SINN FEIN Can Have it both ways on Policing.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote: »

Myself and yourself have been having this discussion on and off for years, so I don't really want to get into the whole "Irish unity/IRA/Brits etc" lark, besides, this isn't the thread for it and every thread remotely concerned with the north always morphs into that argument sooner or later.

Fair enough.

I'm not supportive of any of the current armed groups, or their respective campaigns but I also wouldn't be collaborating with the British army or British police.

Well, we'll have to agree to differ, but as far as I'm concerned, refusing to help the police to catch murderers is supportive of those murderers, no matter what double-think you use to justify that support.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

but as far as I'm concerned, refusing to help the police to catch murderers is supportive of those murderers, no matter what double-think you use to justify that support.

I'm sorry OB, but that is very subjective.

The opinions of nationalists who lived on the same streets as the British army, however might have opposing views. You can't use your view of the situation to determine what is and what isn't supportive, or morally correct. People who lived under British occupation, and saw first hand blood spilt on their streets at the hands of British soldiers have different priorities. Touting on a few children for throwing stones at these same soldiers isn't exactly one of them.

Moreover, the nationalist community doesn't have much faith in the PSNI due to their ongoing harassment of nationalists, and turning of the blind eye. With that in mind - one could understand why nationalists would not bring information to a police force that they do not trust, about attacks on an armed force that has slain their neighbours.

Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. But these are not normal circumstances.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm sorry OB, but that is very subjective.

Maybe. In my subjective view, saying "I don't support murderers, but I'd rather let them get away with murder than talk to a policeman" is internally inconsistent.

But we've had this conversation before, and if you think that the best way to show your lack of support for a murderer is to help him get away with it, we're going to have to agree to differ again.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

But we've had this conversation before, and if you think that the best way to show your lack of support for a murderer is to help him get away with it, we're going to have to agree to differ again.

To help someone get away with something would imply that you are actively assisting them. There is a huge difference between helping someone, and staying out of an issue. I didn't once suggest that anyone help anyone get away with anything.

Bottle_of_Smoke

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe. In my subjective view, saying "I don't support murderers, but I'd rather let them get away with murder than talk to a policeman" is internally inconsistent.

But we've had this conversation before, and if you think that the best way to show your lack of support for a murderer is to help him get away with it, we're going to have to agree to differ again.

This post makes it all seemingly black and white. If FTA69 objects to British presence in Ireland I think its perfectly reasonable and consistant to boycott their security forces inquiries. It still doesn't mean he neccesarily supports those murders.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

To help someone get away with something would imply that you are actively assisting them. There is a huge difference between helping someone, and staying out of an issue. I didn't once suggest that anyone help anyone get away with anything.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

This post makes it all seemingly black and white. If FTA69 objects to British presence in Ireland I think its perfectly reasonable and consistant to boycott their security forces inquiries. It still doesn't mean he neccesarily supports those murders.

By all means guys, tell yourselves whatever you need to hear to make it OK to abet a murderer. Some of us have moral compasses that work both sides of the border.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

By all means guys, tell yourselves whatever you need to hear to make it OK to abet a murderer. Some of us have moral compasses that work both sides of the border.

And the discussion reaches a new low.

Nobody said it was ok to abet a murder. What we attempted to do was to put the situation into context and explain why people were not willing to co-operate with the PSNI, and why the issue such as attacks on British soldiers was a sore subject.

It has nothing to do with "moral compass". You're totally unwilling to accept that that the lack of faith in the PSNI due to PSNI actions (or lack of), and the history of murder by British soldiers on the streets of Ireland play a roll in why people are not willing to engage with the PSNI.

Bottle_of_Smoke

oscarBravo wrote: »

By all means guys, tell yourselves whatever you need to hear to make it OK to abet a murderer. Some of us have moral compasses that work both sides of the border.

I prob would have agreed with you in the past but when you know what its like to live here you understand better why someone would take this course of action. Don't think you're going to get it so I give up here.

K-9

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I prob would have agreed with you in the past but when you know what its like to live here you understand better why someone would take this course of action. Don't think you're going to get it so I give up here.

Just when does it become acceptable to tout to the PSNI?

Jaap

K-9 wrote: »

Just when does it become acceptable to tout to the PSNI?

I think there will just be some people who will never tout to the PSNI. They don't understand that the majority of people want to put the Troubles behind them!
The DUP get a slagging sometimes on this forum...I slag them...but they made in a big step in negotiating and sharing government with Sinn Fein...look at Arlene Foster...her dad was shot in the head by the IRA...she had to move because of the threat when she was a kid...she now talks to Sinn Fein...she realises that she has to as they have mandate and they have pulled away from supporting terrorists! The DUP have moved on...Sinn Fein have moved on!
When are these dissidents gonna realise that sometimes you just have to put the past behind you! They should focus in on their daytime job (if they have one...they are probably all on the dole taking British taxpayers money as they plot attacks and make bombs! ) or their family!

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

Nobody said it was ok to abet a murder.

Yes, I'm aware that you're unwilling to accept that that's precisely what we're talking about, but it is.

Hypothetical scenario: someone you love is murdered (heaven forbid). Several people are in possession of crucial information that may help to secure a conviction, but they don't trust the Gardaí for whatever reason. Your loved one's murderer is walking the streets, free to murder someone else.

If the people who refuse to co-operate with the Gardaí have what they believe to be a genuine grievance with the force, does that mean that they are not abetting the murderer?

Would it be OK for me to refuse to co-operate with a Garda murder inquiry on the grounds of the shenanigans that went on in Donegal, for example?

FlutterinBantam

Jaap wrote: »

I think there will just be some people who will never tout to the PSNI. They don't understand that the majority of people want to put the Troubles behind them!
The DUP get a slagging sometimes on this forum...I slag them...but they made in a big step in negotiating and sharing government with Sinn Fein...look at Arlene Foster...her dad was shot in the head by the IRA...she had to move because of the threat when she was a kid...she now talks to Sinn Fein...she realises that she has to as they have mandate and they have pulled away from supporting terrorists! The DUP have moved on...Sinn Fein have moved on!
When are these dissidents gonna realise that sometimes you just have to put the past behind you! They should focus in on their daytime job (if they have one...they are probably all on the dole taking British taxpayers money as they plot attacks and make bombs! ) or their family!

Excellent post, time some of these naive idealists realised the double standards they are promoting.

Most people have moved on from all sides in these processes, however there are always some and their apologists who rather than looking forward and trying to see where agreement is possible ,prefer to look backwards and use arcain and outdated arguments to perpetuate their cause.

Applies to both sides.

Deedsie

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware that you're unwilling to accept that that's precisely what we're talking about, but it is.

Hypothetical scenario: someone you love is murdered (heaven forbid). Several people are in possession of crucial information that may help to secure a conviction, but they don't trust the Gardaí for whatever reason. Your loved one's murderer is walking the streets, free to murder someone else.

If the people who refuse to co-operate with the have what they believe to be a genuine grievance with the force, does that mean that they are not abetting the murderer?

Would it be OK for me to refuse to co-operate with a Garda murder inquiry on the grounds of the shenanigans that went on in Donegal, for example?

I would just like to give another example of people not providing information to the Gardaí. I live in Limerick. Everyone is aware of the problems here. Murders committed by people who have no fear of the Gardaí. There are known muderers walking the streets of Limerick. The witnesses to these cases are terrified to go to the Gardaí for fear of retribution from the criminals.

If the dissidents are happy to bomb an Irish speaking, Gaelic Footballer. What do you think they would do to an informer? It is unfair to call these people accomplices to murderers. They have brought up having no faith in the police in the North.

oscarBravo

Deedsie wrote: »

I would just like to give another example of people not providing information to the Gardaí. I live in Limerick. Everyone is aware of the problems here. Murders committed by people who have no fear of the Gardaí. There are known muderers walking the streets of Limerick. The witnesses to these cases are terrified to go to the Gardaí for fear of retribution from the criminals.

If the dissidents are happy to bomb an Irish speaking, Gaelic Footballer. What do you think they would do to an informer? It is unfair to call these people accomplices to murderers. They have brought up having no faith in the police in the North.

You've described two completely different and unrelated things: people who would like to co-operate with the police, because they want to see criminals off the streets, but are afraid to do so because they fear the criminals; and people who refuse to co-operate with the police, even though they claim not to support the criminals, because their mistrust of the police outweighs their alleged lack of support for the criminals.

Deedsie

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've described two completely different and unrelated things: people who would like to co-operate with the police, because they want to see criminals off the streets, but are afraid to do so because they fear the criminals; and people who refuse to co-operate with the police, even though they claim not to support the criminals, because their mistrust of the police outweighs their alleged lack of support for the criminals.

By me saying "What do you think they would do to informers?" you got that?

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware that you're unwilling to accept that that's precisely what we're talking about, but it is.

Hypothetical scenario: someone you love is murdered (heaven forbid). Several people are in possession of crucial information that may help to secure a conviction, but they don't trust the Gardaí for whatever reason. Your loved one's murderer is walking the streets, free to murder someone else.

If the people who refuse to co-operate with the Gardaí have what they believe to be a genuine grievance with the force, does that mean that they are not abetting the murderer?

Would it be OK for me to refuse to co-operate with a Garda murder inquiry on the grounds of the shenanigans that went on in Donegal, for example?

I'm sorry, but you seem to be under the impression that it's possible to equate being slightly lacking in faith of the Gardaí, with how the nationalists feel towards the PSNI.

It's not possible. There are decades of deep, entrenched distrust towards the PSNI due to collusion between policing and loyalists. There are decades of bitter hatred towards British soldiers, due to collusion with loyalists and murder of Irish civilians.

It's not the same as getting a bit of a bollocking from the Gardaí, and then not feeling up to informing to them. It's a completely different scenario, and the fact that you have said the above leads me to believe that you are very unaware, or uneducated as to how or why the nationalists feel the way they do about policing in the north, or as to why some nationalists would never approach police.

By all means, if you want to stay inside your bubble where everything is a perfect working society, and use that as a context for your argument, go for it.

oscarBravo

Deedsie wrote: »

By me saying "What do you think they would do to informers?" you got that?

I'm not talking about people who won't talk to the police because they are afraid of reprisals from the criminals; I'm talking about people who won't talk to the police on principle, and to whom that principle is more important than the fact that they are allowing murderers to go unpunished.

DoireNod

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've described two completely different and unrelated things: people who would like to co-operate with the police, because they want to see criminals off the streets, but are afraid to do so because they fear the criminals; and people who refuse to co-operate with the police, even though they claim not to support the criminals, because their mistrust of the police outweighs their alleged lack of support for the criminals.

The two things are hardly unrelated when they both apply to co-operation, or lack thereof, with a police force. Maybe I'm mistaken, but from your point of view, it doesn't matter why you don't co-operate; you seem to be claiming that regardless of reason, any lack of co-operation with the cops must equal assisting and supporting killing or other such activities, whatever they may be.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you seem to be under the impression that it's possible to equate being slightly lacking in faith of the Gardaí, with how the nationalists feel towards the PSNI.

It's not possible. There are decades of deep, entrenched distrust towards the PSNI due to collusion between policing and loyalists. There are decades of bitter hatred towards British soldiers, due to collusion with loyalists and murder of Irish civilians.

It's not the same as getting a bit of a bollocking from the Gardaí, and then not feeling up to informing to them. It's a completely different scenario, and the fact that you have said the above leads me to believe that you are very unaware, or uneducated as to how or why the nationalists feel the way they do about policing in the north, or as to why some nationalists would never approach police.

By all means, if you want to stay inside your bubble where everything is a perfect working society, and use that as a context for your argument, go for it.

It's really funny that you talk about me living in a bubble, because that's precisely how I see the worldview that Republicans use to defend themselves from reality, and pretend that a foreign country is occupying part of this country by force.

The problem with using history as an excuse for continuing to tacitly support the ongoing murders of police officers and soldiers is that history, by definition, doesn't go away. By saying that it's impossible to support the police because of history, you're saying that it will remain impossible to do so until such time as people decide to put that history behind them. You're making the choice that the lives of police officers are less important than the need to wallow in the past.

You can choose not to see it that way, but that's the way it is.

DoireNod wrote: »

The two things are hardly unrelated when they both apply to co-operation, or lack thereof, with a police force. Maybe I'm mistaken, but from your point of view, it doesn't matter why you don't co-operate; you seem to be claiming that regardless of reason, any lack of co-operation with the cops must equal assisting and supporting killing or other such activities, whatever they may be.

Are you seriously telling me you can't see the difference between not helping the cops prevent murder because you're in genuine fear for your life, and not helping the cops prevent murder because you don't like cops?

DoireNod

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me you can't see the difference between not helping the cops prevent murder because you're in genuine fear for your life, and not helping the cops prevent murder because you don't like cops?

I can see the difference of scenario, but they are related in that they both deal with lack of co-operation with the police. Do you think people who don't go to cops because they're in fear for their life are abetting murder?

oscarBravo

DoireNod wrote: »

I can see the difference of scenario, but they are related in that they both deal with lack of co-operation with the police. Do you think people who don't go to cops because they're in fear for their life are abetting murder?

Do you think that someone who doesn't try to intervene in an armed robbery is abetting larceny?

DoireNod

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you think that someone who doesn't try to intervene in an armed robbery is abetting larceny?

Nope*. Do you?

Like I said, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be claiming that any lack of co-operation with the cops equates to supporting crime.

*Of course, one might argue that failure to intervene allows for larceny to occur, thus 'assisting' instead of preventing, but that does not equal active support.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem with using history as an excuse for continuing to tacitly support the ongoing murders of police officers and soldiers is that history, by definition, doesn't go away. By saying that it's impossible to support the police because of history, you're saying that it will remain impossible to do so until such time as people decide to put that history behind them.

No, what has occurred in the past creates the context which you continue to overlook. That on top of the fact that the PSNI is still an extension of the old RUC, is the real issue. The PSNI's actions of "today" leaves the nationalist community lacking in faith. If the PSNI wanted the nationalist community to engage more, they would treat them as equals - but they do not, and have countless complaints registered against them.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're making the choice that the lives of police officers are less important than the need to wallow in the past.

No I'm not. Those are your words, not mine. I am explaining why nationalists do not engage with the PSNI. You seem to have a problem in understanding why, and instead are trying to force your outlook on the situation as a matter of fact.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can choose not to see it that way, but that's the way it is.

No oscarBravo, that's the way it is for you - someone unaffected by the actions of the PSNI. It is NOT the way it is for nationalists who have absolutely no trust in the PSNI. Please don't try pass off your opinion as fact. The world isn't seen by everyone in the same way as you see it.

dlofnep

A better question for you oscarBravo.

Give me your understanding as to why a nationalist might not engage with the PSNI.

junder

dlofnep wrote: »

No, what has occurred in the past creates the context which you continue to overlook. That on top of the fact that the PSNI is still an extension of the old RUC, is the real issue. The PSNI's actions of "today" leaves the nationalist community lacking in faith. If the PSNI wanted the nationalist community to engage more, they would treat them as equals - but they do not, and have countless complaints registered against them.



No I'm not. Those are your words, not mine. I am explaining why nationalists do not engage with the PSNI. You seem to have a problem in understanding why, and instead are trying to force your outlook on the situation as a matter of fact.



No oscarBravo, that's the way it is for you - someone unaffected by the actions of the PSNI. It is NOT the way it is for nationalists who have absolutely no trust in the PSNI. Please don't try pass off your opinion as fact. The world isn't seen by everyone in the same way as you see it.

Mind telling me how a irish speaking, GAA playing, catholic police officer is an extension of the RUC?

oscarBravo

DoireNod wrote: »

Nope*. Do you?

Nope. Next question: if someone had information that could lead to the arrest of the armed robbers, but chose to withhold that information from the police because (say) they held a grudge against the bank that had been robbed, would you consider that abetting larceny?

Like I said, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be claiming that any lack of co-operation with the cops equates to supporting crime.

Yes, you're misunderstanding me.

dlofnep wrote: »

A better question for you oscarBravo.

Give me your understanding as to why a nationalist might not engage with the PSNI.

I'm not interested in what their excuse for refusing to exercise their duties as citizens of a functioning society might be. A police force can only be effective if it has the co-operation of the citizens.

If a section of society insists on saying "we refuse to co-operate with the police because (insert justification here)", they are hampering the ability of the police to function effectively, which helps to perpetuate the excuse of refusing to co-operate with an ineffective police force, ad nauseam.

They're the police. They're the only police force that exists in Northern Ireland. You co-operate with them, or you create the conditions for anarchy, violence and terrorism to flourish.

I don't understand how, when faced with the choice of tacitly supporting terrorists or reluctantly working with an imperfect police force, people can feel that they are justified in choosing the former.

dlofnep

junder wrote: »

Mind telling me how a irish speaking, GAA playing, catholic police officer is an extension of the RUC?

Not all officers are an extension of the RUC. There are new elements. But you're living under a rock if you don't believe that elements of the old RUC exist today.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

A police force can only be effective if it has the co-operation of the citizens.

And what happens when those said citizens are betrayed by members of the said police force, routinely? You seem to be under the impression that the onus is entirely on the citizens to create trust.

When members of the nationalist community bring to attention, an assault to the PSNI - and the PSNI ridicule them, and are later seen laughing with the loyalists who committed the assault - it breaks that trust.

It's common scenarios like this that you are conveniently skewing past, as if it has no bearing on the subject at all.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If a section of society insists on saying "we refuse to co-operate with the police because (insert justification here)", they are hampering the ability of the police to function effectively, which helps to perpetuate the excuse of refusing to co-operate with an ineffective police force, ad nauseam.

But the police are not functioning effectively, or fairly - even when information is brought to their attention. Under whatever misguided overview you have of the PSNI - you seem to believe that they are acting accordingly, and deserve the trust of the community.

oscarBravo wrote: »

They're the police. They're the only police force that exists in Northern Ireland.

So was the Gestapo. What's your point?

oscarBravo wrote: »

You co-operate with them, or you create the conditions for anarchy, violence and terrorism to flourish.

When they earn the trust of the people - the people will be more willing to co-operate with them. Until they earn it, the people will not co-operate.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't understand how, when faced with the choice of tacitly supporting terrorists or reluctantly working with an imperfect police force, people can feel that they are justified in choosing the former.

And there you go again, making accusations of supporting terrorists. Not engaging with a biased, corrupt police force does not equate to supporting terrorism. The said people might disagree greatly with attacks - but to say that they support them because they are not willing to engage with a police force that has routinely betrayed them is disingenuous and hyperbolic nonsense.

oscarBravo

dlofnep wrote: »

And what happens when those said citizens are betrayed by members of the said police force, routinely? You seem to be under the impression that the onus is entirely on the citizens to create trust.

When members of the nationalist community bring to attention, an assault to the PSNI - and the PSNI ridicule them, and are later seen laughing with the loyalists who committed the assault - it breaks that trust.

It's common scenarios like this that you are conveniently skewing past, as if it has no bearing on the subject at all.

That's why there's a police ombudsman.

But the police are not functioning effectively, or fairly - even when information is brought to their attention. Under whatever misguided overview you have of the PSNI - you seem to believe that they are acting accordingly, and deserve the trust of the community.

I haven't expressed a belief in the effectiveness or fairness of the PSNI. I've pointed out that they have the responsibility to prevent terrorism by arresting terrorists and bringing them to trial.

You are clinging to belief that it's perfectly acceptable to allow terrorists to remain at large, just because the police aren't perfect.

So was the Gestapo. What's your point?

Godwin would be proud.

When they earn the trust of the people - the people will be more willing to co-operate with them. Until they earn it, the people will not co-operate.

And as long as people refuse to co-operate, other people will be wounded, maimed and killed by the terrorists that they are tacitly shielding.

And there you go again, making accusations of supporting terrorists. Not engaging with a biased, corrupt police force does not equate to supporting terrorism. The said people might disagree greatly with attacks - but to say that they support them because they are not willing to engage with a police force that has routinely betrayed them is disingenuous and hyperbolic nonsense.

You can dress up a refusal to help prevent murder in any way you like, but it's still a refusal to help prevent murder.

junder

dlofnep wrote: »

Not all officers are an extension of the RUC. There are new elements. But you're living under a rock if you don't believe that elements of the old RUC exist today.

yes there are new elements, about 30% 'new elements' if memory serves me correct which has radicaly changed the nature of policing in northern ireland, its also why dissidents are specfically targeting these 'new elements' in order to try and scare catholics from joining the PSNI which then allows people like you to complaign how much the PSNI is like the RUC. You say you were mistreated by the PSNI can you substanutate the alligation of mistreatment. Did you report this alleged mistreatment to the ombudsmen since if you were indeed mistreated then highlighting this alligation with the ombudsmen is one of the best ways of insuring police officer do not get away with mistreating anybody.