On the subject of context, I would look at Danny Morrison's words in the context of his IRA past.

He's managed to find - as republicans so often do of late - an argument to hit back at people who take perfectly reasonable stands on important matters.

It's the Provos who do the punishment beatings in republican areas. Mr Morrison is finding a long winded way of defending them in the light of that.

Still, that's his way of doing things. He's defended a lot worse.

Soapy,

That's the man well and truly kicked, any energy left for the ball?

barney - would you admit that this is a close call?

Davros,

Not even close.

But republican vigilantism (a propaganda gift to republican critics) was rough and imperfect, especially when the IRA was fighting an armed struggle and had little time for niceties.

abducting 2 kids from school and interrogating and executing the twin with learning difficulties "rough and imperfect" ? Pass the sickbag Alice....

Not even close.

and if Rev Wm McCrae wrote an article in Orange Weakly (sic) condoning Loyalist vigilante activities - and was described as a musician - you wouldn't think it appropriate to point out his Political activities and association with Loyalist paramilitary leader Billy Wright ?
OK.

And comparing Laim Kennedy to an invader from Mars for daring to criticise IRA punishment beatings in West Belfast? Is that not 'man not ball'?

I'm not related to Fanny, I'm afraid. Although there is an Aunt somewhere...

The thing is that a large amount of people feel the same way about the kind of nonsense spouted day and daily by this wordsmith and poet formerly known as the Lord Chief Justice.

As for ball and man, my observation is just that republicans have been doing a lot of spinning lately and Morrison is key to this. It's impossible not to play the man in stating that, and it certainly doesn't devalue the point.

I have covered what he said simply by saying that he sees it as his role to twist to truth when it hurts. Man, balls, whatever.

Davros

I thought Barney's point was that it would be nice to see someone play the ball as well, not instead of, the eminently playable Morrison. Certainly, if I play the man on here (and let's be honest, there's little more satisfying) I always try and take a sizeable chunk of ball with it. All the best tackles in footballing history (appart from the endlessly rehashed though beautifully timed Moore-on-Pele) take man ball and everything.

Well said MCT! Saved me from saying something similar!!

This thread is being heavily censored. Funny, given what's already widely in the public domain about this man.

Davros,
Re: McRea

Do you know where I can find such an article? The good Rev has not acknowledged his LVF links, so far as I know, but Danny Morrison's past is well known and he is totaly upfront about it. Danny attempts to give an insight into a republican mindsight without pretending to be anything other than a republican himself. What he says then shoul be of some interest to those outside the RM. He's regularly linked on Slugger and on every thread we have to wade through a litany of whataboutery (thanks) and a re-hash of his CV before, if, the content features. It would be nice to get some feedback on what he's saying but we live in hope.
Getting back to McRea, I'd love to read any article he has written on the loyalist condition.

Soapy:

Please note that in any prospective civil action, I'd be the one who'd carry the can for your words!

Now, please feel free to rip Mr Morrison's arguments to shreds, but leave the 'man' out of it!

Soapy Fanny,

"This thread is being heavily censored."

At least your soapy persona is still here.

soapy

Obviously he's going to put the best face possible on the RA's "community policing". But how do you see him as twisting the truth re what has to happen on paramilitarism and policing. I mean, his area of expertise, West Belfast, just endorsed the views he expresses by a staggering margin.

If you can only deride Danny Morrison when he's calling forthrightly for the demob of the IRA, what hope is there that non-republicans are ever going to treat the valid and legitimate concerns of republicans seriously.

I respect your call Mick, I'm just a shade bemused by what you have removed and what you have left.

Nevertheless, I hearby rip Danny Morrison's argument to shreds and, reluctantly, leave him intact.

Barney:
Brilliant one. I must remember that line.

Mick

I hate to sound like a Shinner requesting clarification, but can we take that as confirmation that man and ball at the same time is not a foul? ;-)

"poor and pitiful journalism that it is..." - Pot and Kettle comes to mind.

"buttress the prejudices of some loonies..." - I refer you to my above comment.

Now the serious point "Unionists will resist such change because they are terrified of a police force not in their image and at the prospects of republicans joining the PSNI in large numbers." - I will adress my comments directly to the author - Bollocks Danny. There may be some Unionists who feel this way just as there are some Republicans who will never respect any police force established under any conditions except in a UI but to tar all Unionists with the same brush in that way is to perpetuate a myth you yourself have accused others of doing to republicans.

MCT,

An endorsement of his views means nothing when it comes to the debate on whether he's twisting the truth or not.

Simply put, and I'll be as ball as possible, I don't believe Morrison's sincerity towards Kennedy's view, I don't believe he's honest about punishment beatings and I'm certain that nothing will make the PSNI acceptable to him for reasons which he will never honestly confess.

If people like me are supposed to take his views seriously, people like Danny Morrison will have to persuade me to do so. That's not up to me, it's up to him. That's how politics works. But I have no faith that he has any genuine interest in trying to do that.

Dessertspoon

I'm sorry, but the hatchet job done on Patten was proof positive of Danny's point and the fact that it was done by (so-called) unionist moderates gives the lie to your argument.

Patten was supposed to create a police force acceptable and attractive as an employer to the La Salle boys and St Louise's girls in West Belfast, not the Malone and Holywood boys and girls at Rathmore and OLSPCK. Its emasculation had one huge unintended bonus for unionists - it destroyed the pan-nationalist consensus. I strongly believe that had it not been fumbled policing would have unlocked the door to decommissioning and avoided the painful death of the Agreement.

The fact is, policing here remains very much unionist in makeup, approach, outlook and sensitivity to the nationalist community. Seven years on. I see leading republicans saying that paramilitarism needs to end. I see no unionists whatsoever saying policing needs to change. Indeed, I never have. Danny's point stands intact.

MCT - as owner and editor of the site, I reserve the right to use my own discretion on the matter! ;-)

soapy

are all 24,000 Adams voters and Kennedy rejecters twisting the truth? Their message is that West Belfast does not suffer under an IRA dictator`ship, policing needs to change for it to be acceptable and the RA need to go away. Don't you accept their sincerity towards Kennedy? How is Morrison twisting the truth?

and how can he persuade you other than writing articles like this? I have to wonder if you are being honest with yourself as to whether you are susceptible to persuasion.

...Danny's point 'stands intact' until SF join the policing board, at which point he'll be quietly dropped for a while, just like he was after blithering on for two years about decommissioning ("Not a bullet, not an ounce", eh Danny?)
Morrison is SF's publicity point man on issues like this, just far enough out of the movement to be wheeled out then hung out in that order as required. Anyone who hasn't noticed this by now simply isn't paying attention.

Mick

The Pierluigi Collina school of refereeing. Like it.

Fanny

But Danny is calling for republican involvement on the policing board, once policing gets sorted. SF can't join the policing board without new legislation. What do you suppose they're going to get for the RA going away, besides their money back?

MCT, would you care to outline a few bits of Patten that were "hatcheted" ? If you could point to the specific Patten recommendations it would help.

Even taking a pessimistic view, the document was about 90% implemented. Your point about the unionists' reluctance on change is definitely correct; I prefer to counter their arguments by contrasting their supposed support for policing with their close links to loyalist paramilitarism. In practice it turns out that unionism isn't the law-and-order upright body it would like people to think.

Regarding Morrison's argument, he says that republicans end up falling back on vigilantism because the police force is politically biased against them. If we accepted this, then what's the explanation for punishment attacks in loyalist areas (AFAIK, loyalists are doing a lot more of this than republicans at the moment) ? Are loyalists also discriminated against in the same way that republicans feel they are ?

Fanny: Morrison is SF's publicity point man on issues like this, just far enough out of the movement to be wheeled out then hung out in that order as required

I agree with Fanny in this respect - I think Danny flies Kites for SF and yet there is deniability.

barney Do you know where I can find such an article? The good Rev has not acknowledged his LVF links, so far as I know

Disingenuous in the extreme considering that you have participated in the board over the last month when McCrae's association with Wright on that platform was discussed on several threads. And there's no need to be smutty.

Mick - I argued it was a close call. The reason I would say there was ball as well as man was because it can be argued that Morrison was improperly represented by the Daily Ireland .... and THAT was the ball that was in play at the time of the tackle. It is perfectly proper to challenge dishonest journalism. If you blogged an article "written" by one J Adair carried , God forbid, by the Newsletter about the Man jailed yesterday for a sectarian attack on people he thought ( mistakenly) were protestants and using that as some sort of justification for the UDA - and was described as a local body-builder and pigeon fancier, I think barney and chums would make exactly the same sort of comments as were made about DM being described as he was in the DI article.

MCT,

I think most people would accept that politicians are known to twist the truth and still get votes. 24,000 voters are not twisting the truth, as you seem to think I believe, but they have voted for a party which does. But, as I say, all parties do.

Please believe my sincerity when I say that I don't believe Sinn Fein are interested in joining the Policing Board. I am convinced that they will find obstacles to put in the way for as long as is possible. Policing and republicanism aren't exactly natural bedfellows. The PSNI is a fine service and the government has bent over backwards, in the face of great hostility, to make it acceptable. Monitor it, examine it, scrutinise it and whatever else you want to do with it - but any reasoned, objective national or international finding, I contend, would say that SF are taking the piss when they say it's unacceptable.

SF doesn't like the police. It arrested and killed IRA members. IRA members killed lots more police. The police have changed dramatically. Republicans have not.

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm open to persuasion. I'm fair minded and was easily persuaded by the GFA and have supported every move of it, but have been disappointed again and again by republicans.

How do I become persuaded by republicans? Disband and decommission the IRA and talk on a level playing field.

On the subject of punishement beatings, it seems that those media outlets which criticise them the most (Daily Telegraph, The Times etc.) have as their readership the worst excesses of the 'hang them, flog them' right wing rump. (Oh, and I include the Dublin Independent in that - a paper which could boost their sales considerably by giving away free English accents with each edition)

I live in west Belfast - and voted Stoop (with a heavy heart) - and to be honest punishment beatings are very very very low on my list of considerations when I come to vote. .

If fact, truth be told - it doesn't really register at all.

As for Sinn Fein 'controlling' nationalist areas, well - what does that mean?

Are the people making these accusations trying to draw a parallel with the way the UDA controls large sections of the DUP's constituencies?

If so, then maybe they should concentrate on 'liberating' their own people from the yoke of loyalist terror rather than lecturing us on how we should 'rise up' against our 'oppressors.'

On a related point, well done to Raymond McCord who exposed the hypocrisy of the DUP in naming and shaming those allegedly involved in Robert McCartney's murder - yet the same party did and are doing eff all squared to help him get justice for his son who was murdered by the UVF.

Says it all, really.

Comrade Stalin

"If we accepted this, then what's the explanation for punishment attacks in loyalist areas (AFAIK, loyalists are doing a lot more of this than republicans at the moment?"

Punishment beatings in loyalist areas are not for terrorising the community but disputes over money, drugs and territory.

For the record, every punishment beating that ever took place was a stain on the soul of republicanism. I desperately want SF to join the PB, but on a sustainable basis which fully accommodates republican concerns.

The disputes on Patten and more generally on policing have been rehearsed to death here and elsewhere - they focus on the accountability of the CC to the PB, Special Branch , plastic bullets and remaining human rights abusers. Read the SF website section on the concerns which nationalism has reperatedly voted to endorse.

soapy

"SF doesn't like the police."

You don't get it. The nationalist community at large doesn't like the police. That's the problem. SF taps into a huge reservoir of discontent on policing. SDLP's downturn can be traced directly to joining PB. Every nationalist I have spoken to on this has more than one story of disrespect, mistreatment or aggression from police officers.

"I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm open to persuasion."

Please don't take that attitude.

"I'm fair minded and was easily persuaded by the GFA and have supported every move of it, but have been disappointed again and again by republicans."

The disappointment is mutual, principally because of policing and devolution.

"How do I become persuaded by republicans? Disband and decommission the IRA and talk on a level playing field."

Hmmm. "Drop your trousers, then we'll talk." Not that inviting to the average shinner, I shouldn't imagine. In the final analysis, the two things need to get fixed together (albeit with the RA jumping first).

"The PSNI is a fine service and the government has bent over backwards, in the face of great hostility, to make it acceptable."

Let me be very clear on this. I don't doubt for a second the personal courage of those who joined the RUC in time of war, and their commitment to working for the betterment of society as a whole. But they were and are creatures of that war, and they were and are creatures of one experience only. Policing in this society needs people whose idea of what society needs is fully refelctive of this divided community. at the moment, about a quarter of that society, adn well over half of the formerly discontent, remains discontent. When we continue to see apparently political policing and a CC making allegations against republicans without offering evidence, we are genuinely concerned that nothing has changed. Can you see that?

The nationalist community at large doesn't like the police.

Substantial numbers of them, certainly. However it's still a minority of a minority.

Davros

A majority of a minority, surely!

Davros,

Who's being disingenuous now? There's a big difference about our discussions and Mcreas confession. We may all believe that McRea is a paid up member of the LVF but I'm not aware of the man himself ever admitting it. Are you saying that he has effectively done this by being on the Billy Wright platform? I'm inclined to agree with you but the point is; McRea may not. Danny, however, is proud of his republican credentials and will happily talk about them whenever asked - without compromising others of course.
We all know Danny's history and it's hardly necessary to put his entire CV after everything he writes. You don't like the DI blurb but so what? RDE is usualy referred to as 'Historian', not the more accurate 'Pulp Fiction Hack', but so what?

"And there's no need to be smutty."
Care to enlarge on that?

M-C T - I don't think so. It obviously varies in line with locality and tradition, But If you have any figures I'm interested.

p.s I won't acccept SF out-polling the SDLP for several reasons, but mainly because SF didn't get the support of more than 50% of the nationalist electorate, only those who voted.

For what it's worth, I opposed the changes to the police at the time, not because I didn't want to see Catholics in the police (there's nothing I'd like more than to see something even close to representative numbers) but because I feared they would become impotent regards doing their job: policing.

In practice, I'm not sure if I was right or wrong. The police hardly had a 100% track record before, but I'm frustrated at the lack of convictions or progress on the Northern robbery, McCartney murder etc etc.

Regardless of that I will support the police just for trying. As far as the argument about plastic bullets goes, I think they should break them out more often - especially for the f**kers who think it a larf to lob bricks at firemen who risk their lives trying to save other people, without first stopping to find out if they're "one of us". Failing that, live rounds would do though.

We may all believe that McRea is a paid up member of the LVF but I'm not aware of the man himself ever admitting it. Are you saying that he has effectively done this by being on the Billy Wright platform?

barney, you do yourself no favours with this nonsense. I wrote of McCrae

"his Political activities and association with Loyalist paramilitary leader Billy Wright"

Political activities - DUP
Association with - shared platform and buried him.

Now, if you have something sensible to say, great. But don't waste space with childish games. I'm looking forward to a sensible discussion with M-C T. If I wanted to read your kind of nonsense I would be at dannymorrison.com

No, I don't care to enlarge on your juvenile attempts at humour.

MCT,

Don't take what attitude? And kindly don't tell me what attitude to take. You've been straying into man not ball territory with me, not the other way round. And yes, for your record, I do get it.

If it's too much to ask for the IRA to go away, then what's the point of anything? What was the agreement for? What is the ceasefire for? Why are we having this coversation? Can the people not stand on their own two feet without this bloodthirsty monster always around them? What is the IRA for? Why do you need it?

You tell me how troubled people are by the fact that the PSNI was born from the RUC, but are blind to the idea that the IRA is the one and same thing it has been all along. Republicans say a vote for SF is an endorsement of what it's doing today and that the past is in the past - but the PSNI is historically linked with the RUC so we have to rip the whole thing up?

I do get it. I so get it. I've got it for years. I'm sick of it. More and more people are sick of it. Please note the DUP's rise in the polls - a lot of that is because previously liberal people are sick of it too. Nationalist concerns are not the only ones that matter.

And, just to be clear, there is a sizable well of support for the PSNI in republican areas, not least west Belfast. It's sizable in the sense that it never used to be there. This is all down to the work of the police with the community and nothing to do with SF. You do yourself and the elctorate a disservice by extrapolating a complete and utter contempt for the PSNI from each and every SF vote.

Davros,

No need to take it out on me if you've painted yourself into a corner on McCrae's LVF life. You're a bit grumpy today, not getting enough old shag?

"I won't acccept SF out-polling the SDLP for several reasons, but mainly because SF didn't get the support of more than 50% of the nationalist electorate, only those who voted." ROTFL.

No need to take it out on me if you've painted yourself into a corner on McCrae's LVF life.

You made a fool of yourself - what's new ?

Well Said Soapy.

Davros

"I won't acccept SF out-polling the SDLP for several reasons, but mainly because SF didn't get the support of more than 50% of the nationalist electorate, only those who voted."

You won't accept as evidence the only reliable evidence which can possibly exist. That kind of makes my job impossible.

soapy

"Don't take what attitude? And kindly don't tell me what attitude to take."

I said please. It was an entreaty, not a rebuke.

"If it's too much to ask for the IRA to go away, then what's the point of anything?"

It's not. I have repeatedly said they should do so. The reality is, though, that they need some things in return. The nature of the statelet is that republicans have no bargaining counters other than guns. They won't give those away for free.

"Can the people not stand on their own two feet without this bloodthirsty monster always around them? What is the IRA for? Why do you need it?"

Grow up. You have your own bloodthirsty monsters, and far bigger than the RA.

"You tell me how troubled people are by the fact that the PSNI was born from the RUC, but are blind to the idea that the IRA is the one and same thing it has been all along. Republicans say a vote for SF is an endorsement of what it's doing today and that the past is in the past - but the PSNI is historically linked with the RUC so we have to rip the whole thing up?"

Settle down and discuss rationally. Republicans are talking about structured, measured reforms giving greater accountability and representativeness. Patten said nothing about ripping up.

"I do get it. I so get it. I've got it for years. I'm sick of it. More and more people are sick of it. Please note the DUP's rise in the polls"

Because the DUP get a few votes we're supposed to roll over and sing When Yer Man Gets The Ball? The fact that unionists reject our concerns don't make them less valid.

"- a lot of that is because previously liberal people are sick of it too."

have you something you want to tell us?

"Nationalist concerns are not the only ones that matter."

they have never mattered

"And, just to be clear, there is a sizable well of support for the PSNI in republican areas, not least west Belfast."

You mean Attwood's vanishing voters.

"You do yourself and the elctorate a disservice by extrapolating a complete and utter contempt for the PSNI from each and every SF vote."

I didn't. You do me a disservice by reducing my argument to caricature. My contribution here does not disclose a "complete and utter contempt for the PSNI", as a dispassionate, unemotional reading would show you.

Policing has been the issue on which SF have displaced SDLP. It was the only serious blue water between them in 2001. It remains the big point of difference. The people have spoken more eloquently on this than on any other issue in the history of the North.

Dessertspoon

You getting emotional too?

Read again:

"Let me be very clear on this. I don't doubt for a second the personal courage of those who joined the RUC in time of war, and their commitment to working for the betterment of society as a whole. But they were and are creatures of that war, and they were and are creatures of one experience only. Policing in this society needs people whose idea of what society needs is fully refelctive of this divided community. At the moment, about a quarter of that society, and well over half of the formerly discontent, remains discontent. When we continue to see apparently political policing and a CC making allegations against republicans without offering evidence, we are genuinely concerned that nothing has changed."

MCT,

I've done my bit of growing up, thanks. I can stand up on my own two feet. I can look around me and see that there are so many places so much worse off than us in so many ways but the people there have the guts and pride to live life to the full without threatening to smash everything up everytime they don't get attention.

And as for my 'bloodthisrty monsters,' I don't have any, I don't want any and I've never endorsed any. I have personally suffered from taking that view and I resent your ignorant suggestion, but I'm completely unsurprised. Deal with your clearly evident prejudices before heaping them on me.

Am I trying to tell you something? Yes. But you're not getting it. You won't get it. You don't want to get it. You want the police to fail, you want people to screw up, to destabilise and wreck. You exagerate, willing people to believe that everything but republicanism is rotten to the core and you believe that it is only right that no one gets anything until republicans get everything. It is a standpoint that I find repugnant.

I want peace and hope and prosperity and democracy. I increasingly feel that it is unattainable and that is very sad indeed.

Not a bit of wonder you feel it important to define yourself as middle-class. It's a snobbishness that infests you. If only you had a moment for other people - but that, like yourself, is a lost cause.

Soapy, I've found your last few posts very refreshing. It's unfortunately rare to see a Unionist viewpoint, that I agree with almost entirely, expressed so articulately.

soapy

do you want a tissue?

"And as for my 'bloodthisrty monsters'..."

Forgive me, when you accused me of having bloodthirsty monsters I assumed you meant the nationalist community. I hadn't realised you meant me personally. When I referred to "you" I meant the unionist community.

"You don't want to get it. You want the police to fail, you want people to screw up, to destabilise and wreck."

Untrue, unfounded and unfair. I want the GFA to work. It would be nice if someone else would acknowledge that my contributions do not reflect that accusation.

"I want peace and hope and prosperity and democracy."

Add justice and equality and we're in business.

"Not a bit of wonder you feel it important to define yourself as middle-class. It's a snobbishness that infests you. If only you had a moment for other people - but that, like yourself, is a lost cause."

A spectacular outburst. Was it cathartic? It was certainly the most comprehensive breach of the ball not man rule. Never mind.

Look, why don't we leave this and pick it up tomorrow - you're in no fit state for rational, measured discussion. I can go on scoring off you, but it'll get us nowhere. Honestly, you're wrong about me and republicans generally.

Beano, ah Beano

You tilting at windmillts too?

Is it so hard to take that fenians have a few bob now?

MCT,

You have a wonderful dimly-lit view of the world and I'm sorry to have rattled you by letting some sunlight in.

Ultimately we are getting nowhere and you are becoming increasingly obsessed with telling me and others that we are getting emotional and irrational. This is a slightly sad refuge, but a familiar one. Yes I do get emotional sometimes, but not over your good self. Bit long in the old tooth to get wound up by narrow, shallow yet thoroughly washed minds.

You keep on scoring those points of yours, boyo. Whatever helps you through the night. Now pack up and leave the office for that middle class home of yours. Sure you've done a wonderful day's work.

Ta ta.

Beano,

I thank you. MCT has been an amusing muse.

MCT what the hell has it got to do with having a few bob? A touch of that famed republican paranoia there?

I'm talking about the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein and how they've all magically converted from IRA to SF, but the PSNI is 'steeped in the blood' of the RUC! Or the "What is the need for the IRA?" What is the point of all the guff associated with the agreement if not to bring about that very eventuallity?

Not to mention the "You want the police to fail" part. I don't know if that's true of yourself, but it certainly seems to be true of a core part of the republican mindset for many.

Liam Kennedy was humiliated in a very public manner. I for one take great satisfaction from that event.

You won't accept as evidence the only reliable evidence which can possibly exist.

what % of the nationalist electorate voted SF ?
30% ? 35%?. That's not a majority of the minority.

Beano

I thought you endorsed soapy's views, including castigating me for describing myself as middle-class.

"What is the need for the IRA? What is the point of all the guff associated with the agreement if not to bring about that very eventuallity?"

Enlightening. For unionists, GFA was about nothing other than an end to the IRA. Forget equality, justice, fair policing, parity of esteem, an end to discrimination, demilitarisation. Just get rid of the RA.

Soapy

Nice to see you've composed yourself. It was a little unseemly there for a while. I'll allow you to retreat with you charming little fig-leaf of dignity.

"Now pack up and leave the office for that middle class home of yours. Sure you've done a wonderful day's work."

I know, don't remind me. This site's addictive. I need to start into my day's work now.

Liam Kennedy was humiliated in a very public manner.I for one take great satisfaction from that event.

That reflects badly on you pat IMO. At least he had the courage to stand for election. And was his "humiliation" any less than that of Mitchel M ?
Nobody expected Kennedy to get any sort of vote. SF were burying the SDLP a couple of weeks ago. Counting chickens before ....

Davros, by that (ludicrous) analysis, there's only a minority here in favour of retention of the Union. If you want compulsory voting, agitate for it. Otherwise, address reality.

Davros,

if it reflects badly on anyone it is Kennedy. Why pick out West Belfast yet again? It is the easy option when you want to get the 'terrorist community' point across.

As stated ad nauseum the majority of these attacks are emanting from within areas represented by unionist MP's. Would the Sindo scribes of Edwards and Harris as well as the Telegraph group have given him such support if he had chosen North Down or South Antrim. Areas with more than their fair share of these attacks.

Why not do a Lynda Gilby and put yourself forward in multiple constituencies. He didn't and chose instead to play off the tired old prejudices against West Belfast. The people didn't like it and gave the opportinistic carpetbagger a democratic wedgie. Brilliant.

In the Examiner, Sinn Fein MEPs refuse to support the McCartney's civil action, calling it a "murder pure and simple." It remains anything but.

No M-C T, I'm pointing out that you cannot extrapolate from a minority vote to claim that a majority distrust the Police. As for your point about the Union , where have I claimed that the UUP and DUP vote indicates anything in respect of the wishes of the broad Unionist community ?

Compare like with like. If I had been foolish enough to claim that the votes cast for the UUP and DUP Prove that the rest of the unionist community who didn't vote support the retention of the Union , then you would have a point.

The calibre of debater from your side of the fence has deteriorated badly of late.

you don't seem to realise that, while you say that the majority of the nationalist community oppose the police, there is a third option.

some support the police

some oppose the police

Some are undecided or inbetween or indifferent.

That's why I said that I reckoned that a minority of the minority OPPOSE the police. You don't seem to have the intellectual firepower to work out that that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm claiming that the majority of the nationalist community actually SUPPORT the police.

Sorry to be blunt.

Davros

Was that meant to rile me?

If so, it was a very limp attempt.

"I said that I reckoned that a minority of the minority OPPOSE the police. "

Actually, looking through the record, you were saying that a minority of the minority "don't like the police". In fact, I think we'd both moved on mentally to what we think the issue to be - you, to whether nationalist completely OPPOSE the police; me, to what proportion of nationalists believes the current arrangements to be satisfactory.

As we both know, it's infinitiely more complex than you or I suggest. Very few nationalists actually "support" the police in the sense unionists do - a bit like supporting Rangers, let's be honest (for most unionists nothing the police do against nationalists can ever be wrong). Many SDLP nationalists are prepared to tolerate the PSNI, to give them a chance under current arrangements, but that falls short of "support". Many republicans are prepared to work with and deal with the police when the police are fulfilling certain roles, and most privately acknowledge that the police are the only capable, competent civilian power.

But what we're talking about isn't supporting the police like supporting Manchester United. It's whether or not one believes that the current policing arrangements are satisfactory and represent the new beginning needed, or whether one believes more is needed on accountability, impartiality and transparency. There was a nationalist plebescite on that in 2003. SF won it hands down. The two subsequent elections have been more complex, but disclose no obvious change in the nationalist view.

Your minorityof minority thing is actually very dangerous. What you're doing is trying to further marginalise republicanism. For years we heard that the majority representatives of nationalism were the SDLP. Now that that's changed, we're told that the new majority reps are still minority reps. The UK's electoral system is predicated on the notion that those who vote are reflective of community opinion. Ultimately, in a border poll, non-voters won't count for the Union (although I suspect unionists would try to introduce compulsory voting).

btw, I'm awful sorry I haven't got the intellectual firepower to take you on - strange given that earlier you were looking forward to "a sensible discussion" with me. I guess your intellectual elysian fields are just not accessible to all of us; pardon me masser, I's jussa poor disedgicated fenian

Why pick out West Belfast yet again?

Because the sitting MP has been named as also sitting on the Army council would seem a reasonable guess pat.

By the Way - I just received an e mail complete with
W32.Mytob.BE@mm (virus) from the e-mail address you have provided. You may have a problem.

"pardon me masser, I's jussa poor disedgicated fenian"

No need to be racist, retraction please.
Sol.

For years we heard that the majority representatives of nationalism were the SDLP

when did I say that ? The discussion is between the two of us , not what others from my side of the tribal fence or the media have said in the past.

There's an important point that you ignore - because people vote SF doesn't mean they 100% agree with everything SF have in their manifesto. Ditto for ALL parties.

Less than 50 % of the eligible minority community voted SF. Therefore you cannot extrapolate from their recent electoral success on one issue to claim that it represents a majority of the nationalist community.

One last thing - If the present policing arrangements are unacceptable to nationalism and especially Sinn Féin, how come Sinn Féin were "within a photograph" of taking their places on the Policing boards ?

Sol

Wise up.

How was it racist?

It was parody challenging the view of American South slaves as uneducated and uneducable and comparing that with the view often expressed by unionists and Southern anti-republicans that Northern republicans are stupid, boorish and slow-learners.

Challenging prejudice using the medium of stereotype is not racist.

In fairness, Davros is not prejudiced in this way. I'm sure he knew it was tongue in cheek.

"Therefore you cannot extrapolate from their recent electoral success on one issue to claim that it represents a majority of the nationalist community."

Poppycock - people who win elections are accepted as leading the constituency in which they win them. I'll indulge you no further in this mindless omphaloskeptic diversion.

"If the present policing arrangements are unacceptable to nationalism and especially Sinn Féin, how come Sinn Féin were "within a photograph" of taking their places on the Policing boards?"

Presumably cos part of the deal was on policing.

Crikey M-C T - most people I know, Prod and RC , think that Northern Republicans are far too feckin' clever and that the problem for Unionism was that the Unionist Party threw people like Capt'n Long - land-owners and minor members of the arse'o'crockery in positions of power because of who they were rather than their talents - up against them. Smart and articulate people like Bernadette Devlin chewed them up and spat them out.

Poppycock - people who win elections are accepted as leading the constituency in which they win them.

the death penalty proves you wrong.

Presumably cos part of the deal was on policing.

What was to be changed that made such a HUGE difference ? How come it was acceptable to even the DUP ? I think you are struggling here mo chara ;)

BOOL
I dont care if you were trying to build the great wall of China.
You were using racial stereotypes, it was offensive, and it was undoubtedly racist.
I have no qualms with your argument, or Davros' argument.

Carry on

Sol
(Grumbling)

Sol

I'm sorry it offended you. Objectively, it was neither offensive nor racist, but plainly critical of prejudiced views.

Sure the DUP were going to let Gerry Kelly be MoJ

MCT, have you some sort of evidence for your accusations that the victims of loyalist punishment attacks have a different profile from the victims of republican ones ? You seem to be saying - and I'm sorry if I've misunderstood - that the victims of republicans are guilty and therefore the attacks are justifiable, whereas the victims of loyalists are just part and parcel of maintaining their criminal empire. Leaving aside the fact that republican punishment beatings have descended from rough justice right down to sheer brutality, child abuse and sadism (such as the kid who was tied to a railing and had iron spikes driven through his legs) I can't think of any possible source for your "republicans good, loyalists bad" assertion outside of good old tribal prejudice.

I agree that I'd like SF on the police board, although that's only once we've done something about the IRA. At the same time I sometimes wonder what the cost is going to be.

"The disputes on Patten and more generally on policing have been rehearsed to death here and elsewhere "

No they haven't actually. I can seldom get a straight answer on this. People come on and say things like "the Patten implementation has been a hatchet job" (which I take to mean "mostly not implemented"), and then they won't list the Patten provisions which they feel have gone missing. If you're in a position to say that the Patten report was hatcheted to bits, it should be a straightforward matter to list the specific clauses that were left out. People who make this argument strangely never seem to be able to do that. Could it just be that you're repeating a contrived party political line ?

"- they focus on the accountability of the CC to the PB, Special Branch , plastic bullets and remaining human rights abusers."

Show me the Patten recommendation concerning either of those four subjects which have been explicitly not implemented.

"Read the SF website section on the concerns which nationalism has reperatedly voted to endorse. "

SF's position on policing is far from clear and that means it is not possible to talk about what nationalism has or has not endorsed. On one hand they say they'd accept the full implementation, whatever that means, of Patten. On the other hand, they go round setting various preconditions that rather expressly go beyond Patten, including the requirement that SB be disbanded or that PBRs be completely banned.

In general, the reason I'm being specific about the implementation of Patten is that I believe certain elements are trying to make themselves sound reasonable by suggesting that there is some problem with the Patten implementation, rather than what I perceive to be the truth which is that not even the full 100% implementation of Patten would be satisfactory. As I see it, the truth is that a significant proportion of republicans will never support any police service period including the Garda. That fact needs to be taken into account when we want to discuss SF's sincerity on the issue.

By the way, nationalists including in areas dominated by Sinn Fein do not resolutely oppose the police.

I remember in, I think it was 1996, Donegal Celtic were about to play a football match against the RUC, until they were visited by certain people and "reminded" that they were supposed to keep away from the cops. I wonder how often nationalists in such areas have accidentally forgotten that they hated the RUC and wanted it disbanded, and had to be "reminded" in a similar fashion.

Comrade Stalin

I don't oppose the police. I'd like further police reform. Surely the distinction can be appreciated.

"You seem to be saying - and I'm sorry if I've misunderstood - that the victims of republicans are guilty and therefore the attacks are justifiable"

Was that when I said that "punishment beating that ever took place was a stain on the soul of republicanism"? Loyalist beatings are not filling a policing void. Republican ones often are, however horrific you and I find that.

"I can't think of any possible source for your "republicans good, loyalists bad" assertion outside of good old tribal prejudice."

I made no such assertion. I speak to my neighbours, nationalist and unionist. That's my source. If all you want to see is bigotry, then that is all you will see.

"Could it just be that you're repeating a contrived party political line?"

No, but I'm not your research gimp and can't be bothered getting into a sterile "yes-it-is-no-it-isn't" debate with you on every Patten clause. Fact is, a major legislative project took place to water down the original Patten recommendations at the behest of Trimble. They (and it seems you) couldn't accept a Tory grandee's view on what should happen on policing. What chance you'd accept what nationalists see as necessary?

I've pointed to the areas where work is needed. In any event, it's not merely the bare Patten which is needed, but action on the points I identified. I didn't set Patten as the only acceptable standard. I just pointed to the legislative hatchet job.

"As I see it, the truth is that a significant proportion of republicans will never support any police service period including the Garda."

Phew. That saved me the time futilely acting as your research gimp when you are resolved not to be persuaded on this issue.

"By the way, nationalists including in areas dominated by Sinn Fein do not resolutely oppose the police."

My point exactly. See my 6.36pm. They still want further police reform though. Thanks for telling me what nationalists think.

I thought it was ridiculous that DC were discouraged from playing that game. Having said that, I was a Hendron voter then. Not sure how I would react to the same thing happening now.

Your false consciousness and SF jackboot thesis is far wide of the mark. It really is the case that most nationalists feel little or no sense of ownership of or identity with the police. Any SDLP supporters about to rebut that? I doubt it. Look at their previous campaign literature, and the aggression displayed towards Ronnie Flanagan.

It really is the case that most nationalists feel little or no sense of ownership of or identity with the police.

It's worth pointing out here that it could be dangerous for most nationalists to openly express or show any sense of "ownership of or identity with the police" ....

"Loyalist beatings are not filling a policing void. Republican ones often are, however horrific you and I find that."

On what basis are you making that distinction ?

There are policing voids everywhere. Dissatisfaction is frequently expressed everywhere in the UK and Ireland either about the inability of the police to deter anti-social behaviour for example, or about the small sentences handed down to criminals engaged in very serious crime. There is no way that any policing service can provide the kind of direct retribution that paramilitaries (of any colour) can provide. The problem to be addressed is to do with trying to get people away from that kind of direct justice.

"No, but I'm not your research gimp and can't be bothered getting into a sterile "yes-it-is-no-it-isn't" debate with you on every Patten clause."

So you're refusing to back up your views by referring to the publicly-available facts. I'm not massively surprised by that.

"Fact is, a major legislative project took place to water down the original Patten recommendations at the behest of Trimble."

An assertion I am disputing, and which it seems you aren't willing to back up. It's an assertion which is made frequently but for some weird reason no-one seems to be able to justify.

"I've pointed to the areas where work is needed. "

I don't dispute that there's plenty of work which is needed, and it could start by SF and chaps like your good self dropping this notion that the Patten implementation was a "hatchet job" and lending their support to the police. Then we could get on with fixing the outstanding problems.

"Phew. That saved me the time futilely acting as your research gimp when you are resolved not to be persuaded on this issue."

I am willing to be persuaded on the issue, but nobody seems to be willing to be arsed to do it. Republicans have never categorically laid down the circumstances under which they will agree to sign up to the police, Patten implementation or otherwise. They have made certain demands, but have made no promises about how they would respond if they were met.

This obfuscation about Patten and it's implementation is being put about to try to allow SF to get themselves off the hook of supporting a British-regulated police force.

"Your false consciousness and SF jackboot thesis is far wide of the mark. "

There's plenty of evidence for it. Indeed, during the recent McCartney business there have been sustained claims concerning people being intimidated out of going to the police.

"It really is the case that most nationalists feel little or no sense of ownership of or identity with the police. Any SDLP supporters about to rebut that? "

Not disputed. Universal identity with the police is something that has yet to be achieved anywhere in the world. I'd be pleasantly surprised, with all our policing problems, if achieved it here first.

"I doubt it. Look at their previous campaign literature, and the aggression displayed towards Ronnie Flanagan."

Wouldn't be the first time the SDLP had tried to out-chuckie the chuckies.

'until they were visited by certain people and "reminded" that they were supposed to keep away from the cops.'

Oh come on, if you were in a football team would you pass up the opportunity to play the cops?? After all where else can you kick lumps out of the rozzers and get away with it. Nationalists or not they would have wanted to play that game.

one small, tiny, problem with your thesis Millie - if it had legs surely the GAA would have encouraged coppers to join and play ? ;)

Whoops....

Patten is to the Shinners what they claim decommissioning is to the DUP. An excuse to keep raising the bar. There's no obligation in the Belfast agreement to fully implement Patten and as SF are insistant that we must stick to the Belfast Agreement they have no right to use failure to fully implement Patten to stall.

I know Stalin has already corrected but I must reinforce - to (some?) loyalists, the paramilitaries do fill a policing void, as the police are often viewed as impotent. Perhaps because they spend more time in training learning "human rights" than learning "policing". Just a thought!

I've certainly witnessed this attitude when, for instance, a man was accused of hitting his girlfriend. Why go to the police, who might not charge, never mind convict. Better to go to a good friend of the family who happens to be part of another 'family' as well. They'll have it sorted by the weekend.

Now let me make clear that I think such an attitude, while obviously tempting with the "hang draw and quarter the b*stards" emotive appeal, is totally wrong whether you're a loyalist or a republican.

Indeed Beano - especially as there's an extra problem when the miscreant is part of that other family - as discussed in the media about certain republicans in Derry and Short Strand/Markets.

One fascinating article blogged by Chris at Balrogmight interest you M-C T .....

Parents call for secret video school to face prosecution

The DI avoided commenting on the involvement of the PSNI... involvement they report at the insistance of some parents. The report of SF councillor interviewed also fails to mention PSNI involvement.

Also have to wonder how The DI managed to see an internal Police memo.

Davros, I think your parallel between SF on policing and the unionists on decommissioning is spot-on. And you're right, there's no obligation in the agreement to do diddly squat on policing, just like decommissioning.

There isn't a consistent or clear view on those issues from either party. Unionism won't state clearly the circumstances under which it will share power with SF; it merely lists the reasons why it won't, but sometimes goes further and says it will never share power with SF, ever, anyway, suggesting that any reasons it does give are just excuses to try to cover the fact that their position is unreasonable. Likewise, republicans (broadly speaking) won't lay down precisely what requirements need to be fulfilled before they will say "yes" to the police, and in the same way occasionally one or two of them will break free and say they'll never support any kind of six-county based police force.

Beano, I agree with that; I hear stories similar to yours all the time, usually involving anti-social behaviour. The paramilitary organizations can deliver a swift and effective deterrent - which often works - in a way that no legitimate policing organization can. I wonder how easy people will find it to give that up.

Interesting DI article, Davros. A situation like that is the kind of thing where only the police can deliver the result required. It's not hard to see that when parents are faced with the choice between supporting the police and the possibility of allowing someone with a rather shocking disregard for pupil privacy and the law, as well as possibly some other "issues", the decision is an easy one.

Comrade - I have been arguing for some time that one way forward would be for the RM to give support to the PSNI in cases where the illegality was obviously apolitical. Some from my side of the fence might criticise my failure to use the words crime and my apparent concession that some acts committed during the past 35 years were political, but if all sides could agree to differ on these points, we could at least take a step towards what everybody wants. A better system for dealing with crimes such as attacks on old people and sex crimes. Not by any means perfect, but surely any improvement in we have at the moment is better than nothing ?

Whoops - should have read :

surely any improvement in what we have at the moment is better than nothing ?

If Danny Morrison, convicted terrorist, wants a "fully accountable police force", by which I presume he means one responsible to an Assembly, there is a simple solution to his concerns:

Get your Provo (former?) colleagues to close down their death squads and crime gangs.

It's not rocket science, Danny Boy.