The work of the Patten Commission gives us an enviable opportunity to create the best possible police force for Northern Ireland. To use this opportunity effectively, however, we must be clear about what is at stake.

The Patten report was not off the press before some detractors had narrowed the ground for its debate to a crude choice: either reject Patten or betray "the RUC family" and insult the memory of its dead.

Other opponents point to generally high levels of satisfaction with their local police. This is an important tribute to the quality of service given by many officers, but it has to be read in the light of other findings.

Catholic satisfaction with public order policing and with the RUC, as an institution, is much lower than their satisfaction with local policing. For Protestants, the reverse is true: they endorsed the RUC as an institution at higher levels than they endorsed local police performance.

In other words, as Patten notes, people's views of the RUC as a whole often reflect their constitutional politics, not the service they receive on a day-to-day basis. So those who identify with the RUC as an institution may feel under pressure to keep quiet about what they want the police to do better. We need not point out that the reverse is true; others have done it for us.

Limiting the scope for discussion to a pledge of allegiance serves nobody. It certainly does not serve the strong majority who, in May 1998, endorsed the need for "a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland." But if our goal is to create an effective, modern police service, it also does not serve No voters or, indeed, the RUC family itself.

In this situation, there is only one way to ensure that people from diverse backgrounds can say what they really think about policing. We must create a police institution that is not a political icon or a political bogeyman, for either unionists or nationalists. While this won't put policing outside politics, it could open up space to judge it in other registers, including class and gender.

This is a matter of interest to Protestants as much as Catholics, for it will allow them to say what they really want from the police beyond a title. This gain will help compensate for an unavoidable sense of loss for unionists who identify with the RUC name and other symbols, just as it will help compensate republicans for the compromises they would make by recognising a partitionist police service.

Far from threatening police integrity, participation in the district policing partnership and police boards would force parties such as Sinn Fein to work alongside others, making hard, public choices in terms of recognising and working a Northern Ireland police service. These would include recognising the service's legitimacy in terms of policing communities and paramilitaries.

The press has an enormous responsibility as we move into the review. Last Monday's UMS poll found that 65 per cent of Protestants disapproved of Patten's report.

The figure was reported as though it was as simple as that, and was later used by anti-Patten commentators such as Steven King to claim in the Belfast Telegraph: "Nationalist support for the RUC, as currently constituted, is higher than unionist support for the police service proposed by Patten."

Press coverage of the survey should have asked just what people were rejecting. The poll was carried out in the three days after the report's release. It asked about the report as a whole, not specific recommendations.

Given that most people will probably never read the report, the media must not only translate it accurately; they must interpret the interpretations.

The irony of the reactions of unionist politicians to the Patten report is that, by insisting on retaining symbols that are undeniably unionist, they reinforce the image of the RUC as a "unionist police force". The proposed "Northern Ireland Police Service" is not anti-unionist. Every other force in the UK is called by its local name.

The Women's Coalition approaches Patten determined to recognise all the victims of the Troubles and to address their needs. After all, it was the NIWC which insisted that the agreement should not only recognise the suffering of victims, but commit resources to meet their needs.

Victims have a crucial role to play in reminding us of why we need change on all sides. They must not be exploited to advance one party or position over another.

THIS should motivate us all to redouble our commitment to implementing the whole agreement, including its commitment to provide for victims. We are glad Patten recommends that existing RUC memorials be retained. We would also support further consultation with disabled officers, and families of RUC officers killed in the line of duty, to ensure that their needs are adequately met, in line with the terms and spirit of the agreement.

NIWC is heartened that the report puts "the protection and vindication of the human rights of all" at the heart of policing. Policy and legislation to implement its recommendations must be measured against this fundamental principle.

At a moment when people are losing faith that politicians will deliver on the promises of the Belfast Agreement, Patten is a sign of hope that some momentum remains. Our initial reading of the report is favourable, but we will suggest that some points can be refined, even in relation to the report's own emphasis on human rights.

It will take courage, but parties, community leaders and the media all have a responsibility to make space for a complex discussion of the substantive issues that would truly improve policing in Northern Ireland communities.

Monica McWilliams is a leading member of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition