PSNI: 'Attacks on police should not be part of the job'
Nine police officers are assaulted every day in Northern Ireland, according to the Police Federation of Northern Ireland (PFNI). The organisation said assaults on officers can have knock-on effects for victims of crime and the community. It comes after 64 police officers were injured over a number of nights of violence across Northern Ireland, as petrol bombs, bricks and fireworks were thrown at police.PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher said officers being attacked "should never be thought of as part of anyone's normal day at work".
Chairman of the PFNI, Liam Kelly, said the organisation wants "decisive and tough sentences" from the legislators and courts for those who assault officers.
He said nine officers a day being assaulted was a "conservative" figure as more officers who suffer minor assaults do not report them. "These figures are shocking and appalling. It's high time we saw a much tougher approach with assailants who strike, kick, punch and spit at our colleagues," said Mr Kelly.Launching the campaign "Let Them Protect", Mr Kelly said: "We want the public to realise the full extent of what our officers - themselves fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters - have to suffer. It's not right they should end up in hospital with injuries they sustain while protecting the community."
Mr Boutcher said policing was a "tough" and "vital" job where officers face "difficult and dangerous situations" but should never be physically assaulted. He said support for policing and officers needs to be "society wide" and recognised that "it is simply not acceptable to assault or attack police officers". "We cannot, and will not, simply stand by and accept it." The Justice Minister said that as a society we need to "move away from the idea that police officers should somehow just price this into the job they do".Naomi Long said it was "not acceptable that officers come under this kind of bombardment...that their lives are put at risk by being physically assaulted and attacked".
She added that attacks on police officers should be taken "seriously" and cannot become a "recreational pastime where people bombard the police with petrol bombs or masonry" as it "causes long-term damage". The Chair of the Policing Board Mukesh Sharma said being attacked was not anybody's "normal day" at work and added that "nor should it be". Mr Sharma added that officers "step forward when others step back" putting their lives "on the line for others every day" and do not deserve to come to work to be "kicked, bitten or assaulted in any other way".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE I was torn apart online after yelling at cyclists for riding side-by-side on a country road... I still don't think I'm in the wrong
A radio presenter who was stuck behind cyclists in a country road has revealed how one of the pair went 'mad' and began shouting ' Jeremy Clarkson ' at her repeatedly. Chellce AJ had been driving along the track on Father's Day before she was forced to pull over because the twosome refused to ride in single file. The furious motorist, who was 'literally shaking', spoke angrily to the camera asking whether she was 'in the wrong' following the encounter near Romiley, Manchester. But after uploading the video to social media, a number of people replied saying the 30-year-old was technically incorrect due to a little-known Highways Code clause. In a case that divided the nation, Chellce has now hit back at the critics and argued the rules are 'confusing' and 'conflicting'. The presenter told MailOnline: 'I think after everything what the comments highlight is there is a lot of confusion. 'Yes, the clause says people can "ride two abreast" but the main point to take away from the code is it tells road users they should be considerate.' In her video, Chelce had explained: 'I'm on a country lane and there's a guy cycling and someone cycling next to him so there's two of them literally in the middle of the road.' But before she could finish her sentence, the Manchester-born presenter was interrupted by one of the cyclists who shouted 'f***ing' idiot. Chellce later recalled to MailOnline she had finally been able to pass the cyclists after the road widened. But this was not before a prolonged period of time where one of them 'kept looking back at her', with the presenter believing he 'went out of his way to be an obstructive person'. As she finally passed the pair, the 'odd' individual apparently 'went crazy' and began shouting the name of the former Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson 'repeatedly'. Chellce said she then pulled over and started recording the video to vent her frustration - at which point the cyclist 'went out of his way to speed up' so he could stop by the presenter's car to voice his thoughts. The two exchanged angry words and debated the 'rules of the road' with the cyclist accusing Chellce of acting like she 'owns the road' because she is in a 'big flashy car'. Chellce fumed: 'It's a country road and you're cycling as a two. 'Everybody knows you cycle in single file.' The cyclist responded saying he had been 'riding this road for years' to which Chellce said she had been 'driving this road for years'. He then shouted: 'Sorry - I didn't realise you run the bloody roads.' New rules introduced in January 2022 allow - and advise - cyclists to ride in the centre of lanes on quieter roads, in slower-moving traffic, and when approaching junctions, to make themselves as visible as possible. But the code also says cyclists should be aware of people driving behind them and allow them to overtake when it is safe to do so. Chellce said: 'I'm very unsure how it is safe being slap bang in the middle of the road - I don't understand it. It's just very odd. 'I feel quite sorry for some cyclists as they have been given a bad name - a lot of them said they would have just pulled over to the side or even stopped. 'He [the angry cyclist] was honestly just making me feel like I shouldn't be on the road and as though I had ruined their bike ride. I can't help being on the road. 'And he just kept looking back as if he wanted me to go - to this day I still don't understand what his issue was. 'It was just weird and strange if I'm very honest. He went mental. I just think he was having a bad day really.' Chellce described the cyclist as 'aggressive' and said he looked as though he was in his mid-50s. The 'perplexed' motorist added the 'other guy' he rode with was 'very quiet' and she had never previously had any run-ins with cyclists. Amid the new rules which came into effect in January 2022, many motorists complained about cyclists deliberately hogging the centre of the road and causing pile-ups of traffic behind them. Steve Bulley, the vice president of the Dorchester Chamber of Business, said a group of cyclists stayed in the centre of the road for eight miles. He vented: 'The day cyclist took over the roads. This lots refused to let cars past for 8 miles looking back and laughing. #cycling #HighwayCode #selfish.' On Sunday's encounter, Chellce, who was 'annoyed' she'd only recorded 60 seconds, said: 'I was just thinking, "you're a very odd guy".'
Leader Live
30 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Donald Trump delays decision on Iran strikes as Keir Starmer calls for restraint
The US president said he was still hopeful of reaching a negotiated solution with Tehran and would decide on military action within two weeks, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday. Quoting a message from the president, Ms Leavitt said: 'Based on the fact that there is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision on whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' On Wednesday, Mr Trump said he 'may' join Israeli strikes against Iran and its nuclear programme, but added: 'I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' On Thursday, the Prime Minister had urged him to step back from military action, saying there was a 'real risk of escalation'. Sir Keir said there had been 'several rounds of discussions with the US' and 'that, to me, is the way to resolve this issue'. Foreign Secretary David Lammy took the UK's plea for de-escalation to Washington, where he was expected to meet Mr Trump's top diplomat Marco Rubio on Thursday evening. Mr Lammy's meeting comes amid speculation that US involvement could require using the UK-controlled Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands. The B-2 stealth bombers based there are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which could be used against Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordo. Attorney General Lord Hermer is reported to have raised legal concerns about any British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies, which could limit the extent of any support for the US if Mr Trump decides to act militarily. Sir Keir has declined to comment on advice from Lord Hermer, but said the 'principle, the driving intent', was 'de-escalation'. It remains unclear whether the UK would join any US military action. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said she would 'in principle' support the US using Diego Garcia to strike Iran, while her shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel said the party would support UK involvement if it was deemed necessary. But Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey called on the Government to publish Lord Hermer's advice, saying: 'The last thing we need is for the UK to be dragged into another illegal war in the Middle East by the US.' Meanwhile, Israel and Iran continued to exchange fire, with the Israeli defence minister directly threatening the Iranian supreme leader after an attack damaged a major hospital in Tel Aviv. Israel Katz said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei 'should not continue to exist' if the military was to 'achieve all of its goals'. Israel also continued to attack Iran, striking the country's Arak heavy water reactor, part of Tehran's nuclear programme. Iran has insisted its nuclear programme is peaceful, but it is the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90% and far above the levels required for power stations. Amid the conflict, 22,000 tourists are seeking evacuation flights from Israel, according to the country's tourism ministry. The ministry's director-general, Danny Shachar, said the Israeli government was working to co-ordinate flights as part of its 'safe return' programme, originally intended for Israelis returning to the country from elsewhere. The UK Government has not said how many British nationals are in Israel, but has urged those in the country to register their presence with the embassy. Although the Foreign Office advises against all travel to Israel and has evacuated the family members of embassy staff, it has not advised Britons to leave the country.
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Assisted dying: Why this momentous vote – with such far-reaching consequences
The third reading and final Commons vote on Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday marks a truly historic moment for parliament. The stakes are so high that entrepreneur Declan Ganley has offered a private ambulance to MP Sorcha Eastwood, who is ill with Covid, to get her to the Commons to vote against the Bill. No wonder. It has been almost six decades since MPs have considered a Bill that would cause such a profound and fundamental change in the state's relationship with individuals and society's attitude to life and death. An historic vote In December Ms Leadbeater won a 55 majority on the second reading vote of her Bill, dealing with the principle rather than details, and is expected to carry a reduced majority today, although that is less certain than it was before. If she is successful then the state, for the first time, will be licensed to end people's lives if they wish it and if the circumstances allow. Doctors will be allowed to offer it as an alternative to people who have been given six months left to live. What factors will MPs be considering? The lack of certainty on the vote is partly fueled by the fact that a number of MPs who voted for the principle made it clear that they were allowing the debate to be had and would reserve judgment on the final vote. The debate in fact has moved on from one of principle - which only a minority oppose - to one of practicalities. The questions faced by MPs include: Can such a law be introduced to allow those with genuine terminal illnesses who wish to end their lives to do so without exposing the weak, poor and vulnerable to coercion to end their lives? Can the so-called tight restrictions be prevented from expanding beyond that through medical practice, judicial intervention or further legislation? Will this end up being a means for saving costs on the care centre and the NHS? Are the safeguards strong enough to ensure that the new law will not be abused? MPs changing their minds The reason that the vote has become tighter is because a growing number of MPs are concerned about the potential answers to those questions. The only issue will be whether that is enough to block the Bill. Based on votes on the amendments as well as known supporters and opponents, the predictive voting model used by opponents of assisted dying gives Ms Leadbeater a majority of up to 15, ranging to a defeat of the Bill by a majority of five. Very close. Key to the debate will not be the heartbreaking stories of people suffering in their final months, or celebrity voices like Esther Rantzen. They have already had their effect. More important will be the big change to the Bill brought by Ms Leadbeater which means a judge in court will not have to sign off, as originally laid out in the second reading vote. Instead, there will be an expert panel led by a judge or KC but not with the same legal authority. It is worth noting that the judicial safeguard was cited by more than 100 MPs in the first debate. The 'slippery slope' argument The other issue at play will be whether this Bill is a full stop to the issue or is something that will unleash a loosening up of the law over time. The lesson from the then Liberal MP David Steel's abortion legislation in 1967 will play a part in the decision-making of a number of MPs, who will be considering the so-called 'slippery slope' issue of an apparently tightly worded piece of legislation expanding its reach over time. Just this week we have seen MPs vote by a large majority to decriminalise abortion – effectively allowing it up to birth without criminal consequences from the 24 weeks (six months) already legislated for. But more important will be the experience of other countries where assisted dying has been legalised. Ms Leadbeater has been at pains that this is a specifically British Bill. However, in Canada, Oregon in the US, the Netherlands, and New South Wales in Australia the legislation has expanded beyond terminal illness to include mental health and other issues. Ms Leadbeater in fact highlighted a case of a couple who decided to end their own lives in Australia after 70 years of marriage even though terminal illness was not a factor. How the debate will unfold She will argue on Friday though that her Bill has been strengthened since November. Opponents will point out that she has rejected safeguards on eating disorders, mental health, the requirement of people actually suffering pain and many other apparently reasonable checks to the process. She had also opposed an amendment preventing doctors recommending assisted dying to children, the one defeat she has suffered so far. Many have consistently argued that a private members bill is not sufficient to debate something that will have such a profound effect on the country. Indeed, 52 Labour MPs asked Keir Starmer, a supporter of assisted dying, to give more time for further scrutiny, an appeal he rejected. The issue today will be whether all these questions and issues will mean there are enough MPs to have second thoughts from their vote in November to overturn a 55-majority. If the Bill is defeated then it will not come back before the next election, if Ms Leadbeater wins then it will have cleared its most important hurdle and a battle in the Lords awaits where many of the issues will be debated again.
