0

INSIGHT: Straight answers needed on anti-violence measures

By MALCOLM STRACHAN

FOR all the talk of needing to tackle crime collectively, from the outside looking in, it can be hard to discern what is the government strategy on the matter.

Last week, I wrote about how we had been blessed by a slow start to the year in the murder count – certainly in comparison to last year. For new police commissioner Shanta Knowles, and all of us, that was something to be thankful for.

But in terms of where we are going forward, that is an open question.

Carlos Reid has his ear to the street – and is a consultant to the Ministry of National Security – but has now warned that things are likely to get worse before they get better.

“We didn’t get here overnight,” he said – and that is certainly true. He added: “There has to be a systematic approach, and there are some things that we working on behind the scenes that can bring some systematic approach to this country.”

He goes on to say that all of us have a role to play – a familiar refrain we have heard over the years. But without knowing what is going on behind the scenes, we certainly aren’t being treated as part of the same team.

Take the violence interrupter programme that the government launched when it came into office.

It was announced in 2022 – and yet it still has not been implemented.

Mr Reid was recruited to be part of that – yet he said last week that “the level that we want it to be at has not been rolled out as yet”.

Rodney Moncur was another recruited to be part of that, according to the Office of the Prime Minister, though later contradicted by National Security Minister Wayne Munroe. Straight answers were not to be found anywhere.

Even a former prime minister could not get answers on it, with Dr Hubert Minnis asking in Parliament for the reasons behind Mr Moncur’s appointment in particular.

He asked: “What is his expertise? How much is he being paid, and is he receiving other benefits?”

Even voices on the PLP side were doubtful – former Cabinet minister Leslie Miller saying: “This is a real country, man, stop it.”

He added: “What are their job descriptions? Violence interrupters? What is that? Critical in doing what?”

He said: “What are their credentials? Experience with what? Doing what the fellas is do, hey? That’s what they used to do? They used to kill and rob people? That’s what they get the experience from? Or just hanging with them? What about retired police officers who have distinguished records on the force? Young men who would have served their time and now would like to make a contribution? Have you ever thought of picking those people, who know who these guys are? That idea ever enters anybody’s mind?”

These are perfectly valid questions. There is no reason for the public not to know such things. It is, after all, our money that is paying for it.

Equally there should be no reason not to know why the programme has been delayed. Last year, there were 119 murders. It is not as if there is not a pressing need for action.

This programme was put forward for a reason. At the time the public learned of it, Office of the Prime Minister communications director Latrae Rahming said: “We believe that in order to solve community crimes you have to use people from the community who understand the dynamics of the community, who understand the gangs in the community and I can certainly say that Mr Moncur has been a proponent and advocate for quite a few years, particularly a proponent of the death penalty.

“It is our hope that individuals like Carlos Reid and Mr Moncur who have an extensive understanding about the inner (city) community could help enhance government, the police force, intelligence on hot spots or possible persons who could be at risk in the community, young people.

“So I think we have to have that appreciation that crime exceeds policing and the issue of crime means using persons who are familiar with the community who could reach people who ordinarily cannot be reached. So I think Rodney Moncur has that experience.”

If it is so important then, why has it not gone forward? And how much money has been spent on something that has not even been implemented since its announcement nearly three years ago?

Anyone watching the to and fro of politics in this country, with leadership being passed from party to party like a game of pass the parcel, will realise that with the countdown now on to the next election there will be little time for this programme to deliver results now. And if the government is reluctant to give information to the opposition about the programme, you can bet it will be ripe for stop, review and cancel.

So what are we doing that is different from what went before? There is the anti-gang legislation implementation on the way, of course – and we will see how that goes.

But beyond that, what?

Going back to Mr Reid, he talks of collective responsibility.

“It has to start with all of us,” he said. “All of us have to live in this country. All of us have a role to play. We cannot sit back and say, this is a government problem, this is a police problem, this is a church problem.”

He is right. But working together means just that – together. Until then, we are left to wonder if things such as the violence interrupter scheme is a payday for a consultant and nothing more.

But let’s start with straight answers. And if we don’t get those straight answers, don’t be surprised if we draw our own conclusions.

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment