It Must be Marching Season

[David McKeown]

I see the appeal has been pushed back to Monday at the request of the residents

[imtommygunn]

Any idea why they wanted it pushed back?

The push seems to be on unionist leaders to collapse stormont. I am not sure that's the win for unionism some seem to think it is.

[Armagh18]

Any idea why they wanted it pushed back?

The push seems to be on unionist leaders to collapse stormont. I am not sure that's the win for unionism some seem to think it is.

It's definitely not.

It's probably a win for ordinary people though lol

[Wildweasel74]

Edwards has done nothing but come out with crap her whole life. Must identify as that West Brit label people used to come out with, and i always wondered who they were on about, She qualifies.

[DaleCooper]

Whats they response now to violent disorder which may follow,just sit around for weeks on end. Didnt take into consideration is bringing Stormont down,which i think gonna happen!

These people want to relive their glory days. The Ulster workers strike, Drumcree etc. Those are very fond "patriotic" memories from the POV of an "Ulsterman".

Sad on many levels. The comments by Robinson on Fleadh are very revealing. Constantly seething.

[imtommygunn]

A complete muppet. While the law did say they should walk that road I think there are very few among us who would fault any politician backing those residents. The shame is on the people putting them in this position.

I honestly think they will try to disrupt things like the fleadh after this.

[Walter Cronc]

A complete muppet. While the law did say they should walk that road I think there are very few among us who would fault any politician backing those residents. The shame is on the people putting them in this position.

I honestly think they will try to disrupt things like the fleadh after this.

They can try but at the end of the day Belfast is now an overwhelming nationalist city. The optics of disrupting the fleadh would not be good.

[Sportacus]

I've always tried to give PSNI a chance, but my god John Boucher's 'leadership' has been woeful.
Firstly they got their assessment completely and dangerously wrong, and that document undoubtedly went all the way to top for sign off.  Then he runs around telling everyone the intelligence operation is well underway to identify people on the road, again complete lack of judgement.  And today he says they won't be forcing the march through - very good, so what was all the land rovers, riot gear, mutual aid assistance all about?
He's butchered the whole thing more than anyone.

[trueblue1234]

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.

[David McKeown]

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.

What largely changed was the c**k up in July and the subsequent pressure to do the thing by the letter of the law.

The PC then made their determination and whilst I agree that was bat shit crazy it was one that likely it was open to them to make. Perhaps not surprising that they made either when you consider the human element of decision making particularly in pressured situations.

[trueblue1234]

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.

What largely changed was the c**k up in July and the subsequent pressure to do the thing by the letter of the law.

The PC then made their determination and whilst I agree that was bat shit crazy it was one that likely it was open to them to make. Perhaps not surprising that they made either when you consider the human element of decision making particularly in pressured situations.

This is my thoughts too, the PC were already under pressure and for me, they took the path of least resistance given the existing pressure on them. But that's unacceptable imo. Look at what they have caused. And I don't honestly believe they didn't know the impact of their decision. Or rather, if they were unaware, then they shouldn't be making those decisions.

[AustinPowers]

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/

Who the feck  is she anyway? 

Was she not married to Eamonn Holmes? (He's now Ruth-less. I just thought of that  )

[square_ball]

If Paul Givan wasn't allowed to say Sinn Fein I don't think he have much to say on The View here on BBC.

[Orior]

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/

Who the feck  is she anyway? 

Was she not married to Eamonn Holmes? (He's now Ruth-less. I just thought of that  )

Ruth sat on my motorbike
Just to the back of me
I rode over a bump at 65
And drove on Ruth-less-ly

[Main Street]

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?