Lesley Stock ✒ concludes on her exchange with Richard O'Rawe. 

Some may wonder why I, a proud retiree from the RUCGC and PSNI, would even contemplate writing about the Blanket Men and hunger strikers? So much has already been written – hell, they’ve even had movies made about them! 

Since retiring from the police – I have become more interested in politics, my role in this messed up society, and how to make it a slightly better place for our future generations. I’ve become involved in peace and reconciliation and have heard stories that made me weep with despair and also genuine warmth from every section of the community. One thing I’ve never ‘got’, was unadulterated sectarianism. I was never brought up in that way and hence, brought my children up within the Integrated education system. Even in my early 20’s, I realised that we are all a product of birth and our background. Each of us, if born into another family could have become the very people we see as ‘enemies’.

It was after getting quite a lot of criticism from loyalists, for even contemplating writing on a ‘Republican’ site such as TPQ, (an incorrect assumption in fact!) that made me look at our past. Much lately, has been written about the hunger strikers, and the fact that it is 40 years since their deaths. I saw it as not just a Republican past, I viewed it - and even more so now realise - that whatever our knowledge or opinions on it, it was a crucial period in our collective past. How many Protestants know anything about what really went on in the prison at that crucial time? I know that I, in my ignorance didn’t even try to know, or understand. These four articles were about me educating myself, and hopefully allowing others to grasp exactly what went on. They were to be neither Republican ‘propaganda’ articles, for my views are still very much my views, nor were they to be articles to highlight the views of most Protestants, that these were men starving themselves to death for a cause. I hope that I have given a true account of the facts and I must admit, that my meeting with, and chatting with one of these men, who knows personally about what went on, was enlightening, shocking and a humbling experience for which I will be eternally grateful.

I came into quite a bit of criticism with the first 2 articles (I’m writing this immediately after writing the 3rd) from what I would class as unrepentant, ideological Republicans. I was ‘fluffing’ what really happened. Yes, I didn’t present the full, horrific details of the brutality prisoners endured, for two reasons, 1 – Ricky didn’t give me those details, perhaps to save me from embarrassment or shame? and 2 – because the brutality in it’s unedited inhumane fact can be read in Ricky’s’ fabulous book, Blanket Men. Republicans know about the incidents of torture and disgusting brutality that no person should ever have endured, but I was writing these pieces not specifically for Republicans, these were to be pieces which perhaps Protestants weren’t aware of.

I hope that even some clearer and impartial understanding of those times can be achieved by the articles. I, for one, (and others who have read them have contacted me,) have learned much more about humanity of individual men and the internal workings of the IRA. For me, it was like a brick had hit me, the commitment to following orders within that organisation. Maybe not so different to the British Army if one really takes it to the letter of ‘doing as one is told’! Were the soldiers on the streets of Belfast and Derry acting on orders, and merely followed them? Or, did they disobey orders and fire discriminately into innocent bystanders? I personally think that – as with the ‘volunteers’ in the IRA and indeed the Loyalist paramilitaries, there are incidents which are definitely cases of both. As Ricky stated, some volunteers were prohibited from even going on the hunger strike because of their inhumane deeds prior to incarceration. We have members of the Shankill Butchers, who, were most definitely members of a paramilitary grouping, but also carried out the most sadistic inhumane murders.

Being devil's advocate, how can real die-hard Republicans criticise the British Army for doing the same thing that some of their members were also guilty of? I absolutely, however, think that the authors of those orders within the British Army should be tried for subsequent actions of their foot soldiers. I’ve had many a conversation with open minded Republicans, who will readily admit that it’s Republicans who never served a day in jail, who never undertook any participation in the ‘cause’, and who are the most sanctimonious, pious, unyielding, and stubborn agitators against any criticism by Protestants of the IRA.

And what of Mr Ricky O’Rawe (no longer Volunteer) - what happens to a man who has gone through so much for the IRA. after he no longer ‘volunteers’? Well, he is still a committed Republican and wishes to see a United Ireland. He doesn’t (and Shouldn't) make any apology for that vision. He is still married to Bernadette and Bernie, his lovely daughter (who I also had the privilege of meeting) is a highly educated beautiful woman of whom he is very openly, and quite rightly very proud. He is a member of society who helps those who have gone through trials in life, working with youngsters to prevent them getting into paramilitary activity, alcoholics and drug addicts. This man I’d say has the life experiences to assist in such a positive way to society … All of our society.

In writing the book, he says he himself came under extreme criticism from some Republicans. The truth of those negotiations and unnecessary deaths of Ricky’s’ friends I’m sure, were hard to take, by those whose decisions caused them. One thing I completely respect about this unassuming man is his honesty, how he allowed me behind the ‘wall’ of his conscience and mind. He spoke briefly to me about the fantastic friendship he had with Gerry Conlon, and about how he vowed to write his autobiography on Gerry’s death bed. But as I looked at this friend describing the death of another, I felt privileged that I saw tears form in the eyes that had turned into deep pools of sorrow. He then stopped the conversation, but I respected his openness in letting me share a bit of his love and sorrow for another. He demonstrated to the reader in his writings as well, relating the ‘propaganda’, the lies, the secrecy, which was always apparent within the Republican Movement. He, to me, wrote this book, knowing that it may cause him issues, yet had the integrity (albeit years after the event) to admit and expose his innermost thoughts about what was wrong with that era. He describes having a good relationship with some of the Prison Officers and confirms that Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries did indeed ‘work together’ - some would even say ‘collude.'

And I needed to know one last thing from this man who had given up so much of his time, effort, freedom for the IRA - was it all worth it? The deaths, the pain and hardship? The answer came back without a seconds’ hesitation, but I’d say everyone who have been involved in any part in the conflict here would most probably have asked themselves the same question. ‘No, not one life that has been lost has been worth the struggle, on any part.’ This is how I’d answer the question to myself. When we think of all the trauma created by all sides, the victims, their families, the permanently scarred both physically and mentally, how can it have been worth it?

I can sit now and thank the stars for enabling me to have made this journey. I know that through the adversity suffered in his life Ricky has carved out a very well-deserved career in writing and assisting those in our society who need the most support. I will never condone any actions those men, Republican, Loyalist or indeed, those who abused their power in Long Kesh committed, and I don’t ever intend to, but as always, my mantra is ‘respect’. I respect folk who tell truths, who are open to allowing themselves to admit their flaws, and who respect my views, whilst not holding my flaws against me. It has been yet another confirmation, that we can and do have differing views, we have all come to this position in our lives with our own baggage, but respecting humanity and realising that in fact, there are commonalities between us all as human beings.

⏩ Lesley Stock is a former PSNI and RUC Officer currently involved in community work. 

From The Eyes Of An Adversary ➖ The Method Of The Madness

Lesley Stock ✒ concludes on her exchange with Richard O'Rawe. 

Some may wonder why I, a proud retiree from the RUCGC and PSNI, would even contemplate writing about the Blanket Men and hunger strikers? So much has already been written – hell, they’ve even had movies made about them! 

Since retiring from the police – I have become more interested in politics, my role in this messed up society, and how to make it a slightly better place for our future generations. I’ve become involved in peace and reconciliation and have heard stories that made me weep with despair and also genuine warmth from every section of the community. One thing I’ve never ‘got’, was unadulterated sectarianism. I was never brought up in that way and hence, brought my children up within the Integrated education system. Even in my early 20’s, I realised that we are all a product of birth and our background. Each of us, if born into another family could have become the very people we see as ‘enemies’.

It was after getting quite a lot of criticism from loyalists, for even contemplating writing on a ‘Republican’ site such as TPQ, (an incorrect assumption in fact!) that made me look at our past. Much lately, has been written about the hunger strikers, and the fact that it is 40 years since their deaths. I saw it as not just a Republican past, I viewed it - and even more so now realise - that whatever our knowledge or opinions on it, it was a crucial period in our collective past. How many Protestants know anything about what really went on in the prison at that crucial time? I know that I, in my ignorance didn’t even try to know, or understand. These four articles were about me educating myself, and hopefully allowing others to grasp exactly what went on. They were to be neither Republican ‘propaganda’ articles, for my views are still very much my views, nor were they to be articles to highlight the views of most Protestants, that these were men starving themselves to death for a cause. I hope that I have given a true account of the facts and I must admit, that my meeting with, and chatting with one of these men, who knows personally about what went on, was enlightening, shocking and a humbling experience for which I will be eternally grateful.

I came into quite a bit of criticism with the first 2 articles (I’m writing this immediately after writing the 3rd) from what I would class as unrepentant, ideological Republicans. I was ‘fluffing’ what really happened. Yes, I didn’t present the full, horrific details of the brutality prisoners endured, for two reasons, 1 – Ricky didn’t give me those details, perhaps to save me from embarrassment or shame? and 2 – because the brutality in it’s unedited inhumane fact can be read in Ricky’s’ fabulous book, Blanket Men. Republicans know about the incidents of torture and disgusting brutality that no person should ever have endured, but I was writing these pieces not specifically for Republicans, these were to be pieces which perhaps Protestants weren’t aware of.

I hope that even some clearer and impartial understanding of those times can be achieved by the articles. I, for one, (and others who have read them have contacted me,) have learned much more about humanity of individual men and the internal workings of the IRA. For me, it was like a brick had hit me, the commitment to following orders within that organisation. Maybe not so different to the British Army if one really takes it to the letter of ‘doing as one is told’! Were the soldiers on the streets of Belfast and Derry acting on orders, and merely followed them? Or, did they disobey orders and fire discriminately into innocent bystanders? I personally think that – as with the ‘volunteers’ in the IRA and indeed the Loyalist paramilitaries, there are incidents which are definitely cases of both. As Ricky stated, some volunteers were prohibited from even going on the hunger strike because of their inhumane deeds prior to incarceration. We have members of the Shankill Butchers, who, were most definitely members of a paramilitary grouping, but also carried out the most sadistic inhumane murders.

Being devil's advocate, how can real die-hard Republicans criticise the British Army for doing the same thing that some of their members were also guilty of? I absolutely, however, think that the authors of those orders within the British Army should be tried for subsequent actions of their foot soldiers. I’ve had many a conversation with open minded Republicans, who will readily admit that it’s Republicans who never served a day in jail, who never undertook any participation in the ‘cause’, and who are the most sanctimonious, pious, unyielding, and stubborn agitators against any criticism by Protestants of the IRA.

And what of Mr Ricky O’Rawe (no longer Volunteer) - what happens to a man who has gone through so much for the IRA. after he no longer ‘volunteers’? Well, he is still a committed Republican and wishes to see a United Ireland. He doesn’t (and Shouldn't) make any apology for that vision. He is still married to Bernadette and Bernie, his lovely daughter (who I also had the privilege of meeting) is a highly educated beautiful woman of whom he is very openly, and quite rightly very proud. He is a member of society who helps those who have gone through trials in life, working with youngsters to prevent them getting into paramilitary activity, alcoholics and drug addicts. This man I’d say has the life experiences to assist in such a positive way to society … All of our society.

In writing the book, he says he himself came under extreme criticism from some Republicans. The truth of those negotiations and unnecessary deaths of Ricky’s’ friends I’m sure, were hard to take, by those whose decisions caused them. One thing I completely respect about this unassuming man is his honesty, how he allowed me behind the ‘wall’ of his conscience and mind. He spoke briefly to me about the fantastic friendship he had with Gerry Conlon, and about how he vowed to write his autobiography on Gerry’s death bed. But as I looked at this friend describing the death of another, I felt privileged that I saw tears form in the eyes that had turned into deep pools of sorrow. He then stopped the conversation, but I respected his openness in letting me share a bit of his love and sorrow for another. He demonstrated to the reader in his writings as well, relating the ‘propaganda’, the lies, the secrecy, which was always apparent within the Republican Movement. He, to me, wrote this book, knowing that it may cause him issues, yet had the integrity (albeit years after the event) to admit and expose his innermost thoughts about what was wrong with that era. He describes having a good relationship with some of the Prison Officers and confirms that Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries did indeed ‘work together’ - some would even say ‘collude.'

And I needed to know one last thing from this man who had given up so much of his time, effort, freedom for the IRA - was it all worth it? The deaths, the pain and hardship? The answer came back without a seconds’ hesitation, but I’d say everyone who have been involved in any part in the conflict here would most probably have asked themselves the same question. ‘No, not one life that has been lost has been worth the struggle, on any part.’ This is how I’d answer the question to myself. When we think of all the trauma created by all sides, the victims, their families, the permanently scarred both physically and mentally, how can it have been worth it?

I can sit now and thank the stars for enabling me to have made this journey. I know that through the adversity suffered in his life Ricky has carved out a very well-deserved career in writing and assisting those in our society who need the most support. I will never condone any actions those men, Republican, Loyalist or indeed, those who abused their power in Long Kesh committed, and I don’t ever intend to, but as always, my mantra is ‘respect’. I respect folk who tell truths, who are open to allowing themselves to admit their flaws, and who respect my views, whilst not holding my flaws against me. It has been yet another confirmation, that we can and do have differing views, we have all come to this position in our lives with our own baggage, but respecting humanity and realising that in fact, there are commonalities between us all as human beings.

⏩ Lesley Stock is a former PSNI and RUC Officer currently involved in community work. 

97 comments:

  1. Lesley

    Proud/unrepentant, what's the difference? Is it that Proud portrays you and the RUC as more noble but people like me are unrepentant sinners?

    I presume that I was one of your harshest critics to whom you refer -I understood your article were intended as your personal journey. It was not a case of my being unrepentant or intolerable, I just did not, do not, buy it. It read like an abusive husband swearing that he wanted to change but always avoiding his abusive behaviour during marriage counseling. Like an abusive husband who learns to say certain phrases that tick the right boxes without ever actually engaging with his abusive tenancies. Your use of passive or quint word formulae do not conceal the hole in the core of your writing.

    In this last installment you try to sound reasonable by lumping Republicans, Loyalists and Screws as perpetrators and victims of their own actions (last paragraph). I think your journey has not yet begun much less completed. You did not actually engage with your own unfaltering and rigid pride in the RUC, and by implication, the whole sectarian state of oppression that they tried to maintain by violence ever since their origins. You might have asked yourself what created men like RO'R? Like the abusive husband scenario -you avoided the elephant in the room.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am proud of the contribution I made to the communities in which I served. That is not the same as being proud of everything the RUC did, although it goes without saying that the majority of my colleagues were impartial and served every section of the community. I will not hide my pride in helping the folk of North Belfast and the other parts of Belfast I served.

      Delete
    2. Oh and Christie - Ricky already what created men like him...... maybe you were just too busy trying to find fault in my fluffy writing to actually read that he was BROUGHT UP IN THAT WAY - Ricky stated he was always going to be in the IRA because of the history in his family.

      Delete
    3. Lesley

      Yes RO'R did indeed say those things. But had your lot not battered people peacefully demanding their civil rights and then interning or savagely gunning innocent people down on the streets of Belfast and Derry the IRA would not have had its ranks swell as they did. The RUC 'enmass' did not like pesky Nationalists peacefully protesting to be treated fairly in a sectarian state. Or are we supposed to pretend that the emergence of the PIRA inexplicably happened in a vacuum? I do not buy your 'few bad apples' assertions -from 1970-1998 I never encountered the impartial members of the RUC you claim existed -none of them patrolled West Belfast. That is not to say that some may have existed because I am sure they may have.

      I do not for one minute wish to detract from whatever brought you to meet with RO'R or the apparent respect you both may have developed for each other. I am calling you out on your sanitization of historical facts.

      Delete
  2. Lesley

    You (and Richard) have made a very valuable contribution to our understanding of what was a very traumatic and pivotal episode in NI history - the 1980-81 prison hunger strikes.

    In what I guess has been a challenging journey, you bring much humanity and empathy to our understanding of these events. Since we are a considerable temporal distance from the hunger strikes, I now realise that there was a much wider picture at that that few of us outside the decision-making loop not least the prisoners who were lied to serially by Adams and company.

    You have handled the hostility directed to you on this site with dignity and integrity.

    I look forward to more writings from you on this site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Barry that it has been a valuable input. I don't think the criticism amounts to much that is penetrating but I would not regard it as particularly hostile. I think it makes the mistake it accuses Lesley of making - an inability to see how somebody else might not see things the way we want them to see them. Ernesto Laclau once described or dismissed false consciousness as holding that people don't think the way we think they should think. The people debating are seasoned commenters here and know the drill. They don't walk on eggshells when giving it or lie on the pitch for half an hour howling when it they are on the receiving end.

      Delete
    2. AM I actually do find it hostile..... does it get to me? No. Its just a tad boring when people read into what I say, only the things they want to see. Their problem, not mine.....

      Delete
    3. Looking at from where I sit it looks more snarky than hostile but you gave as good as you got

      Delete
    4. AM

      My argument has nothing to do with my ability to see things from LS' side -I am saying she had her eyes closed to inconvenient historical facts. I cannot take seriously her questioning why young men, like RO'R, were prepared to give up their liberty and lives -when she could not even question fundamentals like why thousands of young men, like RO'R, ended up in Long Kesh.

      I understood that LS was going on a personal journey to try and understand RO'R's journey --in which case external forces played a big part in RO'Rs journey. Those external forces were so large that, to me, LS showed skill and agility in avoiding them. Though in her view corruption in the RUC can be defined as noble cause corruption, to which she is very proud of. She initially tried to pass the dirty protest and hunger strikes of as self inflicted -and only back tracked after I challenged that.

      She has mentioned a couple of times some bewilderment to IRA men adherence to taking orders. Each time I'm thinking does she not even realise what she is saying? How many times have we seen those loyal to the crown being directed by a warlord, sitting in London, send thousands of young soldiers to their deaths in attempt to take over a hill in a foreign country? And those who refuse will be shot dead for cowardice. That was the backbone of what being British and service to the Crown meant.

      It is not easy for anyone to go down the rabbit hole. So I would commend LS for putting her neck out and making what effort she has made to humanize RO'R; even if only to herself. If LS simply wrote I'm a former member of the RUC and I met a former member of the IRA, RO'R, and it turned out he came across as a pretty normal guy, or I just did not like him at all. I could get that either way. I cannot take her journey that serious because of her exclusion of external factors that contradicts the nobility of her own side in the Conflict, -I see that as self serving and thus undermines the quality or credibility of the journey.

      Delete
    5. Not Really Here

      Actually, I read this last installment wanting not to find issue. I swear that I really did.

      AM

      Yes, I am snarky, I will own that.

      Delete
    6. Christy - being snarky is hardly the worst of offences even if it is not conducive to discussion, leading more often than not to a race to the bottom. Still, being snarky, sarcastic, mocking are all legitimate weapons of deconstruction of rigidity and are excluded at great risk. General rule if we can hold to it - treat others as we wish to be treated by them.

      Inconvenient historical facts are often viewed through an ideological lens. I would take her less seriously if she didn't question - and just uncritically accepted - why young men and women give up their lives and liberty for their beliefs or as a consequence of the circumstances they find themselves in. The Wehrmacht troops thought it of the Red Army and Red Army troops thought of the Wehrmacht. This blog used (or at one time did) the Carl Jung observation that there is no coming to consciousness without pain.

      I think she cited one case of noble cause corruption - but I have not seen an institution yet where the practice failed to exist. It seems to be an unwritten rule. They often call it the greater good.

      She is allowed to backtrack or change her mind after you or anyone else challenging her. It would be rigidity for her not to. John Maynard Keynes supposedly quipped "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Determined ignorance is of little value here.

      I am always bewildered by people who blindly follow orders, having argued some time ago that people easily led are people who will easily commit atrocity.

      She is there to be persuaded by reasoned argument. If she fails to persuade you by reasonable argument or you her, that might reveal more about the unpersuaded than any amount of acerbic criticisms.

      At the heel of the hunt TPQ is not site sans rough challenges. Noel Doran once said he found it a vulgar site. I guess there is some truth in that although hopefully, there is much more to it than that.

      Delete
    7. Point of information: The blog still carries Jung's observation.

      Alas few it seems, feel well-enough resourced to step out on the journey and thus are limited by their current level of understanding.

      Delete
    8. I just haven't noticed it in a while.
      Yes, even the treater needs treated for that condition!

      Delete
    9. AM
      Jung's comment shows up on every page, both on the phone and on the PC. The fact that you haven't noticed it in a while is reflective of how we all create our individual experiences ... we all have two brains running. Daniel Kahneman describes it as 'thinking fast and thinking slow'. We all do it and generally it serves us: generally so, until it doesn't.

      It would benefit the discussion I believe, if you were to slow down your thinking and not jump so fast to conclusions about the validity of both my own and Christy's rebuttals of Lesley's positions.
      Of course, you are free to be dismissive of them as 'less than penetrating', that's your prerogative but with as much honesty and respect as I can bring to this I have to say that's most likely a fast thinking response, a fast thinking response directed by made up evaluations of who Christy and I might have been in the past rather than it being about the substance of our critique.
      And all that's further complicated, I guess, by your own competing needs for perhaps keeping Lesley on board whilst at the same time moderating and contributing.

      Delete
    10. Henry Joy - I will make a point of looking some time. It used to be something I noticed every time I opened the page.
      So what if your reflections are less than penetrating? In this case they seem very much that way to me. Nor is it being casually dismissive to point it out. They are a boiler plate response to the type of perspective Lesley brings to the table.
      Nor is my view the product of whatever you think you and Christy were in the past. Christy makes no claim to be anything other than a person screwed over by the system.
      I don't need to keep Lesley on board, no more than I need to keep you on board. I like keeping both of you on board equally. But if either of you were to leave because you took offence, c'est la vie. There is no right not to be offended.

      Delete
    11. AM
      Just to be clear, no request has been made for special category status nor for privileges. But hey, I'm also satisfied that nobody is prisoner nor hostage here.

      We have different takes on this.
      Give me two or three specific examples of where my responses have been 'boiler plate' ones and we could tease them out.
      Otherwise your evaluations fall as mere ad hominem-like returns.

      Delete
    12. Henry Joy - that is not exactly accurate. You make use of a privilege (without abusing it) by using a pen name. Lesley or Christy for that matter, do not avail of that privilege and are therefore more vulnerable to hostile criticism. It is not exactly a level playing field.
      All of your responses are typical of the type of criticism a non-republican or even an anti-republican perspective evokes. I found nothing new in them. There was nothing that made me pause and think now there is a new way of looking at things Not that they were wrong, just that they were not novel.
      It hardly needs saying, there was no playing of the man on my part. I think I have conducted my side of the discussion in a reasonable and rational way. However, others are free to differ.

      Delete
    13. AM
      Read my last comment again.

      "no request has been made for special category status nor for privileges"

      Please confirm the correctness of my statement and desist from misdirection by answering a made-up one!

      Furthermore you conveniently now forget one of my comments where you responded "Well said Henry Joy"

      It was the one where I made a comparison with people becoming mesmerised by a fast flowing stretch of white water without ever considering what was happening beneath the surface.

      But hey that was more akin to a non-republican one.
      I think that's your blind spot on this debate with Lesley ... anything that seems remotely akin to a traditional republican response and your pattern-matching, fast thinking bias or perhaps even prejudice kicks in.

      (And finally read the closing line again too. The non-specifics of your evaluation were described as ad hominem-like. I had hoped the '-like' differentiated from any accusation of playing the man).

      Delete
    14. Henry Joy - rather than waste time with semantics, just give up the privilege if it has no value to you nor gives you an advantage over those you seek to criticise.
      I have no prejudice towards a republican sentiment. In fact given your endorsement of how right John Hume was all along, it might be said that the prejudice is your own. You are quite entitled to praise John Hume. I am not going to lambast you for it.
      Yes, I did forget that but it is the form I admire. It was very well expressed.
      Most people I guess would treat ad hominem like returns as being like ad hominem returns not unlike such returns.

      Delete
    15. AM - the semantics are not unlike the ones you yourself made use of when we were on another discussion recently; you danced between the noun and the adjective/adverb and took of advantage of a similar nuanced distinction between that of fascist and fascistic.
      Surely, I can be afforded similar use of nimble footwork? Or is it only the gaffer allowed that?

      The use of monikers were part of the terms and conditions that existed when I came around here first. To the best of my knowledge those terms and conditions still apply; I sometime see you ask those that sign off as anonymous to provide a unique identifier rather than identify themselves. Am I correct in that? Is the use of monikers to be withdrawn? Are the terms and conditions about to be changed?

      Your position on monikers, especially with me, comes up again and again and is only brought out as a last line of defence when you have no other argument to call upon: it tends to arise only when my 'opponent' is on the back foot and they're calling for the ref (long time regulars will remember similar examples of this)!

      The by-line for this piece appropriately mentions 'madness'.
      You call on me to give up the privilege which is in fact not one, and can't be one insofar as it is available to all.
      It is but merely a part of the terms and conditions I originally availed of, originally availed of and still pertaining.
      (“Privilege.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege. Accessed 29 Aug. 2021).

      And finally, my unusual political journey is one I am well-ready and well-able to defend. To do that I'll call on one of your oft used quotes from Muhamad Ali:

      “The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life,”,

      What Ali recognised was that to successfully navigate life is that we all need to become cartographers. We continuously need to update our internals maps. I have done that and hopefully will retain that capacity for a few more years hence.

      In the meantime, you do what you will:

      (i) Step up to the plate and change the terms and conditions
      (ii) Banish me to 'Der Strummer' or whatever its called
      (iii) Just back off!

      Delete
    16. HJ – they are not unlike the fascistic and fascist, for the very reason I made the point to you. Fascistic is more like fascist than it is unlike it. A distinction I have long drawn on. But I’ll leave it to you to work it out.
      The use of a moniker is a permissible privilege – available to all and invoked by some. It doesn’t mean people always use it for good reason or don’t feel it gives them an unfair advantage when having a go at others who waive the use of the moniker. As someone who has refused to say what I have to from behind the cover of a moniker I have never had a great deal of time for its use outside of those exceptional circumstances where there is a significant danger to the person were they to step up to the plate.
      It is permissible here for the purpose of facilitating ideas, not insults. Not that insults were a part of the above exchange. The onus is on the people pushing the ideas not to use the moniker to try and put others down. When used it should be accompanied by courtesy and civility. Treat people as we wish to be treated by them.
      The use of monikers is not to be withdrawn but there is a long-standing caveat that invisible people have invisible rights. The person who does not use a moniker has the rights in the interests of fairness. As was explained to Barry Gilheany at one time he has the right to invoke another privilege – which is to prevent comments on his pieces from monikers. He was not offered the privilege of blocking comments from named people. He chose not to use the privilege.
      I don’t even recall the last time the moniker position came up in relation to yourself. Quite some time ago, I imagine. It came up this time not because of anything you said in the exchange but because of your expressed view that you don’t seek privilege yet avail of it. Best to let the readers decide who needs the last line of defence or has no argument to call on. We could ping pong it all day. I understand your difficulty in defending the use of the moniker against people who don’t use them. But it is your problem to solve. Maybe you will find Ali’s advice in that respect useful.
      As for your three proposals: none of them going to happen. Der Sturmer is for the racists and their ilk. The T&Cs don’t need changed. And there will be no backing off.

      Delete
  3. Over all the years I've been following TPQ this has been one of the most engaging series I've read. Simply because it's fascinating to hear what was going through "their" heads. Lesley comes across as a good egg but never addresses her reasons for joining the egregiously sectarian RUC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dino
      If you read 'She' also online here, in fact it was the first article that Anthony asked if he could publish here, my reasons for joining are held there. But in case you can't be bothered to read it, my reason for joining a police force was very simple. I hated the job I was in, and knew that I wanted to help people. It really was that simple, plus the money was good and it gave a pension.....

      Delete
    2. Christy
      I don't really normally say this to folk, but I reckon you're one who no matter what I say will ganch and find fault with, so - don't even consider reading anything I have to say in the future. In fact, I might even go so far as saying you can fk off with your comments and views, for much as you dislike mine - I seriously am starting to get bored and tired of yours. It's rare that I refuse to engage, however, I'm human and find you completely stuck in your own sense of nobility whilst finding others feelings irrelevant. That to me, shouts of arrogance and I'm done. It's unfortunate I can't actually block your negativity and bullshit

      Delete
    3. Lesley - it is unfortunate that the discussion has taken on this acerbic tone. Christy is airing his opinion. It is what happens in discussions. The key question is whether people learn more from his opinion or yours. I have learned more from yours. I am already familiar with the type of criticism Christy makes as a general political critique. But in the interpersonal dynamic that has ensued between the two of you, I don't feel the punches have really landed.
      While well-read pieces are not proof of people agreeing with them, I think you can sense from Twitter that these ones have a high approval rating. They are being very well read on this blog so agreed with or not, many people find them interesting. My sense is that the sentiment expressed by Dino would be pretty widespread among your readers from a republican perspective. More one of critical engagement than one of dismissal.
      The important thing is to put your ideas out there and allow them to be tested. If I was in you position, I would not feel the questioning or criticism has done your presentation any harm. It would be harmful to it were such criticism to be blocked.
      You might learn something from John Coulter who has been with us the guts of twenty years. He publishes and be damned. He never responds to anything, positive or negative, instead preferring to let his writing do the talking.

      Delete
    4. Lesley

      I think I came out of the gate swinging too hard at you. That was not because I am unrepentant but because I thought you are unrepentant. I have no problem with your politics or that you were in the RUC but that you were a corrupt cop -hence my aversion to the concept of noble cause corruption --I have more in common with Jamie Bryson in that regard. In your pride and defense of the RUC I was challenging you to go back and consider what did RUC corruption and misconduct do to fuel the Conflict and create men like RO'R. Had you dug a little deeper and your opinions remained the same then so be it but it was your failure to try.

      I am a minority of one -everyone else has praised your articles -I also praise it but only to the extent that you you had the courage to step out and meet an adversary and how you developed a genuine respect for him. However, in 4 installments, I was expecting something deeper from you but instead I thought your writing was superficial and ditsy.

      I only know RO'R by reputation and you were not changing my opinion of him, I was looking to change my opinion about you.

      Delete
    5. Lesley

      I too have come under harsh criticism for some of my responses. I have reflected upon them and tagree that those criticisms are valid and I have responded to you in a harsh tone that I should have known better and should have acted better in that regard. In short please accept my apologies for being an ass in that regard.

      Delete
  4. TPQ, to its credit, carries opinion pieces from many and varied commentators, so Lesley's opinions are as welcome as anyone else's.
    By their nature though opinions aren't always facts and of necessity they need to be scrutinised and tested.

    Her participation is interesting insofar as it potentially opens a door onto an individual's experience as a member of the largely discredited and now disbanded Royal Ulster Constabulary. Her engagement also allows us observe one more part of the Unionist continuum. Clearly in this particular piece, Lesley self-identifies as a responsible, middle-class and liberal Unionist. In doing so she attempts to put clear blue water between herself, the fanatically religious elements and the murderous sectarian enforcers that collectively make up the total bandwidth of political unionism. In doing so, she rejects anything but the most superficial level of analysis and demonstrates little understanding of the underlying causes of the conflict.

    She reminds me in a strange way of Shane Paul O'Doherty; self-satisfied and self-righteously deluded. So much so that I find myself in agreement with Christy's comment about her journey having not yet scarcely begun.

    No doubt she has good intentions, but as my Granny would say 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

    On the other hand the road to Nirvana, as well as tending to be the road less travelled, is the one of good action: good action, to include courageous and honest reflection upon the past, leading on to as accurate as possible conclusions, which in turn are foundational for future planning and more good action.

    Lesley, and indeed many of the supporting commentators to her pieces, to my mind seem to unquestioningly adhere to the new dispensation for saccharine rapprochement and reluctant to diverge from more recently constructed pathways towards asinine and blind acquiescence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think her approach is far removed from Shane Paul's - who has also featured on TPQ in Booker's Dozen.
      I see very little unquestioning adherence to anything on this blog never mind deference to saccharine rapprochement. There are more questions raised than answers given.

      Delete
  5. Henry Joy
    'Lesley self-identifies as a responsible, middle-class and liberal Unionist. In doing so she attempts to put clear blue water between herself, the fanatically religious elements and the murderous sectarian enforcers that collectively make up the total bandwidth of political unionism.'
    Really?? What do you class as 'middle-class'? What do you class as 'liberal unionist'? And where the fk did I even say that I was those?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lesley,
      in your pieces or in your comments you've disclosed that you sent your kids to an educate together school. You also mentioned that Mummy and Pops encouraged you treat all as equal. Hence those appraisals. Hardly difficult to understand, is it?

      Delete
    2. Henry Joy
      Why would me sending my kids to an integrated college make me middle-class unionist? My kids went to school with the son of a former IRA man from Lower Ormeau.... Not really sure where you get your ideas from - but I'm not liberal unionist, although come from a liberal unionist background. i've said before if there was to be a UI voted for tomorrow I doubt I'd have much of a problem with it. As for middle class, not sure being penniless and living in rented house entitles me to that status......

      Delete
    3. Lesley,

      Firstly, sorry to hear your finances are not what you'd like them to be. I'm sure that can be stressful by times.

      The tone of this piece came across to me as I described it. Now that you've clarified and I acknowledge I misheard it somewhat.


      Delete
  6. AM - it would seem that some of the 'commentators' here would like me to encompass absolutely every thought, feeling and idea I have in every piece I ever write, so that I 'cover' the bits they think I omit or whitewash over. Have those commentators produced any articles on here, or do they merely shit stir from the sidelines, allowing their blind bigotry to somehow take over their fingers whilst replying to MY articles. Does John Coulter get any comments from the same circle? To be honest, I have enough shit and negativity to deal with in my life to be lambasted by arrogant mysogynistic tossers every time I put an article in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Coulter gets a lot of stick from commenters. I don't recall specifically if those who engage with you have been commenting on his pieces.
      It is not your job to cater for what your critics want. You set yourself a task and you succeeded in what you set out to do: which was to share your thoughts on an exchange with Richard. What others think is up to them, not for you to get unduly concerned over.
      While I think the criticism has not amounted to much I do feel obligated to defend it against accusations of blind bigotry or misogyny. Everything disagreeable cannot be reduced to that.
      Christy has from time to time featured on the blog with his own pieces.

      Delete
    2. Lesley

      Like you, I have had detractors on this site when I have written articles. I find that their criticisms rooted in not a few instances in the rabbit hole of conspiracist myths. Their "critiques" say more about themselves than me, the arguments I make and how I evidence them. I can stand over every article I have written for TPQ and you have every reason to stand over your writings.

      If it makes you feel better tell your detractors to fuck off. If you are going through other shit in your life, you may wish to give yourself a break from TPQ or indeed come off all social media temporarily as I did a few years ago.

      Delete
    3. Leslie,

      Don't get me started on "Dr" Coulter, and I'm a Loyalist. I've enjoyed your writings so more power to you, keep them coming. I've friends and family who were former RUC and all of them to a man were decent people, and all of them hated the Loyalist paramilitaries just as much as the Republican ones. I am finding it odd that seasoned Quillers are very quick to tar with the same brush those on the opposite side of the spectrum. I stick my head up and expect to be shot at, so all i can say is keep on writing, it's important for everyone to get as broad a range of opinions as possible before nailing any colours to our mast.

      Delete
  7. AM - Airing an opinion is fine, I have no problem with airing opinions, does anyone though learn anothers opinion when constantly being put down? No. It's a bit like when you constantly give negative criticism to kids - or a partner, eventually they will turn off and what you really want them to hear is lost forever..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lesley - part of the learning process for readers is the acquiring of an ability to see when put downs are just that. If Christy was just an embittered crank I would advise you just to ignore him and not to engage. But he has long brought something different to the blog than that.
      The ability to penetrate with caustic criticism is subject to a low of diminishing returns. It has a shorter shelf life for the recipient of it and its wider durability is determined by the audience not the dispenser. For that reason Waldo Emerson once wrote that every hero becomes a bore in the end. If the criticism is hollow the audience soon tires of it. And if you are appealing to a wider audience and not just your detractors, that is what you aim for. Bear in mind - the audience can also love a good bun fight.
      How we respond to criticism is always important. Nobody likes criticism - it is like a punch on the nose in the boxing ring. Who wants that? But without it being thrown how might we learn to get the defensive mitts up. Ring craft rather than punching power can often be an effective counter.

      Delete
  8. AM - no everything can't be reduced to that, but again, perhaps it's how I feel today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. then time to disengage if you are feeling down. The purpose of the blog is not to add to whatever pressures people are already under. It is never advisable to approach these things in the wrong mood.

      Delete
  9. Lesley
    Congrats on your articles and your journey. As a fellow unionist I would advise you to just publish your articles and don't read the comments and don't engage. They will just drag you down. I'm sure Mackers would be happy to give you personal feedback by email or phone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just back after a lovely afternoon in Strangford!! Jesus that all went downhill fast! Thanks Peter, however I'm actually not a unionist per se.... lol

      Delete
    2. Lesley
      Lol....I suppose I am more of a Lundy myself since I voted AP in the last few elections! Gotta keep the DUP out of North Down!
      The pile on here has been painful to watch, just ignore them.

      Delete
  10. Lesley,

    I simply want to know what you found funny about being unfit for duty with a hang over and throwing your ring up out of a moving land rover...A drunk police officer on duty with a loaded weapon. That's a scary thought. We know you didn't clean your mess up. I'd be surprised if you did. Did it happen often? Once a week, month...a few times a year? What about the other officers you worked with, how often did any of them walk the streets of Ardoyne drunk with a loaded weapon? Was alcohol abuse prevalent in the RUC?

    Have those commentators produced any articles on here, or do they merely shit stir from the sidelines, allowing their blind bigotry to somehow take over their fingers whilst replying to MY articles.

    I have wrote a few pieces. Read the first paragraph of From the shithole of Belfast to the arsehole of Europe: Tales of a Belfast rockabilly. At the same time (mid-late 80's), you took your carry out to sectarian bonfires sometimes, while rockabillies like myself and Richard O'Rawes cousin would meet up in Corn Market with our carry outs and go to a Rockabilly club, listen to live music...go to the same all nighters... one of those all nighters Lesley was just off the Newtonards Road , we both got hammered, passed out and woke up with both our quiffs hacked to pieces. When I rolled back into Ardoyne on Sunday at 4pm....I got the biggest bollicking of my life. Richards cousin didn't fair much better....(I have FB message from him , in his owns words about that night.....)

    As a generalization how often would officers turn up unfit for duty because they got hammered the night before?


    ReplyDelete
  11. Frankie
    I had been at a family party the night before - I was 22!!!!! I didn't drive to work that morning - I was hungover - not drunk. I also at that time wasn't armed.... I went ONCE to a bonfire and yes - it wasn't a fantastic experience! Too much drink and drunk folk there singing crap! I worked with one or two alcoholics, theyre now sacked! Quite rightly so in my opinion, one of my best friends was an alco, but I never knew until we went away on holiday together. Never realised whilst working with her....I'm sure you've known people with issues and problems in work, as I've said before, police are human too. Perhaps in your haste to see fault, you'd maybe stop making assumptions and actually ask a question... It does make you look rather bitter.....

    ReplyDelete
  12. Christy
    Your apology is graciously accepted. I think at one stage I may have told you to fuck off and I also apologise.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Henry Joy
    My kids are doing well, my parents are elderly, but I still have them which is a gift, finances may not be what I'd like, but I have a lovely roof over my head and food on the table. I appreciate many don't even have that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Good on you Leslie.
    The old gratitude muscle is well worth developing.

    (Educate Together here in the 26 is similar I guess to an integrated college in the North. However my hunch is that the parents down here who send their kids there are very much liberal in their outlook, overly health conscious and minimal meat-eaters. But hey maybe that's just another generalisation on my behalf).

    ReplyDelete
  15. NRH

    I was not intending to create the sense of frustration in you which became apparent to me. So you have nothing to applogise for, I was not in any way offended by any of your responses.

    I see your articles in 2 parts -the human element between 2 adversaries where RO'R could write an equally personal experience on meeting you -who he is/was is no more or less valid on who you are.

    The second part is how you identify and do not address the nature of the sectarian state, the intenionality of its state actors like the RUC -I do not think that you actually relise it but you write in terms of you are proud of being on the side of the good guys. In brief: when I challenged you to reflect upon the 'good guys' contribution you deflect by protesting that you weren't in the RUC when all the 'bad stuff' happened. This is why I say that your journey has not begun.

    AM asserts that my criticisms do not penetrate what you have written and I say that the level of respect with which you refer to RO'R is welcome but not sufficient reward to me the reader who was disappointed because your articles did not penetrate the surface deeper issues that you have raised in a naive way or ommitted out of convenience. You raised expectation of a personal journey that involved grappling of hard truths and historical events. In short, all 4 articles in summary, conclude as; isn't it great that I met with RO'R -but I came in a good guy and I left as a good guy. Where's the journey?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Christie
    I may have treated everyone with respect and helped those who needed it, no matter who they were, but I too still had my prejudices. I could not have seen me having this journey, whilst serving : meeting with ex IRA, and in the case of one of my best friends (also ex IRA) staying in Derry in the heart of Brandywell. That was a journey I had to make AFTER I retired, for obvious reasons. So, I'd say I've come further than most ex RUC in that respect, however, there are definitely more of us out there than you would think. I have often said, I'm not an angel, I'm human, I get mad and frustrated exactly the same as anyone else, but I acknowledge that and don't pretend to be a saint.
    What I will say about some people on here is that there seems to be an awful lot of 'assumptions' about me, about my past and about my life now, as Henry Joy has shown in assuming I was middle class liberal Unionist (that did make me giggle!)
    I just wish that folk if they are going to slate me - slate me for the right reasons and based on fact and not what they reckon I was whilst in the Police or am, based on what they think I'm doing now. I haven't made any assumptions about you, in fact, I specifically asked you had you been in prison, so that I could answer a comment you had made which was based on fact and not MY assumption that you probably had been.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lesley

      I was only aware that you had met one man (RO'R) so it seems evident that there is more to your journey than your articles reveal. A huge assumption or fallacy in your articles was that the deplorable prison conditions were self-inflicted. When you say a lot of your former colleagues are decent people how does that equate to RO'R saying that a lot of his colleagues are decent people? I can say truthfully that in West Belfast I never once encountered a decent member of the RUC. However when I was in Castlereagh detectives were threatening to have a member of my family killed by Loyalists unless I signed a false confession. A uniform cop taking me back to my cell told me (when we were alone)that he didn't like that they make threats like that told me to make sure I told my solicitor. That made me realize that some may be decent. Given that you did not reply to my responses to your questions I figured my prison 'pedigree' so to speak was not one that you wanted to hear.

      However, one big assumption you have made about me and I did not disabuse you of it -I was not actually a member of the IRA and so unrepentant republican bastard doesn't really apply to me under the Republican POW context it originates from.

      Delete
  17. Lesley,
    I went ONCE to a bonfire and yes - it wasn't a fantastic experience! Too much drink and drunk folk there singing crap!

    Really????

    I’m going to be honest and say I did attend the 11th Night bonfires, maybe twice in my teens.

    Maybe it was three times. I doubt it was only the once, I can't see you going four times. You can flip a coin for two or three times, my call is "heads I win and tails you lose"...

    It was a way of drinking in the street, without actually walking around with a can in my hand!! The Cregagh Estate Bonfire was basically my closest, so it was chosen for the quick stagger back home!

    There was other options. There was a huge underground music scene in Belfast during the conflict. The movie Good Vibrations touched on it. Here is local TV news footage of what the Belfast rock'n'roll scene looked like during the conflict . From Fermanagh TV, part 1 of 3 about Mamas Boys (a local Heavy Rock group that toured the world) that most of the metal heads who hung around the 147 club would have seen during the conflict. The point I am making Lesley, there was a lot of teenagers/young men-women from both back grounds who met up during the conflict on any given Thursday evening/Saturday afternoons in Belfast city center, not to fight but to listen to music.

    I can factor into things why a lot of young people joined whatever paramilitary group. And people can argue the rights and wrongs about it all day. When I hear terms like Marxism, Republicanism, Loyalist, middle class liberalist, its often sounds like Jazz to me. But when I read accounts by anyone who was a teenager during the 80's etc and who didn't sign up to the conflict at lot of the time it's 'doom and gloom'. In recent weeks I've read accounts of Quiller's who like me came of age during the 80's (stayed away from riots etc). One was beaten up several times electioneering for the SDLP, another was hiding tubes of beer under the cloak of bonfires. Another already knew the deal the UVF/UDA had to offer wasn't great. Didn't any of you ever simply switch off as teenagers go out on a Saturday night for Teenage kicks.? I did at every given chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frankie,
      On reflection, I actually attended the Bonfire on one 11th night, was about 16. So fkg hang me!!!! As for my colleagues having issues with drink? Thankfully, I always took really bad hangovers, so never really drank the night before I was on an early or a late. You walk in our boots and see what vices you had......
      Are you assuming I didn't go to the Errigle, the Rosetta, the Labour Club and Robinsons etc for music? I was that woman... fffssss







      Delete
  18. Lesley I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you only turned up once for work incapacitated in your time as RUC officer. By your own account you worked with two alcoholic's and one who was a functioning alcoholic.

    One RUC officer worked with three other officers who were alcohol dependent (there was 12,000 RUC ) Do you want to extrapolate the figures Lesley?

    Me thinks there was a big booze culture within the RUC. This is from The Guardian "All the former detectives who spoke to the Guardian said alcohol played a part, with some of the most severe beatings being meted out after interrogators had taken a break, during which they would down a few whiskies or vodkas."

    Quillers, when a former paramilitary is asked what they did or didn't do, they generally say "I did X,Y,Z for ABC reasons". But when British crime fighters are asked its often sanitized with "Never on my watch"..."Only happened once". The math's don't add up.

    Perhaps in your haste to see fault, you'd maybe stop making assumptions and actually ask a question...


    I asked lots of times "how often were you drunk on duty" and were any of your former crime fighters ever unfit in uniform. Today you told me..."On your watch you were drunk once and worked with three crime fighters who had booze issues". Tells me a lot.

    It does make you look rather bitter

    That's an emotion I've never experienced. I have no idea what it is like to be bitter towards anything. I don't think or use words like "bitter/hate"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. frankie,

      Have you seen how much Medical students who become Doctors drink? Or let rip on other "stuff"?

      Every Chemist I knew was a little too fond of pills when they went to Uni as well.

      If you want to point fingers that's fine, but you may run out of them!

      Delete
  19. Christie
    I have met quite a number of former paramilitaries, through my workshops. The reason I wanted specifically to meet Ricky was based on another article not yet published he assisted me with. You are completely correct in saying I am still early in my journey, but I have never claimed to be at the end. I take comfort in the fact that I although early in my journey am willing at least to try to understand others viewpoints, whether or not in the end I agree is irrespective to me, the respect to try is there. Quite frankly, it's a trait I don't tend to see too much with republicans........ As for me ignoring some of your comments, I thought I'd replied, lets face it, its been a melee of commentary here.... I have never once said that anyone who says they were abused by RUC are lying..... I cannot rebut your experience, it was not mine to rebut. But please folks, don't rebut mine.... it was not yours to rebut.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Steve R
    Frankie doesn't think like rational people, Frankie only wants to 'point score' against the big bad Ruc woman........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leslie,

      I well know, for the most part he's harmless though. His madcap ideas regarding international vaccine conspiracies are entertaining though they are the reason why we shouldn't take him seriously either.

      Delete
  21. @ Henry Joy

    "Lesley self-identifies as a responsible, middle-class and liberal Unionist. In doing so she attempts to put clear blue water between herself, the fanatically religious elements and the murderous sectarian enforcers that collectively make up the total bandwidth of political unionism."

    Having had the pleasure of meeting Lesley, I can confirm she is not someone with pretentiousness. I don't want to speak on her behalf, as she is absolutely capable of doing so herself, but there is vast expanses of water between her and the "fanatically religious elements and the murderous sectarian enforcers that collectively make up the total bandwidth of political unionism." In fact, the sectarian enforcers that you speak of have turned their venom on her on several occasions, and she's tackled them head on in ways which are frankly indicative of her personal bravery.

    The RUC contained alcoholics, bigots, murderers, thieves and torturers. But so did every other protagonist organisation in the Troubles. I said to Lesley when I met her that my thoughts were that the security forces were responsible for a majority of what could be classed as torture occurring during the Troubles. For me, the rationale for this is quite simple: they had the most contact with the most people. That doesn't make what happened right, or correct, but it's just a simple fact. I have no reason to doubt Lesley's assertion that she witnessed rare acts of brutality. Lesley joined the RUC in 1989, nine years after John Hermon reportedly ordered the systematic and systemic use of violent interrogation to extract confessions.

    When the powers-that-be wanted the Taigs and rotten Prods knocked off the streets during civil rights marches, the RUC did their bidding. When the NIO realised that the idiotic marching season needed reforming, and the power of the Orange Order curtailed, the RUC, to the surprise of some, did what was required (arguably with less gusto, and with some resignations).

    The RUC needed to be scrapped, and was an outdated, sectarian, parochial, and violent organisation. It could not have been anything else. But it still had honourable, decent and evenhanded officers within its ranks, in abundance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon

      The use of torture long predates John Hermon. And it was not rare post Lesley's recruitment in 1989. Not only did I suffered injuries all over my head, my back and legs. All of the youths collectively identified as The Beechmount 5 and Ballymurphy 7 were torured --Jamesy Morgan was left temporarily paralyzed. Many others were routinely mistreated.

      My abusers reeked of alcohol -and because people in other professions drink does not make it ok for cops to turn up to work under the influence. I lived on the Falls Road and it was not unknown for drunk cops to whoop and holler like cowboys as they joyrode in their jeeps firing off rounds in the early hours of the morning.

      No question Lesley has stepped out but she also gave a very sanitized of historical facts -and deflected on questions about the sectarian nature of the RUC --they were by no means not predominantly sectarian bastards -and any retelling of history portraying them as anything other is just Brit propaganda --it could be asked why would a Republican wish to portray the RUC in better light than they deserve? That is not unimaginable given that many Republicans were also willing RUC informants.

      Delete
    2. Brandon

      If the RUC had an abundance of 'honourable, decent and evenhanded officers within its ranks' are you now alleging that Nationalist claims of it being a predominantly sectarian force were/are false? It cant be both.

      Delete
    3. Lesley

      My comments were directed to Brandon and not you.

      Delete
    4. Christy,

      I believe you. But West Belfast particularly those areas you mentioned carried a very real threat of death for the cops so it's completely unsurprising they acted up.

      Delete
  22. @Brandon
    Thanks for that, I know that where you come from etc (having heard your background personally) I admire how you yourself are evenhanded and call out every side. During Drumcree, we, as officers were threatened by loyalists, but did we care? No, the majority of us held the line and did indeed 'get stuck in' when required. Personally, whilst off duty, (I may have related this story when we met) I refused to stop at loyalist illegal roadblocks - to me - they were gougers who had no right to curtail anyone. I have said it before and will say it again, I believe that my attempting to understand republicans (not agree with ) and engaging with the likes of Ricky, Anthony and others doesn't fit certain peoples 'narrative' of a sectarian RUC officer. That's their problem, not mine. The fact that they also don't believe my accounts of both my background and recent stories also doesn't particularly annoy me now, I KNOW what kind of officer and HUMAN I was and am, and as long as I know and my colleagues and friends know, then I can live with myself. I also note that poor Mackers seems to have got it in the neck for the audacity of standing up for me... Again, have a feeling it doesn't suit certain narratives.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of sensible nuance in Brandon's comment. Don't worry about me getting it in the neck - my head is still attached to the rest of me. It goes with the turf. All very mild compared to some of the things I have been called!! TPQ is glad to have you and Brandon on board as frequent contributors. Along with Peter and Caoimhin, you have added a width to the blog.

      Delete
    2. Christie
      I will for the last time say this.... No1. I have never DENIED that there were beatings done by some officers, however I cannot confirm that I EVER saw any apart from once very early in my career, whereby I stepped in and gave the officer a right chewing. Anyone else who was manhandled or forcibly restrained absolutely deserved it as they were being arrested and were resisting. I will reiterate, apart from the one time I have mentioned I never saw systematic beatings. Your experience is different, but as I said before, I can't nor won't ever intend to rebut your experience. No2. I cannot comment on what you experienced, so far from 'ignoring' you, I'm just not at liberty to agree with you. You can shout from the rafters as much as you like about police brutality, I am not going to agree purely to appease you, at the same stage I'm not going to call you a liar...... You are entitled to your opinion that I and my colleagues were all sectarian bastards, just as I am entitled to tell you I am not.

      Delete
  23. Brandon - I'm sure Lesley will appreciate the character reference, as I do too.
    Though at this particular point in time, the conversation/debate/argument has moved on considerably.

    Lesley has given us more information. She has disclosed that she's 'not a Unionist per se' and 'if there was to be a UI voted for tomorrow I doubt I'd have much of a problem with it'.

    A lot of stuff has been clarified and I'll take her at her word.

    In an earlier post on another thread I commented that just as not all priests were kiddie fiddlers not all cops were bastards but went one to make the point that organisations tend to be judged on the behaviours of their worst members. They are tarnished further when they are slow to respond and leave themselves vulnerable to accusations of cover up.

    Applies equally to the RUC and Catholic Church, wouldn't you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lealie,
    Please continue to contribute here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Chris I intend to!
      @Christie When my colleague and friend Louis Robinson was abducted, tortured beyond recognition, murdered and dumped at a border roadside, we had kids in the Short Strand and adults taunting us when we were doing foot patrols about how he died, how he'd squealed whilst being tortured....It took every ounce of my decency and training not to retaliate and beat the shite clean out of those people....... Yes there were some who couldn't control themselves on the streets, but I know from experience it wasn't just a one way street. Please when calling out the wrongs of my colleagues, at least admit when wrongs were done in your community as well....

      Delete
  25. Haven't had time to follow this discussion as closely as I would have liked. Other than a cursory libel check on comments (but those here know the drill and how to phrase things) I got caught up in other matters this past two days. A couple of things did catch my eye. Henry Joy's view that an institution tends to be viewed by the actions of its worst members would lead to a view that the IRA's actions would be viewed likewise. I would expand on that slightly by adding that an institution is viewed by what it allows its worse members to do. Which in a way is much more egregious than what the worst members do. The worst members makes it a bad apple problem whereas the latitude they get makes it a bad barrel problem, even if many of the apples in the barrel happen to be good.
    Christy askes the question if the nationalist perception of the RUC is wrong in response to Brandon's claim that there were a lot of fine people in the RUC. But if we flip that we find ourselves faced with the same type of characterisation of the IRA by the unionist community when we insist that there was a lot of fine people in the IRA. Is their characterisation any more right or wrong than the nationalist one?
    The RUC in my view was a very sectarian force which used brutality and torture as it required and not merely to shove an uncooperative drunk into the back of a jeep. It should not be redeemed or have its role whitewashed or airbrushed out. What made it sectarian was not the attitude of the individuals who served in it. It was structurally sectarian, shaped in such a way that it effectively policed one community on behalf of the other and the state. The state was not a neutral party in this: it very much pushed in one direction. In that context it made little difference how many Catholics might have joined as Catholic attitudes were not going to change a structural problem.
    That allows for plenty of good individuals to exist in the RUC or any other institution without it in any way absolving the institution of its culpability.
    People in institutions take a "common sense" view of their institutional surroundings. That is shaped largely by institutional ideology. But as Stephen Hawking said on the need to challenge common sense - things are not always what common sense makes them seem. It requires the need to stand back, to even exile ourselves from the project for a time to grasp what its function is. I would hope that the Quill is a forum for people who experience that exile and think critically rather than buy into community or institutional narratives, the accuracy of which can always be challenged.
    I guess the issue is one of how much culpability should be assigned to any individual for the transgressions of the institution.
    We will never convert people like Lesley to our view of her world. Nor will she convert us. The best we can maybe do is try to grasp why people think the way they do. I don't think that is achieved by a slanging match. Enemies rarely understand each other but adversaries can. What do we want to be - enemies or adversaries?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM says

      "The state was not a neutral party in this: it very much pushed in one direction"

      Totally agree but what most people now fail to remember or acknowledge enough is that the Northern state arose out of, or was built upon the ideology called 'Political Unionism'. The essence of this ideology was, and largely remains supremacist and triumphalist and still impacts upon the affairs of the whole island.
      Though no longer the monolith it once was, it still holds a disproportionate influence over the collective affairs of the people of Ireland. To understand the unworthy sway it holds I've come to view 'political Unionism' now as a continuum (A continuous series or whole, no part of which is noticeably different from its adjacent parts, although the ends or extremes of it are very different from each other) rather than as a monolith.

      My valid and trenchant criticism of political Unionism are directed against a flawed and toxic ideology. As such they are neither reactionary nor sectarian.
      My observations and commentary takes issue with what I consider an improper analysis, further impeded by overly-deferential acquiescence to political Unionism, which together serve to maintain difficulties rather than resolve them.

      Delete
    2. Unionism by definition is a monolith on the issue of the border. That is the found on which the continuum you refer to sits. Political unionism has a lot to answer for in a way that individual unionists do not depending on where they sit on that spectrum.
      Unionism like nationalism should be looked at with a dispassionate eye.
      We should ponder if nationalism should be any more obligatory than Catholicism and what rights are there if any to dissent from nationalism.
      Then we have the shrewd observation of John V. Kelleher from 70 years ago that a political problem is rarely solved by those who ‘tend to see it as it first existed and not as time and society continually refashion it … the history of the problem is nearly irrelevant to its solution.…’
      Giving consideration to the suggestion that people have a right to dissent from nationalism coupled with the suggestion that the problem itself sits on a spectrum, would not of itself amount to deference to the narrative of those seeking to dissent.

      Delete
    3. AM - Kelleher's point is generally well made and similar to one by Einstein which says “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

      However the specifics here are not so.
      The Irish people have collectively agreed to await permission from the interlopers before reintegrating the outstanding 3/16ths.
      Furthermore, save but for the emergence of Alliance Party which is and in itself as I understand it still a small u u Unionist one, political Unionism has been scarcely refashioned by time nor society. Any attempts at refashioning have been rejected out of hand ... ask those who remember Terence O'Neil, Chichester Clarke, Brian Faulkner and countless others.

      Who has changed their thinking? Where does the evidence point to?

      Delete
    4. HJ - Where does that leave your continuum idea whereby the ends are different from each other? Or are you using that not in the sense of any linear progression from partition to today but as a current spectrum capturing today's unionist bandwidth?
      As you suggest, the Irish people have accepted partition until a majority of people in the North agree otherwise and in that sense the problem has been redefined and may continue to be if the Mallon suggestion becomes policy. That the North could self-determine is something that emerged and got the official imprimatur in recent years.
      Those three go back quite a bit in time - unionism now accepts what they were unable to deliver then. Chi Chi never tried to refashion too much. From Trimble on it has accepted what it upended in 1974. That was the outworking of a range of pressures it could no longer resist.
      But I guess that answers the question on obligatory nationalism - it is not obligatory and people can dissent from the nation, at least in principle. It does bring a whole host of administrative and political problems that might not make such dissent a practical option. Nevertheless, they seem to have worked something out on this island that has managed to ride the waves of which there have been many.

      Delete
    5. I'm using continuum to capture todays current bandwidth. It encapsulates the diversity that exists while still acknowledging the 'whole'.
      I've found it interesting to hear Lesley's qualified acceptance of the vote going for unification and also of Peter's tactical voting (similar indeed to some of my protestant in-laws).

      Mallon's weighted majority idea could happen, though unlikely I'd hope. My objection is that its essentially undemocratic and would be yet just another manifestation of what I abhor about the political unionist foundational ideology.
      Why should one vote be worth more than another? It runs counter to my preference for a social democratic form of governance devoid of overly nationalistic tendencies. We discussed this previously and I'm firmly a European and an internationalist.
      Yes, I have it in the neck for political Unionism and reject supplication, however those objections I'll hold are grounded in social and democratic values rather than nationalistic fervour.

      Some few things are still worth taking a stand for, and some are worthy of being stood against.

      Delete
  26. AM
    Put much better than I ever could! I actually think that just was so succinct. It has been a difficult thread to try to follow and at times it seemed I couldn't reply directly to a named persons comment. I never did the piece to show 'republicans' how far I've come, in fact Republicans were the last thing on my mind if I'm honest. I was interested in getting to know the man who replied to the amnesty questions, the man who literally ALL I knew about him was that he was a republican and had been incarcerated in the H Blocks at the time of the Blanket Protest and Hunger Strikes. I found him, as I have described, honest, open and very self aware. I enjoyed his company and chat and have a respect for him having come through everything he's come through in life and to still have a 'softness' and humanity...
    I wanted to show others that as once 'ADVERSARIES', there IS a place in our society to discuss rationally, to understand and to find common ground. I will never change Ricky's view of the RUC, nor is it my intention of changing anyone's viewpoint, but perhaps now he and others understand me, Lesley, mum of two big eejits who are my world, me, who has a mini zoo and names even her chickens, me, who was plagued by nightmares of atrocities but now has found a way of coping. Not a Constable, not a sectarian bitch who only joined up to 'batter Republicans', for that was never me.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Christy Walsh

    I grew up a stone's throw from Beechmount, the Iveah area. I know the area well, and will look up the incident that you refer to.

    Re:

    "If the RUC had an abundance of 'honourable, decent and evenhanded officers within its ranks' are you now alleging that Nationalist claims of it being a predominantly sectarian force were/are false? It cant be both."

    It can be both, that's the point that I'm making. The IRA, not so far from you, contained IRA personalities such as Scap, Fingers McCartan, and others involved in sadism, criminality and so on. The Falls Road Provos also contained some members who behaved decently, honourably, and who are a credit to the area they were from.

    Humans are messy, complex beings. Groups of human beings, even more so, and groups of people in polarised society with weapons and killing, even more so.

    The RUC was most definitely a sectarian force. It was, to borrow from the propaganda of the time, "93 Protestant" but not, I would argue "100% loyalist." It was also an organisation that was brutalised and was brutalised.

    I'm dipping in and out of a piece about the capacity for brutality and bigotry in other police forces in the 70s and 80s in Europe. I am not quite sure if the RUC was exceptionally brutal in comparison with, for example, the Met (ad admittedly low bar).

    I do not have as benign an attitude towards the UDR as I do the RUC, as it happens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon

      It cannot be both, had there been an abundance of so called decent RUC members then the RUC would not have been the sectarian militia that it was. The statistical breakdown of its religious makeup was not propaganda. The RUC can be distinguished from ordinary civilian police forces use of ill-treatment in other jurisdictions. consistently in and around 80% of Nationalist convictions in Diplock Courts were based upon confession evidence extracted under various means -that is not reflected in other jurisdictions. The RUC were also setting people up to be assassinated -decent cops do operate like that.

      The distinction between Loyalist/Unionist is a blurred line -one is thought to be more vulgar than the other. The RUC was 100% Loyalist/Unionist sworn to the Crown.

      No one really thinks of the likes of the South African Police Force or Israeli Security Forces, Black and Tans etc as victims who have been brutalized. Recently, lickspittals in the 26 counties wanted to honour the RIC as equally brutalized as the Irish people they oppressed -it was met with a resounding rejection -nobody is really sympathetic with the abuser when the abused fight back.

      I do not agree with your attempts to whitewash history and portray a sectarian bunch of thugs as something better than they were. As Johnny Adair famously said of sectarian murders "We are only as good as the information we are given."

      Delete
  28. @ Henry JoY

    "Applies equally to the RUC and Catholic Church, wouldn't you agree?"

    I think it applies to most organisations, truth be told. I don't think it applies to the UFF, for example. There isn't much mitigation for organisations dedicated simply to murdering civilians.

    To reflect the point made well by AM (and less well by me, comment pending), the RUC were an armed wing of a politically repressive state. But all that being said, many loyalists will tell of the confessions beaten out of them in Castlereagh. Loyalist paramilitaries were convicted of murder at about double the rate republicans were. There's a documentary on YouTube with Shankill residents talking about RUC officers harassing them, including shouting Tiocfaidh ár lá at groups of men, and there are many clips of the RUC getting stuck into loyalists at Drumcree and elsewhere.

    The RUC were in my opinion a macho organisation, which contained many dysfunctional, lumpen personalities like Billy McCaughey, and latterly that absolutely wretched scumbag Richard Barklie (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/im-sorry-says-ex-ruc-officer-at-centre-of-chelsea-racist-fans-row-31012825.html)

    ReplyDelete
  29. "It was also an organisation that was brutalised and was brutalised."

    Should have read "It was also an organisation that brutalised and was brutalised."

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lesley,
    Frankie doesn't think like rational people,

    I think for me, myself and I. Rational people can think what ever and how ever they want.

    Frankie only wants to 'point score' against the big bad Ruc woman........

    Playing the 'Barry' card? I don't like crime fighters. Reformed, retired or other. I've three kids in France who know next to nothing about the conflict and the letters RUC mean even less to them. If you or anyone ask them "What does your daddy think about the French police..." , they'd all say "He thinks they are cnuts". I've English friends and if you or anyone asked them what do I think of the English police, it'd be the same response....I don't like crime fighters no matter where on this rock they come from. I don't trust them. With Paramilitaries at least you got what it says on the 'tin'.....They weren't advertising for 'crime fighters', Neither was their primary or secondary reason for becoming either a Republican or Loyalist vol. money orientated I noticed Lesley another 'once' in your life as a British crime fighter in an exchange you had with Christy....

    No1. I have never DENIED that there were beatings done by some officers, however I cannot confirm that I EVER saw any apart from once very early in my career , whereby I stepped in and gave the officer a right chewing.

    Alot of 'once's' in your life...Once at a bonfire, once unfit for duty, once falling on your face exiting a land rover....once seen (as Peter puts it) 'undeserved harassment' , unlike Peter you didn't turn a blind eye... What other 'once's' did you see in the RUC? What's the "I cannot confirm that I EVER" all about..? Ever think to quit when you think you are a head or do you just keep digging?

    As for my colleagues having issues with drink?

    I'm all ears......

    Thankfully, I always took really bad hangovers, so never really drank the night before I was on an early or a late.

    The question wasn't about you but your colleagues having drink issues.

    You walk in our boots and see what vices you had......

    Why? I've enough vices of my own without anyone adding to them. Comes with living a rock'n'roll life style..

    Are you assuming I didn't go to the Errigle, the Rosetta, the Labour Club and Robinsons etc for music? I was that woman... fffssss

    I asked "Did you ever visit the underground music scene in Belfast during the 80's not "Did you dance around a hand bag at the Errigle Inn"....Ever go to The Delta with a carry out any given Saturday night?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frankie,
      You have a mistrust and don't like 'British Crime fighters'... seems to be your issue in that case, not mine.... As for paramilitaries not entering that scene for money?? hmmmm yeah, whatever you say. Why would me joining the police for money in order to live and support my family be a bad thing? You do realise how completely ridiculous you sound....
      Let's face it, I at least have the decency not to tar everyone (or indeed 'not like' everyone) based solely on their profession, colour, type of music or whatever..... Again, shows you for being pretty closed minded, however, I really couldn't care less if you and your petty prejudices 'don't like' me.

      Delete
    2. Frankie

      Paramilitaries at least you got what it says on the 'tin'.....They weren't advertising for 'crime fighters', Neither was their primary or secondary reason for becoming either a Republican or Loyalist vol. money orientated.

      No they were looking for natural born killers just like ISIS, Red Brigades, ETA and white supremacist/neo-nazi groups. If they were not money orientated how are Sinn Fein the wealthiest political party in the British Isles? How did Slab Murphy make his fortune; I see his underlings have diversified into people smuggling.

      You have heard of the building site protection rackets the proceeds of which both loyalist and republican groups shared out. The drug dealing by the UDA, Mid Ulster Taliban and INLA/IPLO

      Playing the 'Barry' card?

      Would that be the calling out of all the conspiracist misinformation that you continually post on this site from the Rothschilds to the scamdemic rubbish?

      Delete
  31. Stevie,
    Have you seen how much Medical students who become Doctors drink? Or let rip on other "stuff"? Every Chemist I knew was a little too fond of pills when they went to Uni as well.

    As in do I have a very good friend (he is a rockabilly I've known for 35yrs) who is a highly qualified nurse working in the RVH? Yes. When I ask him about pills going missing, medical staff self medicating etc does he sanitize things? No. He has been involved in several investigations when pills have gone missing and his findings led to nurses being struck off.

    When I ask British crime fighters, I get "Never on my watch, only happened once....I think I may have heard a rumour"...And paramilitaries say..."Frankie again I did X,Y,Z for A,B,C reasons.."

    If you want to point fingers that's fine, but you may run out of them!

    I'm simply asking questions and trying to understand. I don't like crime fighters no matter where they come from. Brandon kinda hit on it when he said......

    I'm dipping in and out of a piece about the capacity for brutality and bigotry in other police forces in the 70s and 80s in Europe. I am not quite sure if the RUC was exceptionally brutal in comparison with, for example, the Met (ad admittedly low bar).

    It's a mind set....that I can't trust. Bankers have the same mind set.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough Frankie, we are entitled to our own opinions. I've seen a fair few incidents with dodgy cops in Belfast but a lot of decent interactions at other times.

      Delete
  32. @ Christy Walsh

    Interesting points. Let me comment on a few:

    "It cannot be both, had there been an abundance of so called decent RUC members then the RUC would not have been the sectarian militia that it was. The statistical breakdown of its religious makeup was not propaganda."

    The stats weren't propaganda, no. I would prefer Ulster Protestants embraced republicanism, but it would be anathema to most of them. Within the unionist community, the RUC would not be seen as republicans, or even nationalists, saw it. It would have seen as a "force under fire" and committed to law & order. We are entitled to ask "whose law & order?" but the point I am making is that many high calibre individuals would have joined the RUC, and many of them were intelligent, effective officers. I note again the successes that the RUC had in convicting loyalists.

    I am now saying that the RUC is acceptable, as it wasn't. Nor am I challenging anyone noting the brutality, torture, and bigotry endemic within the RUC. But what I am saying is that considering the RUC as a hegemonic sectarian militia is simply wishful thinking. Jonty Brown put away Johnny Adair, Jimmy Nesbitt most of the Shankill butchers, and literally hundreds of other murderers of nationalists found themselves in prison doing massive sentences.

    The Northern Ireland prisons service contained more Catholics, but was more nakedly brutal, and described as irreformable. The UDR had a similar make-up to the RUC, but was far more bigoted, and contained immeasurably more criminals than the RUC.

    "The RUC can be distinguished from ordinary civilian police forces use of ill-treatment in other jurisdictions. consistently in and around 80% of Nationalist convictions in Diplock Courts were based upon confession evidence extracted under various means -that is not reflected in other jurisdictions."

    The RUC had nothing to do with the creation of Diplock courts. That was the judiciary. And as the conflict progressed, comparatively more loyalists were convicted of serious "crimes" than republicans.

    "The RUC were also setting people up to be assassinated -decent cops do operate like that."

    This is true. They also killed people. A former RUC officer I was close to was instrumental in investigating and convicting a notorious RUC/UVF murderer. The RUC investigated their own with far more tangible results than the British Army, or, arguably the IRA.

    "The distinction between Loyalist/Unionist is a blurred line -one is thought to be more vulgar than the other. The RUC was 100% Loyalist/Unionist sworn to the Crown."

    Of the two former RUC officers I've known, one was an Irish nationalist, the other (Lesley) was at best non-committal about the union. Both opposed, personally and professionally, violent loyalism.

    "No one really thinks of the likes of the South African Police Force or Israeli Security Forces, Black and Tans etc as victims who have been brutalized."

    I watched the BBC programme "Uprising" about the vile, often violent racism inflicted by the Met police on black communities in London. I simply could not believe the petty harassment, framing of individuals, and disgusting habits. It made me think of the RUC and the North. There was a difference: "we" - the CNR community - inflicted on them - the RUC -hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries, and made it impossible for any RUC officer to feel safe.

    "I do not agree with your attempts to whitewash history and portray a sectarian bunch of thugs as something better than they were."

    Why did these sectarian thugs convict so many sectarian murderers? And how would you characterise those who did so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon/Lesley

      You have both tried to re-create the image of the RUC as having an abundance of decent fair minded officers. The evidence disproves that, they were irreformable precisely because of its sectarian make-up -hence the need to disband them.

      Lesley I am not inclined to enter into your attempt to justify RUC sectarianism by deflection. No question the IRA carried out awful attacks but they were non-state actors whereas the RUC were supposed to uphold law and order rather than breaking it.

      Delete
  33. Brandon

    Diplock Courts were part of the arsenal of the Judiciary and RUC -Parliament created Diplock Courts not the judiciary.

    The idea of being a member of the RUC and Nationalist is laughable just as would be the idea of a staunch royalist or republican. They are each mutually exclusive, you are either one or the other. Castle Catholics joined the RUC -they were/are opposed to a united Ireland.

    Loyalists like Irvine and Hutchinson have highlighted how Unionism (including the RUC) have used Loyalists to do their dirty work when they want them and then disown them when it suits their image. You make the obvious mistake of thinking that only loyalists are sectarian -Unionists/RUC had no problem burning loyalists while themselves maintaining their own sectarian agendas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christie
      I've heard much about what the big bad RUC did what I'd like to know (which you have skirted by so eloquently in the pursuit of vilifying the RUC ) were all the atrocities, murders etc carried out by Republicans right and justified? And what of the PSNI, you have the same thoughts for them as you have for the RUC?

      Delete
  34. This is the type of issue that will never result in much other than the reinforcing of the opinions we already hold if the focus continues to remain on individuals and the attitudinal and less on the institution and the structural. People can always point to this or that individual as evidence for their view. The institutional and the structural are always more revealing than the individual in this type of discussion. One advantage is that there is no inconsistency in seeing how a bad structure can accommodate good individuals, in fact might rely on them for the purpose of furthering the institutional ideology and the organisational self-serving narrative. No amount of Catholics in the RUC, whether they preferred a united Ireland or not, was ever going to change what its function was: a primary stanchion supporting the status quo. Nor would they have tortured people any less because they were Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Christy
    For every bit of evidence you produce which proves your point, I'd say there are as many pieces of evidence that proves Brandons and mine. In fact, even Brandon and I may disagree about some aspects of the debate. Just as you and say, Anthony or HJ would disagree about the same conversation.... The fact is that yes there were incredibly wicked folk in the RUC who persecuted folk, but just as you noted I had 'ignored' certain comments you wrote, I note your shyness in commenting on my experiences in the Short Strand after Louis was murdered.... I also note that all so very brief washing over of the atrocities the IRA committed.
    If we're all honest, each and every player (and by player , I mean organisation)in the conflict had a rotten role, but in each and every organisation there were also those who weren't as bad as the others they were in that organisation with. What you're saying is the same as me saying every single paramilitary were murdering bastards, when I know that thats just not true..... We will never agree, so lets leave it at that shall we?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Several years back Billy Keane writing in the Irish Independent quoted his friend Mickey McConnell, the Fermanagh troubadour and long time Kerry resident's observations and belief that most people who lived through the Northern conflict had been traumatised to some degree or other. That's probably a reasonable and valid evaluation. It's my hunch that both Lesley and Christy ought take a breath and consider as to what degree they themselves and the 'other' in this conversation may have been touched by trauma.
    I know Christy vaguely and Lesley only through these pages. As best as I remember I spoke to Christy briefly once or perhaps twice. Though in the interests of full disclosure there was quite some written correspondence between us some years back when I reached out to support him in his campaign for justice (Feel free Christy to corroborate or to challenge).
    Anyways, my concern now, is that we're close to a spot where we have two seemingly overly distressed people for whom extending the conversation much longer will likely only exacerbates distress further. Lesley by her own account had to dig deeply into her reservoirs of restraint during that incident in Short Strand. Whatever we might think of the Sate, of political Unionism or of the RUC en bloc she held her raw emotion in check. That I believe needs to be acknowledged and recognised.
    Christy on the other hand has long asserted that he has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice and has gone to extraordinary lengths in his studies of the law to redeem his good name. I think we all could take a moment and reflect upon how it might feel if we had undergone similar experiences as Christy's and then have to suffer blasé references to essentially corrupt minimisations of due performance described as "Noble Cause Corruption"
    Equally we must attempt stand into Lesley's shoes and imagine that having shown appropriate restraint during the most testing of circumstances that effort is ignored and discounted.

    Time for both of you guys take a break, me thinks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is good advice. Going over the same ground or trying to find different ways to say the same thing either in defence of a position or in opposition to it doesn't take us much further. Ultimately, I think these things are better understood if we look less at individuals and more at say the relationship between the institutional RUC and political unionism and the structure which that was embedded in, mediated at all times by the British state.
      There was a great debate in 1969-70 in the pages of New Left Review between Ralph Miliband and Nicos Poulantzas as to the nature of the capitalist state. RM argued that it was defined by the class background and attitudes of those who staffed the state apparatus. NP argued that it didn't matter who staffed the state apparatus - its structural properties remained the same and would therefore determine how those who staffed it would function. In some way the above debate echoes that discussion.

      Delete
    2. It's hard to take a break, it's a manifestation of group psychology. It renders individual respectful discourse almost impossible. Our shared memories are hard to detach from. Having said all that there's too many unionists on here, it's all their fault! Let's bar them from the quill, let's make the quill great again! Tpq! Tpq! Them uns are ruining for everyone!

      Delete
  37. Lesley

    The RUC were what they were -you and Brandon are trying to paint them as a divided force with an abundance of good guys -they weren't.

    I think you are being disingenuous in your defence of an RUC force that did not reflect the decency or honour with which you and Brandon assert --and deflection to what about the IRA does not clean the RUC up. You and Brandon have been trying to assert untruths about the RUC and neither of you can provide evidence to back up your false claims -deflecting to other organizations does not provide any evidence to support what you and Brandon have been asserting.

    You are trying to negate what I have said by saying well there were bad guys on all sides -nobody disputes that and that is just a cheap argument. I have not tried to present the IRA in any way that was not true -the IRA had its rapists, pedophiles and also killed innocent people -how does that change the sectarian bigotry of the RUC? It does not. You and Brandon falsely assert that the RUC had an abundance of decent non-sectarian bigots -there may have been some but there is no evidence of their existance in any substantial numbers (as you both fabricate) that might in anyway dent the RUC's notorious reputation.

    ReplyDelete