26 August 2016
Civil Service chief’s ‘ghetto mentality’ view of west Belfast exposes state prejudice in 1980s
A DESCRIPTION in 1987 by the then head of the North’s Civil Service as west Belfast being alienated from “normal civilised behaviour” and having a “ghetto mentality” has been revealed in state papers released by the North’s Public Records Office this week.
In a memo to then British Direct Ruler Tom King, in which he was commenting on British Government ideas to tackle poverty and unemployment in west Belfast, Sir Kenneth Bloomfield warned King that attempts to regenerate the area might “provoke a crude political reaction [from unionism] on the lines of ‘Do you have to kill British soldiers to benefit from a cornucopia of assistance?’”
While many areas across the North suffered from economic and social deprivation, Bloomfield described the problems of west Belfast as “unique” given their “very close association with grave political and security difficulties [and] the strength of PIRA/Sinn Féin and their influence in the area”.
This official Civil Service thinking influenced the development of the “Hurd Doctrine” (developed by King’s predecessor, Douglas Hurd) which led to British Government funding being withdrawn from community and social enterprises from groups across the North that were branded fronts for “paramilitaries”.
Reacting to Bloomfield’s remarks, West Belfast MP Paul Maskey said:
“The comments made by the then head of the Civil Service in 1987 are indicative of the inner thinking and attitude of the NIO and British Government have had to west Belfast for decades.
“The area was subjected to a systematic campaign of state-sponsored violence and murder and was starved of funding and investment for many years in an attempt to keep the community down.
“These attempts to turn west Belfast into a ghetto and to criminalise and demonise its people failed.”
Follow us on Facebook
An Phoblacht on Twitter
Uncomfortable Conversations
An initiative for dialogue
for reconciliation
— — — — — — —
Contributions from key figures in the churches, academia and wider civic society as well as senior republican figures