Policing and Justice Powers

[An Fear Dubh]

In response to Reply 50 from Bilk:

I am sorry Bilk if you found my terminology patronizing and insulting. That was not my intention, I was trying to make a point to Earl that digging ones heels in is not human nature. But I accept on re-reading it was badly put across, and patronizing towards unionism.

How unionists arrived at this siege mentality can be understood, and it is wrong to call that process childish. But I think good leadership from within unionism can move unionism away from this siege mentality. And I think for unionism to develop and grow that must happen. And nationalism has a onus to help breakdown the barriers that have lead to this siege mentality. To facilitate unionist leadership to move in positive directions that benefit everyone. I can understand the distrust of unionists of republicans after years of violent conflict. But republicans seem good enough for the Assembly Executive then they are good enough for policing and justice powers. Or else you are saying this Assembly is a sham.

[Bilk]

I agree with just about everything you say Harry. The problem I have is that the paras are still alive and active. They may not in themselves be causing the problems we have at the moment. But it is obvious to me that the cops, (while the policies on policing are still being dictated by London) are still terrified of upsetting the peace process, and their hands are being tied by their masters in London. These people are far removed from the reality of the situation here, and even if they weren't they still wouldn't care. Their aim is to keep the peace process going at all costs. If that means turning a blind eye to ex paras pushing drugs etc. then sobeit. Those same drugs, we hear on a daily basis, are the main cause of lawlessness here. Young hoods tanked up on e-tabs etc walking our streets doing just as they please. Perhaps if local representatives depended more on the proper policing of our streets for votes then perhaps something might actually get done.

[Bilk]

anfeardubh said:

In response to Reply 50 from Bilk:

I am sorry Bilk if you found my terminology patronizing and insulting. That was not my intention, I was trying to make a point to Earl that digging ones heels in is not human nature. But I accept on re-reading it was badly put across, and patronizing towards unionism.

How unionists arrived at this siege mentality can be understood, and it is wrong to call that process childish. But I think good leadership from within unionism can move unionism away from this siege mentality. And I think for unionism to develop and grow that must happen. And nationalism has a onus to help breakdown the barriers that have lead to this siege mentality. To facilitate unionist leadership to move in positive directions that benefit everyone. I can understand the distrust of unionists of republicans after years of violent conflict. But republicans seem good enough for the Assembly Executive then they are good enough for policing and justice powers. Or else you are saying this Assembly is a sham.

I accept your apology AFD, you are not usually of that mindset.

And I agree with most of what you have said above, I did after all vote "yes".
But to remove the seige mentality of unionists you would have to remove the seige. I can't see that happening anyday soon. As the aspirations of a large part of todays government is such that they woulld like that the assembly to longer exists. That in itself feeds the seige mentality and is brought about by a form of government that would be acceptable nowhere else in the world in my opinion.
To get back on thread, surely it is in the iterest of all the parties to have proper policing. After all the incidences of cross community violence is at the lowest level it has been for a long time. Most of the crap that passes for law breaking is hoods who terrorise both communities from within. Ok we still get the Saturday Afternoon incidents after a soccer match, and the drunken frezied attacks based on sectarianism. But in the main, our real problem today, is that areas of our cities are being left to the mercy of young drunk and drug filled hoods.

[An Fear Dubh]

In response to Reply 52 from Harry:

There are plenty of proposals from various political parties on policing issues. But lets not get bogged down with them and stick to the general issues of when or if powers should be devolved.

But I understand why you asked those questions. The point has been well made that the people best suited to make the right decisions for our society in the north is people from the north and elected by the local people. I feel it is wrong to just think of the police when talking of police and justice powers but obviously they are the core point. You make valid observations of how our society works in relation to dealing with the police. We can not avoid the fact that the police are mainly from the unionist community and by that they will hold similar distrust of republicans and nationalist communities. I am not sure how that works in unionist middle class areas but see from you that there are issues in working class areas.

There are plenty of community people and groups who are working very hard. Some are having a positive benefit, some are only stifling the flow and some for various reasons are ineffective. One of those reasons is police distrust of some of these groups. I have said the sole solution to some of these problems does not come from the police alone. But they are one tool that can be used. And those best suited to see how best that tool can be used are local people. It is equally wrong to think that community groups are at fault.

I think the point that Jim was making is that as paramilitary activity withdrew a vacuum was created and that vacuum has to be filled by effective policing with community support. Unfortunately that has not happened and the vacuum is still unfilled. Initially communities like the Lower Falls called for the IRA to protect them in 1969, because the police were not. And they will be looking again to be protected if the police are not. But the police need to be seen as prepared to respond. If they feel unable they need to liaise with the community, and perhaps devolved powers would help the police also.

We have an opportunity that is not available to people in Dublin or London, are we willing to throw that opportunity away because of distrust. And is that sufficient reason?

[Harry]

Well i wouldn't stand in the way of devolving the powers and accept we can possibly make a difference. However i do need to be convinced by evidence or proposals which convince me and not just words. Not trying in anyway to be awkward but i like to see ideas and then make a judgement based on how i see these ideas being a success.

If anyone can point me in the direction of any parties ideas then i'd be grateful

[Jim]

I think the fact that the current system is not working is proof enough for me personally, but I will take a look online and see what I can dig up, what is being proposed exactly.

Am sure Setanta would have some links on SFs policy at least.

[earl]

jim said:

earl said:

I've swallowed no line. AFD. Just using common sense. I don't agree that it's the right thing to do, and if I was made grand dictator of NI, I would transfer over the powers tomorrow, but NI is a democracy, with hardliners on both sides of the divide. If any community is going to scupper the current setup, it will be the unionist community. I've stated initially that I believe another 18 months wouldn't be a bad time frame to consider this proposal again.
Like it or not, siege mentality exists amongst many hardliner unionists, and this needs to be handled in the right way, and I don't mean pandering to them. You stated that the only way to get them to move is to push, so are you saying that the only way to move you on a subject is to push you into it? Or would you dig your heels in and push back? Imagine how you would react to a situation, if the roles were reversed, and that's how unionists will react, as it's simple human nature.
You might see it as delaying tactics, and for some it might be the case, but not for all. Some unionists would have genuine feelings on this, and it takes time for those fears to be reduced and confidence to replace it.
I've never said that it shouldn't happen, or that it should happen in the distant future, I've just stated that now is probably not the best time for it.

I don't think you understand the severity of the issue and people in my estate at least aren't going to take much more of it. 18 months down the line they'll be asking men in balaklavas to do the work and when asked "will you support the police" they will say "no, they didnt support us".

If we are going to even bother with "democracy" then the justice needs to be accountable, or we may as well just go back to direct rule. Its all or nothing and fortunately for you its not you having to deal with the consequences either. You know as much about it as the English would, same social problems, very different method of dealing with it in our case.

I don't know the severity Jim, but again, I'm not the one who needs convincing. If the justice and policing powers were transferred, I wouldn't mind and would see it as another positive step. I didn't vote no because I don't want it to happen, I voted no because I don't think certain elements in NI are ready for it yet, and it's up to those for the idea to convince them otherwise, in a logical manner, rather than trying to pander or force the issue. It's a tricky tightrope. Leave it too long, and the balaclavas are back, possibly leading to a rise in support in dissidents. Try and force it too soon, and the whole assembly could be at risk of falling, come next election time, if not sooner.

[earl]

anfeardubh said:

So I am not sure it is simple human nature of an adult but more the nature of an insecure child, but I can see your logic there. The difference is republicans are prepared to take risks and think outside the box and the siege mentality is not allowed to grow inside republican ideology. I am basing my assessment of how unionists react and respond on my observations.

AFD,

I suppose you have to look at where both communities have come from and where they are now. Taking our starting point as partition (to keep things close to modern times), republicans had nothing to lose, whereas unionists had everything to lose. This severely effects mindsets, so republicans (in general) are more open to change, as their very battle in NI is to work towards the biggest change of them all. Unionists started out with their desired end product, and have been losing ground ever since. Hardliner unionists want to go back to the 70's, and at the very least, stop losing ground and retain the status quo. Some people will never change their views, whereas others would change their views over time. It's moving at the right speed to keep as many on board as possible that's deeming to be very tricky.
By the way, I'm not having a go at unionists in general here, as this site alone proves that there are some very progressive elements within Unionism that I can at least relate to in all bar the issue of sovereignty. There are republicans who, whilst open to some change, would not accept that the archaic ideal of a 32 socialist republic is as likely as the ROI rejoining the UK. We only have to point to the example that the least progressive elements within the GAA come from north of the border to show that certain elements in republicanism is also against change, depending on the issue.

Yes we accept the democracy we have in the north. But it has been democratically agreed that policing and justice powers will be devolved it is just a matter of the time frame. While waiting another 18 months would not be a big deal - nor is it a big deal transferring powers now. I do not see the proposal from unionists being just another 18 months, I see it as an open ended time frame till some unknown date when utopia exists. And then they will reevaluate it again, I see that as an unacceptable position.

I would feel that just over 2 years of the assembly, functioning as it is without any major issues or revelations would help convince a lot of doubters that more progress and change is required to take NI to the next level. Pushing this issue at this moment in time could have some people feeling that they are being forced into it and that things are moving too quickly. Remember, the unionist community REALLY don't trust SF, so SF need to do their best to show (through governing in partnership and being as co-operative as their mandate allows) these people that they mean what they say.

I agree that unionists do need help. But I still do not see how things will have changed after an 18 month period. As the term of office of this Assembly is on count-down. And the closer it draws to an election time the more small marginal unionists will adopt 'hardline' positions to win press coverage and possible votes. This in turn will put pressure on leadership unionists to adopt similar positions to stay in tune with their electorate. I believe it is a deliberate strategy by unionists to avoid what has already been democratically agreed by both the London and Dublin governments. What has already been agreed at St.Andrew's. Unionists hold onto some slim hope that by delay the opportunity will arise that they can unravel all that has been achieved and a return to unionist one party rule, a protestant state for protestants only. We can not let the unionist siege mentality to seep into the politics that have been created by the new institutions as this will paralyze the progress.

If this issue got pushed too quickly, the risk of anti-agreement parties getting votes from those fearing the rapid change might rip the whole process asunder. Then there will be no government to devolve the powers to.

[earl]

bilk said:

I agree with just about everything you say Harry. The problem I have is that the paras are still alive and active. They may not in themselves be causing the problems we have at the moment. But it is obvious to me that the cops, (while the policies on policing are still being dictated by London) are still terrified of upsetting the peace process, and their hands are being tied by their masters in London. These people are far removed from the reality of the situation here, and even if they weren't they still wouldn't care. Their aim is to keep the peace process going at all costs. If that means turning a blind eye to ex paras pushing drugs etc. then sobeit. Those same drugs, we hear on a daily basis, are the main cause of lawlessness here. Young hoods tanked up on e-tabs etc walking our streets doing just as they please. Perhaps if local representatives depended more on the proper policing of our streets for votes then perhaps something might actually get done.

A very good point Bilk. All London wants is a high probability that the violence wouldn't return to what it was and the bombs come back to their streets. This fear means that they can go soft on criminality in NI, so as to reduce the chances of upsetting the applecart. They don't have to deal with the consequences of this approach. This is a typical colonial mindset. Once the homeland is doing alright, to hell with the natives.

[earl]

setanta said:

earl said:

I don't know the severity Jim, but again, I'm not the one who needs convincing. If the justice and policing powers were transferred, I wouldn't mind and would see it as another positive step. I didn't vote no because I don't want it to happen, I voted no because I don't think certain elements in NI are ready for it yet, and it's up to those for the idea to convince them otherwise, in a logical manner, rather than trying to pander or force the issue. It's a tricky tightrope. Leave it too long, and the balaclavas are back, possibly leading to a rise in support in dissidents. Try and force it too soon, and the whole assembly could be at risk of falling, come next election time, if not sooner.

what/who are those elements?

I don't know them personally, but it's fair to say that unionism is made out of people with differing attitudes, just like any other group of people on the planet. Some elements would be against devolving these powers now because of the fear of moving too fast, but that's not to say that their attitudes wouldn't change given more time. Not all unionists currently against this idea would be classed as 'hardliner'.

[An Fear Dubh]

In reply to Harry (reply 57);

Fair enough, you would not object to devolving powers but need convinced that once we had them we would use this new power to make real change. And therefore why bother devolving these powers if there was not going to be any difference.

I am not convinced myself that the politicians we have in control would use the new powers to make any significant changes. But I would sooner have local people in charge than people who have no stake in the society here. Also given the set up of government we have here where every proposal has to be agreed by nearly everyone or the majority of both traditions, the chances of anything radical or productive actually getting agreed is highly unlikely.

The Ulster Unionist Party is closely linked with the British Conservative (Tory) Party, having very similar policies on issues like Law and Order. As a left-wing type person I have difficulties with such policies as they are geared to be anti-working class and do not bear up to full analysis, but are merely a glossy PR. But they are not alone at being rather good at the PR and weak on results. So I see the exercise of even looking at various party policies on policing and justice as fairly fruitless, as with election manifestos they promise the sky but once elected forget every promise.

But if the person who got elected lived local. And I bumped into them occasionally rather than some distant politician who I only ever saw on tv and at election time. I can feel more satisfied having burnt his/her ear as they pushed their shopping trolley around the local supermarket or where ever I came across them. And they would be left in no doubt what issues I felt strongly about. And feeling safe in your own community is always important to everyone. It would not be the fault of the police, as they are only the tool. It is how that tool is used, how well equipped that tool is, and that is the responsibility of the local politician. Some far off politician does not feel the same pressure to act positively or with the necessary speed.

[An Fear Dubh]

In reply to Earl:

There are a few interesting points that were well made in a number of posts. I always feel it is wrong or unfair to dissect the whole post into sections as this can lead to 'out of context' claims. Not only to the reply but to the context of the previous reply. But as with these forums this does seem to be the only way.

In reply 60, Earl said; "If the justice and policing powers were transferred, I wouldn't mind and would see it as another positive step. I didn't vote no because I don't want it to happen, I voted no because I don't think certain elements in NI are ready for it yet, and it's up to those for the idea to convince them otherwise, in a logical manner, rather than trying to pander or force the issue."

This seems very odd to me. You agree that powers should be devolved, and if it happened sooner rather than delayed you would view this as a positive - That logic by my reckoning adds up to a 'Yes' vote in this poll.
But you turned that 'Yes' vote on its head because certain elements in the north (not you) are not ready for powers to be devolved.
I have to say I am confused. By that logic you do not vote for what YOU want but vote for what other people may want! Or what you perceive they want, as sometimes people tell you one thing but do the other.

I have to assume that did not come across the way you meant Earl, or you are back tracking on your vote. I can see why someone who lives south of the 'border' might want to poll that way, trying to adopt a sensible position. On an issue that is 'northern' politics. I feel it was somewhat unfair of Jim to burden you with the emotional argument that you do not live here, as you only voiced a view/vote that you admit is not yours but one that exists and needs to be heard and the logic questioned.

The DUP say they are strong on 'Law and Order' but do not want to have the powers that will enable them to take control of how that is controlled as they say they are not ready and the time is not right. But give no definitive date as to when they or the time might be ready.

Setanta asked who and what are those elements. And in reply 64 Earl responded, "I don't know them personally, but it's fair to say that unionism is made out of people with differing attitudes, just like any other group of people on the planet. Some elements would be against devolving these powers now because of the fear of moving too fast, but that's not to say that their attitudes wouldn't change given more time. Not all unionists currently against this idea would be classed as 'hardliner'."

You are assuming that these elements that are objecting are all doing so honestly. While some elements might be honest it is also evident that some are not being honest and some are being hypocritical. The question you must ask yourself - 'Is the time right to devolve powers for policing and justice'.

I have said 'Yes' because it was democratically agreed in the Good Friday Agreement and endorsed by a vote across the whole of the island of Ireland. It was democratically agreed at St. Andrew's. The institutions have been up and running and look very solid, and at the start everyone knew the date for the transfer of these powers was set for May.

We have been told that the time is not right and it is too early. Is this the case or is this a stalling tactic similar to previous stalling tactics that the DUP used until they strengthened their support base to enable them to overtake the UUP electorally. Is the focus of the DUP more on the threat to their vote base than it is to sharing power it would seem that sharing power is second to electoral success.

Reponding to reply 62;

Okay our starting point is partition. Say 1921-27. Prior to which Unionism meant a 32 county Ireland joined politically with Britain. As it became apparent to the Unionist leaders of that day that a stalling strategy might allow other opportunities to develop. Thus we had the 'boundary commission' who's findings went unheeded once the commissions outcome became obvious. So instead of the 3 county 'Ulster' we got the extended 6 county 'Ulster' to appease Unionism. So they were given more ground than their electorate had mandated, setting them up as a privileged class, and then middle class Unionism set about creating a privileged state. Middle class unionism used economic fears to create and build on sectarian division thus creating the 'siege' mentality. As working class unionism/loyalism faired little better in many aspects and working class unionism did not start off with their desired end product and this 'siege' mentality was fostered upon them by capitalist middle class unionism who set out to exploit working class economic fears to bolster their own positions and thus allowing low wages etc to go unchallenged within a false economy (northern Ireland). Republicanism from our starting point (1921-27) has always had a socialist element incorporated within its ranks (although not always effective).

I am uncertain that Republicans are more open to change than working class Unionism. The DUP are more representative of working class Unionism than the UUP. But they are moving into new waters that after 80+ years of mud throwing and fear spreading it is difficult to move away from these things. Yes middle-class Unionism and those that follow that 'seige' mentality want to go back in time. But by delaying we risk losing the momentum of change. Change is difficult and disturbing but change is inevitable or you risk failure. We do not want to fail here.

I hold on to the ideal of a 32 socialist republic as my aspiration. I do not accept that it is doomed never to be achieved. But I do not envisage it in my lifetime but I hope to pass on to future generations a job well started. The terms '32 socialist republic' may not be the one that hangs above the door but the ethos will be 'united and equal'.

And I think I can point to GAA members in the south that are also against change, and could not be termed progressive. And I seem to remember that some vote proposals for dramatic change within the GAA came from County Down in the north. But maybe you are rightly being prickly because of Jim's unfair charge. So I will let that pass.

You say that a 18month-2 year period would be a good enough time period. But that is not what Unionists are saying. All they are saying is the time is not right, and there is no indication as to how long this delay should be, what are the indicators that measure this delay? Will the time ever be right? Is this just a stall tactic? Do you not think that as an election draws nearer the right time drifts even further away? How can nationalists trust unionism if they want to break deals (Good Friday and St. Andrew's) and agreements at every crossroads.

Earl said, "If this issue got pushed too quickly, the risk of anti-agreement parties getting votes from those fearing the rapid change might rip the whole process asunder. Then there will be no government to devolve the powers to."

I think you are forgetting to ask what was it that made Ian Paisley turn from a lifetime of saying no to say yes! And you will find that given the alternative to sharing power the incentive is there for Unionism. And this is not a deal breaking issue for Unionism.

[Jim]

I don't feel it was unfair at all maybe you are taking it out of context. To reply to earls post to me, I would have said too that his post sounded more like a "yes.. but". The problem I saw with the post was the idea that "I don't think certain elements in NI are ready for it yet".

Certain elements will never be ready for it, especially middle class unionists who don't need change they will oppose it because they live in a world of their own. A society can never be one on an issue but it doesn't mean we stop change because of that. Why would someone living in a country town in the middle of Antrim or Down need a change in the police? Its a far cry from the worst parts of Belfast and Derry.

The reason I "charged" earl with him not understanding the situation and putting his "no" vote down to that was because Dublin may have the same social problems when it comes to hoods and drug dealers but they don't have the same opposition; an opposition for the sake of opposition with no real logic behind it, it was by no means a personal attack.

[Wasp]

Certain elements will never be ready for it, especially middle class unionists who don't need change they will oppose it because they live in a world of their own.

Obviously you have little or no contact with the middle classes then Jim because any that I know are very interested in this subject and are wanting things done just like you and me. They have an interest, a right to there view and a right to give their choice.

[Jim]

I've as much contact with middle class people as I need; work, university, and knowing a few faces.

I didnt say they are not interested in the subject, I said they don't have the same need for a better police force. Ofcourse they have a right to their views, but they have no right to oppose things because it doesnt affect them personally.