|
Post by Jim on Mar 28, 2008 22:50:26 GMT
Jim when I said how do you know, I was answering your post about westminster not doing anything. I agree with what Dodds said, the DUP's Nigel Dodds said many issues still needed to be dealt with. "Policing and justice are particularly sensitive," he said. "When it comes to policing there is a special set of rules. We don't believe that terrorists, or criminals, should have anything to do with policing - whether it's as members of the police force or running the police force." Then their is the ira army council, I have already made my reasons clear on this thread. Dodds is a posh shite that hasn't a clue. By his quote then the DUP shouldnt have any position on the polce boards either because their members (and leaders) have done jail time and what the Government considered criminal behaviour. He's one of the most close minded members of that party at the top and doesnt want a taig about the place.
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 28, 2008 22:53:30 GMT
Personnally I can't stand him or the dup in general. Although there are those within the party who work very hard on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 28, 2008 23:01:47 GMT
I can stand the DUP as a party, I just cant stand him, hes arrogant, ignorant and annoying. The DUP may do a lot of work in their constituencies and I don't deny that but they aren't working in nationalist areas, and lets remember that we don't have vigilanties on the same level as loyalists do.
I'll be naive for a minute, maybe unionist politicians dont truely understand the consequences of not having devolved policing powers? Or maybe a lot of them are towing the party line.
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 28, 2008 23:23:40 GMT
Maybe it is because of the things that I have said such as the army council and the sensitivity of policing.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 28, 2008 23:51:46 GMT
Policing will always be a sensitive issue so we can't wait forever on that. The IRA army council while you may not like it, needs to exist until paramilitaries knock it on the head. If its gone then the RIRA/CIRA can and will claim to be the new IRA army council. I think you underestimate the importance of "legitimacy" in Republican thinking Wasp so I'll just say that since partition, republican groups have been going at each other over who is more legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 29, 2008 0:23:40 GMT
I agree.
I totally disagree with this. Any organisation can have and create its own army council. There is the real ira which formed out of the ira and they can have if they dont already a real ira army council. This is entirely a red herring being stated by republicans to excuse the existance of an army council.
Let's say I go along with this excuse, is sinn fein and the ira going to name the members of the army council for the grounds of transparency that they are demanding themselves? Do you think they should do this?
Loayalist groups have done the same and my answer above answers your point here. The council needs to remain because the ira are still intact, that is the real reason not another group stepping into the new council.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 29, 2008 2:40:18 GMT
No Wasp. There is one IRA army council, its always been the one body since its conception and its something that even the RIRA and CIRA reluctantly would acknowledge.. privately ofcourse. Look at the history of the IRA, read a few books on it that can be gotten in any library, you will understand the importantance of certain people being the Army Council. The importance is not its existance, but what it does. Why do you think I want the army council to exist? I actually don't, I'm just realistic in my expectations and understand what happens if it did disband.
I don't know if they would name the members of the army council Wasp. I'm not in SF, I'm not in the IRA and I don't know what the top brass say behind closed doors. Most of my support for SF has no connections to their links with the IRA anyway so its not a priority for me. Special Branch and the PSNI no doubt would know who the Army Council members are, why don't you ask them?
I think unionists are using the army council as an excuse, because they always need an excuse to hold back the water until they feel satisfied that they are in control, its certainly the impression I get watching people like Dodds doing interviews. Fact is the army council hold back members from wanting to go back to guns so they're doing more good than harm.
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Mar 29, 2008 11:14:22 GMT
Sure the names that were stated as being members of the army council were denied by sinn fein, why would that be? Do you think they should name them yourself?
|
|
|
Post by earl on Mar 29, 2008 12:16:03 GMT
I am surprised at Earl for swallowing the Unionist line so sweetly. I can not see why we need time to 'let things settle'! What do we need this time for? What are these things that will settle? How many years have past in the North and how have 'things settled'? Who are these additional people that will be won over during this time to delay? Are they Nationalists? Are they Unionists? Obviously Earl suggests that these additional people are Unionists. Is it not more possible that as time moves on and 'things settle' and elections draw closer, Unionist politicians become more conscious of votes and adopt positions that might feed into the 'siege' mentality. So from my view point this call for more time is just the same delaying tactic that Unionists have used during every step of this process. How long do you envisage this time frame? The St. Andrew's deal gave us that time delay to allow 'things to settle' and set a time frame when it believed policing powers should to be transfered. Can you ever see a time when Unionists would feel the time is right? Unionists only ever move when pushed over the edge it is difficult because of the 'siege' mentality for them to move forward. I would agree with Bilk's view that it is better and important that local people have control over local issues and that includes how we are policed. And from the left-wing perspective the system is not to my liking but I would sooner have local people controlling it. I've swallowed no line. AFD. Just using common sense. I don't agree that it's the right thing to do, and if I was made grand dictator of NI, I would transfer over the powers tomorrow, but NI is a democracy, with hardliners on both sides of the divide. If any community is going to scupper the current setup, it will be the unionist community. I've stated initially that I believe another 18 months wouldn't be a bad time frame to consider this proposal again. Like it or not, siege mentality exists amongst many hardliner unionists, and this needs to be handled in the right way, and I don't mean pandering to them. You stated that the only way to get them to move is to push, so are you saying that the only way to move you on a subject is to push you into it? Or would you dig your heels in and push back? Imagine how you would react to a situation, if the roles were reversed, and that's how unionists will react, as it's simple human nature. You might see it as delaying tactics, and for some it might be the case, but not for all. Some unionists would have genuine feelings on this, and it takes time for those fears to be reduced and confidence to replace it. I've never said that it shouldn't happen, or that it should happen in the distant future, I've just stated that now is probably not the best time for it.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 29, 2008 14:11:12 GMT
Sure the names that were stated as being members of the army council were denied by sinn fein, why would that be? Do you think they should name them yourself? Why would SF say "aye, thats them"? Keeping in mind naming people makes targets out of people, you can't expect them to just say that.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 29, 2008 14:14:55 GMT
I am surprised at Earl for swallowing the Unionist line so sweetly. I can not see why we need time to 'let things settle'! What do we need this time for? What are these things that will settle? How many years have past in the North and how have 'things settled'? Who are these additional people that will be won over during this time to delay? Are they Nationalists? Are they Unionists? Obviously Earl suggests that these additional people are Unionists. Is it not more possible that as time moves on and 'things settle' and elections draw closer, Unionist politicians become more conscious of votes and adopt positions that might feed into the 'siege' mentality. So from my view point this call for more time is just the same delaying tactic that Unionists have used during every step of this process. How long do you envisage this time frame? The St. Andrew's deal gave us that time delay to allow 'things to settle' and set a time frame when it believed policing powers should to be transfered. Can you ever see a time when Unionists would feel the time is right? Unionists only ever move when pushed over the edge it is difficult because of the 'siege' mentality for them to move forward. I would agree with Bilk's view that it is better and important that local people have control over local issues and that includes how we are policed. And from the left-wing perspective the system is not to my liking but I would sooner have local people controlling it. I've swallowed no line. AFD. Just using common sense. I don't agree that it's the right thing to do, and if I was made grand dictator of NI, I would transfer over the powers tomorrow, but NI is a democracy, with hardliners on both sides of the divide. If any community is going to scupper the current setup, it will be the unionist community. I've stated initially that I believe another 18 months wouldn't be a bad time frame to consider this proposal again. Like it or not, siege mentality exists amongst many hardliner unionists, and this needs to be handled in the right way, and I don't mean pandering to them. You stated that the only way to get them to move is to push, so are you saying that the only way to move you on a subject is to push you into it? Or would you dig your heels in and push back? Imagine how you would react to a situation, if the roles were reversed, and that's how unionists will react, as it's simple human nature. You might see it as delaying tactics, and for some it might be the case, but not for all. Some unionists would have genuine feelings on this, and it takes time for those fears to be reduced and confidence to replace it. I've never said that it shouldn't happen, or that it should happen in the distant future, I've just stated that now is probably not the best time for it. I don't think you understand the severity of the issue and people in my estate at least aren't going to take much more of it. 18 months down the line they'll be asking men in balaklavas to do the work and when asked "will you support the police" they will say "no, they didnt support us". If we are going to even bother with "democracy" then the justice needs to be accountable, or we may as well just go back to direct rule. Its all or nothing and fortunately for you its not you having to deal with the consequences either. You know as much about it as the English would, same social problems, very different method of dealing with it in our case.
|
|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on Mar 29, 2008 15:15:19 GMT
In reply to Earl's (reply 45) post:
I could point to times when republicans found themselves in political cul-de-sacs and had to re-evaluate their position. Like when on the 'Blanket Protest' before we embarked on the Hunger Strike strategy, a strategy we knew would bring the protest to an end one way or the other. Like when we realized the armed struggle was in a stalemate position. So I am not sure it is simple human nature of an adult but more the nature of an insecure child, but I can see your logic there. The difference is republicans are prepared to take risks and think outside the box and the siege mentality is not allowed to grow inside republican ideology. I am basing my assessment of how unionists react and respond on my observations.
Yes we accept the democracy we have in the north. But it has been democratically agreed that policing and justice powers will be devolved it is just a matter of the time frame. While waiting another 18 months would not be a big deal - nor is it a big deal transferring powers now. I do not see the proposal from unionists being just another 18 months, I see it as an open ended time frame till some unknown date when utopia exists. And then they will reevaluate it again, I see that as an unacceptable position.
I agree that unionists do need help. But I still do not see how things will have changed after an 18 month period. As the term of office of this Assembly is on count-down. And the closer it draws to an election time the more small marginal unionists will adopt 'hardline' positions to win press coverage and possible votes. This in turn will put pressure on leadership unionists to adopt similar positions to stay in tune with their electorate. I believe it is a deliberate strategy by unionists to avoid what has already been democratically agreed by both the London and Dublin governments. What has already been agreed at St.Andrew's. Unionists hold onto some slim hope that by delay the opportunity will arise that they can unravel all that has been achieved and a return to unionist one party rule, a protestant state for protestants only. We can not let the unionist siege mentality to seep into the politics that have been created by the new institutions as this will paralyze the progress.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 29, 2008 15:32:19 GMT
I don't know about you AFD but I find waiting 18 months a big deal when we could have it now. What I'm getting from unionist politicians is that they could go on forever without it and be very happy. But its the same politicians living in their big houses in the middle of no where and only have constituency surgeries in the areas they represent.
|
|
|
Post by Bilk on Mar 29, 2008 17:07:16 GMT
I'm not sure this debate is as open and honest as I thought it might be. I voted yes, I am a unionist through and through as most people on here know. I don't generalise wherever possible about nationalists/republicans. The same does not apply to some of those on here with nationalist/republican sympathies. Northern Ireland, since it's inception, has been, and still is, under seige, or hadn't you noticed? There are people outside of this country teaming up with people inside it to remove the Britishness of unionists they so cherish, that is a seige when I went to school. So how can you blame unionists for having a seige mentality, and call it childish? It is childlike behaviour to think that something belongs to you and you alone, which has been the atitude of republicans about this island, since the British came here centuries ago. "Ourselves alone" is not a cliche made up by unionists. A persecution complex I could say nationalists have, but I don't. I can understand the distrust of unionists about putting the running of the police in the hands of people who spent periods before and since 1916, murdering those very police officers, I just don't agree with them. I honesly think some nationalists on here need to temper their language, and try to dicuss a serious issue without the usual blame game thing.
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Mar 30, 2008 11:09:03 GMT
Good post Bilk.
Are there any proposals laid down anywhere as to what will change if policing powers are devolved. What changes will be implemented and how will the community feel this change?? What aren't the police doing now?? Where are they failing?? What will the change of powers do to change the problems within our society???
All these so called community people who are just sitting on the wings waiting to end the problems on our streets. Why the hell aren't they helping now?? Does the PSNI not welcome community projects to reduce crime?? Can these people not help now?? What are these people going to do??
No point posing that if we don't devolve now then WE will be to blame when republicans start turning to the IRA again. The police were never ever going to be able to replace the IRA or any Loyalist grouping. You should know what its like and when people went to the paras, they went with full stories and were prepared to let it be known that they went to them because they knew the paras would sort it out. The police don't get anywhere near that sort of information and if they were given the co-operation that each community gave to the paras then we would be better off.
Its a mindset that exsists in both communities. It is still seen as touting within Harryville if you went to the peelers. No doubt this is repeated in nearly every working class housing estate in NI regardless of which side. The police can't be blamed for this mindset.
No one yet has told me or provided me with anything concrete that would convince me that devolving powers will help. All i've seen is that NI is nowhere near as bad as ROI or anywhere on the mainland but that we simply face the same social issues and nearly everywhere else in the world.
|
|