“under the auspices of a paramilitary organisation…”

According to a BBC report, and a UTV report, “a solicitor” has told Belfast Magistrates Court that a 18-year-old returned, “under the auspices of a paramilitary organisation”, three laptop computers he had stolen from the Bridge of Hope shop on 7th and 8th September and that he has subsequently confessed to the offences.

Hmm..  I hope it wasn’t the defence solicitor.  It’s hardly in the interest of the client to argue that he was acting under duress…

Then there’s the question of which “paramilitary organisation”, and what threats they issued to ensure compliance.

But, at the minute, PR seems to be at the forefront of the thinking of any number of paramilitary organisations…

Maybe they have those opinion polls in mind?

, , , , ,

  • Double Standards

    As the fella hasn’t indicated a plea to all charges, and if he pleads not guilty, it will likely result in a jury trial, this thread needs to be careful.
    That said, it was ONH. (Feel free to delete)

  • joeCanuck

    Auspices? Auspices?

    One look Dictionary: ▸ noun: kindly endorsement and guidance

    What’s the word for “Pull the other one”?

  • pippakin

    The good news is the boy was ‘allowed’ to return the goods and surrender to the police. I see this as a definite move forward. Or at least not a step back…

  • Alias

    Part of the problem here is that the Irish state has a policy of legitimising these murder gangs under the direction of the British state.

    When the president of Ireland, for example, invites these gangsters to Áras an Uachtaráin she is doing so as part of that state policy. There is an attempt to present that legitimisation of these criminals as a personal policy of her husband – who socialises with these criminals -rather than as inappropriate behaviour by the president but it is very much a policy that is shared by the state at the government level.

    This is profoundly wrong as it legitimises the unlawful activity that these gangsters are involved in such as prostitution, extortion, murder, drug-dealing, etc. What message does it send out, for example, to a businessman in a loyalist area who is forced to pay protection money to these gangsters when he sees them socialising with the president of Ireland? It sends the message that he should not bother reporting the crime he suffers to the state because that state will not embarrass a foreign state for implementing its own policy of legitimisation of the criminals that he would otherwise be reporting.

    Mary McAleese is an utter disgrace, and there are many victims created in NI as a result of the activity that she is engaged in – from women abused as prostitutes, to drug addicts harassed for cash, and from businessmen harassed to hand over their earning to those who rub shoulders with those who are unfit to hold the high office they have duly disgraced.

  • “It’s hardly in the interest of the client to argue that he was acting under duress…”

    It is good for his case though whenever he can plead some intelligence and common sense in accepting and acting upon Constructive Instructive Advisement

  • Granni Trixie

    the moeWhilst you could take a pragmatic view – that the most important thing is that the laptops were returned, I think that the mnore important asepct of this case is that it tells us that the struggle to legitimise ‘infomal’ policing is alive and well in NI.

    It reminds me of arguments against the barbarity of punishment beatings/exiling where many argued that it was necessary (even the ‘human rights community’ “understood the reasons it was happening”).

  • White Horse

    Strong words, Alias.

    I kind of agree, but I feel the legitimising of those who use gangster methods was helped greatly by Tony Blair when he told the SDLP that their problem was that they “didn’t have any guns”.

  • joeCanuck

    I am in rare total agreement, Alias. It was/is a disgrace. I can understand people sometimes having to hold their noses when meeting elected people, but not meeting gangsters.