Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Darthter said:

I never said it was specifically the marchers that were the cause of any "elevated chance of trouble", it is the whole situation - both sides.  Can the march organisers not see/accept that by using the same route (being stubborn), there is more chance of causing an issue??  That has then prompted the parishioners to "defend their Church", and act which is more likely to cause conflict.  It is all connected.

 

Re-route the march & problem solved.

No, it isn't the "whole situation, both sides".  These marchers have done so for over 20 years with not one incident.  They are the common denominator there.  They have never had incident.  The only "change" is in the request for denial from the RC priest, and his request/acceptance of parishioners to protest.  That isn't both sides.  No matter how you try to argue otherwise.

 

I'm sure they don't see it that way, and why should they when they have never caused trouble on their historic route previously ?  The "more chance of trouble" is coming from the RC priest and his parishioners - everyone has the right to peaceful march, no ?  The parishioners are the ones who are quite obviously creating a potential issue for trouble.

 

Why do these parishioners have to "defend their church" from people who have marched past that same church for over 20 years and never had incident.  They are connected, yes.  But the only threat to trouble comes from the RC priest and his parishioners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, craig said:

No, it isn't the "whole situation, both sides".  These marchers have done so for over 20 years with not one incident.  They are the common denominator there.  They have never had incident.  The only "change" is in the request for denial from the RC priest, and his request/acceptance of parishioners to protest.  That isn't both sides.  No matter how you try to argue otherwise.

 

I'm sure they don't see it that way, and why should they when they have never caused trouble on their historic route previously ?  The "more chance of trouble" is coming from the RC priest and his parishioners - everyone has the right to peaceful march, no ?  The parishioners are the ones who are quite obviously creating a potential issue for trouble.

 

Why do these parishioners have to "defend their church" from people who have marched past that same church for over 20 years and never had incident.  They are connected, yes.  But the only threat to trouble comes from the RC priest and his parishioners.

But the crux of the issue....There has been an issue now - an alleged assault by marchers on the priest.

For the time being, what has happened over the past 20 years is irrelevant.  I agree (and said as much) that the Parishioners decision to "defend their church" would most likely be the catalyst for any trouble.  However, re-route the march & there is no need for anyone to defend anything & as such any trouble is more than likely avoided completely.

 

Then over the coming year, the organisers work with the church (someone suggested this in the other thread) to show a united front & hopefully allow the march to return to its usual route.  Common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Darthter said:

But the crux of the issue....There has been an issue now - an alleged assault by marchers on the priest.

For the time being, what has happened over the past 20 years is irrelevant.  I agree (and said as much) that the Parishioners decision to "defend their church" would most likely be the catalyst for any trouble.  However, re-route the march & there is no need for anyone to defend anything & as such any trouble is more than likely avoided completely.

 

Then over the coming year, the organisers work with the church (someone suggested this in the other thread) to show a united front & hopefully allow the march to return to its usual route.  Common sense.

If you were stating the proper facts your argument might have weight.

1. None of the marchers were involved in the alleged assault of the priest. It has been accepted that the alleged assailant was a pavement stroller. Also, by the way, the alleged assault took place during an OO parade not an ABOD one.
2. The reason the police advised the parade committee to deny the permit to march was because they had received intelligence that a republican organization was going to protest the parade and the police wanted to avoid any possible trouble.
Surely this means the police are going down a slidy path, denying a bona fide request for a parade/march/demonstration because they are afraid to supply sufficient personnel to deal with any proposed protest.
3. I believe strongly that this was a staged appearance by the priest. It was not his normal time to be talking to parishioners on the pavement(the parade organizers had previously timed the parade to arrive at this point an hour after normal church activities are done). I also believe that the Archdiocese are milking the situation for all it is worth.
When the alleged assault took place there had previously been two police officers assigned to the chapel steps area. It appeared that there had been some sort of altercation in the near vicinity that caused them to leave their station. An inconvenient fact or a planned event? 
4. The ABOD has already asked the priest and his parishioners to join them in celebrating the parade on the walk past. This was refused.

Any more questions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, barca72 said:

If you were stating the proper facts your argument might have weight.

1. None of the marchers were involved in the alleged assault of the priest. It has been accepted that the alleged assailant was a pavement stroller. Also, by the way, the alleged assault took place during an OO parade not an ABOD one.
2. The reason the police advised the parade committee to deny the permit to march was because they had received intelligence that a republican organization was going to protest the parade and the police wanted to avoid any possible trouble.
Surely this means the police are going down a slidy path, denying a bona fide request for a parade/march/demonstration because they are afraid to supply sufficient personnel to deal with any proposed protest.
3. I believe strongly that this was a staged appearance by the priest. It was not his normal time to be talking to parishioners on the pavement(the parade organizers had previously timed the parade to arrive at this point an hour after normal church activities are done). I also believe that the Archdiocese are milking the situation for all it is worth.
When the alleged assault took place there had previously been two police officers assigned to the chapel steps area. It appeared that there had been some sort of altercation in the near vicinity that caused them to leave their station. An inconvenient fact or a planned event? 
4. The ABOD has already asked the priest and his parishioners to join them in celebrating the parade on the walk past. This was refused.

Any more questions?

Checkmate

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, barca72 said:

If you were stating the proper facts your argument might have weight.

1. None of the marchers were involved in the alleged assault of the priest. It has been accepted that the alleged assailant was a pavement stroller. Also, by the way, the alleged assault took place during an OO parade not an ABOD one.
2. The reason the police advised the parade committee to deny the permit to march was because they had received intelligence that a republican organization was going to protest the parade and the police wanted to avoid any possible trouble.
Surely this means the police are going down a slidy path, denying a bona fide request for a parade/march/demonstration because they are afraid to supply sufficient personnel to deal with any proposed protest.
3. I believe strongly that this was a staged appearance by the priest. It was not his normal time to be talking to parishioners on the pavement(the parade organizers had previously timed the parade to arrive at this point an hour after normal church activities are done). I also believe that the Archdiocese are milking the situation for all it is worth.
When the alleged assault took place there had previously been two police officers assigned to the chapel steps area. It appeared that there had been some sort of altercation in the near vicinity that caused them to leave their station. An inconvenient fact or a planned event? 
4. The ABOD has already asked the priest and his parishioners to join them in celebrating the parade on the walk past. This was refused.

Any more questions?

1 - The alleged assailant was still connected to the march....they weren't there for any other reason.  You will note that I mentioned previously (post #13) that the alleged actions were 100% criticised by the OO.  Whether the march is by the OO, ABOD (no idea who they even are) or anyone else, they are all one & the same to pretty much anyone outwith those organisations.

 

2 - The Police acted on information that there was going to be trouble at the march - easiest & best solution to avoid trouble....don't have the parade, then NO-ONE case cause any trouble.  Common sense.  The flip side would be to flood the area with Police officers, which would then open up for criticism of over-policing and also be at considerable extra cost to the tax payer - would the march organisers cover the extra policing cost???

 

3 - Absolutely 100% agreement.

 

4 - If that is the case, then good.  Both parties should be working together over the coming months to ensure no problems next year.  They should also be promoting that fact - show the wider public etc that there is no ill-feeling/bad blood, then everyone can move on.

Edited by Darthter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.