Sinn Fein and policing

Sinn Fein’s policing conference was I’m sure as exciting affair. I was most disappointed that the speakers Gerry spoke of wern’t listed, as I’m sure it would make interesting reading. For example, at the UUP Policing Seminar last year, Pauline McCabe was the guest speaker, and at the Young Unionist AGM on Thursday the Chief Constable is due to speak. He will be challanged on several issues I am sure, just as Ms McCabe was – that is how to really get an understanding of policing. So if we do find out who spoke to the assembled Shinner masses, it will be interesting to see how many serving officers or others in a position to know were there to provide an insight. If there were none one must ask, how do they plan to change an area of government when they presumabably know only where they want to be and not where the rest of us are? Personally, I would also like to know do they now support the principle of a state monopoly of coercion?

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    ‘it will be interesting to see how many serving officers or others in a position to know were there’

    Given that these people lied for the best part of 18 months after the passing of the details of 400 republicans by the RIR to other unionist paramilitaries, the non delivery of an invitation is hardly a surprise.

  • martin ingram

    Pat.

    Quote”Given that these people lied for the best part of 18 months” Unquote

    Wrong argument my friend, lying and Sinn Fein fit together like a Hand in a glove.

    Martin

  • Plum Duff

    Excellent stuff, Martin. If you are now reduced to the Yah-boo-sucks argument, your game is up.

    HEADLINE: SINN FEIN TELLS LIES; BRITS TELL THE TRUTH.

    (And Martin Ingram tells it as it is).

    Ho-hum…

  • John Shaw

    Pat, if your logic on lying is correct Gerry Adams must not have been invited

  • martin ingram

    Plum Duff,

    I am pleased you enjoyed my post, of course you only have to ask if you wanted to see the evidence of years of Sinn Fein lies ?.

    I do try and help educate those that are clearly lost.

    Martin

  • aquifer

    “Personally, I would also like to know do they now support the principle of a state monopoly of coercion?”

    Their apparent outrage at state collusion with paramilitaries would now suggest yes. Although they could just as easily be polishing their victimhood status with a view to extracting further concessions from the English, whose default position on Ireland is feeling guilty and paternalistic.

    Until I hear otherwise I have to assume they support a parallel all-ireland state complete with private laws, treasury, its own intelligence service, disinformation programme, foreign minstry, and street enforcers. Sorry if it all sounds whacky, but that’s the theology, isn’t it?