Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 24 January 2000 (continued)
4.30 pm
Secondly, on the acceptability of the police, my argument is that the proposals from Patten and the statement by the Secretary of State are not logical, given the evidence in the Patten Commission's report. I quote from paragraph 3·14. In a random sample survey
"77% of Protestants and 69% of Catholics expressed overall satisfaction with the way they had been treated"
by the police.
Paragraph 3.11 states that 70% of Catholics in the same survey
"cited intimidation ... as the main reason why Catholics were deterred from entering the police".
Sadly, that spirit of intimidation still stalks the land, as in Carrickmore. I would argue, in the light of such evidence coming directly from Patten, that it is misguided to make suggestions about a change of name and badge. The Mandelson changes will, if implemented, massively alienate the Unionist section of the population, yet they will never be enough to win over those who have the Republicans' objection to the police. For such persons the real objection to the RUC is not its name, oath, or human rights record -
Mr A Maginness:
Will the Member give way?
Dr Birnie:
Sorry, I am running out of time.
The fundamental objection is that the RUC is involved in policing United Kingdom law within a part of the United Kingdom. The Belfast Agreement has confirmed Northern Ireland's position as part of the United Kingdom, subject to the consent principle. Given this, the Patten/Mandelsonian tinkering with the RUC is worse than gratuitous appeasement - it is futile appeasement.
Let us imagine that the name "Royal" really is the problem. In due course will there be campaigns against the Royal Victoria Hospital, the Royal Mail, Royal & Sun Alliance, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the five Royal schools in the Province?
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member has now had his five minutes.
Dr Birnie:
I support the motion.
Mr Dallat:
When a political party puts down a motion for debate it is assumed that all of its members feel sincerely about it. It was interesting to note that for most of the morning there were no more than three members of the DUP present in the Chamber. Once again it could be claimed that the RUC is being used and abused for political purposes. But what is new? Reference was made to the fact that the first policeman to die in the present troubles was murdered by Loyalists. In the days before his death, the Paisley bandwagon was screaming "sell-out" following the publication of the Hunt report, which the Rev Dr William McCrea referred to earlier. That policeman died in a riot that followed a rally organised by that same party. It made the balls, and when its members went home safely to their homes the police were left to take the brunt as the balls were thrown at them.
The gardaí were criticised this morning, and that merits comment. May I remind the same politicians that while they were safely in their beds and protected by the RUC in the North, members of the gardaí were manning police stations along the border and protecting people on both sides of it.
Many of them were far away from their families for long periods, working in conditions that were far from favourable. Indeed, the Republic spent more per head of population on border security than the British. Surely Peter Robinson must bear testament to that tight security, given his little sortie to Clontibret.
Thirty years later and things have not changed much. In the last few years people have still been be wound up to hate by the same people who were responsible for the death of the first policeman.
In the absence of agreed political institutions it is impossible to have a police service which is broadly based. That is not just a Northern Ireland experience; it is the experience of countries in many parts of the world. It is therefore very worrying that people like John Taylor talk about a return to direct rule. That would be a disaster for the future of policing in the North - a disaster for the North.
Never again must the police service be dependent on people who pretend that they support it and then say the most outrageous things about it when it does not follow their narrow, bigoted, sectarian views.
After the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement there was the usual cry of "Sell-out" by the DUP. And just as in the 1969 case, to which I referred earlier, the paramilitaries responded with a drilling session on a beach in Portrush. The reaction of the DUP leader was interesting. Did he send for the RUC? Certainly not. He went to the beach and had his photograph taken with the paramilitaries. He predicted more deaths, and he called the RUC prostitutes, claiming that its members were now being paid in punts. His predictions about the deaths were deadly accurate - Castlerock, Greysteel and Loughinisland pay tribute to this. No police force should have to rely on that type of support.
At a recent rally in Coleraine, organised by the DUP, 350 chairs were put out to enable people to hear how Dr Paisley and Mr Robinson were going to save the force. People will be relieved to know that most of the seats remained empty, for there is a maturity in Northern Ireland that understands that the police service cannot be the property of any political party and, most certainly, not the property of those parties that are extreme.
For the first time we have an opportunity to take policing out of the political arena where its friends were highly unreliable and unrepresentative of the whole community. The new police service must not be vulnerable to extreme elements, irrespective of where they come from. We should never again have rotten apples in the service, who, by their actions, or lack of actions, bring disgrace to it, and the new political structure will prevent that from happening.
The Patten Report's recommendations point the way forward. For the sake of the men and women who serve in the police and for the sake of the community who will depend on them, I hope that we can move swiftly to a new era. I hope that no more people will have to die either in uniform or out of uniform.
Policing was sadly abused in the past, and there are still people who care nothing for the harm and hurt caused, not only to the people in the police, but also to the people in the two communities whom they were charged to serve. Now is the time to move on. The Patten Report is not perfect. It can be improved upon, but that can only be possible when each individual sees the police, not as my police or your police, but as our police.
Mr Gibson:
I have listened with interest to the speeches. My party has been accused of being negative, but I have never heard anything more negative or condemnatory than what has come from the SDLP Benches. I have referred to the SDLP as the Fairy Liquid party - it is green, slippery and soapy, but the scum has gone down the sink. However, by its association with and support for those who have murdered and created anarchy, it has got itself to the point where it can no longer differentiate between right and wrong. Its members are unable to condemn or distance themselves from the Provos; rather, they have piggybacked on their success. I have seen this night after night in various council chambers.
A section of this community declared from the word go that it would not accept Northern Ireland, that it would not accept anything that pertained to keeping Northern Ireland British. Yesterday Gerry Adams reminded us very forcibly of this stance in his speech at Milltown when he said that the Republican agenda or focus remains the same. Its aims and determinations have not altered one whit. People talk about this wonderful agreement and this great shrine of peace, but Sinn Féin has never been party to it. It has deliberately pretended to support it, but peace is just another conveyor belt towards Republican goals. To be fair to Sinn Féin, it has been more honest about its intentions than its political neighbours in the SDLP.
There is much hypocrisy about not accepting the police, but let me give one example. In Pomeroy, which is in the constituency next to mine, there was a large anti-RUC meeting, and on the way home from it, two of its very staunch supporters had an accident on the Inishative Road. They could not agree on who was right and who was wrong. How did they settle it? They sent for the RUC. So much for those who do not accept the RUC.
We hear a great deal of hypocrisy from members of the SDLP, some of whom sit on the Police Liaison Committee. They would be the first to say "No, I am not here" or "I am wearing another cap", but they are back-door SDLP members of the Police Liaison Committee. The truth will come out.
Take the example of the foot soldiers who are not content just to wait for the peace process to deliver the goods. There is an idea around that these foot soldiers can walk on a headmaster's lawn and tell him that he cannot have a guest in his school, or that they can walk into a meeting and threaten and intimidate. Let us look at the civil rights issue here. There is no right to free association.
Then take the case of the parents of the policeman in Melmount in Strabane who had to be moved out on Friday night because of threats and intimidation.
When I look around the countryside in my constituency, I see 97 tombstones, put there by people whose business was anarchy and murder, people who, in their hearts and minds, were always determined to bring anarchy to this country. There was only one line of defence, and that was the RUC. The RUC defended the majority of people - both the Catholic and the Protestant communities - and we have a responsibility to defend those who defended us.
Mr Armstrong:
As some Members know, I served as a part-time reserve constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary for 14 years, and I was proud to do so. Those of us who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary did so to the best of our ability, no matter what our politics, religion or views, because it was an honour to serve the community.
I have a piece of information for Gerry Kelly. While patrolling in Stewartstown, Coagh, Ardboe and Coalisland in the ?s and ?s, I found that Nationalists, Unionists, Loyalists and even Republicans were very willing to avail of the RUC's services. Even though we were shot at and bombed, we tried to help, no matter how trivial the problem, and we did so in an impartial and fair way.
I listened to comments from Sinn Féin Members today - they made much of the RUC's failings. No one pretends that any police force is perfect, but let us not forget the reality. Sinn Féin's sister organisation - the IRA - is responsible for 40 times the deaths that the RUC is responsible for, and every one of those RUC killings has been subject to proper investigation. Most were of terrorists on active service. What investigations have there been of IRA killings? The Republican movement demands change and wants to move the process forward, but it has not changed.
Does the Sinn Féin Member for Foyle not think that she should temper her comments about the 51 deaths that the RUC has been responsible for, bearing in mind that the IRA has killed more than 275 RUC men and women over the last 30 years? Is it not time that the Republican movement addressed not only the complete immorality of its campaign, but also its unbalanced nature? How can this overkill be justified, let alone the taking of one human life?
4.45 pm
I would like to believe that Sinn Féin is coming into line and will support law and order in Northern Ireland. However, having listened to remarks from its Members today, I can only conclude that they seek not so much a police force as a weakened security apparatus, which will be vulnerable to some future Republican terrorist campaign when their campaign for a united Ireland fails.
That is my analysis, so I was totally disgusted with the UK Government when, having acknowledged the excellent achievements of the RUC with the award of the George Cross, they proceeded to dishonour the members of the RUC, including those thousands of injured members and, most of all, the widows and widowers of those who were killed. Instead of supporting the RUC, the Government are going so far as to remove the name of this fine force and the badge which so well represents the two traditions. It looks as though the RUC is going the same way as the Ulster Special Constabulary and the UDR.
Change is inevitable in view of a changing and peaceful Northern Ireland, but this change must take place naturally and in a way which takes into account the evolving security situation. Instead of this, the Government have dishonoured themselves by continuing along the road of appeasement. They have bowed down to the threat from terrorists who may in future emerge from the Republican movement, and it is a shame and a disgrace that the Nationalist SDLP has chosen to support this Republican position.
I support the motion.
Mr A Doherty:
The Government's response to the Patten Report on policing is welcomed as one essential element of the complex series of processes which must be implemented together if we are to achieve the peaceful and just society which all but the most perverted long for.
Good policing and the proper administration of justice are most important in any society. How much more important are they then in a society with a sorry history of division, sectarianism and violence? It is because of that history that change is imperative and urgent. It is inevitable that it will give rise to strong emotions, and it is irresponsible and dangerous to heighten or play on those emotions either to oppose change or to demand the impossible or the unattainable.
It is not surprising that so much opposition and so many demands relate to symbols and titles and an ethos that inevitably reflect the values of those who held power in Northern Ireland from its inception. They were people whose values found expression in the slogans "A Protestant Government for a Protestant people" and "Not an inch.". They needed institutions of government - a police force in particular - to help them sustain that power. The cost was the alienation of a high proportion of the population and the creation of a gulf between the police and many of those whom they were meant to serve.
A police force of necessity reflects the ethos of those who control the Government. This was as true with Nazi Germany's Gestapo and Stalin's KGB as it is in more enlightened and humane times, and even the most enlightened Administration, such as the one we are trying to create, must work diligently to ensure that its police service is such that it will
"enjoy widespread support from, and is seen to be an integral part of, the community as a whole".
In a statement on 19 January 2000 the Taoiseach said
"It is in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland that the police service be able to function fully and freely in all areas and across all communities".
People from both traditions want to be able to give their unqualified support to a police service which is unequivocally of and for the whole community. They want the law to be upheld in an atmosphere of normality and security, and policemen and policewomen to be made welcome in every home. Furthermore, a career in policing should be fully open to talented and committed people, irrespective of their political beliefs and identities.
It is a sad reflection on our society that, because those words were spoken by the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, they will be belittled and rejected by some people of influence in our community. It is even sadder that, had they been spoken by our own First Minister, those same people would call him a traitor and demand his resignation. However, do those words not describe something worth working and making sacrifices for? The SDLP believes that all reasonable people wish to live, and see their children grow up, in a community with such a police service.
Mr Shannon:
We live today in the twilight of law and order in Northern Ireland. The publication of Patten's opinions on the future of policing here have confirmed the very worst of which we had warned Official Unionism. We can now read in black and white the sordid intentions of the so-called independent commission to exterminate the RUC. We all know where John Taylor stood on these issues. He was the yes-no-yes-man. He was the man who made the 40-foot bargepole disappear in seconds. He is also one of those responsible for the Patten Commission's being here today. He is one of those who voted for the agreement and gave it his endorsement.
Two things must be said about Patten's opinions. First, the RUC, as it stands, commands respect and support from the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland - and that is cross-community support - and with no significant change in the terrorist threat it should not be reformed.
Secondly, as spawn of the Good Friday Agreement, Patten propagates its message, sacrificing the very principles of democratic society purely to appease the gunmen. When Patten seeks to create a police force which satisfies everyone, that includes the terrorists and the law-breakers. One need hardly be a brain surgeon to figure out that a force which satisfies the law-breakers would be anything but a force able to maintain the rule of law. The Patten Report is sodden with proposals which would neutralise the police's efficiency, integrity, identity and ability to tackle violent terrorism effectively. From the very outset, it is quite clear that the basis upon which these proposals were made was not that of operational requirement or necessity. Rather, the basis was the need to make concessions to satisfy the desires of IRA/Sinn Féin and the wider pan-Nationalist agenda.
Patten's report is founded upon the corruption of what is possibly one of the most respected and effective anti-terrorist police forces in the world. At this stage in the overall implementation of the Belfast Agreement, we have seen practically all IRA/Sinn Féin prisoners released from jail. The Maze prison should be resounding to the noise of incarcerated murderers and thugs. Instead, it lies empty. Its staff, who have seen the unrepentant spokesmen for fully armed terrorism walk unhindered into the Government of this country, their hands still dripping with the blood of 30 years of carnage, are redundant. We have a commitment to corrupt the judicial system.
An unprecedented level of cultural apartheid now exists, where the flag of this country, and all signs of British identity - and we saw this in Down Council last week - are being systematically removed and defiled while we have the violence continuing and the IRA rearming. When IRA members go to Florida it is not to visit Disneyworld or get a suntan but to buy guns. At the same time we see security bases closing constantly and troop levels decreasing. We are now witnessing the decommissioning of weapons belonging to the legitimate forces of law and order without any similar commitment from IRA/Sinn Féin.
The RUC has been most successful in strangling IRA activity in Northern Ireland, and consequently has acted as both first and last lines of defence for the UK mainland against Republican atrocities. Many of us were annoyed to see on television yesterday the large rally in West Belfast to commemorate a murderer who killed a Roman Catholic policeman a number of years ago. This flies in the face of many of the Province's law-abiding people.
It is absolute madness in effect to disband the force which has protected this community over the past 30 years, preventing the expansion of the Republican control base and, ultimately, preventing the organisation from functioning successfully in Northern Ireland. This madness is illustrated by the fact that IRA/Sinn Féin continues to rearm, retrain and recruit, refusing to give any commitment to peaceful means or to constitutional and democratic principles. Should Patten be implemented, society will pay the price, and all those who supported the agreement and voted "Yes" to it will have to admit their responsibility.
Blair's Administration and the NIO are quite prepared to sacrifice democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland to keep the bombs out of London. They are prepared not only to ignore and disregard the lives of those brave officers who have been brutally murdered and maimed while trying to maintain law and order but to insult their memory by paving the way for their murderers to become part of the new force. They have stated that police reforms are an essential part of the new democratic society in Northern Ireland, and under the Belfast Agreement they are not wrong. The agreement, as everyone knows, is a list of concessions aimed at silencing the Republican movement's bombs in London. The findings of Patten's Commission are an integral part of the agreement and could not be anything but pro-Republican.
Mr Speaker:
Please bring your remarks to a close.
Mr Shannon:
Patten completely ignored the police officers who were murdered during the previous 30 years and the fact that the organisations which caused the mayhem are still active -
Mr Speaker:
Order. I call Mr David Ford.
Mr Ford:
I support the amendment proposed by my party Colleagues which acknowledges the degree of hurt among police officers and their families over the Patten reforms. Unionist spokesmen have reflected that hurt today, perhaps with a greater or lesser degree of genuine apprehension.
With regard to one of the more than 170 recommendations of Patten, I agree with Mr Dodds on the opposition to proposed recruitment quotas. However, it is not so much a case of my agreeing with Mr Dodds as of Mr Dodds's agreeing with me, since the initial response from the DUP and other Unionists seems to be almost totally based on the issues of symbolism - the badge and the name. For Alliance, the focus of our consideration of Patten has always been on the need for an effective police service for all the people of Northern Ireland in a new and peaceful society.
In this respect it is regrettable that leaders of Nationalism have said nothing on the issue of quotas. I was disappointed to hear this morning that the Catholic bishops had issued a statement calling for what one might term accelerated Catholic recruitment into the new police service. If that means that they are encouraging members of their flock to join the police service it is welcome, but to suggest that we could achieve a 30% Catholic balance in three to five years seems to me to require direct discrimination, and that would risk losing the experience and expertise in ordinary policing within the RUC.
I want to see a fully representative police service, inclusive of every section of this society - every geographical section, both genders and all ethnic groups, and not just the two main religions. I want to see a professional police service in which every member is appointed on merit and not through some form of quota. That is the only way to ensure that people gain respect for being professional police officers rather than Catholic or Protestant policemen or - and this is another minority - policewomen.
It has already been said that quotas are illegal under fair employment law in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the EU. That is one reason to oppose them. It is also quite clear that quotas are ineffective. They are intended by Patten to apply at the final appointment stage, but it has never been a problem to draw 50:50 from a pool of qualified applicants. The problem is to attract a balance in the applicants in the first place. That is another reason to oppose quotas.
If the reform is out to succeed, there is no need for quotas. A career in the police service should be an attractive option to well-qualified young men and women, whatever their community background. If that happens, there will be balance in applications because the population proportions in the age group from which recruits are largely drawn are almost even between Protestants and Catholics. And 10% decline such categorisation.
Quotas would create major problems for the officers of the service and under employment law. The Government must think again. The concerns about quotas and local policing boards which Sean Neeson mentioned are not a reason for rejecting Patten overall, but they do give us a reason for seeking amendments to his proposals.
There is a real need for policing to be transformed in style from the armed force that has been necessary for 30 years to a first-class community police service. Patten has set out how that can and should be done, building on the existing force. The police and the Police Authority are already implementing many of Patten's proposals.
Fundamentally, what we should all be concerned about is the ethos, and Patten envisages a single unified police service for the whole of Northern Ireland. This is not about Catholics policing Catholics or Protestants policing Protestants. It is not even about a two-tier service or a regional force arrangement, which would amount to the same thing.
We must seek to produce the kind of unified service which will meet the needs of all of us in the future. Patten also stresses the need for a strong human rights ethos to be prominent in future policing. That contrasts with the minimal role that human rights have in police training at present. That is essential for this society and for the service itself. It would also be a defence against some of the more ludicrous allegations about paramilitary involvement in the police in the future.
There is every reason for welcoming this emphasis on human rights in training, in staff appraisal and in the monitoring role of the new policing board. Although the Alliance Party will wish to see amendments to some of the proposals which are being made, the report does provide an opportunity for new beginnings in policing, and there is every reason for giving the proposals broad support in the community and in the Assembly.
5.00 pm
Mr Boyd:
I support the motion in the names of Mr Peter Robinson and Mr Nigel Dodds. We have the most professional police force in the world, and it is widely recognised as such. I would remind John Dallat of the SDLP, who mocked the supposedly small attendance at the rally, that over 400,000 signatures opposing the destruction of the RUC were handed into 10 Downing Street.
The reward for the more than 300 RUC officers, who made the supreme sacrifice and laid down their lives to save others, is the destruction of the RUC. Over 9,000 RUC officers have been injured and maimed at the hands of those whom the Government are now going to untold lengths to appease. It is appalling that representatives of fully armed terrorist organisations will be in control of policing through the new policing board.
The proposal to abandon the proud name and insignia of the RUC is grossly insulting to most people in Northern Ireland. It dishonours those who have served and died so bravely over the years, bearing that name and wearing that insignia. Yet it is clear that such changes will have very little bearing on the attitude of the minority community to the police.
Roman Catholics have not joined the RUC in greater numbers because of intimidation by the IRA. Patten's ban on the flying of the national flag on police buildings is disgraceful. The proposal that recruitment should be based, not on the "merit" principle, but on the filling of sectarian quotas, runs counter to current fair employment legislation. The abolition of the full-time Reserve is totally misconceived.
Most people in Northern Ireland are deeply angered by proposals to emasculate and destroy the RUC when terrorist organisations remain intact and fully armed.
Furthermore, at a time when the Chief Constable is warning of the seriousness of the terrorist threat, it is madness to be considering a reduction in the capabilities and resources of the RUC. The thoughts and sympathy of my party and myself are with the families of the RUC officers who, in defence of law and order, were murdered and maimed by terrorists. The Patten Report is a gratuitous insult to the professional integrity and operational efficiency of the RUC in its defence of the citizens of Northern Ireland over the years of terrorism. The Patten Report, if implemented, would achieve in a matter of months what Sinn Féin/IRA failed to achieve in 30 years - the destruction of the RUC. If the RUC means anything to the Ulster Unionist Party its leadership should resign from the Executive in protest at the actions of the Secretary of State.
The ultimate responsibility for the report rests with Mr Trimble who negotiated the terms of reference for the Patten Commission which determined the outcome of the report. The line being put out that plans were being made before the agreement was made will not wash. The finger of blame is pointed at the Ulster Unionist Party, and hundreds are phoning Glengall Street on a daily basis.
I have from its website today the Ulster Unionist Party's security policy:
"The Ulster Unionist Party has a greater degree of experience and understanding of policing in Northern Ireland than any other United Kingdom party.
While it continues to be our primary responsibility to ensure that Government remains vigilant and ready to deal with all residual terrorism, it is equally important to guarantee the integrity of the Royal Ulster Constabulary during the period which will, we hope, bring our society along the road to peace."
The Ulster Unionist Party has failed. I quote from its referendum leaflet of May 1998:
"The RUC Has Been Saved.
Thanks to the UUP the section of the agreement was rewritten with recognition now given to the RUC with authority delegated as the Chief Constable should decide within a unitary structure. The RUC's position has not been negotiated in the Talks and the Commission in the Agreement looks towards the adjustments which would naturally arise if terrorism ends".
I challenge anybody in the Ulster Unionist Party to say to me how - to use their words - "the RUC has been saved".
The Ulster Unionist Party has failed the Unionist people miserably. The empty words of condemnation of the report from Mr Trimble will ring hollow in the ears of the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland unless they are matched by his immediate withdrawal of support for the Belfast Agreement. The implementation of the agreement, in combination with the Patten Report, puts Sinn Féin/IRA in government without IRA decommissioning and places Sinn Féin/IRA at the centre of policing in Northern Ireland.
Let us look at the Alliance Party's amendment. It is typical Alliance waffle - all things to all people. The party's ink is on the destruction of the RUC. That cannot be denied. Sean Neeson talks of the pain and the hurt, yet his party on Belfast City Council refused last September to allow the mother of Const David Johnston, murdered by the IRA in 1997, to lay a wreath on behalf of her murdered son and all the others who made the supreme sacrifice.
I support the motion.
Mr Douglas:
I support the motion. If implemented, the recommendations outlined by the Secretary of State last week will not only make justice in this Province a mere semblance of law and order but will render worthless the supreme sacrifice made by those members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who gave their lives to defend law-abiding people against IRA and Loyalist terror. It stands to reason that the RUC and its Reserve, prime targets of terrorists during the so-called war, would remain so during the farcical peace process.
The RUC is internationally renowned for its intelligence service and has successfully defended this Province against terrorism and, in effect, Fascism for many years. The terrorist organisations found it impossible to defeat the RUC by butchery, torture and the most callous murders and intimidation. The Government, through Patten, have delivered the victory to them by concession and appeasement. Those on the other side of the House should remember that they did not earn the victory or defeat the RUC - they have gained that victory through a pay-off.
The RUC, in defence of democracy, has borne the brunt of those who would eradicate democracy, yet how ironic it is that it should be democracy that has signed, sealed and delivered its fate. Those Unionists who voted "Yes" would not be told or warned. They bolstered each other and convinced themselves that they could not be out-manoeuvred, that the Government would not let them down by dismantling or reforming the RUC too much. Indeed, they even boasted of being the saviours of the police. They should take to heart this harsh lesson, instead of trusting terrorists and those who seek to appease Republicanism. They should stand firm on Unionism and defend their Unionist principles, or at least those precious few that they still have left, and not put their country and its laws up for negotiation.
We will never know the true extent of lives saved by the RUC, either here or on the mainland. We must not forget the courage and bravery of its members, who every day face the prospect of death and whose families have long lived in fear of the unthinkable happening. We must never gloss over the pain suffered by those to whom the unthinkable did happen or ignore the traumas endured by those who witnessed the carnage - scenes that will remain forever in their memories.
So how are these brave officers honoured and thanked by society and the Government whom they have protected? They are insulted by the changing of the cherished and respected name of their force. They look on powerless as those they locked up are released and laugh in their faces. As the officers become further demoralised, in spite of reassurances to the contrary, they will indeed be forced to co-operate and work with those they suppose to be actively linked to terrorist organisations, since not all terrorists have been convicted. They - a legitimate force - lose their weapons and protection while the caches of illegal arms are enlarged by airmail. Worst of all, the RUC will be forced to answer to those who have murdered and maimed them and their colleagues and who have waged a relentless propaganda campaign of scurrilous lies aimed at discrediting the moral integrity of and slurring the name of a much respected constabulary.
It appears that this weak and spineless British Government is incapable of distinguishing between the two. It is time to desist from the serious folly of appeasing apologists for terror - those who pocket concession after concession and have no intention of giving anything in return. It is time to stop supporting everything which gives credence to this pathetic farce of a peace process, that has let law and order degenerate into a nonsensical game of defending murder.
It is time to recognise the real reasons for Roman Catholics' reluctance to enlist in the RUC rather than change the RUC to allow unconvicted criminals to join and police Northern Ireland in the way they know best. Our community has been threatened enough. It does not deserve to have terrorists being legitimised and policing it.