Perhaps it is a sign of the depth of bitterness which runs through our divided society that the focus of debate over the Patten commission "leaks" has centred on names, badges, uniforms and oaths.
Where other parts of the world may be more concerned with the structures and details of policing reform, all sides in Northern Ireland, when threatened, have a tendency to turn in on themselves and rally around symbols.
If we are to move the debate forward and look at the Patten commission report as calmly as possible - with our eyes set on the horizon of a new society free from the curse of terrorism - it is important to begin by understanding exactly why the suggestion of a name change is such an emotive issue.
Terrorist violence, as always, has heightened those emotions, hardened attitudes and hindered development. The name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has moved from being a symbol of a proud policing heritage to a living memorial to the sacrifices of RUC officers over the past 30 years.
During those years the RUC has been a force under fire and under siege, with 302 officers killed and some 8,728 injured. Hundreds of thousands have been affected, from young police widows to children who have had to move schools or homes. At the Police Authority we have also lost members and a colleague to terrorism. We have hardly begun to quantify the psychological strain on police officers of living among communities in conflict, never knowing when the knock on the door will be a gunman, or training their children to lie about the nature of their parent's occupation.
Added to this has been the campaign of vilification of the RUC locally and internationally. In the course of my time as a member and then chairman of the Police Authority, one of whose responsibilities is to call the Chief Constable to account over failures, I have never met a police officer who will not readily admit that there have been failings.
The fact remains, however, that the overwhelming majority of police officers past and present have given heroic and outstanding service in holding the line - often by physically standing in the line between two warring groups - under the most difficult circumstances imaginable.
It is in this context that some officers - and some of the wider community - see the proposed name change as a judgment on the past, a public confirmation that all the abuse and vilification of the RUC was somehow justified, an insult to the fallen, a final capitulation to terrorism.
I do not believe that to be Patten's intention. The Patten commission's focus is not on the past at all: indeed I am sure that the report will pay generous tribute to the sacrifices of RUC officers. The focus is rather on the future. Patten has to signal a new beginning and a fresh start: "rebranding" the RUC may be their chosen way to convey that message and to broaden the appeal of careers in the police service.
In our own submission to Patten, which I hope will be drawn on in the report, the Police Authority suggested that the image of the RUC should be modernised without fully replacing the name. Our own opinion surveys suggested that changing the name would offend more than it pleased. Nor did we feel that it would have a direct impact on redressing the recruitment imbalance. Of all the complex factors deterring Catholics from joining the RUC, the name itself comes fairly low down on the list.
It seems also to have escaped the notice of many commentators that under the 1998 legislation, the oath sworn by officers already has changed in line with the Scottish oath, which does not refer to Queen Elizabeth. The suffix "Northern Ireland Police Service" already applies as an umbrella term for the RUC, traffic wardens and civilian support. As for the uniform, we ourselves recommended a change because officers told us that the current outfit was impractical and old-fashioned.
In this context, and notwithstanding the authority's own preference for retaining the RUC name in some form, I would urge caution at the political hysteria that seems to have surrounded leaks about the new name. Politicians and others who give the impression that the name is the most important issue play into the hands of those who have been trying to destroy the RUC, because they implicitly agree with the assertion that a name change is a slap in the face to officers. Those who wish to see it that way will do so, but it need not be so.
The new name need not be a comment on the past or a reflection of wider political developments. It may be intended, quite simply, as the beginning of a vision for the future, building on the substantial progress which the service already has made. What really matters is the substance of that vision. I would be devastated if Patten recommended the disbandment of the RUC.
Indeed, I trust that many of the report's recommendations will reflect our own submission and the changes proposed by the Chief Constable himself in his Fundamental Review of Policing. Everyone accepts that policing must change, both in response to the improved security situation that we all long for, and as part of the new society promised by political progress.
As publication of the Patten commission's report approaches, I would urge all of us involved in policing - the "policing family" - to look calmly at the details.
Let us not be rushed into judgment by outside groups following their own agendas. Above all, let us approach this as a new opportunity to improve the service we offer to the whole community. We can do this with firm confidence in our record. RUC officers in particular can have pride in their heritage.
If, at the end of the day, the decision is to change the name, this will be a tremendous sacrifice for a service which has sacrificed so much for the greater good of the community.
We owe it to all those who have served and continue to serve to be as objective as possible in the coming days, to gently highlight what is flawed and to welcome whatever will contribute to a more effective and efficient police service for everyone.