Belfast Mayhem

TetsuoHashimoto

Catholic man shot dead in Belfast "mayhem"
BELFAST (Reuters) - Protestant gunmen have shot dead a 19-year-old Roman Catholic as rival groups carried out a series of gun attacks in what police called a "catalogue of mayhem".


The fatal shooting in Belfast was the culmination of a night of violence in the province, which saw two other men -- one Protestant, the other Catholic -- wounded in separate shootings.


The killing was claimed by the "Red Hand Defenders" in a call to the BBC in Belfast on Monday. The name is a cover used in the past by several pro-British factions, chiefly elements of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA).


Responding to the attacks, Northern Ireland Secretary John Reid vowed the killers "must and will be brought to justice".


"The series of shootings in north Belfast last night which ended in the vicious murder of a young Catholic man are beneath contempt," Reid said in a statement. "No community grievance or political cause can ever justify this."


The shootings were the latest in a series of attacks in the strife-torn province, where the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement has failed to fully staunch the violence.


Police superintendent Roy Suitters described the overnight violence as "a catalogue of mayhem" and appealed for community leaders on both sides to exert influence to defuse tension.


"When a 12-year-old at one side of Belfast throws a stone, someone on the other side of Belfast ends up being killed," he told the BBC. "Somehow, somewhere this has to stop."


Police later named the victim as Gerard Lawlor, aged 19, who lived a few hundred yards from where he was killed. Local media reports said Lawlor had an 18-month-old son, and quoted the dead man's mother appealing for no retaliatory attacks.


Lawlor was hit several times in what police believe was a drive-by shooting in the Whitewell Road area of north Belfast, scene of clashes between rival Catholic and Protestant gangs during the past year. He died at the scene.


In January this year, a 20-year-old Catholic postman was shot dead in the nearby Protestant Rathcoole area. That killing was initially claimed by the Red Hand Defenders, but the UDA later admitted it carried out the attack.


Earlier on Sunday night, a 19-year-old Protestant was shot and wounded close to the Catholic Holy Cross Girls' School, scene of a bitter blockade by Protestant residents last year. Later a Catholic man was wounded in another gun attack.


Three other shooting incidents which did not result in any casualties were reported in various parts of north Belfast.


British government officials have said either Reid or Prime Minister Tony Blair will make a statement on the peace process before parliament recesses for its summer break on Wednesday.


The Irish Republican Army -- responsible for about half of the 3,600 deaths during Northern Ireland's 30 years of conflict -- issued an unprecedented apology last week for killing unarmed civilians during its campaign.


The IRA, like other major paramilitary groups on both sides, has called a ceasefire, but rising levels of street violence and rioting by both sides have damaged faith in the peace process.

JarJar blinks

Sick, pure Sick.

Jail them.

Biffa Bacon

The situation could be brought under control in a week if vigorous zero tolerance policing was to be introduced. But the politicians up North are too weak and/or stupid to do this.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Mercury_Tilt


ehhh?


The time scale up there is near the 30-40 years type stage.

You reckon a week would sort it out?

The timescale was 30 years for the Troubles because the political leaders were incompetent.

Pumping money in is the only solution that I have seen work so far.

I don't see why people should be bribed not to commit crimes. At the end of the day, these people are poor because they are knackers. They are not knackers because they are poor.

Not pumping a few rubber bullets about the place.

I don't believe in pumping a few rubber bullets about the place either. I believe in jailing people who commit crimes. This is not happening at the moment. Therefore these "people" will continue to riot and murder.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding

Stating that the problems of the North can be solved in a week is a sign of someone who has absolutely no idea about what is going on up there. Who are you going to crack down on? Sure, you can arrest the rioters, but this will *not* solve the problem. Why do these people riot? Well there are a few reasons. One is they do it for the fun of it, apparently it is a great laugh to be involved in a riot. Some do it because they believe that their rights are being trampled on (or some such reason) and they want their voice to be heard. Unfortunately they do this by rioting. Another, and more dangerous, reason is that they have an absolute hatred of the “other side.” Where does this hatred come from? Well as far as we can see hatred, like charity, begins at home. Children have their minds poisoned by parents and older siblings. This happens on both sides. Unfortunately you cannot arrest someone for poisoning their child’s mind. Herein lies the problem. We have to get away from the idea of treating the symptoms and try to cure the disease. The disease is inbred hatred of people of a different religion.


The paramilitaries are a different problem entirely. Yes, the security forces should and could rearrested them and get them off the street but what would this achieve. There would be murder on the streets. It is not just a simple matter of picking them up and jailing them.

Mercury_Tilt is right, money is needed. But this is hard, you only have to look at Belfast when money is awarded to a certain area by a politician, there is outrage if it seems that more money goes to areas which are the “same religion” as the politician. Education is also needed. People need to realize that people of other religions and cultures have rights too. But importantly no religion or culture has the right to trample the rights of another.

Look at the people who carry out this violence, you don’t see many well educated comfortably well off people. Can something be learned from this?

NI is unrecognizable from the country it was a few short years ago. This is due, imo, to the current agreement. I know it’s not perfect and I know people are still being beat up and killed but you would need to be a fool to not see that it is an improvement. This is where I get really annoyed. These politicians who want the agreement brought down are, again imo, responsible for a lot of this trouble. Generally, the people involved in this trouble are very susceptible to rhetoric spouted by these dangerous people.

If you want a indication of the difficulties faced in NI check out www.u.tv Go to the news room, check out the hot topics and read the comments to the stories. These attitudes are the main problem. How do you propose to change the attitude of thousands of people in 1 week? Answers on a postcard please to: Dr John Reid
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Hillsborough Castle
Northern Ireland

Biffa Bacon

Not really. Are you saying you have an answer that would have made those 30 years not happen? Do enlighten us. Hindsight is 20/20.

Of course. It would have been trivially easy to prevent the Troubles from occuring. Unfortunately, all the political leaders in the North were brain-dead. A fair political solution is as follows:
1. The constitutional status of Northen Ireland shall not be changed without the support of a majority of the electorate.
2. The government of Northen Ireland shall be based on the principle of power-sharing between Nationalists and Unionists.
And that’s it. You can dress it up whatever way you want but any fair political solution must adhere to those two principles. And that’s exactly what’s at the heart of the Belfast Agreement. There is absolutely no reason why that couldn’t have been achieved 30 years ago, except that everyone was sitting around waiting for the extremists to come around to that view. Despite the fact that the vast majority of normal people would have accepted such an outcome, the politicians still felt that they had to get the extremists on board and so nothing could be achieved. The only reason the Belfast Agreement was possible was because the IRA realised that their campaign was a failure. The Troubles only lasted for 30 years because that’s how thick the IRA were, it took them that long to cop on.
The moral of the story then is that you don’t wait for the extemists to come round to your way of thinking. You impose your way of thinking on them. The British and Irish governments should have made clear that these principles were non-negotiable and imposed a solution based on them on the North. Anyone seeking to overthrow such an arrangement should have the full resources of the State utilised against them, be they Republican terrorists or striking loyalists.

Its not about making them que up and handing out pound notes. Its about pumping money into the areas.

Spending it on what? Amenities that they will vandalise? Shops that they will steal from? No matter how much money you will pump in they will still be on low incomes and they will still commit crimes. Why? Because knackers are unemployable. Knackers put no value on education. Knackers riot. Knackers steal. Knackers joyride. Knackers do drugs. That’s just what they do. It’s in their nature. The question is, what is society’s response? How do we discourage knackers from committing crimes and anti-social activities, and when they do, how do we prevent them from damaging the lives of ordinary citizens? The answer is to create an effective criminal justice system that ensures that people who commit crime will have a high probability of being caught, convicted and incarcerated.

And people do get arrested and sentenced etc.

A few people get arrested. A few people get sentenced. A few people get any kind of appropriate punishment. In most riots, the strategy of the police is to contain the rioters, or at best, get them to disperse. This is wrong. It imposes no consequences on riotous behaviour. What should happen is that every single person rioting should be arrested. Of course this would require a change in police tactics such as setting up rapid response units and increasing the number of officers in the force. It would also require that the police be allowed to use live ammunition in extreme cases where there is the risk of people being killed or seriously injured. But the fact of the matter is that every time a rioter escapes arrest it signifies a policing failure.

Who are you going to crack down on? Sure, you can arrest the rioters, but this will *not* solve the problem.

It will not solve the problem if only a few of them are arrested. It will not solve the problem if they do not get an appropriate punishment. These are the problems that need to be addressed. When they are addressed, rioting will cease.

We have to get away from the idea of treating the symptoms and try to cure the disease. The disease is inbred hatred of people of a different religion.

No, knackers are the disease. This is what we must cure. Bringing the two communities together is a desirable goal but will take a generation to achieve. In the meantime, what do we do with the rioters?

The paramilitaries are a different problem entirely. Yes, the security forces should and could rearrested them and get them off the street but what would this achieve. There would be murder on the streets. It is not just a simple matter of picking them up and jailing them.

You are suggesting appeasement, pure and simple, which is moral cowardice.

Look at the people who carry out this violence, you don’t see many well educated comfortably well off people. Can something be learned from this?

Yes, people who carry out violence are stupid, lazy and ignorant. That’s why they’re poor.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Biffa Bacon

Typical leftie. Incapable of rational argument.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon


A few people get arrested. A few people get sentenced. A few people get any kind of appropriate punishment. In most riots, the strategy of the police is to contain the rioters, or at best, get them to disperse. This is wrong. It imposes no consequences on riotous behaviour. What should happen is that every single person rioting should be arrested. Of course this would require a change in police tactics such as setting up rapid response units and increasing the number of officers in the force. It would also require that the police be allowed to use live ammunition in extreme cases where there is the risk of people being killed or seriously injured. But the fact of the matter is that every time a rioter escapes arrest it signifies a policing failure.

Are you for real? Have you ever been in NI?Have you ever been there during the silly season? NI has a very high percentage of Police compared to most other countries in Europe. They can't even keep the f**king roads open. THis is not because they are crap, I fact they are very very good at their job. THe fact of the matter is that even with the army as backup they simply do not have the resources available. How pray tell are they going to arrest every single rioter in a riot? Even if they did it begs other questions of a more practical nature. Where are they going to put them? Do they bring in external caterers to feed them? Who is going to watch them? This will be very important as the entire provence will be going basllistic 'cos you will never get them all and even if you do there will be more. The older moderate brothers that have no time for rioting, they will after seeing their younger brothers beaten and thrown into the back of a land rover. There will be plenty more people to riot, but hey we can just arrest them too. Of course there is going to be a problem with space now for sure. I know, the police can take over some hotels and turn them into fortified detention centers, yeah that'll do it. Then we shall embark on a massive Law Court building programme so we can actually prosecute them. At the same time we will have to build more prisons for them too.......unless we bring back capital punishment and make it the sentence of choice for rioting. Oh Oh Oh I know we could even charge the rioters family for the bullet, you know recoup some of the costs. Yes biffa, good plan it's hard to see why they aren't already doing that.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
But the fact of the matter is that every time a rioter escapes arrest it signifies a policing failure.

I defy you to name a single riot in history where on rioter escaped arrest - where your "policing failure" never occurred.

You can glib it away with "they all have policing failures", but that would then underlie your claim that the solution is at all attainable - there isnt a police force in the world who wants to allow rioters go unpunished, nor is there a police force capable of actually achieving that goal.

Ultimately - the solution to the North is very simple - yes. If they all stopped fighting, we'd have peace. Similarly we can glibly say that "30 years ago, if they had agreed then what they have agreed now, it would all be over and done with". Which is about as useful as saying "if they had just been willing to compromise, none of this would ever have happened.

Of course, having such a solution put forward as "simple" from someone who has such an open mind as Biffa (they're poor because they're knackers, no amnount of money can help them, blah blah blah) is a bit rich. Extremist views on one hand, accompanied by a solution which assumes everyone is willing to change seems slightly imcompatible to me.

jc

Biffa Bacon

How pray tell are they going to arrest every single rioter in a riot?

Surround them to prevent anyone escaping. Then order them all to sit or kneel on the ground. Anyone who tries to escape or threatens injury to a police officer should be brought down by force. Then arrest them one by one.

Where are they going to put them?

Prison. If there aren’t enough spaces, just build detention camps.

Do they bring in external caterers to feed them?

As opposed to growing their own food? I guess so.

Who is going to watch them?

Guards.

This will be very important as the entire provence will be going basllistic…

Person breaks the law. Person is arrested. Person receives a fair trial and is convicted. Person is incarcerated. What’s the problem?

…'cos you will never get them all…

Probably not. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try and get as many as possible.

…and even if you do there will be more.

The supply of knackers is limited.

The older moderate brothers that have no time for rioting, they will after seeing their younger brothers beaten and thrown into the back of a land rover.

Who’s talking about beating anyone?

There will be plenty more people to riot, but hey we can just arrest them too.

What is your objection to arresting people who break the law? Where is the inherent unfairness in that?

I defy you to name a single riot in history where on rioter escaped arrest - where your "policing failure" never occurred.

They all have policing failures.

You can glib it away with "they all have policing failures", but that would then underlie your claim that the solution is at all attainable

The proper response to riotous behaviour is to arrest those engaging in it. It is not appropriate to attempt to merely contain or disperse them. Just because you realistically mightn’t be able to arrest every single one, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to arrest as many as possible.

there isnt a police force in the world who wants to allow rioters go unpunished

Well there’s the PSNI for starters. They regularly attempt to contain rioters or cause them to disperse rather than try to arrest them.

Ultimately - the solution to the North is very simple - yes. If they all stopped fighting, we'd have peace.

The political solution in the North is very simple – it must be based on the twin principles that the constitutional position of Northen Ireland can only be changed with the consent of the majority and that there must be power sharing between Nationalists and Unionists. Such a solution should have been imposed on the North in some form or another 30 years ago, regardless of who agreed or disagreed. The question of “peace” is then no longer a political issue to be solved through negotiation and compromise. It simply becomes a security issue to be resolved by the police and/or military.

Similarly we can glibly say that "30 years ago, if they had agreed then what they have agreed now, it would all be over and done with". Which is about as useful as saying "if they had just willing been to compromise, none of this would ever have happened.

What I am saying is that the Troubles lasted 30 years because people thought that a solution to the political situation (as regards how the North was to be governed) had to go hand in hand with a solution to the security solution. This was a grave error. The only reason the Belfast Agreement was possible in 1998 was because the IRA had decided by that stage to give up. It was not because the mainstream political leaders had suddenly decided to compromise. I believe that if a comparable political framework had been imposed on the North back in the early 1970’s and if the British and Irish governments had made clear that it was non-negotiable, mainstream opinion in both communities would have accepted it and it would have hugely demoralised the terrorists on both sides.

Extremist views on one hand, accompanied by a solution which assumes everyone is willing to change seems slightly imcompatible to me.

It does not assume that everyone is willing to change. Instead, it demands that the views of those who disagree be ignored as irrelevant.

BJJ

Check out the Belfast Poll


it seems a lot of people here think the conflict began 30 years ago

Let's see what the Poll thinks!

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Surround them to prevent anyone escaping. Then order them all to sit or kneel on the ground. Anyone who tries to escape or threatens injury to a police officer should be brought down by force. Then arrest them one by one.

You obviously have never studied logistics, crowd control, or anything vaguely relevant to the case at hand.

You allow 500 people to gather in one place. Surround them. Now, allow all 500 to rush en masse in a single direction, which you wont know of until the moment they start rushing.

Exactly what do you do to stop them? Unless you have a small army at your disposal, you cant stop that - its a simple fact. Well - maybe you could, if you opened up indiscriminatly with automatic weapons fire and gunned them all down, but I think thats unrealistic. Also note that before they start rushing they are simply a crowd - not rioters.

Now, imagine a group of 5,000 people. Now go and read up about the sizes of the riots all over the North in the last few years during the marching season.

Unless you put the entire British Army into the north woth orders to use whatever level of violence they feel like, you wouldnt stand a chance of implementing your "simple solution".

Or maybe youd just like to ban public gatherings completely, including sports events, concerts, etc.

Historically, that level of enforced control is exactly what has led to escalations in violence. It does not get it under control. Never has, never will.

If you want further indications of how ludicrous it all is, I suggest you look to the logistics of how you are going to give all these people the "fair trial" you mention so lightly in passing, as well as how you will treat/hold them before their trial.

What you describe is a police state taken to the extreme. Name one successul police state in history that hasnt been condemned as oppressive and I'll forget all the other arguments and admit you might have a point.

jc

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Biffa Bacon

You obviously have never studied logistics, crowd control, or anything vaguely relevant to the case at hand.

True, although crowd control is not relevant to the problem. It’s riot suppression that’s at issue here.

You allow 500 people to gather in one place. Surround them.

Why would you surround them? You would only surround them if they started rioting.

Exactly what do you do to stop them? Unless you have a small army at your disposal, you cant stop that - its a simple fact. Well - maybe you could, if you opened up indiscriminatly with automatic weapons fire and gunned them all down, but I think thats unrealistic.

If a crowd of rioters started rushing riot police, it would be safe to assume that they were trying to injure or even kill them. In such a situation, the police would be entitled to use force to defend themselves. Depending on the seriousness of the threat, this could involve the use of anything from water cannon to live ammunition.

Now, imagine a group of 5,000 people. Now go and read up about the sizes of the riots all over the North in the last few years during the marching season.

Unless you put the entire British Army into the north woth orders to use whatever level of violence they feel like, you wouldnt stand a chance of implementing your "simple solution".

And have you yourself have studied the logistics of it?

Or maybe youd just like to ban public gatherings completely, including sports events, concerts, etc.

A sports event is not a riot. A concert is not a riot.

Historically, that level of enforced control is exactly what has led to escalations in violence. It does not get it under control. Never has, never will.

Do you have any examples?

If you want further indications of how ludicrous it all is, I suggest you look to the logistics of how you are going to give all these people the "fair trial" you mention so lightly in passing, as well as how you will treat/hold them before their trial.

Have you looked into the logistics of it?

What you describe is a police state taken to the extreme.

No it’s not. A police state refers to a totalitarian state where the activities of the citizens are closely monitored by the police. How does this relate to what I am proposing? What is wrong with suggesting that those guilty of attempted murder, assault, destruction of property etc. be arrested and put in prison? What is undemocratic about that? What is unfair about that?

Shinji

Tell you what Biffa. Why don't you just say what you really think - let's stop this poncing around with arrests, and just roll some tanks over them! It worked for the Chinese, didn't it?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding

I know what your game is Biffa. You post ridiculous comments in order to have a bit of a laugh. I say this because I don’t think you could seriously believe half of what you are saying. You also contradict yourself on a particular point. In response to my view that if someone not interested in rioting saw there brother being beaten by the police it may turn them to rioting. (This kind of thing is not uncommon in Belfast and I know persons who have rioted for this reason.)
And your response was

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon


Who’s talking about beating anyone?

Then when Bonkey asked how you would stop the rioters you reply with

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

If a crowd of rioters started rushing riot police, it would be safe to assume that they were trying to injure or even kill them. In such a situation, the police would be entitled to use force to defend themselves. Depending on the seriousness of the threat, this could involve the use of anything from water cannon to live ammunition.

Now you can say that this is not the same. And I agree shooting someone to death is not the same as beating them up but I think most rational people will agree it would have a similar effect.

As for

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

A fair political solution is as follows:
1. The constitutional status of Northen Ireland shall not be changed without the support of a majority of the electorate.
2. The government of Northen Ireland shall be based on the principle of power-sharing between Nationalists and Unionists.
And that’s it.

That’s what is in place. It is not rioters that are stopping it from working. It is 80 years of hatred and mistrust. Are you going to suggest that we make hatred and mistrust a crime? The system is in place it has to be made to work. As much as I hate it, the people in the assembly, who are trying to bring it down, were put there by voters. They were democratically elected and are fully entitled to be there. It makes me ill but there you have it. These politicians are the people who have the power to stop the trouble, they are the people who the majority of the trouble makers listen. (IMHO the majority of the trouble makers are of loyalist persuasion) Unfortunately it is easier to play to existing hatred and fear than it is to change peoples outlook and so this is what they do thus assuring themselves a political future and damn the consequences.

In short, I stand by my original comments

Originally posted by MrPudding
Stating that the problems of the North can be solved in a week is a sign of someone who has absolutely no idea about what is going on up there.

You really have no clue. Greater minds than yours (I mean no offense) have tried and failed. It is not simply a policing problem.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
If a crowd of rioters started rushing riot police, it would be safe to assume that they were trying to injure or even kill them. In such a situation, the police would be entitled to use force to defend themselves. Depending on the seriousness of the threat, this could involve the use of anything from water cannon to live ammunition.

So, you'd have no problem about those reporters who got caught up in a riot, and beaten to crap in Genoa by police who were defending themselves from the onrushing crowd?

If you have a rushing mass of people, there is no way you can simply open fire indiscriminately with any form of potentially lethal weaponry, unless you simply dont care about innocent deaths. "Acceptable losses" or their own damn fault for choosing the wrong group to stand near during a demonstration or march?

A sports event is not a riot. A concert is not a riot.

Never seen riots at soccer stadia then? No? Ah - must be my imagination. Funny - I can remember the riot police tearing off in their van from 50 yards from my house a few years when there was a riot in LAnsdowne Road during an Irish international. Must get that checked out - my mind is playing tricks on me.

Or maybe you're just taking the piss.

You'll not ban sporting events where you can have rioting by hundreds to thousands. You will not surround "a crowd" until it becomes "a riot". And yet all that is necessary is to surround this violent mass after the violence starts, and make them all sit down (or shoot them) and that no-one would slip the noose because this is your solution to such a failing in policing?

Dunno which reality you're thinking of, but its not the one that I know.

Do you have any examples?

Examples of enforced control leading to rioting?

Have you looked at the news in the past few years about a lot of Asian nations? Student riots protesting about the lack of freedom in terms of rights to disseminate information, gather, and even protest. No? Sorry then, can't help you.

If you allow the marches and protests which are currently forming the breeding grounds for many riots, and you perpetuate the situation. You ban these gatherings and you incite new reasons to riot.

Ergo, you cannot stop a riot from beginning in this way.

As to looking at the logistics of charging and sentencing rioters. Lets take a conservative estimate and say that if you captured every rioter (because you're method isnt a failing of policing, so you will catch every one of them) you would have at least several thousand from various localities before people would possibly even considering learning your lesson. You cant be sure that all of these are guilty, and as you yourself said, they should get a fair trial.

Thats several thousand people over and above the numbers currently processed by the courts. Given that courts are tyically sized to meet the normal day-to-day needs, this would mean you either have a backlog of several thousand cases to clear whenever you can find a spare slot, or you need massive expansion of your court facilities, available lawyers (prosecution and defence) and so on. This would take years to put in place, and assuming your idea would work, would be scrapped within a very short period of time. The odds of getting that many extra staff for such a short period of time are ridiculous - we can safely assume it wont happen.

Ergo, the only solution would be to process the people through the existing court system, possibly allowing for a small increase in size. That will take time. A fair trial, incidentally will require proof that the person was indeed involved in the *rioting* as opposed to being an innocent who was caught up in the *riot*. Which means each one of these several thousand cases will require evidence to be obtained. THat would require police force resources, amongst other things (posibly military resources). Guess what - they dont have the available resources either.

Need I continue? I just keeps going on and on. Unless you want to mobe to a police state, with massive over-policing maintained at a steady high level even when things are peaceful, you basically cannot hope to process these cases in a reasonable length of time.

So, yes, I have studied the logistics of it.

jc

Biffa Bacon

I know what your game is Biffa. You post ridiculous comments in order to have a bit of a laugh. I say this because I don’t think you could seriously believe half of what you are saying.

Such as?

You also contradict yourself on a particular point. In response to my view that if someone not interested in rioting saw there brother being beaten by the police it may turn them to rioting.

When you referred to people being beaten I assumed you were talking about the use of excessive force, or beating someone after they had been arrested. Of course this would be wrong and could not be condoned. But if someone is attempting to assault an officer or is resisting arrest it is perfectly legitimate to beat them until they desist. Anyone who decides to riot as a result is just another criminal to be put away. Why should you not arrest one criminal just because another criminal might get upset?

That’s what is in place. It is not rioters that are stopping it from working. It is 80 years of hatred and mistrust. Are you going to suggest that we make hatred and mistrust a crime?

My point is that people are getting hung up on trying to persuade extremists to sign up to it. If the extremists don’t like it, then fùck ‘em. If the extremists break the law, clamp down on them.

It is not simply a policing problem.

It is entirely a policing problem. The political demands of criminals are irrelevant and should be ignored.

Biffa Bacon

So, you'd have no problem about those reporters who got caught up in a riot, and beaten to crap in Genoa by police who were defending themselves from the onrushing crowd?

If, as I suspect, they were beaten to crap because the police were just taking their frustrations out on them, then I would have a problem with it yes. If the reporters weren’t actually rioting themselves, then I can’t see any reason why it was necessary to beat them.

If you have a rushing mass of people, there is no way you can simply open fire indiscriminately with any form of potentially lethal weaponry, unless you simply dont care about innocent deaths.

Then don’t fire indiscriminately. The police are trained in the use of firearms you know. Obviously the decision to use live ammunition would only be taken if someone’s life was in danger and would be a judgement call for the commander on the ground.

Never seen riots at soccer stadia then? No? Ah - must be my imagination. Funny - I can remember the riot police tearing off in their van from 50 yards from my house a few years when there was a riot in LAnsdowne Road during an Irish international. Must get that checked out - my mind is playing tricks on me.

”Riots happen at soccer matches” does not mean “a soccer match is a riot”, my point being that I am not calling for heavy policing of all public gatherings.

You'll not ban sporting events where you can have rioting by hundreds to thousands. You will not surround "a crowd" until it becomes "a riot". And yet all that is necessary is to surround this violent mass after the violence starts, and make them all sit down (or shoot them) and that no-one would slip the noose because this is your solution to such a failing in policing?

I accept that it is highly unlikely you will get every single rioter. The important thing is that the objective of riot control is to arrest as many rioters as possible, rather than to contain them or cause them to disperse.

Dunno which reality you're thinking of, but its not the one that I know.

I don’t understand your objection. Are you saying that the particular strategy I suggested won’t be applicable to every situation, (as I’m sure it wouldn’t, for example where the rioting was spread over a large area), or are you saying that it is simply impossible for the police to suppress riots by arresting a large number of the perpetrators? If it’s the latter, then I reject that. I believe that the reason police forces generally don’t try to forcibly suppress riots is for political reasons, not logistical or strategic ones.

Examples of enforced control leading to rioting?

Have you looked at the news in the past few years about a lot of Asian nations? Student riots protesting about the lack of freedom in terms of rights to disseminate information, gather, and even protest.

Were these riots caused by police tactics employed in previous riots and were these tactics comparable in nature to the ones I’m proposing? Or were they caused by suppression of peaceful protests along with police brutality?

If you allow the marches and protests which are currently forming the breeding grounds for many riots, and you perpetuate the situation.

You do not perpetuate the situation as riots would be less likely to occur if the participants realised there were likely to be consequences arising from their actions.

Ergo, you cannot stop a riot from beginning in this way.

You stop riots from beginning by convincing potential rioters that they will be in a lot of trouble if they do.

As to looking at the logistics of charging and sentencing rioters. Lets take a conservative estimate and say that if you captured every rioter (because you're method isnt a failing of policing, so you will catch every one of them) you would have at least several thousand from various localities before people would possibly even considering learning your lesson. You cant be sure that all of these are guilty, and as you yourself said, they should get a fair trial.

Several thousands is a conservative estimate? It’s mostly the same knackers rioting every time anyway so you’d have most of them put away after suppressing three of four riots.

Thats several thousand people over and above the numbers currently processed by the courts. Given that courts are tyically sized to meet the normal day-to-day needs, this would mean you either have a backlog of several thousand cases to clear whenever you can find a spare slot, or you need massive expansion of your court facilities, available lawyers (prosecution and defence) and so on. This would take years to put in place, and assuming your idea would work, would be scrapped within a very short period of time. The odds of getting that many extra staff for such a short period of time are ridiculous - we can safely assume it wont happen.

You wouldn’t need an individual trial for each person, you could try groups of people charged with the same offence together.

Ergo, the only solution would be to process the people through the existing court system, possibly allowing for a small increase in size. That will take time. A fair trial, incidentally will require proof that the person was indeed involved in the *rioting* as opposed to being an innocent who was caught up in the *riot*. Which means each one of these several thousand cases will require evidence to be obtained. THat would require police force resources, amongst other things (posibly military resources). Guess what - they dont have the available resources either.

All you’d need would be the testimony of the arresting officer to convict, which I think is fair. After all, these people have been caught in the act. Given this, I think cases could be processed fairly rapidly.

Need I continue? I just keeps going on and on. Unless you want to mobe to a police state, with massive over-policing maintained at a steady high level even when things are peaceful, you basically cannot hope to process these cases in a reasonable length of time.

I don’t know why you seem intent on describing it as a “police state” when it’s clearly not.

Does no one else here believe in justice? Does no one else believe that people who attempt to murder police officers and civilians, who seriously maim and injure, who destroy property, who try to ethnically cleanse neighbourhoods through intimidation, that these people should be removed from society? Surely this should be everyone’s aim?

PyjamaMan

are any of you really from the north, if your not u dotn know what its like. i live in mid uslter and i have a summer job with me da doign renovations in the heart of loyalist north belfast, across the road from the holy cross primary school, 2 streets up the road from where that fella was shot. nothing that i know of can be done about it, its fecking mayhem!

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I accept that it is highly unlikely you will get every single rioter.

Thats all I wanted to hear.

You started with :

What should happen is that every single person rioting should be arrested. ... But the fact of the matter is that every time a rioter escapes arrest it signifies a policing failure.

.

The italics were your empahsis by the way.

Now you admit that this approach wont get every single person who is rioting - which is what I took issue with in the first place - your claim to have a solution which (by implication at least) wouldnt have these policing failures.

All we are doing after that is putting a figure on the number of people who get away.

I would maintain that short of indiscriminate actions aginst a crowd and maintaing a high, constant police presence near any large gatherings, there is no way of achieving anything near what you think is possible in terms of numbers detained.

You seem to differ - but then again, you support the use of lethal force against rioters. You support the right of the commander on the ground to make the call of the level of force required. You claim that a "fair trial" could be given by trying groups of people collectively and convicting them on no more than the arresting officer's word (which only proves their presence at a gathering, not any rioting).

In other words, you leave open as a solution a system where a commanding officer can indicsriminately gun down a crowd, arrest the survivors, and then claim that the lethal force was required (as was his call to make) and that every single survivor was a dangerous rioter and is therefore guilty.

I couldnt agree to any of these things, so I guess we're just gonna have to agree to differ on this one.

Personally, I think the absolute best your approach would do is turn the "hardcore rioters" into underground hardcore terrorists taking action against the oppressive police force.

jc

CHRISTYG

On a slightly different (but still SLIGHTLY related) topic, there was a special meeting this afternoon of Belfast City Council, at which a motion was passed stating Belfast City Council's opposition to the sectarianism, and calling a rally at Belfast City Hall next week to protest. My point isn't that this won't do much good (although it won't) but-who do you think voted against? Paisley's mob in the "Democratic" Unionist Party!!


Point to discuss- Does this prove that elements in the DUP- not Rev Paisley himself (who I know personally) but some of the underlings are secretly in support of the violence?