by drugs and organised crime. I still have a very very low opinion of people who would stand around and cheer (and let their kids take pics) as a guy gets tar smeared across his face after being viciously beaten.

  • Sean

    Funny McCartney gets murdered in a bar brawl and its an IRA conspiracy

    This guy gets tarred and feathered in the middle of a busy street and its just a bunch of locals off on a lark.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Granny Trixie: “Is there not consensus that vigilantism is one part of ‘the past’we have to put behind us?”

    Vigilantism arises anywhere the legitimate constabulary is or is perceived to be corrupt, ineffectual or both. As such, it is a response to current pressures, not the past. So long as the police are unable (or unwilling) to do their duty in certain areas, there is going to be some level of vigilantism.

    That said, this particular instance would appeart to have happened with the permission, if not wholly at the instigation, of the UDA. Likely, the fella was not kicking back enough “rent” to the local hard men, making more a matter of “organizational management” than true vigiliantism.

  • Granni Trixie

    Dread Cthulhu: I do not entirely agree with your analysis of vigiliantism in the context of NI:Recent incidents such as tarring and feathering are not solely symptoms of a failure of the police to deliver, but also a legacy of a past where communties were egged on by strategic actions of paramilitaries to undermine the rule of law – the RUC for instance were “legitimate targets” which affected attitudes and impacted on recruitment. This background and models of behaviour such as punishment beatings etc are as much factors in explaining why some communities take the law into their own hands as pragmatic explanations. Geddit?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Granny Trixie: “I do not entirely agree with your analysis of vigiliantism in the context of NI:Recent incidents such as tarring and feathering are not solely symptoms of a failure of the police to deliver, but also a legacy of a past where communties were egged on by strategic actions of paramilitaries to undermine the rule of law”

    Re-read my post… I’m not sure this truly was an instance of”vigilante justice,” since I doub that justice was really an issue. Words mean things, Trixie. Secondly, without current criminal activities, why would you have a need or desire for vigilatism?

    Granny Trixie: “the RUC for instance were “legitimate targets” which affected attitudes and impacted on recruitment. This background and models of behaviour such as punishment beatings etc are as much factors in explaining why some communities take the law into their own hands as pragmatic explanations.”

    That is much the RUC’s fault for their one-eyed law enforcement and their collusion with both sides of the thug divide, Trixie. When the police abdicate their role as law enforcement to take up partisans against one faction or simply don’t do their job, be it for personal safety concerns or political concerns, something is going to fill the void they leave behind.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Funny McCartney gets murdered in a bar brawl and its an IRA conspiracy

    Well, it was. After all, they even offered to shoot the members who did it.

  • Sean

    it was not an IRA conspiracy. they just offered to fix the problem because3 the PSNI are so useless

  • Sean

    And try addressing the second part of a 2 part question

  • The Dubliner

    “Additionally, as I have mentioned before – “Either there is law or no law. That is the basis of a civilised society.”

    What tosh! There is always law of a kind in any gathering of human beings and “civilised” is such a subjective term as to be risible.

    But perhaps you really mean the measure of law within a state. And there we must apply the rule of what system of law is tolerable, acceptable to all its citizens and how that law is applied.

    In the case of the Northern Ireland state that existed from 1922 that was not the case and certainly after 1966 became such to the extent that the state itself collapsed as a result of the rejection of its idea of civilisation.

    Our task is now to develop a meaningful, inclusive system of law that springs from within the community and can then be respected. The state itself has no moral authority nor stamp of impramatur on civilisation, nor must it be allowed to steal that assumption.” – Rory

    That is a perfect example of how self-serving subversives attempt to undermine all legal and moral objection to their perverted thought processes and actions, corrupting systems and societies to their will – it is also why sociopaths aren’t fit for public office.

    Rory, what you really meant to say was “Neither the State nor its citizens had the right to judge PIRA to be a bunch of murdering thugs. Therefore, they weren’t a bunch of murdering thugs. However, in order to avoid giving legitimacy to the next bunch of murdering thugs, we must grow new laws in the jam jars of community schools and use those laws to judge anyone who does what PIRA did to be a bunch of murdering thugs.”

  • Gum

    I love the way that the McCartney murder is supposed to make this sort of sick act ok. We’re plagued by this kind of vile thuggery. Its time idiots stop the whataboutery and condemned it all. The McCartney murder has nothing to do with this. Its not relevant apart from being just another example of cruelty by Belfast thugs who think they can ignore the law.

  • The Dubliner

    Yup, Gum, from the paradox of the ‘honest outlaw’ to the myth of the ‘ordinary decent terrorist.’ The habit of the guilty is to declare innocence – as though they are devoid of conscience, free will, and all understanding of moral systems, either rudimentary or longstanding: “Tisn’t me that did wrong, m’lord; tis the system.”

  • Prince Eoghan

    Hiya Dub

    Let’s hope the pin you use to stick your easter lily with doesn’t go too far in. Wouldn’t want any insignificant wound when a major one would do nicely;¬)

    The men of 1916 and the war of independence could have done with stalwarts such as yourself to defend them against the nonsense about them being ‘honest outlaw’ or ‘ordinary decent terrorist.’ What a great defender of British rule in Ireland you are, enjoy last night of the proms last night did ye?

  • Sean

    Gum I didn’t bring up McCartney for what aboutery I brought it up to display the difference in perception and media coverage

    One was an act of passion that happened in the heat of conflict, doesnt make it right but certainly didnt raise to the level of conspiracy

    the second was a pre meditated and preplanned act of barbarity that is definatley a conspiracy of large group of individuals. And is being brushed off as a nonevent

    why? because the first one occured in a national neighbourhood and the act of barbarity, predictably so, occured in a unionist one

  • The Dubliner

    “The men of 1916 and the war of independence could have done with stalwarts such as yourself to defend them against the nonsense about them being ‘honest outlaw’ or ‘ordinary decent terrorist.’”

    You are confusing two separate events and using the legitimacy of 1916 to confer respectability on a sectarian murder campaign that was launched by militant nationalist thugs in Northern Ireland in order to serve their own selfish interests and agenda. You do this, of course, because you are utterly unable to validate said sectarian murder campaign on its own ‘merit’ and you have neither the intellectual honesty nor the moral integrity to admit that. If you claim that eviction of the British government/monarch was the aim of the violence, then you utterly failed in that aim, ending up, instead, helping to co-administer British rule in a glorified council and murdering a vast amount of people for no purpose. If you try to pretend that your murder campaign wasn’t futile by pointing to your role as co-administrators of British rule in Ireland, then you admit that used violence for a purpose that isn’t covered the claimed republican objective; and you de facto admit to being a bunch of fascist thugs. So, your options are: utter failures or fascist thugs. You rock, baby.

    As Bertie Ahern said, “Where the Irish people reject violence and sectarianism, a republican cannot condone these methods. Any individual who does so is not a republican.” The same can be said for those who reject the rule of law, morality, and reason, i.e. the sociopathic degenerates who formed their own little sectarian cult called “PIRA.”

  • Reader

    Prince Eoghan: What a great defender of British rule in Ireland you are, enjoy last night of the proms last night did ye?
    Tssk. All he did was complain about the Provos. These days the Provos have accepted the Principle of Consent as part of the GFA. So they are also defenders of British Rule, until that referendum – either defenders of British rule, or irrelevant.
    Or do you imagine the Provos killed for the Principle of Consent as the means to a United Ireland? If so, why didn’t they ever say so? If not, then what *did* they kill for?

  • Prince Eoghan

    >>If you claim that eviction of the British government/monarch was the aim of the violence, then you utterly failed in that aim, ending up, instead, helping to co-administer British rule in a glorified council and murdering a vast amount of people for no purpose.< >the sociopathic degenerates who formed their own little sectarian cult called “PIRA.”<