Talk:Police Service of Northern Ireland

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland High‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Ireland High‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irish name

I do not think it is acceptable to use the ga.wikipedia.org as a reference in this wiki. In any case their is less than 10 instances of the name on google. We (the english wiki) are not in the business of translating terms between languages and then presenting them as if they are the official or accepted term in a given language. If a term is not generally accepted is used then an appropriate citation must be presented on request. No original research applies here, what is on the ga.wikipedia.org website is irrelevant.

Djegan 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph removed

The Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) was an extremely controversial police force, seen by many Catholics as a repressive institution that operated to keep them under control and deny their civil rights; some sectors within the Protestant population in Northern Ireland also despised the RUC but it was the Catholics who were the most alienated from this police force (Weitzer 1995).

I have problems with this.

It is far too simplistic. It says the RUC was "seen by many Catholics as a repressive institution..." I'm a Catholic, and I'm don't agree with this simplistic summary. Yes, I've seen video of RUC officers beating lumps out of peaceful protestors. However while there may have been individuals who were unsavoury, to claim that this sort of behaviour was institutionalised without citations and counterbalancing arguments is unacceptable.
"many Catholics" and "some sectors within the Protestant community" – This is far too vague for such a forceful argument. What percentage?
To elaborate on counterbalancing arguments; I think if you include arguments about discrimination etc, you might want to mention that the RUC operated in one of the most extreme environments that any police force ever has. You might want to mention the amount of officers killed and injured on duty. You might also want to mention that while the religious imbalance of its membership was partly due to its image, it was also partly due to fear (i.e. Catholic men and women fearing being targetted by republican terrorist organisations).
"the Catholics" – This could be termed derogatory in normal conversation and is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. I don't think you'll find any reference to "the blacks" on Wikipedia, and quite rightly. Note no reference to "the Protestants", rather "the Protestant population". Mark83 12:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unqualified contributions.

Having been a catholic member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary for 15 years and now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, I am shocked to see that the article on the PSNI is so inaccurate and would like to know what qualifications the author has to write it.

The Royal Ulster Constabulary has been and still is known for being the most skilled and competent Police force in the world. The RUC have been asked to assist in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq due to the level of professionalism within the force. The Catholic population of Northern Ireland did not have a choice to join the RUC due to the republican criminal population of Northern Ireland informing them that they could not join, and if they did they would be removed from their communities. This is common knowledge within all the communities of Northern Ireland. The catholic members of the RUC joined at their own risk and were protected by the RUC for it. It is a total misconception that the catholic communities were not welcome in the RUC and the uneducated should be aware of this. Even today the republican movement within Northern Ireland does not allow the catholic population to join the PSNI without the fear of retribution. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was not a controversial police force unless you are a member of the republican movement. Wikipedia should not be used as a resource of information due to the lack of evidential truth. Oh, and Demiurge read a proper book and not just propaganda and stop talking rubbish. Also be careful with your use of Vandalism as per the Wikipedia term - please read, Wiki vandalism is generally defined as editing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information, insertion of nonsense or irrelevant content, addition of unwanted commercial links (spam), and policy violations specific to that wiki. Also if you agree with including the Irish language term form the Police service of Northern Ireland then I would suggest that the inclusion of Welsh, Cornish, Ulster-scotch and Gaelic should also be on the article, otherwise Irish should not be present as it has no relevance to the PSNI. Final point at the change-over of the RUC to the PSNI every member of the PSNI was a member of the RUC so your criticisms are irrelevant. --Wallywing 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can see from the article history who wrote it. If you have any specific complaints about the accuracy of the article, feel free to list them here. Please keep in mind that under Wikipedia rules, contributions must be verifiable, sourced and neutral. I also note that your criticisms seem to have more to do with the Royal Ulster Constabulary article than this article. Demiurge 14:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a member of the "republican movement" but to deny that the RUC was controversial is ludicrous. In any case, this article is about the PSNI, not the RUC, so your criticisms are irrelevant. Demiurge 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to include the Welsh, Cornish and Ulster-Scots names as well, if you can find a source that the PSNI uses them in an official context. Demiurge 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish Police Service of Northern Ireland?

A bit of lateral thinking here on the quota front: recruit Polish Catholics! Almost 1000 of the 7700 applicants to the PSNI are Polish, according to the BBC website today. Yes, clearly it is a legitimate police force, so legitimate it has to go to Poland to get Catholics who accept it. This force is a complete joke. Remember Patten (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/police/patten/recommend.htm) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6251117.stm 89.100.195.42 13:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or could it be that these people have realised that as EU citizens they're entitled to apply for a well paid job where they won't be exploited. As a serving PSNI officer a significant number of my colleagues are from the Catholic community and most of them have joined within the last 5 years.

There has often been persecution of Catholics who choose to join the RUC or British army AND Sinn Finn still hasn't fully endorsed the PSNI or joined the police board AND there are plenty of IRA men wondering around who might attack volunteers might deter Catholic from volunteering to join the psni. Perhaps that's why they accept Polsh Catholics? In any case you cannot argue that a Polish Catholic is going to be instinctively unionist. 217.7.209.108 10:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wallywing, your assertions that the RUC were not a controversial police force are indeed ludicrous!! It wasn't just republicans that felt the wrath of the RUC but innocent nationalists, who were victimised for their religious beliefs. It has been well documented that the RUC played a big part in collusion with loyalist paramilitaries. Whether you like it or not, the RUC were a bigoted, prejudiced organisation, who colluded with loyalists thugs in a bid to kill republicans and nationalists in North of the border. The fact that you are standing up for them is a disgrace to your fellow catholic, that's if you are indeed a catholic.

If your not a bigot then I don't know who is. Writing a hole load of rubbish about the RUC with no actual evidence and calling catholics who were not against the RUC a disgrace. I've known Catholics who has joined the RUC to protect their families from the terrorist organisation IRA which murdered just as many Catholics and it did Protestants during the troubles.

The IRA killed more Catholics during the troubles than any other state or paramilitary organisation. Benjamin olphert (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collusion

Should collusion be mentioned in a section on this page, the stevend report goes as far as 2003 and the PSNI was founded in 2001 and has the same membership so the allegations relate to current and previous PSNI members? Frainc 09:16 24 January 2007

No official organisation has at any time made any suggestion of collusion within the PSNI so the answer to this question is, in effect no. I think at this point the term collusion should be clarified. Collusion is when orders are passed down to rank and file from the top levels of a police force to aide a criminal or criminal organisation either directly or covertly. An example of suspected collusion wpuld be the RUC shoot to kill policy of the late 70s early 80s. However if an individual officer or group of officers aides a criminal or criminal gang through their own will and without the knowledge or sanction of their superior officers or colleagues this is not collusion. This is what is known as the bad apple principal. The bad apple principal is the certain knowledge that in any 100 police officers there will be one who puts their own political ends, financial needs or feelings of power above the rule of law. This manifests itself either in aiding the murder of a political opponent or public critic, turning a blind eye to crime for financial gain or simply abusing their power with the general public. This exists, and has always existed in every police force around the world but in the highly charged political context of Northern Ireland has often been cited as collusion to further a political end. Captainbeecher (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policies

The PSNI has many policies why has this one been singled out? The use of informants, including children is governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). PSNI policy by definition has to be RIPA compliant and therefore legal. There has long been a cultural issue within the republican/nationalist movement regarding the use of informants (of any age) and I suspect this section reflects that.

Uniform and Equipment

They Said They Use Glock 17's But Acctually The PSNI Use The Browning Hi-Power — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.211.127 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: The PSNI uniform has been changed from the dark green of the RUC to British police blue, minus the "Bobby helmet".

This is untrue; the colour of the uniform is bottle green, not British police blue.

Andyhmv 00:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally the RUC uniforms were the traditioanl blue but were changed under the Hunt reforms of the early 1970s.

This is also untrue - they were never blue. They were a much darker green that was often mistaken for black.

The attributable of the term "Black Bastards" is not in reference to the Bottle Green of the RUC Uniform - but refers back to the Royal Black Preceptory. I'll make an edit to this effect in a few days - if no one objects.221.33.114.1 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited: "Body Armour". This paragraph contained minor factual inaccuracies concerning the wearing and issue of flak jackets and stab vests and has been amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin olphert (talk • contribs) 18:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recruitment

I've marked this section for questionable POV status, due to the tone of, 'ignoring the fact that "others" make up a sizable majority of the population', and use of the word "unfortunately".

I think it would be a good idea if someone could edit this to outline arguments in favour of, and against, the positive discrimination policy.

C 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the impression when reading "The British Government was nevertheless proposing to end the 50:50 measure" that this was an unforeseen change to recruitment. Yet the report given as the reference (Northern Ireland Office consultation paper on 50:50 recruitment) presents the ending of 50:50 as an originally intended change when Catholic recruitment reaches 30% of the force. Should we not change the wording to reflect this? I'll await further comments before making the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepshalf (talk • contribs) 09:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Discrimination

The PSNI has a positive discrimination policy(that is illegal in the UK), of recruiting 50% of its officers from a Roman Catholic background and 50% from a non Roman Catholic background, in order to reverse the serious religious imbalance that existed in the RUC as recommended by the Patten Report. However the Patten Report Stated a recuitment of 50% Catholic and 50% from a Protestant Background. It is not known why the PSNI recuitment is not following the rules set out by the Patten Report or even UK Law positive discrimination The name and symbols of the organisation are designed to avoid alienating either major community. It is hoped that 30% of the force will be made up of Catholics by 2011. By 2006, 20% of PSNI officers were Catholic, compared with just 8.3% of the old RUC. The reason why Catholics didnt join the RUC was they were attacked by the own not protestants. It is also to be noted that the ROI police service does not employ from the Northern Ireland (both sides) however the PSNI has to recruit in the ROI. It must also be pointed out that the ROI police service and the mainland Police Services do not have any such recruitment - that is because they can not get away with it. Also many of the people affected by this illegal policy is taking the British and Mr Patten to the EU Human Rights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craig1212 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Its should also be noted that to obtain the numbers of Catholic police officers standards have been drasticly reduced. Now I have nothing against Roman Catholics what so ever, but this recruitment method is not as good as the previous one of recruiting only the very best no matter what their religion is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.163.133 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd very much like the above author to explain himself. 81.149.145.36 (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Change

I'd like to propose a change of the image to something showing the police sub-division of Northern Ireland into policing districts as illustrated here [1]. I think the current image is too large for the limited information it's conveying, which is basically just the political division of Ireland and available on the Ireland, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles.

I can do the graphic when I get time. I'd also suggest that something similar be applied to the Garda page, but that would require someone with more knowledge and time than me. beano 12:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successor

It is not true to say that the PSNI is the successor to the RUC. Look at the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 - the PSNI IS the RUC, it has just been renamed. The force is the Police Service of Northern Ireland incorporating Royal Ulster Constabulary GC. Traditional unionist 12:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People need to discuss this. The force was renamed, not reformed.Traditional unionist 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a simple renaming exercise [2] and the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 says that the PSNI incorporates the RUC it does not say that they are one and the same. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the act saying that the RUC is now called the PSNI incorp RUC GC, does. The POlice were reformed, but legally, all that took place was a renaming. A common misconception that google sees, does not make the truth that it doesn't, any less true or verifiable.Traditional unionist 18:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the act The body of constables known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall continue in being as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary) the RUC still exists and was incorporated into the new force the act also made far more changes to the policing in NI than just a change of name [3] --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just turned your argument in its head and made mine for me! The RUC exists today as the PSNI, as does the RIC. There were reforms to the RUC, but it is more accurate to say it was renamed, perhaps renamed and reformed, but that language is too simplistic. SImply saying reformed suggests that the RC was dissolved.Traditional unionist 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support renamed and reformed having renamed alone makes out nothing else changed apart from the name. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you get down to it, practically nothing else changed. This form of words is better, but not perfect. It needs workTraditional unionist 22:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Map

Why is there a map of the island of Ireland rather than the country of Northern Ireland on the main page? The PSNI have no juristiction in the Republic and in most other references to Northern Ireland the just the map of the country is shown rather than the island? Dionysus99 11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think probably because the map is to show exactly what you have pointed out, that the PSNI authority only covers a small part of the island of Ireland. I think if you produced a better map, not many people would object. MurphiaMan 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it would be useful to have a map showing the jurisdictions of all UK forces, perhaps even all British Isles forces.Traditional unionist 22:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think other UK forces have to use maps, as their area of juristiction does not coincided with a well known geographic entity. If someone has sufficent interest to look at the PSNI article, I would imagine they would know the geographic area NI covers. There isn't a map for the Northern Ireland Assembly displaying it's geographical juristiction, perhaps ditch the map and move the badge to the top of the info box? Fasach Nua 10:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this, I agree. The map looks a bit silly.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transport Police

I have to admit I am completely ignorant on this. The police at NI airports and Belfast harbour wear different unifroms to the normal PSNI, is there a distinct transport force? Should this be mentioned, in UK terms it seems anomolous! Fasach Nua 18:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to my question is on the Irish police force template ! (Sorry all) Fasach Nua 18:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what is the answer?Traditional unionist 18:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast Harbour Police · Belfast International Airport Constabulary · Larne Harbour Police

Although it doesn't answer wether it should be mentioned in this article! Fasach Nua 18:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion

In light of the new damning accusations pointed at the PSNI, I suggest we create a new section, called Accusations of Incompetence. Anyone in for helping out? see also [4] Hereitisthen (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it Omagh bomb investigation would be less pejorative.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of RUC and PSNI articles

What is the reasoning for having two separate articles under the two different names given to this police force? The name changed, but it is still the same force. Mooretwin (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also merge the B Specials and the UDR, or the UDR with the RIR? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we do that? Presumably you realise that the UDR and the B Specials were not the same organisation? And presumably you also realise that the RIR and the UDR were not the same? No red herrings, please. Stop opposing everything I suggest just for the sake of it. It is tiresome. Mooretwin (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And every single merger of a regiment, company, organisation, IRA / PIRA / RIRA / CIRA etc. Leave be! Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? Mergers? What is the relevance? Mooretwin (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone with a constructive attitude could answer my question. Mooretwin (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Gavin Lisburn I agree. Leave be!--Domer48_'fenian' 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't agree to a merge of these articles. BigDunc^Talk 20:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked. Would you care to give a reason? Mooretwin (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of RUC and PSNI articles II

I'll try again in the vain hope that someone might offer an explanation: What is the reasoning for having two separate articles under the two different names given to this police force? The name changed, but it is still the same force. Mooretwin (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So no-one can offer an explanation? Mooretwin (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst some would call it one force, others can see two forces with a major historical break between them. To amalgamate them would also make an unweildy sized page to work with. One could also say merge the RIC to RUC to PSNI and I am sure there are many other examples. Why would you keep insisting on this merge? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Others seeing two forces with a major historical break" is POV. The reality is that the force simply changed its name and badge, with a new recruitment policy and some structural reform. Legally the force continued. Officers remained. Staff remained. Premises remained. The chief constable remained. There was continuity in almost everything. Terms and conditions remained. The change was a symbolic one. RIC-RUC was different due to the obvious change in jurisdiction. Mooretwin (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reasoning given as to why there should be two articles, then? Mooretwin (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would still contend that there is no need to merge the articles.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One force = one article. Mooretwin (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation

Thiss ection states "...Control of the police has not yet been passed over to the Irish government although an agreement was made in February 2010 ...". Should it not be Northern Ireland Executive and also updated to the fact that the government has now taken control of justice and policing? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue appears to have been fixed and is therefore closed.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map of force area

The map of the force area seems to suggest the PSNI has no jurisdiction over Lough Neagh - sorry if this is pedantic, but I don't think that's true? There's no separate force covering the Lough is there? The same map is used on the wikipedia article for the RUC. jdan (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats being a little pedantic. PSNI have, of course, full jursidiction over the Lough. The map merely shows the land involved. If you were to extend the map to jurisdictional limits it would be meaningless. All UK forces have jurisdiction up to 12 miles from the coast so any map of this would be very confusing for the average reader. Its fine as it is. Dibble999 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Badge and Flag

The use of both the flag and the badge on this article looks like it is not in line with WP:NFCC#3a as the flag is just the badge on a green background, it is basically two copies of the same copyright image. One should be removed, my question is which one. Mt king ^(edits) 05:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Remove the flag and make the badge smaller. Bjmullan (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops I added this back in as I thought it was an omission, to bring it in line with the RUC article. I added captions however - https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/crime/policing-board-s-serious-concern-over-regime-at-garnerville-college-1-7667441

Cyberbeagle (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for editing the entry above just now, but the <ref> used was causing the URL to appear right at the bottom of the page. I felt in this case it was justified. --10mmsocket (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map

This article shows PSNI with an all Ireland map, shouldn't it be a United Kingdom one. For example a map Los Angeles Police Department area wouldn't show it within a silhouette map of Mexico.C. 22468 Talk to me 14:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impartial

Have they proven themselves to be impartial? I think a section on impartiality (or lack of) is warranted. ÓCorcráin (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hi DagosNavy. I don't understand what you mean. The map shows the UK in relation to surrounding entities, France and the Irish Republic, with the PSNI police area clearly coloured. The map you have reverted it to shows Northern Ireland is relation to the geographic entity it in which it is located (why?), and is not consistent with the other two national UK Police force articles, Police Scotland and National Crime Agency. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your reasoning for reverting the map. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob, my only concern is that the current map shows a better display of PSNI's jurisdiction. It's OK with your examples of consistency with Scotland and the NCA, but the article about the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the former police service of NI, has used an identical map for years. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a better display of PSNI's jurisdiction? PSNI is a British law enforcement agency (operates under framework set out by the British establishment), that operates in combination with a number of other British law enforcement agencies (MODP, NCA, NWCU, NDEU, BF, SFO, AVCIS, NaCTSO), to enforce the law in Northern Ireland. Contrasting it's jurisdiction, with the jurisdiction of these other British agencies operating in Northern Ireland is informative, whereas contrasting it with a foreign entity is pointless. The PSNI also has limited powers throughout the UK, and it's resources can also be allocated to other forces in the UK. The map at the Royal Ulster Constabulary would possibly also benefit from being changed for the same reasons. Rob (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter under what framework or the forces in combination with the PSNI operates, the only thing which is useful for readers is that the jurisdiction of any police enforcement agency should be visualized in 300px resolution, just like any other lead image as per MOS:IMAGES, and , of course, in the center of the picture. Same thing for the Police Scotland and National Crime Agency maps (no need to show part of the Irish Republic or France in the latter case).--Darius (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing France and the Irish Republic from an image of the United Kingdom simply reduces clarity. Regardless, you're reasoning appears to suggest both maps are inappropriate since neither show Northern Ireland in the "center of the picture". Also, there is no specification as to what Police area maps should show, and that the map of the UK contrasts the PSNI with other forces operating in its jurisdiction is informative and therefore valid reasoning for its use. I don't understand why the PSNI Police area should be contrasted with the Irish Republic? There's clearly less reason to contrast it to the Irish Republic, another country, then to contrast it with the rest of the UK, the country it operates within. Rob (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The PSNI is a local police force, in a country which is certainly part of the UK, but with both devolved powers and strong links with the Irish Republic (in fact they have a cooperation agreement with the Garda and can even operate inside the Republic's boundaries). Therefore, contrasting its jurisdiction with the island of Ireland is not so out of order.

My main concern, however, is still visualization; a map centered on NI, showing parts of the Republic (you can have it suppressed if you want), Scotland and north of England should be the best way out.--Darius (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rob (talk/edits) 21:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Rob. Regards.--Darius (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance to article?

The passage below was added to the Footnotes section on 24 June 2012:

Please see attached response from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in relation to the freedom of information request F-2010-01784

Discretionary Disposals PSNI - FOI - 2010 - 01784

"Discretion aims to encourage officers to use their professional judgement to resolve minor crime to the satisfaction of victims and the community whilst maintaining accountability. Discretion procedures focus on delivering effective and proportionate criminal justice outcomes which meet the needs and expectations of victims and their communities. They will assist officers in using their professional judgement in managing low level and local crimes through the use of discretion. Discretion can be applied to minor crimes and incidents. Discretion is a victim led alternative to prosecution and one of a range of options which will be open to police in dealing with crimes and incidents".

This I believe is a useful contribution to reduce crime, especially the youth from becoming involved in crime and additionally not attracting a criminal report at a young age.

I'm not sure how relevant it is, but I don't think it's written in the right place so I've moved it here instead. Fuebaey (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Police Service of Northern Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100218113901/http://www.nihrc.org/dms/data/NIHRC/attachments/dd/files/114/Response_on_review_of_Police_(NI)_Act_temporary_provisions_2009_(January_2010).pdf to http://www.nihrc.org/dms/data/NIHRC/attachments/dd/files/114/Response_on_review_of_Police_%28NI%29_Act_temporary_provisions_2009_%28January_2010%29.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Police Service of Northern Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101214082755/http://www.nio.gov.uk/50_50_consultation_paper_october_2009.pdf to http://www.nio.gov.uk/50_50_consultation_paper_october_2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Police Service of Northern Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090301052406/http://www.oversightcommissioner.org:80/press/articles.asp?page=press&pressId=44 to http://www.oversightcommissioner.org/press/articles.asp?page=press&pressId=44

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Police Service of Northern Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RUC-PSNI transition

I tried to tried to correct the error that (in contridition with the source used to 'support' it) that the PSNI replaced the RUC. It was reverted so here are the sources that clearly demonstrate the RUC was not dispanded but renamed

The Patten Report - "While the Royal Ulster Constabulary should not be disbanded, it should henceforth be named the Northern Ireland Police Service"
Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 - "The body of constables known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall continue in being as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary)."
BBC source currently used in support of the claim the RUC was dispanded - "The Patten report, issued 9 September, 1999, recommended 175 changes to the RUC including a new name, the Northern Ireland Police Force - later changed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland"
History page on the PSNI website - "On 4 November 2001 the RUC became the Police Service of Northern Ireland."

No sources have been given to support the contention that the RUC was dispanded. Eckerslike (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. there are three or four points worth of mention regarding this issue:

This article never asserted that the RUC was disbanded, so your complaint on the subject is immaterial. We agree that no source support that idea. The best description of what happens is that the RUC as a whole was "incorporated" into a new agency, namely the PSNI, with different methods and rules as established by Patten.

The current version of the article, however, has not chance of stand. First of all, as per Patten Report and, more important, per the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, 175 changes to the police force were recommended, and most of them were implemented by the 2000 Police Act. Therefore, the RUC was not just "renamed", but deeply reformed to the point that there is now a diferent police agency. Too much emphasis on the primary source which implemented the name's change is misleading just like trying to describe the full US constitution by citing only its preamble. Most printed and secondary sources described the PSNI as a "new police force" (see [5]), and confirm that it was "replaced" by the PSNI (see here and here). Even the BBC report you mention speaks out of a "new force". In any case, the date on the infobox must be changed immediatly, since still if you considerer the PSNI just an RUC renaming, the change of name took place on 4 November 2001 per an overwhelming majority of sources. I will restore the correct date on the infobox per WP:DUE. I also propose a rewording of the lede using secondary sources.

The current status of the article is also contradictory. If the "RUC" and the "PSNI" are basically the same force with a different name, then the PSNI page should be merged into the RUC page or viceversa; two separate articles make no sense if the subject is one and the same agency.--Darius (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Police Service of Northern Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Police Service of Northern Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930155127/http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?pt=n&id=76432 to http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?pt=n&id=76432

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specialist Section Copy/Pasted

It seems like all the subheadings and their content under Specialist Section have just been copy/pasted from https://www.psni.police.uk/inside-psni/our-departments/ without any attribution.

EG https://www.psni.police.uk/inside-psni/our-departments/operational-support/armed-response-unit/ is word for word identical to the Armed Response Unit section here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.53.75.214 (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. It's a shame nobody addressed it for nearly two years. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.psni.police.uk/inside-psni/our-departments/operational-support/tactical-support-group/. It was also copied from https://www.psni.police.uk/inside-psni/our-departments/operational-support/armed-response-unit/

Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 10mmsocket (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the copyvio text, but t.b.h. I think what I left in its place is too much of a close paraphrase, so it should also be removed. I'll let a copyvio specialist judge on that. --10mmsocket (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

McKee aftermath PSNI.jpeg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Flag of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to accountability section/ proposing new section

I think this article could benefit from a History section. A lot of the article, (currently), is about the 2001 formation of the PSNI, lots about the hierarchy of it, the ranks, their logo, their flag, their patches, and then there is a little bit about the recent data breaches. The Accountability section could use some work as well. This is a contentious article judging from the talk page, so changes or additions I make are going to be sourced and written within Wikipedia style and guidelines. Its choosday innit (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]