Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Belfast Mayhem
Options
-
22-07-2002 2:01pmCatholic 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.0
Comments
-
Sick, pure Sick.
Jail them.0 -
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.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
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?Pumping money in is the only solution that I have seen work so far.Not pumping a few rubber bullets about the place.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
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 Ireland0 -
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.
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.And people do get arrested and sentenced etc.Who are you going to crack down on? Sure, you can arrest the rioters, but this will *not* solve 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.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?0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Typical leftie. Incapable of rational argument.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
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.0 -
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.
jc0 -
Advertisement
-
How pray tell are they going to arrest every single rioter in a riot?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.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 attainablethere isnt a police force in the world who wants to allow rioters go unpunishedUltimately - 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 willing been to compromise, none of this would ever have happened.Extremist views on one hand, accompanied by a solution which assumes everyone is willing to change seems slightly imcompatible to me.0
-
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!0 -
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.
jc0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
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.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.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.0 -
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?0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
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 wasOriginally posted by Biffa Bacon
Who’s talking about beating anyone?
Then when Bonkey asked how you would stop the rioters you reply withOriginally 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 forOriginally 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 commentsOriginally 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.0 -
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.
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?
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.
jc0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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?It is not simply a policing problem.0
Advertisement