Talk:Jimmy Nesbitt (policeman)

Dates needed

Would anyone have a source that gives the date he received the MBE and the year in which he retired?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The BBC gives 1980 as the year he received the MBE. Now we just need his retirement year.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre summary of the troubles

The paragraph below is one of the most bizarre summaries of The Trouble that I have ever encountered. It’s inaccurate, confusing, and offers a subjective, albeit subtle, analysis of ‘cause and effect’.

“The violent religious-political conflict known as the Troubles was rapidly escalating in violence with many of his fellow policemen becoming victims as the new IRA ramped up its campaign with a series of bombings and shootings, with violent reactions from loyalist counterparts, the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF).”

1. It’s not correct to describe The Troubles as a “religious-political” conflict. Political for sure, and sectarian in some respects, but there is no objective rationale for describing it as a religious conflict.

2. The use of the term ‘new IRA’ in the paragraph is inaccurate and given the existence of a contemporary group stylising itself the New IRA could lead to confusion. Better simply to refer to the IRA or Republican paramilitaries (there was more than one active at the outset of the Troubles)

3. The use of the phrase ‘policemen becoming victims’ strikes me as being a subjective view, albeit a subtle one. The RUC were objectively protagonists in the conflict - especially in the earlier years of the conflict. The RUC was objectively an armed paramilitary police force, with a sectarian and partisan outlook, that was cooperated closely with with loyalist groups. ‘policemen’ didn’t just ‘become’ ‘victims’ - the RUC was a participant in the conflict and it’s members by and large armed and uniformed combatants. This reality was recognised by the British Government in the 1980s, which sought to remove the RUC from this role in favour of the British Army and UDR, and in the 1990s with the moves to replace the RUC with a new model police service.

4. The final phrase very clearly suggests that the violence of both the UDA and UVF was a reaction to the IRA’s campaign of bombing and shootings. This, again, is objectively incorrect. The UVF began its campaign of violence in 1966 at which point the IRA had already wound down and several years before the establishment of the Provisional Army Council (PAC). The UDA and it’s precursor district ‘Defence Organisations’ had led programs against nationalist areas, which precipitated the establishment of the PAC, IRA split, and re-arming of republican paramilitaries. To suggest that loyalist paramilitaries engaged in violence in response to the IRA’s campaign is incorrect and a bizarre misrepresentation of reality.

This paragraph should be removed in the interests of objectivity, accuracy and clarity.

I believe a simple sentence such as ‘Many members of the RUC found themselves targeted by both republican and loyalist paramilitaries as the conflict known as the Troubles grew in intensity during the late 1960s and early 1970s.’ or something to that effect. 2001:BB6:7E40:6500:58C5:A8DD:3491:25AA (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)