It Must be Marching Season

[Wildweasel74]

Yip, some dumbwit in the police said they be no trouble, Obviously not about, when this previously was going on.

[WT4E]

I have an idea let the 35 down no police no rules see what happebs

[Eamonnca1]

As soon as I saw that convoy of PSNI Land Rovers heading for Portadown I was immediately reminded of that bogus Stormont raid of 2002. Somebody in the PSNI stirring it.

My impression of why this has all blown up:

1 - Donaldson getting sentenced, Brexit backfiring with the Irish Sea border, rumblings of a border poll, and the drumbeat for Irish unity getting louder. Unionism under pressure and feeling like they're getting outmaneouvred at every turn.

2 - Jamie lost-more-cases-than-Heathrow Bryson becoming more familiar with the legal system

3 - Some shit-stirrer in the PSNI spots a weakness - the requirement for a parade to be "likely to cause violence" or words to that effect, in order for the Parades Commission to rule against it. What if we just quietly pull that little fuse and see what happens?

4 - Parades Commission gets its statement from the PSNI that violence is unlikely, and in following its own procedures has to allow the parade to go ahead.

5 - Legal ping-pong through courts and appelate courts results in the pro-Orange side getting its way.

6 - Both sides dug in and not budging. Orange insist the matter isn't settled, residents insist it is.

Do I have it right?

Free stater question here, is nr 4 the core cause of this shítstorm?

Seems like it's 3 that caused it, although I don't know if the PC was within its rights to take the cop statement into account and make its own decision to reroute the parade regardless.

[weareros]

McAlinden played a fair role with an old fashioned view of procedure. The world has changed, more so since the pandemic. People work from home. They actually have meetings on platforms like Zoom, Google Meet, Teams. And believe it or not, important decisions are made on group chats like Slack and WhatsApp. Its 2026, not 1998. But once he castigated the procedural process, and the panicked PC accepted it, the door was opened for a challenge.

[tonto1888]

Guess which side Ruth Dudley Edwards came down on?

https://www.ruthdudleyedwards.co.uk/2026/10/garvaghy-road-events-have-finally-made-me-too-ashamed-to-call-myself-irish/


Since she has never considered herself as Irish don't know why she is feeling shame. A nasty person who has nothing to contribute at any level.

trying to stay relevant. I had forgot she existed to be honest

[Nanderson]

Has the CC said yet how the PSNI got the parade difficultly assessment so wrong?

That seems to be the key to the whole thing. Who in the PSNI made the bogus assessment that there'd be no trouble if the parade proceeded? If the Chief Constable signed off on that then he needs to go.

I can't understand why SF are not focusing more on this. This it the key area. Whoever made that decision should be pulled over the coals.

I'm not convinced they did get it wrong.

Humphries judgement set out the following.

The determination states that the police did carry out an assessment but no
specific information in relation to disorder was identified. That is not the same as saying there was no risk of disorder. In fact, the court was told that ACC Henderson did refer to various risks which had been considered by the police. A range of potential scenarios from an entirely peaceful passing off to violent disorder and all those potential scenarios had been mapped out by police and the appropriate responses were being considered.

[25] There was clearly detailed engagement by the Commission with senior police officers over a period of time at which intelligence assessments were considered and the PSNI's planning was explained to the Commissioners. The only proper conclusion to draw from those paragraphs of the determination when read together, is that public
disorder did feature in the consideration of the Commission in accordance with section 8 of the 1998 Act and the relevant guidance

So it seems the PSNI probably did provide the correct information as they understood it at the time.

So surely that would have been the same info as provided last year? In which case, what changed this year? I know one year doesn't impact another. But if a decision has followed for 28 years one way, surely there should be something that can be pointed to that's changed?
Did the PSNI give the same review/ verdict as previous years? Or was it a case that the PC were viewing this info differently this year? Something changed.

The below is an assessment by the police in a previous rejected case. I can't find the exact determination but I believe it's within the last two years.

"The police noted that the route can be deemed as sensitive and therefore have consequences on both the local community and further afield. They also noted that, since it was notified, local engagement and feedback from the community indicates that there is significant opposition to the parade. Regarding the plans that they would implement to ensure that the parade passes off peacefully, a large policing operation at short notice would be needed to facilitate the parade along the notified route. It was also noted that there is concern that supporters and those in opposition to the parade will assemble in the area, with this having the potential for disorder. To facilitate the parade along the notified route and the likely attendance of a large number of supporters from both communities could have a detrimental impact on community relations, the local community and further afield, with the potential for Portadown to once more become a focal point for disorder that could spread to other areas"

And then this is the accepted determination for sundays parade

"The police made both written and oral submissions, indicating that they, at the time of making them, had no information indicating that the parade would result in disorder or violence. They are planning for all reasonably likely scenarios, both known and unknown, in accordance with their legal obligations and the applicable policies and procedures. Their assessments will be updated on a continuous basis. Meetings have been held with the organiser, residents and political parties and local police are engaging with the community. They were unable to indicate the size and profile of the police deployment for the parade, as it would depend on the situation as it was at the time. The police stated that they would provide sufficient resources to police any parade that takes place, whether subject to conditions or not, and also any protest activity that may occur"

[trueblue1234]

If that's accurate then SF should be all over that and it should be JB they are targeting. That was a horrendous read of things.
I would like to know what engagement they did with the GRRG before their statement. They should be hauled over the coals over this.

[David McKeown]

The problem is the PC have to have regard to:

(a ) any public disorder or damage to property which may result from the
procession;

(b) any disruption to the life of the community which the procession may cause;

(c) any impact which the procession may have on relationships within the
community;

(d) any failure of a person of a description specified in the guidelines to comply with the Code of Conduct (whether in relation to the procession in question or any related protest meeting or in relation to any previous procession or protest meeting);

(e) the desirability of allowing a procession customarily held along a particular route to be held along that route.

They then have internal guidance into how to assess each of these.

The problem is they are all evaluative judgements that they must balance having considered evidence from a wide range of sources.

As a result you have a process where two sets of commissioners could consider the same evidence and form two opposite views and both still be correct. It's an imperfect system which is always likely to lead to decisions people find perverse and which with the benefit of hindsight turn out to be so.

It's also no doubt a difficult and pressured task not helped by the failings in July and the subsequent pressure that has been in place since.

The O'Hara review will be interesting.

[marty34]

Will the court case revert back to today, instead of Monday David, now that 'talks' are over?

[imtommygunn]

McNulty deselected. Some speculate it's to do with standing with the Garvghy road residents but sure so did the sdlp leader so it can hardly be that.

[gallsman]

McNulty deselected. Some speculate it's to do with standing with the Garvghy road residents but sure so did the sdlp leader so it can hardly be that.

The Laois thing, refusing (rightly IMO) to move to Upper Bann as well. Pretty clear he's not been on the best of terms with wider leadership for a while I think.

[Armagh18]

McNulty deselected. Some speculate it's to do with standing with the Garvghy road residents but sure so did the sdlp leader so it can hardly be that.

Can't see it being that. Will they try to push him to Upper Bann now? He's a decent enough fella but Christ he is one sour and bitter bastard!

[brokencrossbar1]

McNulty deselected. Some speculate it's to do with standing with the Garvghy road residents but sure so did the sdlp leader so it can hardly be that.

Nothing whatsoever to do with that,  this has been on the cards for some time now and many people were aggrieved initially when he was parachuted in over Pete Byrne who had been doing the hard yards over the years on the local issues.   

[ranch]

McNulty deselected. Some speculate it's to do with standing with the Garvghy road residents but sure so did the sdlp leader so it can hardly be that.

It had been on the cards for months, if not years. He's not the worst fella but has always appeared out of his depth as an MLA.

[Armagh18]

Getting angry at people on the doors for telling him they're Sinn Fein voters probably wasn't the best tactic around South Armagh in fairness to him.