Contrary to some perceptions and allegations, unionist politicians have swiftly condemned racist violence, both in their constituencies and in general.
Councillors and MLAs have been on the ground in the worst-affected areas, showing more leadership than many of their critics could muster.
However, all three main unionist parties have caused unease by referring to “legitimate concerns”.
Of course there are legitimate concerns about immigration, but you do not get to discuss them during a race riot.
That does not mean they should be ignored indefinitely. There is an information vacuum around immigration in Northern Ireland, allowing fear to fester and be exploited by malign forces.
Many people do not realise asylum seekers are ineligible for social housing and benefits, for example. Then they struggle to believe this when told, because it appears to contradict the evidence of their own eyes, as asylum seekers granted refugee status can claim social housing and benefits.
The number of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland at any given time has tripled over the past three years, creating a visible change in the areas where it is concentrated. Yet it has only tripled to 3,000, a level that would cause no issues whatsoever if Stormont and the Home Office were capable of basic competence.
These facts and figures are obscure because officialdom is terrified of discussing immigration at all. Basic communication would be a first step to addressing concerns.
**
Loyalist involvement in orchestrating the racist violence is so far confined to a breakaway faction of the UDA in south Belfast and a scattering of isolated figures elsewhere, some linked to the LVF.
When the PSNI approached the main loyalist groups to use their influence, it was rebuffed. A senior loyalist told the Belfast Telegraph: “We didn’t start this, we aren’t behind it, and we aren’t about to take ownership of it.”
They added that ‘using their influence’ at this stage would require physical force, for which they would be condemned by the same people demanding their intervention, so “most loyalists have taken the approach of politely informing the PSNI that this is a policing issue”.
These comments reveal a lot about the conundrum of ‘paramilitary transition’. Is it positive that loyalism is washing its hands of the violence, or should the taxpayer still expect some ‘influence’ in return for all the stakeholder engagement and community funding?
It would help resolve the conundrum if senior loyalists made clear that a policing crackdown on former associates would have their full support.
**
Rioting in south Belfast last Saturday was so close to BBC Broadcasting House it could have been filmed from the roof.
Yet as with trouble last month at the nearby Broadway roundabout, the BBC had scant coverage of its own on the night.
Reports on its news website were cobbled together from Fire Service and PSNI press releases and agency photographs. Stranger still, BBC footage appeared on Monday’s television news.
The problem is not lack of resources. A fortune has been poured into the website under a ‘digital first’ strategy where all news is meant to break online.
However, website staff and management appear to lack the experience and confidence to put stories out without lengthy deliberation.
**
Rioting in England is being dealt with in the same way as the rioting that spread from London in 2011 and the rioting across the north of England in 2001. Courts will sit around the clock, with the time between arrest and appearance in court measured in days in many cases.
Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, that time can be measured in years. There is also a striking difference in sentencing, despite similar laws and guidelines. Rioters here might expect a few months in jail at most, while in England they typically face four years.
Courts, judges and prosecutors operate independently of ministers, so there is a limit to how much Stormont is responsible. Oversight bodies such as Criminal Justice Inspectorate produce regular reports on delay and recommendations for reform, but little seems to come of it. Funding cannot always be blamed - some reforms would deliver immediate savings.
Urgency is required to establish why the system cannot or will not change.
**
Councils in England sent eviction notices to social housing tenants involved in the 2011 riots. Notices applied to whole families, even where only a juvenile had been convicted.
The approach had shock value and was popular with the public but notices were overturned by the courts, so the Tories put the option into law in 2014 under wider measures on anti-social behaviour.
Stormont’s Department of Justice began considering a similar law in 2018. Consultation on it only finished in March this year, due to on-off devolution and the pandemic. The department says work “remains ongoing”.
**
The closure of the PSNI’s Historical Enquiries Team in 2014 was a mistake, where the perfect became the enemy of the good and left us with nothing, handily enough for those that found HET’s work politically and financially inconvenient.
History is in danger of repeating itself with the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), the clumsily-named body at the centre of the controversial Troubles legacy legislation. Labour intends to retain and reform the ICRIR while repealing the rest of the legislation, most notably its amnesties.
There are calls to shut down the ICRIR, including from some who lobbied to shut down the HET. They want it replaced by the Stormont House Agreement bodies, although the ICRIR without amnesties effectively replicates Stormont House.
The alternative is nothing, or a delay to much the same effect. All sorts of people would find that politically and financially convenient.