Spin Fein To Knee Cap Europe?

Mighty_Mouse

Answer: It provides a very bad example and has its pot arse very black when giving out about the dirty

Ok, now we are making progress. Can I ask you if this is your views:

- the RUC/ PSNI is the police force of the unionists whilst the IRA is the police force of the Nationalists. Nationalists cannot expect huge changes in the PSNI whilst they IRA is still in existance?

My reply to this:Should the police force of the state not exist to protect ALL the citizens of the state? Should catholics not have as much rights as unionists when it comes to dealing and interacting with the police force of the state. Policing should be 100% non-political mechanism for dealing with ALL of northern irelands citizens. Anything the IRA does or does not do should have no bearing on how the police force deals with any segment of northern irish society. In essence your basic assumption of "unionists HAVING THEIR" police force dismantled shows the exact problem nationalists have with the police force in the first place.

Due process my eye!!

Again when you talk about policing all the states citizens, fair and equally, it should not matter what the IRA does.Do you not agree?

I see so you do want to put the shoe on the other foot and trample on the million or so unionists in the north.

Ok explain to me, exactly,: why is asking for a police force that is fair/acceptable for ALL/EVERYBODY, extremist?
Again are we returning to the notion that the unionist community owns the police force more than catholics?

I see so you do want to put the shoe on the other foot and trample on the million or so unionists in the north

Throughout this thread you've managed to fire off a few radical mis-quotes of me.

You can dream on, but short of total ethnic cleansing it won't happen.

Go back up along and point exactly to where I've even hinted at ethnic cleansing.Also explain to me why ethnic cleansing is necessary to establish a fair and equal police force for the WHOLE community?

I see so you do want to put the shoe on the other foot and trample on the million or so unionists in the north

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Ok explain to me, exactly,: why is asking for a police force that is fair/acceptable for ALL/EVERYBODY, extremist?

You seem to have a problem reading and interpreting my posts..
One more time...
Wanting to sack all members of the existing force against the wishes of more than half the population is extremist.
Ever heard of comprimise?
Given that there is now a deliberate bias in recruiting in favour of catholics then I'd suggest that as being a comprimise.
Most Unionists actually don't want that comprimise either, they wanted the original recruitment procedures to stand.

Go back up along and point exactly to where I've even hinted at ethnic cleansing.Also explain to me why ethnic cleansing is necessary to establish a fair and equal police force for the WHOLE community?

I suggest you go back up and re-read what I said because I didn't say you wanted ethnic cleansing at all.
I said that you would need it to ignore the views of a million people.
Whats wrong with comprimise with your fellow protestant Irishmen?
Why do you want to ignore their views,can you not rise above that?

So again you want to sack all the existing policemen and start from scratch ie re-hire?
With one million protestants against that idea, I'd suggest comprimise,after all nationalists and unionists have to live together.
One million Unionists aren't going away you know

Mighty_Mouse

One million Unionists aren't going away you know

Ok, I think what your failing to grasp here is that republicans are not trying to "get rid" of unionists. (certainly I'm not). What is being asked is a basic question. Should the police force be biased with regard to policing all the community? Policing should not about compromise it should be a fundamental entitlement that all of northern irish society be policed as equals. (again remember equal means equal and not favortism to nationalists)

Justice for all equally is not "asking" or "working together" "conceding" etc etc. You are saying that unionists shouldnt have to "concede" to having a balanced police force as an entitlement for all.

I mean how can you argue for equality, peace, non-discrimination, "new beginning" and fail to support one of the most basic and necessary mechanisms for implementing a democracy.

Wanting to sack all members of the existing force against the wishes of more than half the population is extremist.

Again I've no problem understanding or interpreting your posts. I find them simple enough;) . I think if you read both our posts your the one using extremist/dramatic landguage here. Does the GFA not adequately sum up the wishes of how the people of this Island want to proceed? If so how can you insist on limiting the changes applied to policing?

You insist on compromise but yet republicans obviously feel not enough "compromise" has been made in terms of policing. Are you argueing for more compromise on one side than the other. Remember to link your arguments back to the GFA agreement and why you think we should disregard it, while your argueing against redical policing reform.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Ok, I think what your failing to grasp here is that republicans are not trying to "get rid" of unionists. (certainly I'm not). What is being asked is a basic question. Should the police force be biased with regard to policing all the community? Policing should not about compromise it should be a fundamental entitlement that all of northern irish society be policed as equals. (again remember equal means equal and not favortism to nationalists)

So you are saying the PSNI is biased and you propose to fix that by sacking all the existing members and starting from scratch with totally new recruits?
So if my car is stolen in Belfast or my house is broken into,I'll get better policing at the moment if I'm a unionist?
I see,I doubt that though, but if it's the case I'll be on to Nuala thanks
You say you are not trying to get rid of unionsts(I never said you were),but why do you want to ignore their views in preference to your own when it comes to comprimise on policing.

I think if you read both our posts your the one using extremist/dramatic landguage here.

Errrr...
It's simple enough, you are on the extreme pole at one end of the spectrum advocating a complete sacking of the existing police whilst one million unionists are on the other pole advocating no change.
The governments implimented the comprimise in the middle.
In 2004 every day policing on the ground shouldn't mean having a different attitude to catholics versus protestants.
Both if accused of a crime actually have the same due process.
The fact that there aren't more catholics in the police force as you know is down largely to intimidation by Republicans towards any catholic that joined.
It's still being discouraged for no reason that I can see.

You insist on compromise but yet republicans obviously feel not enough "compromise" has been made in terms of policing.

Heh!
Sacking the entire police force is to impliment your extreme position,it's not comprimise.
It's an extreme just as unionists wanting no change at all is an extreme.
Comprimise is where you want to work something out, it's a give and take.
Your position is a complete take as is the unionist position on the oposite extreme.
I asked you before did you not know what comprimise is, and aparently you dont.

Mighty_Mouse

Listen I have no problem with discussing this issue but I think your hanging on a little to your dramatic "sacking"/ "extreme" mantra. (how equality can be described as an extreme position i still dont know!!!) The vision for change was set down by Chris Patten, chair of the Independent Commission in his report of September 1999. The GFA agreement was ment to imlement Pattens changes in order to make the police force acceptable to nationalists.

In 2004 every day policing on the ground shouldn't mean having a different attitude to catholics versus protestants.

Ok, I completely agree but you seem to be of the opinion this is being done in the current climate with a unionist dominated police force.

If you want to talk about compromise lets talk about the ultimate compromise which was the GFA agreement. Are you suggesting that we start discussing compromises which deviate from each element of its implementation?

For a deeper understanding of republican problems with the police force maybe you should read: http://www.sinnfein.ie/pdf/PolicingRepresCommu.pdf
At least this would provide you with a starting point for compromise.

The Brigadier

I am sure if you look here

http://www.dup.org.uk/

you will find plenty of arguements to argue the opposite.

Mighty Mouse can you please link to something independant rather than repeating the one sided rhetoric of Sinn Fein.

Mighty_Mouse

You're back Brig!!!! Wow! And there was I, thinking you insulted all Irish people and went home with the football!!

I have no problem reading anything you want on the DUP's problems with policing but I'm not doing the usual craic of having to research your arguments for you in order to knock them down!!!! If you want to argue policing just provide the document.

Also I think everyone in here knows you not even prepared to engage Republicans by listening to their problems and grievances so I dont know what more I can do for you.

The Brigadier

Only a fool would try and back up his arguement with his own arguement...

lmao...

I have no problem with republicans....only problems with the sort of vermin who support the IRA...

but then, hey I know that murder is wrong....

Mighty_Mouse

Only a fool would try and back up his arguement with his own arguement...

Explain

but then, hey I know that murder is wrong....

Arrgh !! Temptation to much!! As an Englishman you must feel awful shame so!!

The Brigadier

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Explain
Arrgh !! Temptation to much!! As an Englishman you must feel awful shame so!!

Explain...well your arguemtent comprises

MM:"Sinn Fein are right"

Otherposter: Can you back that up?

MM: "Here look, it says so on the SinnFein website"

Oh, and I won't bite on your english shame bait....

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Listen I have no problem with discussing this issue but I think your hanging on a little to your dramatic "sacking"/ "extreme" mantra. (how equality can be described as an extreme position i still dont know!!!)

You seem to avoid in every answer you have given so far contradicting my view that the sacking of every single member of the PSNI is actually what you want.
Who is to say there can be no equality of treatment under the current comprimise?
As regards Patten That doesn't recommend the sacking of the existing force.
I think we know the SF attitude to section 113...

All community leaders, including political party leaders and local councillors, bishops and priests,schoolteachers and sports authorities, should take steps to remove all discouragements tomembers of their communities applying to join the police, and make it a priority to encourage to apply

Mighty_Mouse

Only a fool would try and back up his arguement with his own arguement...

hate to be prickly about being called a fool but I would like to know what (if you know) did you mean by the above sentance in relation to my post ?

I have no problem reading anything you want on the DUP's problems with policing but I'm not doing the usual craic of having to research your arguments for you in order to knock them down!!!! If you want to argue policing just provide the document.

Also I think everyone in here knows your not even prepared to engage Republicans by listening to their problems and grievances so I dont know what more I can do for you.

You seem to avoid in every answer you have given so far contradicting my view that the sacking of every single member of the PSNI is actually what you want.

But I haven't said that. I told you several times that this isnt what I'm saying. As for refusing to engage and discuss viewpoints etc ..............the irony !This is getting tiresome......what am I avoiding exactly? (pretty please dont respond by saying "your not saying what I want you to say specifically!). Rockclimber are you even willing to listen to republican problems with policing? How can you compromise when you dont even know republican problems?

The Brigadier

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
hate to be prickly about being called a fool but I would like to know what (if you know) did you mean by the above sentance in relation to my post ?

You have repeatedly on this thread and others have backed up your opinions on Sinn Fein with links to the Sinn Fein website...

It hardly give a persuasive arguement....

Now if you linked to a third party, I and others I am sure would take your arguements a little bit more seriously...

ecksor

You've even objected to links to the sinn fein website when they were simply mirrors of documents not authored by sinn fein though.

The Brigadier

Then surely there should be no problem in linking to the original source?

I don't have time to sort though all the Sinn Fein pages he links to trying to figure which are Sinn Fein political gumpf and which are mirrors of other sites....

How am I to know that the pages on the Sinn Fein site have not been abridged or appended?

Corega

I was going to write a long spiel, pointing out Sinn Fein's links to previously stated paramilitary organisations, the ability of their leaders with regards to politics, political issues and "people skills". Yet, I managed to shorten this down somewhat...one of Sinn Fein's policies, if not their priority policy is the reintroduction of the six counties, which appears alongside some seemingly "decent" social policies to win over the hearts and mind of your average working-class citizen who'd rather spend bin tax money on something else. My questions are; Do we really want the six counties in all their miserable, unpeacuful, expensive-to-run glory? Would it really be feasible to have Sinn Fein in a position of significant power, both across Europe and locally, that they could start negotiating for the reunification of the North with the Republic?

Rock Climber

But I haven't said that. I told you several times that this isnt what I'm saying. As for refusing to engage and discuss viewpoints etc ..............the irony !This is getting tiresome......what am I avoiding exactly? (pretty please dont respond by saying "your not saying what I want you to say specifically!). Rockclimber are you even willing to listen to republican problems with policing? How can you compromise when you dont even know republican problems?

This is the first time actually that you said you didn't want to sack all of the current members of the PSNI
I did ask you at least three times.
So tell me what aspect of NI policing is not equal to catholics at this moment in time (2004 and not 1984 or 1994)
And don't tell me it's the fact that theres not enough catholics in it as we both know who is actively discouraging their entry...

Mighty_Mouse

This is the first time actually that you said you didn't want to sack all of the current members of the PSNI

Fantastic debating style Rockclimber!!! Presume someones answer and persecute them for it!Lets even have a full conversation about what we both didnt say. That should add a nice twist to the already complicated discussion!!:rolleyes:

So tell me what aspect of NI policing is not equal to catholics at this moment in time

yawn!http://www.sinnfein.ie/pdf/PolicingRepresCommu.pdf

I don't have time to sort though all the Sinn Fein pages he links to trying to figure which are Sinn Fein political gumpf and which are mirrors of other sites....

but but but Brig, I'm linking you to the exact pdf's so you dont have to worry about sorting through pages of so-called propoganda. I'm so sorry I didnt let you know earlier.

I was going to write a long spiel, pointing out Sinn Fein's links to previously stated paramilitary organisations,

another anti-republican with breaking news I see! (sorry cant help sarcasim at this stage!)

Do we really want the six counties in all their miserable, unpeacuful, expensive-to-run glory?

Yes, apparantly so in increasing numbers too! (according to the support for Sinn Feins manifesto)

ecksor

Originally posted by The Brigadier
Then surely there should be no problem in linking to the original source?

Surely you can see that it seems like a petty excuse for not actually bothering to read them or engage in any argument that isn't your righteous condemnation or demands of the same from others?

How am I to know that the pages on the Sinn Fein site have not been abridged or appended?

Here's a suggestion for you. If you want another source, take the URLs offered to you, then google for another source. Take the Patten report for example (since you don't seem to have much time), a google will bring up http://www.belfast.org.uk/report/fullreport.pdf for your appreciation. I've checked and found that it is identical to the document that was linked to earlier.

The Brigadier

Ecksor....I don't think I should have to google for these items...

earwicker

Originally posted by The Brigadier
Ecksor....I don't think I should have to google for these items...

? Would you like it posted to your house then? Or are you just saying you don't want to read it?

ecksor

So, let's get this straight.

You are spoonfed a load of information but you refuse it on the basis of the domain it comes from. You do this on the basis of a certain sense of scepticism, which is fine I suppose, but you seem to feel that you are somehow entitled to be spoonfed the information in a more palatable form for you. Was the link I provided of an agreeable nature for you?

What exactly is your interest in a discussion about something that you're not even bothered investigating on your own? If you're not interested in contributing anything but righteous condemnation and demanding the same from others then I would tend to suggest that you're wasting your time and our diskspace.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Fantastic debating style Rockclimber!!! Presume someones answer and persecute them for it!Lets even have a full conversation about what we both didnt say. That should add a nice twist to the already complicated discussion!!:rolleyes: yawn!http://www.sinnfein.ie/pdf/PolicingRepresCommu.pdf

Rofl!
I asked you several times what you wanted.
I suggested several times that it seemed to be the mass sacking of the PSNI that you wanted.
You deny this and then you link me to a SF pdf thats says theres too many protestants in the PSNI...
You're not defending your position at all there.
We know patten urged all to urge catholics to join.
there is a 50:50 recruiting policy now ie positive discrimination in favour of catholics (viv a vis their proportion of the population)
We also know who actively discourage catholics from joining the PSNI (Republicans)

So I ask you again what other way is there to instantly put more catholics into the police force other than sacking those existing members?

You can yawn but that just underlines the inadequacy of your argument here.
It certainly doesn't answer my question.

Mighty_Mouse

I suggested several times that it seemed to be the mass sacking of the PSNI that you wanted.

There is definitely a need for redundancies from the PSNI. Any other suggestion is madness if you’re serious about a new beginning. What we have is a current situation where the RUC moved en-bloc to the PSNI without any real changes in staffing, representation or structure. More important than a 50-50 recruitment policy for Catholics are
- Strategies to include nationalists and republicans at junior and senior levels
- The full implementation of "lateral " recruitment, which see's nationalists implanted at senior levels, (either Gardai recruited or fast-tracking new recruits)
- Demilitarisation of the PSNI (objective of an unarmed police force)
- defortification of police stations
- Role and future power of Special Branch (also addressing abuses of past)
-Final confirmation from the British of the transfer of policing powers from the British sectary of state to the assembly and all-Ireland ministry council

Basically republicans need to have assurances and faith in policing. The PSNI cannot represent the "new RUC". Unionists signed up to the GFA agreement and therefore support Patten. What you are arguing is for unionists not to be upset by changes, which introduce "equality" into the police force!!! Do you see the irrationality of arguing against equality? (Don’t tell me all the RUC has to do is recruit a few unionist Catholics because its not working, and don’t tell me its because of republican intimidation either)

So I ask you again what other way is there to instantly put more catholics into the police force other than sacking those existing members?

of coarse there will be redundancies. Did you envisage a "new beggining", a "new police force for all northern ireland" without changes made to the old one!!!!!!!!!Again I dont understand how you can argue against equality in policing, ie an equal police force representative of all the community as Patten envisaged.

earwicker

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Rofl!
So I ask you again what other way is there to instantly put more catholics into the police force other than sacking those existing members?

Vigilantism is a symptom of the failure of law, not a cause.

An increase in hiring from the catholic/ nationalist community has to happen, and half the unionist/ protestant community need not be sacked for that.

Before nationalists/ catholics join there has to be the perception of equality. Surely you'd agree? Obviously for this to happen there has to be trust on the part of the catholic/ nationalist community, and I think Mighty_Mouse has outlined a few key areas that need to be addressed in order to bring about the conditions necessary for that change.

Trust is a crucial step if nationalist vigilantism is to be stopped: a police force that is impartial would go a long way toward stopping any group appointing itself as an illegal and unaccountable police force. Maybe then the blinkers towards ongoing unionist/ loyalist vigilantism would come off as well (ongoing, I might add, despite the make-up of the PSNI--an indication that the problem won't simply disappear).

Once equality is made policy and fact, the vigilantism on both sides can be perceived and therefore pursued in the same way.

So, instead of just being negative about sackings, there are other ways to tackle the problem of inequality. There could be an overall increase in the police force which could be addressed by hiring nationalists/ catholics. No need to sack anyone. Coupled with early retirement for current members, you can start reorganizing all levels without sackings. Voluntary redundancy would be another. Nobody would be sacked by pursuing these policies.

Pink slips are regrettable but unavoidable when other organizations restructure. Should it come to it after other options have been exercised, would you still be so dead set against it?

It seems to be that all of these things have to be implemented at once if there is to be any success in changing the overall system.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Do you see the irrationality of arguing against equality?

I see so it all boils down to religion, you want more catholics in the police force immediately and at all levels.
I suppose thats a reasonable desire.
But you can hardly blame unionists for throwing the reasons why there hasn't been too many catholics in the police back at you.
They're not there because Republicans wouldn't let them join.
Joining as a catholic could have meant a death sentence and a life of always checking under your car with a stick and a mirror before turning the ignition, in case theres a bomb there.
Personally Religion should be irrelevant to policing.

Again I dont understand how you can argue against equality in policing, ie an equal police force representative of all the community as Patten envisaged.

You seem to be working from a different definition of equality.
I took equality in policing to mean that each policeman/woman treats the person they are policing equally.
In other words if the policeman is a muslim, he still arrests you for throwing a brick through a window regardless of whether you are a protestant/catholic or atheist.
I don't understand this mantra where you have to have this instant change in the religous make up of the force and that is the only surety against discrimination.
Or has it gone so daft now that catholics must have catholic doctors and protestants must have protestant ones.
The food you buy must be grown on a catholic farm and the food someone else buys must be from a protestant farm??
Thats pure crazy.
Somebody somewhere has a lot to answer for , when they created a society like that.
People in the south don't give a flying twaddle about things like that.

Just to add I have a protestant friend here in the south, who has a heap of cousins and uncles and aunts in fermanagh.
He tells me that he hates going up there because they can't understand how he lives down here among us lot with all the discrimination against protestants...(of course there is none ...but try telling that to a hardline unionist)
They simply don't believe that we all get along so well and don't believe that religion is not such an issue any more among most.

It's not an issue down here you know because we haven't been blowing each other asunder for the last 40 years.
The Rah and the loyalists are the ones in my humble opinion who have to answer for creating the society thats there up north.
And theres no quick fix, theres only time.

Mighty_Mouse

And theres no quick fix, theres only time.

I know its nice sometimes to end on a little generalisation but your completely wrong here with I would call "oprah" solutions. The IRA could of continued its campaign until the end of time if they wanted. Is that what you mean by time?? By time, do you mean the possible increase in the number of dissident republicans by republicans who have seen their efforts for compromise, talk and peaceful government thrown back in their faces?(unionist policy if you ask me, anything to say"sure we told you so in 6 years time after a decade of no progress!). IMO we dont have time. As for quick solutions: we allready have one. GFA! The problem is the unionists have changed their minds on what they signed up to for reasons like equality in Northern Society. I mean what could happen if Catholics start attending universitys in higher numbers, get jobs high in the police force, etc etc
Ok on the policing issue lets follow your own logic for a bit.

I see so it all boils down to religion, you want more catholics in the police force immediately and at all levels.I suppose thats a reasonable desire.
QUOTE] Its not religion as such, nationalists versus unionists in order to balance sectarianism

But you can hardly blame unionists for throwing the reasons why there hasn't been too many catholics in the police back at you.

If you want to maintain control and not lose power, maybe

They're not there because Republicans wouldn't let them join.

ok still following you logic.
Now from the above. nationalists want more in the police force but wont let nationalists join the police force? This doesnt make sense..........unless theres a reason. Do you accept that there must be something pretty important to nationalists for them not to take something they want?

I don't understand this mantra where you have to have this instant change in the religous make up of the force and that is the only surety against discrimination.

Please please dont say your advocating counselling to unionist officiers to help them police catholics as a solution to the policing crisis. Either your for equality in policing or not? Answer- if you can.

P.S
I'd take what your unionist friend has to say on the north with a pinch of salt. He's seems to of twisted your perspective, especially on reasonable issues like equality in policing,.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
I know its nice sometimes to end on a little generalisation but your completely wrong here with I would call "oprah" solutions. The IRA could of continued its campaign until the end of time if they wanted. Is that what you mean by time??

No I mean the time it takes for people to forgive and forget.
I don't know where you got that out of what I said but I'm not surprised that you did:rolleyes:

Now from the above. nationalists want more in the police force but wont let nationalists join the police force? This doesnt make sense..........unless theres a reason. Do you accept that there must be something pretty important to nationalists for them not to take something they want?

Convenient that you ignore what I said...
I'll say it again,nationalists couldn't join because the IRA would target them if they did.

Please please dont say your advocating counselling to unionist officiers to help them police catholics as a solution to the policing crisis. Either your for equality in policing or not? Answer- if you can.

At this stage I'm noticing again that you don't reply to my questions at all you just state your opinions rather than tackle the question.
I said quite clearly that equality in policing is in the way the policing is carried out and not in the religion of the officer.
You seem to be saying I'm against more catholics joining the police-where did I say that?
Nowhere in this thread!
Tell me what or where did this counselling notion enter your head or are you saying that protestant officers(all of them) treat catholics differently when they report a crime now in 2004?
Links to your eveidence of this please and to the failure of the ombudsmans office to do anything about it.

I'd take what your unionist friend has to say on the north with a pinch of salt. He's seems to of twisted your perspective, especially on reasonable issues like equality in policing,.

Well you would be taking it wrong then.
The guy I spoke about is not a unionist,he's a protestant citizen of the Republic of Ireland,he pays his taxes here and was born in Dublin.
His Father has family in the North.
They are an example of a family split by the 1922 partition and a fascinating insight into the contrasts between two sections of the same family ,one of which was brought up in a society with violence and the other not.
That said...
Your tone when you use the phrase unionist friend and Twisted perspective speaks volumes for your noticable inability to see any side other than your own on this issue by the way .
It is also clearly derisory.

Mighty_Mouse

No I mean the time it takes for people to forgive and forget.

Yes, but people only forgive and forget in a society which permits them to do so. Continued oppression of one sector of society is not condusive to forgetfullness and forgiveness IMHO. Do you really think that given all the time in the world nationalists will start to forgive and forget without a trustworthy police force/stable non-biased government ?
No healing process will start until the norths stability is secure. So thats where the concept of time healing all wounds can start.

I'll say it again,nationalists couldn't join because the IRA would target them if they did.

Your continued accusations of me dodging questions are frustrating to say the least!I addressed you point of view with the following. if anyone doesnt answer question here its you!!

ok still following you logic.
Now from the above. nationalists want more in the police force but wont let nationalists join the police force? This doesnt make sense..........unless theres a reason. Do you accept that there must be something pretty important to nationalists for them not to take something they want?

This craic of the IRA blowing up nationalist policemen!! Even terrorising/bombs under cars etc etc etc. I havent heard any of this. What I've heard is Sinn Feins refusal to endorse the PSNI due to the reasons I've repeated continously and which nobody has bothered to address in here. Even an acknowledgement that Republicans have serious issues with the "reformation" of the RUC would be nice!! Again I'll ask you: if the IRA are completely committed to a new northern Ireland through peaceful means, if Sinn Fein have endorsed the GFA agreement completely and are the most prominent pro-agreement party;; why oh why would they not want to endorse the police force.......... republicans are not joining the PSNI for the simple reason that it is the RUC with a name and a uniform change!!! Fact. It has nothing to do with the IRA.

At this stage I'm noticing again that you don't reply to my questions at all you just state your opinions rather than tackle the question.

And again this craic of accusing me of not answering quesitons !!!:dunno: lets do this slowly: You said:

I don't understand this mantra where you have to have this instant change in the religous make up of the force and that is the only surety against discrimination.

Which i took to mean that you do not see a reason for changing the religios make-up of the RUC? Which to me would mean "whats the need for nationalists to join".
To which I replied:

Please please dont say your advocating counselling to unionist officiers to help them police catholics as a solution to the policing crisis. Either your for equality in policing or not?

Meaning if you do not support the notion of an equal police force between nationalists and unionists how do you remove the sectarian bias in the RUC???? I mean what exactly are you suggesting in the context of northern ireland here?? Are we hoping that the RUC, now that they have new uniform, will not be sectarian murderers?Should the nationalists hope that with a little counselling that there is no need for nationalists in the polcie force of a new northern ireland?
Please explain how the origional wasnt a reply by the way

You seem to be saying I'm against more catholics joining the police-where did I say that?

Above. Where you said the part about not seeing a need to change the make-up of the police force.

Your tone when you use the phrase unionist friend and Twisted perspective speaks volumes for your noticable inability to see any side other than your own on this issue by the way

Apologies. I read about you cousin travelling north and talking to hardline unionists which led me to presume his background. My mistake. I do think that the unionist opinion on most things is wrong though because unionists are fighting a position of losing power in society. So my suggestion (maybe out of place) was not to let a unionists perspective colour your opinions of things like reforming the police force etc etc etc
(a little condescending on a re-read but not meant to be)(just a honest opinion)

swiss