Jump to content

 

 

The Orange Order - Help Me Out Please


Recommended Posts

ORANGE ORDER DEMANDS ANSWERS FROM POLICE SCOTLAND

Posted by Admin F | Oct 24, 2018 | featured, Parades | 0  |     

Orange Order demands answers from Police Scotland

The Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland has today written to Police Scotland demanding answers to the obvious growing collusion and discrimination within the City of Glasgow in dealing with Orange parades.

As reported in the Daily Record (24th October 2018), Police Scotland have confirmed that they are able to adequately police the Rangers v Spartak match at Ibrox on Thursday 25th October.  Intelligence suggests that the visiting fans will include around 1,000 hardcore violent Ultras.   Spartak Moscow’s notorious Ultras have only just been allowed to travel again by UEFA following a two-match ban imposed after the death of a policeman during clashes in Bilbao earlier this year.  Police Scotland are not objecting to the match on safety grounds and have said that they are equipped and able to police those fans accordingly.

However, Police Scotland recently advised Glasgow City Council that they were objecting to an Orange parade in the city on safety grounds due to the high risks involved if the parade passed a Roman Catholic Church.  That parade was just 50 people going to church for a Remembrance Service on the 100th anniversary of the Great War.  It was also proposed to hold the walk at a time when the church was closed.

The Grand Master of the Orange Lodge in Scotland, Jim McHarg said,

“On a number of recent occasions, Police Scotland have objected to our parades on the grounds that they cannot guarantee public safety if an Orange Parade is anywhere near a catholic church.  And yet days later they say they are well equipped as a force to manage 1,000 hardcore violent football thugs, with a history of disorder that lead to the recent death of a police officer.

“This just doesn’t add up.  It seems to us that this is discrimination, purely on the grounds of religion.  It is not for the Police to decide whether or not Orange parades are appropriate, or to collude with any other organisation or group to limit the rights of one group over another.  The role of the Police in terms of parades is quite clear and was established through legislation, they are there to advise on and ultimately maintain public order and safety.

“This then begs the question, how can they safely Police 1,000 violent thugs, but not safely Police 50 people on their way to church for a Remembrance Service?

“We have written to Police Scotland for answers.”

 

https://orangeorderscotland.com/2018/10/24/orange-order-demands-answer-from-police-scotland-over-obvious-religious-discrimination/?fbclid=IwAR1EaAe5DSoRY5rMOgpo-G4cJQVBTe6_4A2KsUzoEKXFlh9bn60dk5p3rM0

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Darthter said:

The parade may have followed this same route for many years without incident....however there has been a change in circumstance - an alleged incident.  As a result of the alleged incident, that may encourage some folk to take some kind of further action in response (from either side...).

 

Therefore in the interests of safety & to avoid any potential incidents, it makes sense for the parade to be re-routed.  Is there any particular reason why the parade HAS to take this specific route???

 

It's simply common sense for ALL parties.

What route will they take next year if another "incident" is orchestrated? And the year after that? Re-routing would become like IndyRefs ... there's always another one on the way until the parade has nowhere left to go. If there's been an "incident", why not deal with the incident instead of pandering to it? This has all the hallmarks of the same kind of people who make up reasons to block fanzone applications

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bill said:

What route will they take next year if another "incident" is orchestrated? And the year after that? Re-routing would become like IndyRefs ... there's always another one on the way until the parade has nowhere left to go. If there's been an "incident", why not deal with the incident instead of pandering to it? This has all the hallmarks of the same kind of people who make up reasons to block fanzone applications

 

 

So you think it is more suitable to ignore the alleged incident (and any anger for either side) & simply throw more police officers at it - coz that's their job???

We're not talking about next years march, or the year after etc - they will be assessed on their own merits.  We're talking about a march taking place while an alleged incident is still live/current - ie. it has not been fully dealt with yet.  We're talking about elements from BOTH sides that may have issues with the alleged incident, potentially taking matters into their own hands to "even the score", and a higher chance than normal of another incident.  Logic dictates that it is better to simply remove the potential for another incident by routing the march differently.

 

One question that should be asked of those complaining about the route change....why is it sooooo important that the parade uses this specific route???  Is it significant to the people marching, does it pass particular landmarks etc, that a relevant to the march???  If not, what the problem with changing the route???

 

As for future marches, they should be assessed on their own merits.  Come next year, everything should have calmed down/been dealt with/forgotten about, so the parade may well use the same route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darthter said:

So you think it is more suitable to ignore the alleged incident (and any anger for either side) & simply throw more police officers at it - coz that's their job???

We're not talking about next years march, or the year after etc - they will be assessed on their own merits.  We're talking about a march taking place while an alleged incident is still live/current - ie. it has not been fully dealt with yet.  We're talking about elements from BOTH sides that may have issues with the alleged incident, potentially taking matters into their own hands to "even the score", and a higher chance than normal of another incident.  Logic dictates that it is better to simply remove the potential for another incident by routing the march differently.

 

One question that should be asked of those complaining about the route change....why is it sooooo important that the parade uses this specific route???  Is it significant to the people marching, does it pass particular landmarks etc, that a relevant to the march???  If not, what the problem with changing the route???

 

As for future marches, they should be assessed on their own merits.  Come next year, everything should have calmed down/been dealt with/forgotten about, so the parade may well use the same route.

You didn't answer the question the first time, 'why should the group who threatens the peace be given priority'?
The Bridgeton ABOD club have walked this route for twenty years and not one incident.
The leader of the SNP GCC, Susan Aitken, said a day or two after the alleged incident with  the priest that loyalist parades would not walk past the church, and with the help of a compliant police she has achieved this.
The words of Martin Niemöller's poem ... "First they came ..." come to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, barca72 said:

You didn't answer the question the first time, 'why should the group who threatens the peace be given priority'?

Which group threatens the peace though???

 

With this issue, potential antagonism could come from either side & escalate very quickly. 

- What if the members of the church decided to line the street outside the church?? - that in itself could be deemed antagonistic.  all it could take is a comment or a gesture & something kicks off.

- What if one or 2 march participants (or hangers on) decide on some "retribution" as they pass the church???

- What is someone not connected to either party decides to "stir the pot"....

 

Why risk ANY potential issue???  There is no reason not to change the route....unless the organisers want to be stubborn/pig-headed.  What's more important to them, the route that they march or simply having the march in the 1st place??  Due to the previous alleged event, the police would be well within their power/right to not allow the march to go ahead, if a change of route is not agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Darthter said:

Which group threatens the peace though???

What a load of whataboutary, but I'll indulge you.

 

With this issue, potential antagonism could come from either side & escalate very quickly. 

- What if the members of the church decided to line the street outside the church?? - that in itself could be deemed antagonistic.  all it could take is a comment or a gesture & something kicks off.

For one thing, the Loyalists have invited the Church denizens to participate in the parade march past. For a second thing, the parade organizers have offered to walk while the church is closed

- What if one or 2 march participants (or hangers on) decide on some "retribution" as they pass the church???

For over 20 years this particular ABOD club has walked this route and never decided to exact "retribution"
- What is someone not connected to either party decides to "stir the pot"....

Surely the job of the police is to be ready for such decisions as they were at Ibrox last night ...

 

 
0_Screen-Shot-2018-10-25-at-202954.png

 

Why risk ANY potential issue???  There is no reason not to change the route....unless the organisers want to be stubborn/pig-headed.  What's more important to them, the route that they march or simply having the march in the 1st place??  Due to the previous alleged event, the police would be well within their power/right to not allow the march to go ahead, if a change of route is not agreed.

If you had read the previous post about the Orange Order statement ...

...

"However, Police Scotland recently advised Glasgow City Council that they were objecting to an Orange parade in the city on safety grounds due to the high risks involved if the parade passed a Roman Catholic Church.  That parade was just 50 people going to church for a Remembrance Service on the 100th anniversary of the Great War.  It was also proposed to hold the walk at a time when the church was closed.

The Grand Master of the Orange Lodge in Scotland, Jim McHarg said,

“On a number of recent occasions, Police Scotland have objected to our parades on the grounds that they cannot guarantee public safety if an Orange Parade is anywhere near a catholic church.  And yet days later they say they are well equipped as a force to manage 1,000 hardcore violent football thugs, with a history of disorder that lead to the recent death of a police officer.

“This just doesn’t add up.  It seems to us that this is discrimination, purely on the grounds of religion.  It is not for the Police to decide whether or not Orange parades are appropriate, or to collude with any other organisation or group to limit the rights of one group over another.  The role of the Police in terms of parades is quite clear and was established through legislation, they are there to advise on and ultimately maintain public order and safety."

...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.