North & South

rsynnott

oscarBravo wrote:

I've asked 79cortinaz this, and didn't get a straight answer: how do PSNI officers identify Republicans and/or Catholics in order to harass them?

It's tatooed on the back of their necks

m1ke

Another North/South thread..... only worth responding to because of a minority of interesting posts.

MT: I think you overestimate the effect of 19th century revivalist ethnic nationalism. Yes, the narrative of constitutional nationalism was well and truly broken in the nineteenth century, which is a shame. However, underlying British political culture and liberalism has no doubt survived and found its way into the Free State in 1922 - it's obviously not something many people would wish to acknowledge but there is plenty of evidence. It definitely took the sting out of the ethnic nationalism and strengthened the pro-treaty compromise position. It also overpowered some tendencies and strands of thought and action toward authoritarian government and dictatorship that could have been a possibility(e.g army mutiny, blueshirts, and further evidence of authoritarian nature of both pro/anti treaty republicans) and was a reality elsewhere in Europe.

Essentially, our adaptation of British political culture and institutions is what saved us from becoming a state similar to Nazi Germany. It allowed us to continue happily on our way for seventy years and develope into a NORMAL European state unlike the basket-case that is Northern Ireland. We're well and truly path dependent on a route of normal development now in the south. This means that for the vast majority of people - although they may want a UI, it is but an abstract thought whose implications would never be fully considered as it is so far from ever being a likely reality. However, you illustrated the degree to which abstract thoughts can cause some negative behaviour. I personally find this is illustrated and embodied by SF-IRA who should be handled like the corrosive/fissile material that they are - contained and properly managed like you would a nuclear power plant. I think some of the other norms that you question: lack of faith in institutions, clientelism etc... have only some origins in the belief in a UI but are mostly legacy issues that are on the wane as secularisation, urbanisation, liberalisation etc.... continue full speed as they are.

murphaph

FTA69 wrote:

A weapon [plastic bullet] that police force continues to use indiscriminately.

Seems from some basic googling that the PSNI didn't fire any plastic bullets between October 2002 and February 2004 at least. I have been unable to find any information for the months since but I personally don't recall seeing any reported firings of baton rounds in the media. Perhaps you could clarify with some statistics FTA69. Cheers.

FTA69

Murphaph, by continued use I meant that the PSNI has not broke from the use of this weapon, one used to such deadly effect on minors and civilians by the RUC. The fact they continue to purchase them in large amounts is also worrying.

I've asked 79cortinaz this, and didn't get a straight answer: how do PSNI officers identify Republicans and/or Catholics in order to harass them?

And I answered you, your religion/political persuasion can usually be determined by your place of residence. For instance, what people would you expect to find in Ballymurphy or South Armagh? As for Republicans, the police tend to keep tabs on us oscar so the identification part there isn't to hard.

Well, there's one sure-fire way to piss a police officer off. How do you expect to be treated civilly by the police when you ignore them? It's not exactly polite.

Polite? I give my name, address and date of birth, I am not obliged to give anything else. I am also not obliged to answer the string of threats, insults and idiotic questions put to me by gombeens on a power trip. I have frequently told I will be "got", "done" etc as well as been threatened with a "hiding" for being a "smartarse". ("Smart" being defined by my pointing out of my rights)

This goes back to my own experience with the RUC (haven't had any dealings with the PSNI) which were never anything but courteous - an experience reflected over and over again by other posters on this board.

What people on boards.ie say "over and over again" does not necessarily reflect the majority of peoples' experiences of them oscar. As I said, the victims of RUC murders, beatings, torture, harassment, sectarianism and collusion with death-squads would all have a different story to tell.

I'd dearly love to hear the other side of that conversation. But what am I saying? Obviously you didn't need to open your mouth. While you were ignoring him, his built-in Republican detector probed your mind and told him your nationality and political beliefs. Right?

As I said before, there wasn't another side to the conversation beyond me giving my details. Since I was on a protest carrying a placard at the time I don't think he needed a probe to be honest.

Pragmatism?

I wouldn't say so.

...which will be hastened, no doubt, by helpful visitors from Free West Waterford doing their bit for peace, stability and inter-community relations in the North.

So I'm to blame for the non-implentation of the Patten reforms am I?

rsynnott

FTA69 wrote:

collusion with death-squads

You keep mentioning this; is this ongoing currently? Evidence?

FTA69

It isn't ongoing in the sense the crown forces are setting up Republicans to be killed, but the apparatus of collusion has certainly not been dismantled. The Special Branch, a body completely immersed in that policy, remains intact and active on a political level. The positions of organisations such as MI5 and the shadowy Force Research Unit have also not been addressed.

rsynnott

So, what you're saying is that there exists the possibility that the police might some day collude in murder? Just like police everywhere else in the world, in fact? Or is there more to it than that?

FTA69

And what other supposedly reputable police forces retain organisations which have colluded with death-squads in the past? While the organisation still exists and still remains active the broader police force cannot be trusted at all.

rsynnott

FTA69 wrote:

And what other supposedly reputable police forces retain organisations which have colluded with death-squads in the past? While the organisation still exists and still remains active the broader police force cannot be trusted at all.

On that logic you'd have to scrap the Gardai over Donegal, you know. If those activities were continuing with police support, that would be a big problem. Do you have any evidence that they are?

FTA69

I never said that they were continuing to have Republicans killed, I said the apparatus of the collusion policy remains in existance and as such should be demolished.

On that logic you'd have to scrap the Gardai over Donegal, you know.

Eh...no. Who's calling for "scrapping" the police? The police should be reformed to prevent collusion/Donegals happening elsewhere. Surely that is a sentiment that cannot be disagreed with?

murphaph

FTA69 wrote:

....by continued use I meant that the PSNI has not broke from the use of this weapon...

Hold on just a second! You said the PSNI continue to use plastic bullets indiscriminately. I say that they haven't used them at all since October 2002 to my knowledge, never mind indiscriminately. This is NOT continued use. The PSNI aren't the only police force in the western world to retain riot control weaponry such as plastic bullets. You should be happy that they haven't needed to actually discharge them since 2002 and not be making up stories to suit your position.

What would you like the PSNI to defend themselves/others with when under attack by a mob? Lead bullets? They have to have something!

Here's a quote from the SDLP's (the original nationalist civil rights party!) summary of 3 years of Patten reforms;

14. No plastic bullets have been fired in over 2 years. The firing of every police plastic bullet is investigated by the Police Ombudsman.

FTA69 wrote:

The Special Branch, a body completely immersed in that policy, remains intact and active on a political level.

Eh, again, according to the SDLP;

8. Special Branch is gone. New accountable structures have been put in place instead which in the words of the Oversight Commissioner “meet the best practice requirements of any police force in the world.”

9. Reforms to security policing go far beyond what Patten recommended. The Blakey, Stevens and Crompton reports have all been implemented – bringing about the end of Special Branch.

If I was to pick a political party who could claim civil rights was at the core of their agenda it would be the SDLP at the top of my list.

All quotes from here

tomMK1

hold on a minute. just because its posted on the internet doesnt make it true ... and special branch gone? because the SDLP say that? I'd waager the special branch have just moved to someother part of the ruc (as they call their social club)

Reading through this forum, I dont think I will contribute too much - theres far too many Sun reading non-thinkers who dont seem to be able to forge their own opinions without falling back to the standard anti republican lines.

oscarBravo

FTA69 wrote:

And I answered you, your religion/political persuasion can usually be determined by your place of residence. For instance, what people would you expect to find in Ballymurphy or South Armagh?

Unless you can demonstrate that every resident of a "nationalist" area is routinely harassed - including the protestant/unionist residents, for such there are - then your answer holds no water. I know Northerners who live in nationalist areas and who have no difficulty with the police.

FTA69 wrote:

Polite? I give my name, address and date of birth, I am not obliged to give anything else.

You evidently have a radically different concept of "polite" to mine.

FTA69 wrote:

What people on boards.ie say "over and over again" does not necessarily reflect the majority of peoples' experiences of them oscar.

With respect, I somehow doubt your version of events is any more representative.

It is interesting to note, however, that there's a pattern in the behaviour of the police with regard to the behaviour of the people who talk about their experiences. In all my dealings with the RUC, I answered the questions I was asked in a polite manner, and was dealt with equally politely - in one case, an officer turned a blind eye to a minor traffic offence. In your case, you wave placards and give cheeky answers, and you're surprised when you get a hostile response?

FTA69 wrote:

I wouldn't say so.

In that case, you'll naturally be equally opposed to the pragmatism that has seen convicted murderers released onto the streets?

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

I've asked 79cortinaz this, and didn't get a straight answer: how do PSNI officers identify Republicans and/or Catholics in order to harass them? Well, there's one sure-fire way to piss a police officer off. How do you expect to be treated civilly by the police when you ignore them? It's not exactly polite.

Ive stopped using the 79cortinaz name, as I wouldnt want the band of the same name to get tarred with the same brush.

I answered your question but you ignored me. My answer was I have no idea how the RUC know your religion, but they certainly knew mine. Again though, if you have lived in the north, you'll realise the social aspect behind life where you see how people are treated differently by the security forces depending on their political and religious beliefs. if you havent witnessed that then no-one can explain it for you. and if you havent witnessed it and you still lived in the north then thank god for the nice neighbourhood you would have been brought up in (or anyone who lived there and didnt notice these things)

Dont slap yourself on the back too quick for a) asking a silly question and b) ignoring my initial reply. I find the anti republican element on this forum doesnt like getting answers (and they ignore them when they do) plus they generally disbelieve anything that doesnt suit them. Personally, I cant see any point in trying to debate with such closed-minded people.

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

hold on a minute. just because its posted on the internet doesnt make it true ... and special branch gone? because the SDLP say that? I'd waager the special branch have just moved to someother part of the ruc (as they call their social club)

You can wager what you want, but the way this forum works is that if you make a claim, you're supposed to back it up. Given a choice between what the SDLP state publicly and what some anonymous boards.ie poster says is his unsupported opinion, I think I'll go with the SDLP.

tomMK1 wrote:

Reading through this forum, I dont think I will contribute too much - theres far too many Sun reading non-thinkers who dont seem to be able to forge their own opinions without falling back to the standard anti republican lines.

You could remove the word "anti" from that sentence without altering its validity in the slightest.

Or, of course, you could engage in reasoned debate.

tomMK1

of course you could actually answer my point about using ther web to 'prove' things. You can back up any claim using the internet. How about being a smart arse instead?

Theres no point in trying reasoned debate - us republicans on here have fairly few reasonable people to debate with, as in people who answer questions and make valid points.

tomMK1

tomMK1 wrote:

of course you could actually answer my point about using ther web to 'prove' things. You can back up any claim using the internet. How about being a smart arse instead?

Theres no point in trying reasoned debate - us republicans on here have fairly few reasonable people to debate with, as in people who answer questions and make valid points.

I see and you come to that conclusion after 5 posts....

Or should I say 79 cortinez.

You shall be receiving a pm from me in 5 or 10 minutes

tomMK1

excuse me but i came to that conclusion after months of reading this forum. 'Banned' no doubt. Ah well, thats the price of free speech

tomMK1

btw earthman, I stated I was 79Cortinaz and why I wasnt using that username any further. Its in one of the other threads.

oscarBravo

tomMK1 wrote:

I answered your question but you ignored me. My answer was I have no idea how the RUC know your religion, but they certainly knew mine.

That's not an answer, it's an evasion. You claim to have been harassed because of your religion, and fail to explain how the police could have known your religion. That lends credence to my belief that there must have been some other factor that led to the harassment.

tomMK1 wrote:

Again though, if you have lived in the north, you'll realise the social aspect behind life where you see how people are treated differently by the security forces depending on their political and religious beliefs. if you havent witnessed that then no-one can explain it for you. and if you havent witnessed it and you still lived in the north then thank god for the nice neighbourhood you would have been brought up in (or anyone who lived there and didnt notice these things)

I have visited various parts of the North many times (most recently a couple of weeks ago). I have in-laws who lived and worked in various parts of the North for several years. I have never seen or heard anything to suggest that merely being Catholic or Nationalist is sufficient to get you harassed.

tomMK1 wrote:

Dont slap yourself on the back too quick for a) asking a silly question and b) ignoring my initial reply. I find the anti republican element on this forum doesnt like getting answers (and they ignore them when they do) plus they generally disbelieve anything that doesnt suit them. Personally, I cant see any point in trying to debate with such closed-minded people.

a) I didn't ask a silly question, I asked (in my view) a highly pertinent question, and b) you didn't actually answer it.

tomMK1

oscarBravo wrote:

That's not an answer, it's an evasion. You claim to have been harassed because of your religion, and fail to explain how the police could have known your religion. That lends credence to my belief that there must have been some other factor that led to the harassment. I have visited various parts of the North many times (most recently a couple of weeks ago). I have in-laws who lived and worked in various parts of the North for several years. I have never seen or heard anything to suggest that merely being Catholic or Nationalist is sufficient to get you harassed. a) I didn't ask a silly question, I asked (in my view) a highly pertinent question, and b) you didn't actually answer it.

In all honestly, as far as Im aware there was no 'some other fact' that led to harrassment.

If you insist though, I'll tell you what I think. A particularly ignorant neighbour of ours was a part time UDR soldier. This guy was very very anti catholic and knew all the catholics in our area. He was regularly on patrol with the RUC. I suppose, he could be one of the many many ways the RUC
could find out who wasnt one of their own, and therefore open to harrassment.

Sill though, you do not need to annoy the RUC to get harrassed. If you dont believe that, then fine, but in my experience thats true.

murphaph

tomMK1 wrote:

hold on a minute. just because its posted on the internet doesnt make it true

You're right, so I should disregard the following because it's on the internet;

tomMK1 wrote:

... and special branch gone? because the SDLP say that? I'd waager the special branch have just moved to someother part of the ruc (as they call their social club)

tomMK1 wrote:

Reading through this forum, I dont think I will contribute too much - theres far too many Sun reading non-thinkers who dont seem to be able to forge their own opinions without falling back to the standard anti republican lines.

Think about this for a moment. 20, perhaps even 10 years ago, the IRA itself, nevermind SF had massive support in the Republic (I wasn't one myself). That support has completely faded away bar one or two people (who all seem to be on boards ). Why is that? I'd put it to you that it's because people down south can see that if there ever was a need for the IRA, that need has certainly long since passed and the longer the IRA fail to decommision, the less and less people trust their political wing. Republicanism is fine in itself, but backed up with criminality it is not (Australian Republicans don't have an arsenal of weaponry).

tomMK1

murphaph - look, i would really really love to able to say 'I agree with you - everythings fine enough these days, all is well' - but I'd be lying to myself and everyone if I did.

I cvhallange you to find the criminality aspects within Sinn Fein. Active, current criminality - not something someone once in SInn Fein done 10 years ago.

Its impossible to stae if the PIRA are involved in criminality. Smuggling for example, is something people on the border do - including republicans - but it isnt just a republican thing. It happens because of the border, not because of the IRA.

The RIRA, INLA etc admittedly have been involved in criminality and if you use the term 'republicanism' in the wide context then yes, there is criminality (just like in business and politics too) but I have yet to be convinced that theres criminality in the PIRA and SF ..as in crime not spurred by political unrest.

I honestly dont believe the British Government want peace - I really dont. Theres the policing issue - as was mentioned before, the RUC still have RUC in their social club name. Therefore to the PSNI, they still are the RUC - which isnt a good thing, since if they refuse to change that that basic level, then they surely havent changed much on the inside.

As i said, I would like to believe everything was working, but I dont believe it is, so therefore I cant agree with you.

axer

murphaph wrote:

Republicanism is fine in itself, but backed up with criminality it is not (Australian Republicans don't have an arsenal of weaponry).

And maybe thats why Australia is still a commonwealth state.

rsynnott

Call me crazy; I'd call blowing up children criminality.

tomMK1

call me even crazier but i cant remember Sinn Fein blowing up children thoug I do remember the British Army shooting unarmed and innocent civillians. Is the BA wrong and the IRA right? No ..... but innocent people getting killed is a factor of war. Dont point at the results of war, point at the causes of it - thats the only way to stop it.

murphaph

axer wrote:

And maybe thats why Australia is still a commonwealth state.

You reveal your true colours as a terrorist sympathiser with the above statement.

Australia remains in the commonwealth with HRH as head of state because that is the wish of the majority of the people of Australia (referendum recently held and failed). Democracy, get it?

murphaph

tomMK1 wrote:

call me even crazier but i cant remember Sinn Fein blowing up children thoug I do remember the British Army shooting unarmed and innocent civillians. Is the BA wrong and the IRA right? No ..... but innocent people getting killed is a factor of war. Dont point at the results of war, point at the causes of it - thats the only way to stop it.

Please don't compare cowardly IRA scum who leave high explosives in litter bins on a busy shopping precinct to blow up children with a real soldier who goes into battle with a rifle and a 50:50 chance of making it through the day.

rsynnott

tomMK1 wrote:

call me even crazier but i cant remember Sinn Fein blowing up children thoug I do remember the British Army shooting unarmed and innocent civillians. Is the BA wrong and the IRA right? No ..... but innocent people getting killed is a factor of war. Dont point at the results of war, point at the causes of it - thats the only way to stop it.

Well, in this case the cause is a bunch of terrorists who want to force something on a population that the majority doesn't want...

tomMK1

ehhh ... run that by me again? The SAS runn up to someone, say 'Im fighting you' and then has a game of fisty cuffs? Really, come on. thats airy fairy land you're living in.

No, 'real' soldiers, liek th ebritish army, kill innocent people, then plant guns on them, just like they done outside omagh in 1987 when they shot three people they know were republicans, then decided to arm them afterwards so they could say they shot in self defense. what gweat bwave soldiers.