“With speculation on the PSNI vacancy at a very early stage..”

The Belfast Telegraph suggests some, possibly, more likely contenders to succeed Hugh Orde than the sole name Niall O’Dowd’s anonymous, albeit “informed”, sources could come up with. Be warned though, this is all pure speculation as, to date, none of those potential candidates have declared an interest.

, ,

  • Two threads on the same day on the same topic, one from a ‘nationalist’ slant and the other from a ‘unionist’ slant. Is it not possible to save time and space and for one thread where there might be a meeting of minds – or a clash of opinion – instead of a situation where there are parallel threads coming from opposite directions, apparently?

    As for Pete’s disparaging of Niall O’Dowd’s ‘anonymous’ yet “informed” sources, there are no named sources in the BT article either. How can one anonymous source trump another? Perhaps the decision has already been made and there’s no point in organising an expensive recruitment campaign and competition, from which the BT will benefit.

    There should be an open competition for this post, without artificial and unnecessary restrictions regarding eligibility criteria. The only criteria should be that the person to get the job has the skillset, the competency, the proven track record and the qualifications to lead. The qualifications to lead should not be dependent on where the applicant attained the qualifications, the US, the UK or somewhere else in Europe.

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit


    absolutely agree – it is a pontless exercise having two such threads. Mick should ban this type of funny behaviour – as it simply throws light on the politics of the thread originators and possibly their relationship than the subject itself.

  • Pete Baker


    The ony ‘slant’ I’ve come to this with is a sceptical one – read the last line of the original post again.

    As for “How can one anonymous source trump another?”

    It doesn’t. But O’Dowd sought to give his anonymous sources “informed” status.

    Hi Sammy Mac.

  • Mick Fealty


    We don’t do ‘authorised’ and ‘unauthorised’ threads…

  • percy

    .. but if we did, they’d probably be the worst threads in the world 😉

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit


    obviously I’m a big SLugger fan or there would not Sammy etc about the place – but if there are sensible rule for posters then why not sensible rules for threaders e.g. dont hijack a debate which is already in place unless it has lost it ding-dourum.

  • Pete Baker

    Sammy Mac

    You’re still free to contribute to the discussion on Chris’ post about the individual O’Dowd was briefed on by his anonymous sources. Indeed, it’s linked in the original post above.

    Just look at this post as a healthy dose of sanity on that discussion.

  • McGrath

    Posted by Pete Baker on Apr 18, 2009 @ 10:02 PM


    Before you blast me with you intellect ray gun, none of this new thread strikes me as that different or unique from CD’s original thread. Your motives as to why you didn’t effectively contribute to that thread inst of starting another one remain questionable and honestly look quite Unionist in nature to be honest.

  • Pete Baker

    Honestly, McGrath, to be honest.

    This is my contribution to the discussion.

    I am a blogger after all. That’s how it works.

    Nothing different or unique from Chris’ earlier post?

    You have read both posts, haven’t you?

    Oh, and there’s another contribution here.

    *No ray guns involved*

  • mark

    Whats the bet that the new Chief wont even be from Northern Ireland, let alone have an RUC background? No matter how much local policing experience a senior local cop has there’ll be an immediate veto on promotion to Chief Constable thanks to the efforts of the SDLP. Local policing and justice……my arse!