The chief constable in his letter (‘Our decision to attend Pride had no political basis,’ August 18) singled out my comment by twisting what I said.
Further he managed to avoid dealing with the obvious. In case he doesn’t understand his own position I shall explain it.
To participate in a protest on the basis of hate and under-reporting he is making a judgement that no-one is able to test or prove beyond taking his word for it, yet, he fails to apply his own logic to other criminal offences suffered by other groups.
Effectively he has created a purely subjective policy.
By participating in a publicly listed street protest that is overwhelmingly political, ugly, mean and vicious (as we who oppose it witness annually) aiming at nothing less than a social revolution, the chief constable has allied himself and his constables to that revolution.
Saying he hasn’t, doesn’t undo the fact.
The chief constable confuses ‘reaching out to communities’ and ‘representation on the police force’ – this is an astonishing admission.
Participation was therefore more than what he originally claims. Ultimately what he is doing is plea bargaining a case that he knows hasn’t one shred of legitimacy because however he dresses it, he will not and cannot pursue his own logic fairly.
The chief constable has effectively placed himself and his deputies in the unenviable position of an increasing series of demands for participation by constables using the very criteria he and his deputy has espoused.
Every refusal will demonstrate the inherent bias and skulduggery underpinning that policy.
What they should have done was not to participate and thus retain the neutrality so prized in the past.
Notwithstanding his poor judgement he said nothing to undo the dilemma he is mired in.
Pragmatism at the expense of established principle always ends in trouble.
The chief constable’s has sadly just begun
Rev E T Kirkland, Ballyclare