“This Is the New PSNI – Just the Same as the RUC”

The éirígí website has provided footage of the RUC/PSNI house raid believed to have lead to the disturbances in Craigavon.

“I was outside the family home when the raid began and I was inside immediately afterwards speaking with the family, who are close friends of mine. The reality of the RUC–PSNI was here for all to see in broad daylight and the residents of this estate remain justifiably suspicious of the force”

ADDS: This may inform some of the discussion here on how the disturbance in Craigavon started and dispel some of the claims on what/who initiated the violence.

  • willis

    Harry

    Just so we get a reference point on your bile-o-meter. What do you think of young Kevin Rudd, who recently beat another right wing senior citizen, albeit younger than John McCain, down in your neck of the woods?

  • willis

    OOps, wrong thread,

  • Comrade Stalin

    legal eagle:

    Under Section 81 of The Terrorism Act 2000 which is the power most commonly used by police in the North when conducting house or property searches:

    I stand corrected, but was the Terrorism Act used here ? Reprehensible as what transpired in Craigavon was, riots aren’t terrorism.

    Inappropriate use of such powers is a matter for the Police Ombudsman. And I’m sure there’s got to be some sort of legal procedure where the police can be prosecuted for acting illegally.

    There is no reason to PROVE their innocence – they have not been charged with any offence – terrorist, criminal, civil or otherwise.

    I worded my previous comment rather badly. What I meant to say was that the failure of the police to establish guilt does not mean they had no grounds for suspicion in the first place.

    Dave:

    the fact that a culture also exists wherein a senior unionist politician and a member of the Policing Board can call on the police to engage in unlawful acts as vile as murder without personal sanction being imposed on him?

    I don’t agree with Paisley’s comment and I regard it as wrong. However, he was not advocating murder. Anyone who shot someone else with reasonable grounds to believe they were in mortal danger might be guilty of something else, but whatever it is it would not be premeditating and planning to bring about someone’s death. If you come at a police officer with a gun and he shoots you dead, not a lot of people are going to have a huge amount of sympathy for you, and no jury is going to convict him of murder. I don’t see Paisley’s comments as being particularly out of step with shades of opinion which can be found in other Western democracies. Paisley’s attitude is not the way to solve the problem, but it remains the case that police officers in danger do have the right to use their weapons to defend themselves. That’s why they’re armed.

  • darth rumsfeld

    who exactly are these eirwigs that the charming Mr Duffy now represents?
    And just when did he become a former senior IRA man (quotein numerous meeja outlets yesterday)?

    As for plod, Harry Flash is right. If that’s the worst they can do, I’m cancelling me car tax

  • legal eagle

    CS – even if the Terrorism Act was not the authorisation used in the particular case, and it is indeed widely used in such situations here, there are of course also powers of entry without a warrant under articles 19 and 20 of the PACE (NI) Order, where a police officer is able to enter and search premises without a warrant are the following:
    * where the officer wishes lawfully to arrest a person whom he or she reasonably suspects is present on the premises;
    * where the police wish to search premises occupied or controlled by a person who has been arrested for an arrestable offence because they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the premises contain evidence relating to that or some other connected arrestable offence;
    * where entry is necessary in order to prevent serious personal injury or serious property damage;
    * where entry is necessary in order to deal with or prevent a breach of the peace;
    * where any statutory provision so permits, e.g. the Food Safety (NI) Order 1991, article 33.

    The “reasonable suspicion” requirement of the Terrorism Act is one which would be quite difficult for any person to disprove – what actually constitutes such suspicion has been never been properly defined by the judiciary and therefore gives quite a broad remit to police.

    Of course, I accept that your point that you misconstrued your earlier post.

  • Ulick

    We seem to have lost. We have not lost. To refuse to fight would have been to lose; to fight is to win. We have kept faith with the past, and handed on a tradition to the future.”

  • No one

    Legal eagle

    Part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 (which includes s. 81) is no longer in force as of 31 July 2007. The relevant provisions of PACE do not allow for searches per se, they only allow for entry without warrant (i) to arrest a person or (ii) to search a premises controlled by an arrested person (in certain cases). This would not cover the type of activity the cops were up to here. They would probably be relying on ss. 21-24 of the Justice & Security (NI) Act 2007, which contain such nuggets as s. 21(1):

    “(1)A member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty or a constable may stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him to ascertain his identity and movements.”

    The specific search powers are ss. 23 and 24.

  • Dave

    “I don’t agree with Paisley’s comment and I regard it as wrong. However, he was not advocating murder. Anyone who shot someone else with reasonable grounds to believe they were in mortal danger might be guilty of something else, but whatever it is it would not be premeditating and planning to bring about someone’s death. If you come at a police officer with a gun and he shoots you dead, not a lot of people are going to have a huge amount of sympathy for you, and no jury is going to convict him of murder. I don’t see Paisley’s comments as being particularly out of step with shades of opinion which can be found in other Western democracies. Paisley’s attitude is not the way to solve the problem, but it remains the case that police officers in danger do have the right to use their weapons to defend themselves. That’s why they’re armed.” – Comrade Stalin

    While it is considerate of you to act as an apologist for a senior unionist politician who did not qualify his unconditional support and advocacy of state murder in the manner that you have retrospectively done as his self-appointed spokesman, the fact that a culture still exists wherein a senior unionist politician and member of the Policing Board can call on the state to recommence its well-documented campaign of murder against its own citizens and where contemptible exhortation does not result in any sanction being imposed upon him by that State or those who now act as its apologists calls into question the degree to which the culture of state murder and those in officialdom who covered it up and acted as apologists for it has been successfully eradicated. Ian Paisley is a senior unionist politician, and it is nonsensical to proffer the pretence that his views are purely his own, being unrepresentative of those he represents, particularly when no sanction was imposed upon him for advocating murder from his own party, the Policing Board, his constituency, or society at large. There is something very rotten in the statelet of NI.

    Here is his unqualified support for state murder: “If dissidents are shot on sight, the community will accept that it is a necessary use of lethal force to prevent dissident republicanism from growing”.

    Mark McGregor is a “dissident” and a republican. Indeed, anyone who does not accept that the NI state is legitimate is a dissident. That, of course, does not include pro-state parties such as the Shinners. He did not, as you falsely claimed, state that is legal and proper for the police to defend themselves. He advocated that the State should murder its own citizens purely on the basis of their political beliefs. Given that the State and police force in question has a history of doing exactly that, his comments are very alarming indeed – as it the lack of condemnation of such despicable sentiments.

  • Peter Brown

    I think IPJ clarified his remarks by saying that where they were under attack as In Lisnaskea the PSNI should respond with lethal force – the initial Press Statement was poorly worded but the context is clear.

    To ignore this is as self parodying as Mark’s post here (nice attempt to change the subject Dave!) and reinforces the perception that there are those who would like all PSNI officers to report to their nearest CIRA ASU and stand in a line so that perhaps one bullet might finish off more then one offcier each thus saving ammunition.

    There was no call for any shoot to kill policy except kill or be killed and therefore nothing illegal unlike the ambush in Lisnaskea itself which presumably everyone condemns?

  • wee man

    bit of overtime for the r.u.c…..

  • latcheeco

    Re: Sledgehammer
    Of course fair_deal, before Patton they’d just have used Messrs Haddock and co. to do it.

  • C Wolf

    As the IRA was a pseudo gang for the British army and MI5 it could be proven that your country funded the IRA.