BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
From the Telegraph – slightly disappointed (on the entertainment front) that vaguely sane opinions are getting equal billing with Allister-Heath-style batshittery. It really is starting to look as if the new owners might be trying to pull it back from the brink of terminal lunacy.

1791540220703.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
Messy from start to finish. I still don't understand why the parades commission decided to allow it again after such a long period, given that the march could easily have avoided the road in question, and the application to march there is nothing but territorial provocation.

1791580080608.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

C R

Squire
Messy from start to finish. I still don't understand why the parades commission decided to allow it again after such a long period, given that the march could easily have avoided the road in question, and the application to march there is nothing but territorial provocation.

View attachment 17679

I thought that the commission did not allow the parade, but the orange order got the ban overturned in court over some mess up by the commission.
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
I thought that the commission did not allow the parade, but the orange order got the ban overturned in court over some mess up by the commission.

Not sure, but this one appears to have been done under a new order. There's a lot to unpack in the 'determination', but it reads as though it was the Orange Order wanting to reassert its historical 'right' to march down a specific road, knowing it wasn't welcome. It's worth reading the document in full, but I think the Commission decision to cave to the Orange Order pleading was a cop-out: rather than just say "There's been no violence since 1998 because there has been no parade, and we're keeping it like that", it reads more like "Well, an eensy-weensy little parade isn't going to cause any problems, is it?"

https://paradescommissionni.flexigrant.com/downloadfileexternal.aspx?dsid=194766

https://www.paradescommission.org/viewparade.aspx?id=96413

Political representatives from parties generally supported by members of the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community expressed their strong support for allowing the parade to proceed as notified. They expressed their lack of trust and confidence in the Commission. They emphasised the sense of grievance and anger felt at the continued refusal of the Commission to allow Portadown District LOL No. 1 to complete its return by the traditional route. They said that this notification was an opportunity for the Commission to do the right thing by applying the law properly; this would help restore confidence among the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community in the Commission and would resolve a very longstanding sore which they consider has held back progress in Northern Ireland.

Political representatives from parties generally supported by members of the Catholic/Nationalist/Republican community expressed their strong opposition to allowing the parade to proceed as notified. They stated that, in their view, the issue of parades along the Garvaghy Road was settled in 1998 and referred to the history of parading prior to that, including the significant disorder and loss of life that occurred. They referred to the improved cross-community relationships in Portadown and stated that this progress, and progress across this jurisdiction, would be prejudiced by any parade along Garvaghy Road. The rights of residents to live free from fear and sectarian intimidation must be respected. They stated that there was potential for widespread protest and disorder if the parade was allowed to proceed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
Top Bottom