The police Federation have called for a 6 month ban on all contentious parades. I would strongly question there authority to interfere in the decision making process with regards to parading issues. Having read the “about us” section on there web site (policefed-ni.org.uk) my understanding is the role of the Federation is to provide advice and assistance on a) The RUC GC - PSNI Benevolent Fundb) Legal Advice On a day to day level there are many other areas of help given e.g. Benefits Scheme, Spouses Scheme, Private Health Scheme, Treatment Centres, Convalescent Homes, Travel Schemes and of course work related advice. This deviation into the political minefield that is parading in Northern Ireland, where for good reason the Police have previously stated that they are there to uphold determinations is yet more evidence as to how politicized the Police have become and a disservice to there members. If there aim is to protect there members from violence on the streets they should be explaining to there Chief Constable that his daily political commentary is both outside his job description and causing a escalation on the streets that is putting his officers in danger. They should be explaining to there members that when one group of officers take a person out of sight to punch, kick and generally assault a person the net result is when the next person is about to be arrested they go into “fight or flight” mode and the situation is more difficult to contain. They could remind the senior officers that the latest ruling by the Court of Human rights in Strasbourg allowing ketteling was not unanimous and the judgement included the warning to the Metropolitan Police "It must be underlined that measures of crowd control should not be used by the national authorities directly or indirectly to stifle or discourage protest, given the fundamental importance of freedom of expression and assembly in all democratic societies” I believe the series of events in Northern Ireland could, and indeed should be considered as breaching this test. Moreover when the judgment is examined we find that The Met argued that they repeatedly attempted to release people from the “kettle” however the violence from a small number of people inside the cordon made this impossible. The rulling stated "Had it not remained necessary for the police to impose and maintain the cordon in order to prevent serious injury or damage, the "type" of the measure would have been different, and its coercive and restrictive nature might have been sufficient to bring it within article five." In effect without violence the current restrictions placed on protesters would be illegal, should the Federation not be asking is this the reason for early intervention with water cannon, dogs and plastic bullets being fired without warning ?is this why there members were being ordered to forcibly squeeze a body of people into a space they will not fit into ? Would it not also be within the remit of The Federation, there to provide legal advice to remind there members of Nuremberg Principle Four which states "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". I would argue a moral choice is freely available to every PSNI Officer and the Federation should be the first people to defend there members during any disciplinary action, as that is there role, not giving political statements or determinations on parades. (ft)
Posted on: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:21:50 +0000