SINN FEIN Can Have it both ways on Policing.

dlofnep

junder wrote: »

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.

It doesn't allow me to "complain" about the PSNI. I have legitimate reasons to complain about the behaviour of the PSNI, and I'd appreciate if you didn't belittle those reasons.

The nature of policing in the north is not radically changed. There are a few minor improvements, but because so many of the old firm are still the backbone of the PSNI - it still reflected to this day.

junder wrote: »

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.

Yes, they have all been reported and have been brought up by members of the DPP, and are continuously reported - but yet, the attitudes of many PSNI officers is still not changing. There is still routine harassment of nationalists, and still public ridicule.

Believe you me - I would love to see the face of policing really change, and I don't think it's right that anyone is being scared away from joining the PSNI. But those current members of the PSNI still must be accountable for their actions, and your belittlement of any issues we have had won't change that.

dlofnep

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's why there's a police ombudsman.

Of which no substantial changes are ever made. The Ombudsman can slap an officer on the wrist, but they cannot change the mindframe of some officers. That's the real issue.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't expressed a belief in the effectiveness or fairness of the PSNI.

No, but you've not accepted that a lack of faith in the PSNI plays a role in why people are not willing to engage with them.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

No I'm not, and nowhere did I say it's perfectly acceptable to allow terrorists to remain at large. I've explained why someone might not engage with the PSNI.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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. 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.

No, it's not. I'm not dressing up anything. I'm saying how it is. The PSNI would have more involvement from the community if they treated the people better.

FlutterinBantam

dlofnep wrote: »

It doesn't allow me to "complain" about the PSNI. I have legitimate reasons to complain about the behaviour of the PSNI, and I'd appreciate if you didn't belittle those reasons.

The nature of policing in the north is not radically changed. There are a few minor improvements, but because so many of the old firm are still the backbone of the PSNI - it still reflected to this day.



Yes, they have all been reported and have been brought up by members of the DPP, and are continuously reported - but yet, the attitudes of many PSNI officers is still not changing. There is still routine harassment of nationalists, and still public ridicule.

Believe you me - I would love to see the face of policing really change, and I don't think it's right that anyone is being scared away from joining the PSNI. But those current members of the PSNI still must be accountable for their actions, and your belittlement of any issues we have had won't change that.

And likewise the cowardly thugs who try to murder them must also be accountable for their actions.

Why do you think the PSNI may be wary of nationalists.?

Because they know that their potential murderers will almost certainly come from that quarter and hence need to be kept at arms length.

Have you any understanding of human behaviour, or do you conveniently put aside all the atrocities visited on the Police in NI.?

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

And likewise the cowardly thugs who try to murder them must also be accountable for their actions.

Nowhere did I disagree with this.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Because they know that their potential murderers will almost certainly come from that quarter and hence need to be kept at arms length.

You're going to have to explain how that excuses their harassment and misconduct.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Have you any understanding of human behaviour, or do you conveniently put aside all the atrocities visited on the Police in NI.?

I haven't studied psychology, have you?

I didn't put aside any atrocities visited on police. I was personally shocked that they would target that officer and felt that it was a retarded thing to do in the name of republicanism. I have sympathy for both him, and his family.

FlutterinBantam

dlofnep wrote: »

Nowhere did I disagree with this.

I never said you did.

dlofnep wrote: »

You're going to have to explain how that excuses their harassment and misconduct.

I never said it did

dlofnep wrote: »

I haven't studied psychology, have you?

I didn't put aside any atrocities visited on police. I was personally shocked that they would target that officer and felt that it was a retarded thing to do in the name of republicanism. I have sympathy for both him, and his family.

Well then maybe you might have some empathy with the PSNI as a force.

Now there are rotten apples in every barrel and there were more than the quota in the RUC, but surely a time has come to let the authorities handle that and move out of the dark ages.

K-9

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.

To me, this is where the problem lies. The Nationalist Community does not have a big problem with the PSNI, SOME do.

That element will always have an excuse to not support them, whether it be old RUC members or I suspect when that link ends, the PSNI is just the RUC with a new name.

The PSNI is gaining respect and legitimacy and it scares the dissidents as they lose power over their communities, the McCartney case being a good example.

FTA69

Waffle. What has McCartney got to do with dissident Republicans?

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Now there are rotten apples in every barrel and there were more than the quota in the RUC, but surely a time has come to let the authorities handle that and move out of the dark ages.

But as I've explained, the authorities aren't handling it. The mindframe of many PSNI officers needs to change. Before nationalists truly trust them to be impartial, it's the PSNI who are going to have to cease harassment, cease misconduct, and cease favouring loyalists.

These are extremely large problems which face the PSNI being accepted as a balanced policing service. It's not an issue of rotten apples in every barrel - it's the vast amount of rotten apples.

dlofnep

K-9 wrote: »

To me, this is where the problem lies. The Nationalist Community does not have a big problem with the PSNI, SOME do.

I would hazard a guess that it extends beyond "some".

K-9 wrote: »

That element will always have an excuse to not support them, whether it be old RUC members or I suspect when that link ends, the PSNI is just the RUC with a new name.

I'm sorry - but it's nothing to do with having an excuse not to support them. It's the PSNI's direct actions that resort in the lack of trust. Not nationalists actively seeking excuses. Nationalists don't envy being harassed, ridiculed and being treated as second class citizens.

K-9

dlofnep wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that it extends beyond "some".



I'm sorry - but it's nothing to do with having an excuse not to support them. It's the PSNI's direct actions that resort in the lack of trust. Not nationalists actively seeking excuses. Nationalists don't envy being harassed, ridiculed and being treated as second class citizens.

So you guess Most?

I accept there are still problems, I don't think you can accept that some will always have issues with the PSNI, no matter what they do. Some will always have problems with the Guards, some just hate law and order authorities.

dlofnep

K-9 wrote: »

So you guess Most?

I accept there are still problems, I don't think you can accept that some will always have issues with the PSNI, no matter what they do. Some will always have problems with the Guards, some just hate law and order authorities.

Oh, I 100% agree with you that some will always have an issue with the PSNI.

But that's not what I'm discussing. What I'm discussing is the behaviour of the PSNI, that drives the nationalist community further and further away from them. I've witnessed it personally, and my friends have been viciously harassed.

If the PSNI want people to engage, they need to change.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

If the PSNI want people to engage, they need to change.

Surely any problems will be resolved, or at least lessened, if Nationalists continue to join the police service? What solution would you propose?

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

Surely any problems will be resolved, or at least lessened, if Nationalists continue to join the police service? What solution would you propose?

I would propose more accountability, and devolution of policing and justice for a start. Secondly, an investigation into any misconduct by officers - to weed out the bad elements, and remove them from their position, or suspend them without pay where required - depending on the act. The current situation with an ombudsman trying to scour through 100's of reports just won't cut it.

What you fail to understand is that many nationalists do not see the PSNI as a legitimate force, and do not accept British presence in Ireland. For those who accept the PSNI as a temporary measure, the PSNI will need to be completely overhauled in order to gain the trust of these people.

I think you are confusing nationalists and catholics. They are not the same thing. Not many nationalists are in the PSNI.

FlutterinBantam

dlofnep wrote: »

Oh, I 100% agree with you that some will always have an issue with the PSNI.

But that's not what I'm discussing. What I'm discussing is the behaviour of the PSNI, that drives the nationalist community further and further away from them. I've witnessed it personally, and my friends have been viciously harassed.

If the PSNI want people to engage, they need to change.

Surely the corollary is also valid, if the nationalist community want the PSNI to change, maybe adopt a less confrontational attitude, and don't encourage youths to stone the forces of law and order, either overtly or covertly..

Kerb painting only serves to drive people into their own enclaves and operate from there.

Only by people accepting that there were wrongs on both sides will issues like this be resolved.

Idealistic bigots hiding in kerb painted ghettos won't solve anything.

Anyone with a modicum of anthropological training could see that.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Surely the corollary is also valid, if the nationalist community want the PSNI to change, maybe adopt a less confrontational attitude, and don't encourage youths to stone the forces of law and order, either overtly or covertly..

No, sorry - it doesn't work like that. No single person is accountable for the nationalist community. Furthermore, the nationalist community is divided into sub-groups.

The PSNI is, or at least should be accountable however - and therefore the process needs to start with them. You cannot excuse misconduct by the PSNI, because some Johnny Randomer threw stones at them 2 weeks prior to an event.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

I would propose more accountability, and devolution of policing and justice for a start.

I don't see how devolution of P&J will do anything to solve the problem of trust.

dlofnep wrote: »

What you fail to understand is that many nationalists do not see the PSNI as a legitimate force

I hardly need to say that lots of folk didn't find the Republican approach to "community policing" in the past legitimate . Part of the reason (admittedly only a small part) why the RUC, when it existed, failed to build any links with the Nationalists in the past was because of IRA intimidation. They were never likely to get much support in those quarters, the IRA made sure they didn't get any.

dlofnep wrote: »

and do not accept British presence in Ireland.

So you say. Although I am genuinely puzzled as to how that view can be squared with voting for GFA as most of SF did. Whatever about future aspirations, the agreement affirmed British jurisdiction currently in NI. This adds to my suspicion that the GFA was embraced by republicans because they think it will lead to a UI. But they will happily ditch it if is transpires that that will not happen.

dlofnep wrote: »

I think you are confusing nationalists and catholics. They are not the same thing. Not many nationalists are in the PSNI.

I do know the difference . Although I recall a former house mate of the Republican persuasion trying to make the argument that there was currently a Nationalist majority in NI by counting all catholics amongst their number!

FlutterinBantam

dlofnep wrote: »

No, sorry - it doesn't work like that. No single person is accountable for the nationalist community. Furthermore, the nationalist community is divided into sub-groups.

The PSNI is, or at least should be accountable however - and therefore the process needs to start with them. You cannot excuse misconduct by the PSNI, because some Johnny Randomer threw stones at them 2 weeks prior to an event.

Of course I cannot excuse misconduct, but I can understand the psychological
reaction when a group of probably dole sponging youths stone people out doing their job.

You seem to equate the PSNI as an entity, when in fact it's made up of human individuals who, in fooking fairness to them, get a bit fookin angry when people lob rocks at them for no apparent reason, other than that they are there.

I'm not in the PSNI but I'm quite sure if i was out doing my job and a group of nationalist youths started lobbing rocks at me I would probably apply a stout police boot to the clockweights of the next nationalist yobbo I came across.

it's human nature, violence begets violence, when will the idealists and kerbpainters get a handle on that.

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

I don't see how devolution of P&J will do anything to solve the problem of trust.

You don't see how more localised, accountable legislation in which nationalists will have a say will not improve trust? Fair enough.

lugha wrote: »

I hardly need to say that lots of folk didn't find the Republican approach to "community policing" in the past legitimate .

And the alternative was no better.

lugha wrote: »

Part of the reason (admittedly only a small part) why the RUC, when it existed, failed to build any links with the Nationalists in the past was because of IRA intimidation. They were never likely to get much support in those quarters, the IRA made sure they didn't get any.

But in most part, it was derived from a sense of superiority by unionist dominated RUC, that they could walk all over the nationalist community and get away with it (and they did get away with it). The RUC failed to build links with the nationalist community because of it's actions to them.

lugha wrote: »

So you say. Although I am genuinely puzzled as to how that view can be squared with voting for GFA as most of SF did.

I never stated Sinn Féin. I stated that there were some elements of the nationalist community who do not accept policing as legitimate.

lugha wrote: »

Whatever about future aspirations, the agreement affirmed British jurisdiction currently in NI. This adds to my suspicion that the GFA was embraced by republicans because they think it will lead to a UI. But they will happily ditch it if is transpires that that will not happen.

It was agreed on by Republicans for a number of reasons - I would hazard a guess that most saw it as a peaceful route to achieving independence.

lugha wrote: »

I don't see how devolution of P&J will do anything to solve the problem of trust.

You don't see how more localised, accountable legislation in which nationalists will have a say will not improve trust? Fair enough.

lugha wrote: »

I hardly need to say that lots of folk didn't find the Republican approach to "community policing" in the past legitimate .

And the alternative was no better.

lugha wrote: »

Part of the reason (admittedly only a small part) why the RUC, when it existed, failed to build any links with the Nationalists in the past was because of IRA intimidation. They were never likely to get much support in those quarters, the IRA made sure they didn't get any.

But in most part, it was derived from a sense of superiority by unionist dominated RUC, that they could walk all over the nationalist community and get away with it (and they did get away with it). The RUC failed to build links with the nationalist community because of it's actions to them.

lugha wrote: »

So you say. Although I am genuinely puzzled as to how that view can be squared with voting for GFA as most of SF did.

I never stated Sinn Féin. I stated that there were some elements of the nationalist community who do not accept policing as legitimate.

lugha wrote: »

Although I recall a former house mate of the Republican persuasion trying to make the argument that there was currently a Nationalist majority in NI by counting all catholics amongst their number!

I'm sure he did. But we all know the original nationalists were protestant anyways.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Of course I cannot excuse misconduct, but I can understand the psychological
reaction when a group of probably dole sponging youths stone people out doing their job.

Nice sweeping generalization there.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You seem to equate the PSNI as an entity, when in fact it's made up of human individuals who, in fooking fairness to them, get a bit fookin angry when people lob rocks at them for no apparent reason, other than that they are there.

I'm not sure what individual incidents like this have to do with harassment, ridicule and intimidation of normal, everyday people. You're once again trying to excuse the actions of the PSNI, because some youths may or may not have thrown stones at some of them.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'm not in the PSNI but I'm quite sure if i was out doing my job and a group of nationalist youths started lobbing rocks at me I would probably apply a stout police boot to the clockweights of the next nationalist yobbo I came across.

So, you'd attack an innocent person who happened to be nationalist, because some other people prior to that threw stones at you? Thankfully, you are not in the PSNI.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

it's human nature, violence begets violence, when will the idealists and kerbpainters get a handle on that.

It's human nature to harass and ridicule people without cause? No, that's a bigoted nature.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

You don't see how more localised, accountable legislation in which nationalists will have a say will not improve trust? Fair enough.

No I don't. I presume P & J will be just another ministerial port folio (presumably SF will take it) and as such any related legislation will require cross community support? So you will still have to deal with all those nasty Unionists! :P
I think a police force shaped by the British government (with their recently acquired post colonial guilt complex) has a far better chance of being acceptable to all sides in NI. But then, maybe that wouldn't do! :pac:

dlofnep wrote: »

And the alternative was no better.

Well I guess we see the world very different if you think knee capping and punishment beatings can be equated with the way the RUC dealt with such crimes.

FlutterinBantam

Once again, failure to even begin to understand human behaviour patterns and human psychology..

Typical of the action of some imaginary person who attaches themselves to every flyblown cause and with blind idealistic zeal, tries to purport that the divisions,the rights and wrongs, of every side, are black and white.

These people are everywhere my friend, fertile ground for the hard eyed purveyors of instability, who see the weakness in their makeup and seek to exploit it to the full.

Fertile ground indeed, but ground which quickly sours and becomes a rancid desert of hatred and bigotry and stifles the seeds of hope and understanding as soon as they are planted.

Needs to be ploughed and harrowed and a new crop grown;)

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

No I don't. I presume P & J will be just another ministerial port folio (presumably SF will take it) and as such any related legislation will require cross community support? So you will still have to deal with all those nasty Unionists! :P

Cross community support, opposed to no input whatsoever.

lugha wrote: »

I think a police force shaped by the British government (with their recently acquired post colonial guilt complex) has a far better chance of being acceptable to all sides in NI. But then, maybe that wouldn't do! :pac:

Doubtful.

lugha wrote: »

Well I guess we see the world very different if you think knee capping and punishment beatings can be equated with the way the RUC dealt with such crimes.

Which was to collude with loyalist terrorists, and murder innocent civilians when it suited them. If you're going to talk extremes - then there's the counter balance for it.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Once again, failure to even begin to understand human behaviour patterns and human psychology..

Typical of the action of some imaginary person who attaches themselves to every flyblown cause and with blind idealistic zeal, tries to purport that the divisions,the rights and wrongs, of every side, are black and white.

These people are everywhere my friend, fertile ground for the hard eyed purveyors of instability, who see the weakness in their makeup and seek to exploit it to the full.

Fertile ground indeed, but ground which quickly sours and becomes a rancid desert of hatred and bigotry and stifles the seeds of hope and understanding as soon as they are planted.

Needs to be ploughed and harrowed and a new crop grown;)

5 paragraphs, and you didn't address one thing I said. That has to be some kind of record.

FlutterinBantam

You are not listening;)

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

Which was to collude with loyalist terrorists, and murder innocent civilians when it suited them. If you're going to talk extremes - then there's the counter balance for it.

No, you compare like with like. And in terms of dealing with low level crime (stealing, joy riding etc) the IRA approach was barbaric.

As for the RUC "murdering" civilians. I often wondered if physical force republicans who engaged in guerrilla warfare which involved assassinating police officers and soldiers (as well as civilians!) were aware of the nauseating hypocrisy of crying "murder" when British forces responded in kind. The lads needed to make their mind up. Either it was a war situation or it wasn't. (It wasn't BTW )

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

No, you compare like with like. And in terms of dealing with low level crime (stealing, joy riding etc) the IRA approach was barbaric.

No disagreements from me there. I didn't agree with all that the IRA have done in the past.

lugha wrote: »

The lads needed to make their mind up. Either it was a war situation or it wasn't. (It wasn't BTW )

Soldiers on the streets of cities, engaging in murder of civilians - with military bases scattered across the place, oppressing the native population didn't constitute as a war? it wasn't a conventional war - but it was a war. And that didn't excuse the IRA, or the RUC, or the British army from killing civilians.

LordSutch

FTA69 wrote: »

Because as an Irish Republican I believe the British Army is the armed wing of the British occupation in this country and that they have no right to be in this country under force of arms.

Unreal :rolleyes:

FTA69 wrote: »

I won't be condemning youths who stone soldiers after they crash-land a helicopter into an area where they aren't at all welcome.

Totally unreal :rolleyes:

sceptre

Camelot, it works best for me as a moderator if you either engage with the discussion or don't bother posting. Posting "unreal" twice is not engaging. Feel free to agree or disagree with the thrust of the discussion or individual parts thereof, just make an actual effort. Kindly bear this in mind throughout the future.

Having said that, as a poster, I didn't get a response to my question posted (it's back a few pages) after the post you quoted. Might have been missed by FTA69, might have been conveniently ignored, who knows.

lugha

dlofnep wrote: »

Soldiers on the streets of cities, engaging in murder of civilians - with military bases scattered across the place, oppressing the native population didn't constitute as a war? it wasn't a conventional war - but it was a war.

If the IRA has ceased their illegitimate campaign, the British soldiers would have been out of NI decades earlier. And it was an illegitimate campaign because the did not have a mandate from the people the claims to represent. They claimed to be the proper government of Ireland acting on behalf of the people despite having minuscule support. They couldn't even command the support of a majority in their own community. Whatever the RUC / BA did, and they sinned far less that the IRA IMO, they did have authority, derived from the majority of the population in NI.

BTW, what constitutes "murdering civilians"? Does the ambush by the British army at Loughgall come under this heading?

dlofnep

lugha wrote: »

If the IRA has ceased their illegitimate campaign, the British soldiers would have been out of NI decades earlier.

Hold up a second, how was their campaign illegitimate? The people of Ireland did not vote on the partition of Ireland. Ireland was partitioned under duress, and subsequently thereafter - catholics were burnt out of their homes by protestants and harassed by policing.

There was no civil equality, and when the British Troops were sent to protect Catholics - they did anything but, and murdered 14 civilians in bogside, and a further 11 in Ballymurphy.

The IRA's war against the British army was 100% legitimate.

lugha wrote: »

And it was an illegitimate campaign because the did not have a mandate from the people the claims to represent.

One could argue that the Easter Rising didn't have a mandate, but that didn't mean that resistance wasn't just. Resisting an occupational force that murdered civilians on your streets, and colluded with loyalist terrorists was and will always be right.

lugha wrote: »

Whatever the RUC / BA did, and they sinned far less that the IRA IMO, they did have authority, derived from the majority of the population in NI.

And look at what they did with that said authority. Upheld civil inequality, murdered civilians, colluded with loyalists. They only represented the unionist population of the north - not all the people of the north.

lugha wrote: »

BTW, what constitutes "murdering civilians"? Does the ambush by the British army at Loughgall come under this heading?

Shooting a man dead in Derry, who's waving a white flag whilst trying to assist another wounded man is murder. Shooting a priest dead who's trying to come to the assistance of another shot civilian is murder.

Are you rejecting the claim that British troops murdered Irish civilians?