“which is altered by some Scottish loyalists to refer to Irish immigration into Scotland…”

104 views

From his foxhole cul-de-sac, DUP Social Development Minister, Nelson McCausland, has made a stab at explaining away the sectarian antics of loyalist marchers who stopped in front of St Patrick’s Catholic Church in Donegall Street to play loyalist tunes during the 12th July parade in Belfast this year (before also assaulting a man who filmed the incident.)

It makes for a fascinating read- though I’m not sure how it fits in with the DUP’s apparent pitch for catholic votes.
 
And, yes you’ve guessed it, the media and Sinn Fein are to blame for the matter…..
 
Nelson decides to avoid commenting on the verbal and physical attacks dished out by the loyalist bandsmen and Orange Order members to the individual who took the video, a former SF election candidate and local community worker, preferring to shoot the messenger in a vain attempt to deflect attention from the substantive matter at hand.
 
He also skates past the hardly coincidental yet clearly controversial choice of music by the loyalists as they circled outside the church, concluding that the bandsmen were perhaps ‘naive’ to be playing The Famine Song, a song which trivialises the death of one million Irish people in the Famine, mocks the issue of pedophilia and denigrates the Irish community in Scotland (a song labelled ‘racist’ by Scottish judges.)
 
Indeed, here’s what the Minister had to say on that song:
 
The band played for fifteen minutes and of all the tunes that were played during that time only one has been criticised, named the old Beach Boys tune, Sloop John B, which is altered by some Scottish loyalists to refer to Irish immigration into Scotland after the 19th century Famine. (my italics)
 
Let’s examine the lyrics of *that* song sung by local- as well as Scottish loyalists- which apparently “refers to Irish immigration”:
 
I often wonder where they would have been
If we hadn’t have taken them in
Fed them and washed them
Thousands in Glasgow alone
From Ireland they came
Brought us nothing but trouble and shame
Well the famine is over
Why don’t they go home?
 
Now they raped and fondled their kids
That’s what those perverts from the darkside did
And they swept it under the carpet
and Large John he hid
Their evils seeds have been sown
Cause they’re not of our own
Well the famine is over
Why don’t you go home?
 
And to think Nelson labels the cameraman who captured the footage a ‘propagandist!’
 
Perhaps Nelson would take a stab at explaining this dainty wee number played and sung heartily by the Pride of Ardoyne FB and followers as they approached police lines on the Woodvale Road on the 12th July. Maybe it’s merely the articulation of an ecumenical desire for Christian unity, removing the need for a separate Catholic Church…
 
As an apologia, Nelson’s article reads very poorly to anyone not desperately seeking an excuse to avoid seeing the large elephant in whose shadow Nelson penned this not so glorious piece.
 
But it is a timely reminder as to the reasons why unionist efforts to focus attention on the machinations of dissident republican factions as the primary obstacle to resolving disputes around the marching season are disingenuous and doomed to failure.
 
That’s not to say that dissident republican factions haven’t identified the communal tensions surrounding the 12th July each year as ideal conditions to cultivate support for their own political agenda.
 
Clearly, the violence orchestrated in a small number of nationalist communities in Belfast, Derry and Lurgan/Portadown this year and in past years  illustrates how the various dissident republican groupings are continuing to seek to gain traction in this manner.
 
But when one considers that unionist politicians were amongst the two dozen or so loyalists chosen to be bussed across the city just so they could walk the contentious stretch of the proposed  Crumlin Road route- before being bussed back to take part in parading where they were actually welcome-it is evident that the antagonistic mindset of the Loyal Orders is being perpetuated by a unionist political leadership unwilling to provide the Loyal Orders with the guiding influence to lead them away from confrontation and from the supremacist tendencies and practices long associated with aspects of the Marching Season.
 
How ironic, then, that the rather enlightened observations of UDA Leader, Jackie McDonald, regarding Orange parades have failed to find support within a unionist political elite who have preferred to remain more closely aligned with the loyalist paramilitary leaders who’ve condemned McDonald’s sentiments and who appear to be calling time on his leadership as a result of this stance.
  • PeterBrown

    ANW

    The PSNI statement which is widely reported claims they did intervene and I have not heard Mr Magee claim otherwise – there is also considerable footage of Order members asking them to intervene to prevent the first criminal offence of the incident which is the abuse from the illegal protest on the long range video.

    In fact Mr Magee conmmits the first criminal offence on his video (unless the actions of the band are criminal and at this stage based on my own professional experience they are not, perhaps wrongly so but still they are not) when he swears at the bandmaster who has politely initially asked him to move on. He may not be entitled to require him to do so but Mr Magee then swears at him and the interventions all escalate from there.

    There is no absolute criminal offence in waving the stick either although there probably is a case for assault which might be (successfully?) defended by a claim of self defence on the basis that Mr Magee himself escalates the situation. The supposed attack on the nationalists is actually the police intervention in the incident involving him and him being escorted back to join the rest of the portestors and there appears to me to be no prospect of anyone attacking the illegal protest from the long range video.

    I am preapared to accept the significant stick if not a log in the eye of those on parade here but it also needs to be accepted that Mr Magee and his fellow protestors are not wood free andnot everyhting that has been claimed by either side is true….

  • tacapall

    PeterBrown

    “I am sorry if my even handed approach threatens your bastion of MOPEry and your ability to blame it all on themmuns”

    And like I said Peter isn’t it great to have an excuse for everything it must be a prerequisite for membership to the Orange Order, that and being skillful in the art of denial.

    Whats up Peter can you not answer the question or is evasion another one of your skills.

    If Catholics weren’t treated any differently from the formation of this state right up to the present day, why then were we refused entry to town centers around the six counties especially Belfast and Portadown city center’s for St Patricks day parades or indeed any protest parade even though Unionists had the privilege and the god given right.

    If it was wrong to do that, then you have to admit we were treated differently and unfairly, if it wasn’t wrong, then whats your problem with nationalists objecting to Orange Order parades ?

  • the future’s bright, the future’s orange

    ‘If Catholics weren’t treated any differently from the formation of this state right up to the present day, why then were we refused entry to town centers around the six counties especially Belfast and Portadown city center’s for St Patricks day parades or indeed any protest parade even though Unionists had the privilege and the god given right.’

    Right up to the present day is pushing it a bit lol. Talking about mopery…. Certainly ‘back in the day’ you might have a case but thankfully those days are long gone. If anything, it’s the Sinn Fein that are more likely to be instigating the discrimination:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18530512

  • tacapall

    “Right up to the present day is pushing it a bit lol. Talking about mopery…. Certainly ‘back in the day’ you might have a case but thankfully those days are long gone”

    Really, so why is it an insult to Unionism or ” Not inclusive ” for anyone to carry a tricolor in St Patrick’s day parades through Belfast city center or the likes of Downpatrick ? Why is St Patrick’s day not a public holiday in this part of Ireland ? Why are Unionists allowed to fly the tricolor on the 11th July but its offensive and provocative if we fly them ?

  • Jack2

    Peterbrown are you serious?
    Swearing at someone is absolutely a criminal offense but threatening with a stick isn’t?

    Note your very loaded language:
    “commits the first criminal offense”
    “when politely told to move on”.
    “waving the stick”
    “defended by a claim of self defense”

  • PeterBrown

    tacapall

    Kettle pot black about evasion and denial – you don;t even attempt to answer any of my queries but in relation to your….

    Who prevented the St Patricks Day parades from entering the centre of Belfast or Portadown or the unspecified protest parades and hwen did this occir (this is clearly before my time)? It may be lunchtime before I am back on here again btw…

    Jack 2

    Obviously swearing at someone is still a criminal offence and waving a stick at someone is not per se but both can be reversed by context – perhaps you could explain to me which piece of legislation specifically bans the waving of sticks as drummers and morris dancers everywhere will feel they may need to object to it? As for my loaded language that is an occupational hazard with a lawyer but you do not appear to be disputing the accuracy of the loaded language or admitting the presence of wood everywhere (unlike me). Maybe by loaded you actually mean even handed? I don’t think anyone else has been critical of both sides, would you like to join me?

  • tacapall

    St Patrick’s Day 1985

    The local St Patrick’s Accordion band were given permission by the RUC to march ‘the square’, on the morning of St. Patrick’s Day, from the mainly Roman Catholic area of Obins Street to the upper Garvaghy Road passing the predominantly Protestant houses of King Street and the Redmondville housing estate, before boarding a bus to go to a larger parade. [35] This decision had already produced heated exchanges in the Borough Council Police Liaison Committee and Unionist councillors pressed for a re-route. A demonstration by a small crowd of loyalists, gathered on the corner of Park Road and Garvaghy Road and the police therefore prevented the band from following its proposed route.

    In 1993, Republicans had been allowed to hold a protest in the city for the first time so an early challenge to this event of civic pride is particularly interesting and clearly reflective of the changing political environment. Sinn Féin, with significant representation on the city council, was increasingly trying to play its part in civic life. And in another interesting twist, in 1998, the Lord Mayor’s parade, led for the first time by a nationalist mayor, was re-routed when loyalists blocked the route because of a float entered in the parade by the Ormeau Residents Action group.

    March 1998 The first St Patrick’s Day festival at Belfast city centre was held.Festival organisers barred uniformed bands, party political banners and political speeches, however, the predominance of nationalist symbolism allied with the starting points for the parades to the city centre helped create the impression that this was a republican celebration.

  • andnowwhat

    The PNI report said that they intervened immediately at the moment when the assault took place ie. when JJ’s filming goes pear shaped.

    Swearing is very strictly against the law but JJ does not use threatening language. Yes indeed, I can tell you as a former doorman that even waving your finger in someone’s face is against the law as is any body contact by anyone without the authority to do so.

    JJ: Wha?

    Bandman: Take yourself off.

    JJ: No, you fucking take yourself off.

    Bandman steps back and raises stick to beside his head then points it in to JJ’s face: I’m fucking warnin’ ya!!:: Bandman continues to wave stick and repeats threat.

    Man intervenes and asks for things to calm down.

    Lots of camera shake and a man in a colarette is seen to approach.

    Someone shouts, “I’ll knock your c**t in!!”

    At 1.54, the second bandsman can be seen to raise his right hand, very briefly.

  • Skinner

    PeterBrown – ordering someone to ‘take yourself off’ in abrupt tones does not equal ‘politely told to move on’. No one that watches that video would be in any doubt as to who is the more threatened party here and it is not the bandsman. At least be honest with yourself.

  • Skinner

    PS your attempt to equate a Morris dancer waving a stick as part of a dance with a bandsman waving it in someone’s face and shouting ‘I’m warning you’ is laughable. You’ve completely jumped the shark on this thread I’m afraid and are doing the OO no favours.

  • Jack2

    Peterbrown – I don’t think anyone else has been critical of both sides, would you like to join me?

    I’m already there my friend, on the 13th I said that elements from both sides were scumbags. In fact I think I was the first to do it and expected a torrent of abuse yet only received support.

    As for being a lawyer, I only was able to muster a C at GCSE English yet can perforate see through bias and spin any day of the week.

  • PeterBrown

    Skinner

    I did not equate the two I merely pointed out that neither is a criminal offence and no-one has contradicted that yet – it may be you who has jumped the shark (whatever that means). O reiterate that there are serious issues with what went on in the parade but no nationalist poster has as yet accepted that anyone on the other side did anything wrong and in fact many have misrepresented what went on….all I ask for is balance.

    tacapall

    You appear to be indictaing that in Portadown there was permission for the parade from the authorites and it was prevented by protestors which has happened more recntly as well, and have not provided any evidence that the other examples you were citing were banned. they may have been but that’s not what you have posted – where is the inequality by the authorities, specifically I think the RUC?

  • PeterBrown

    Jack 2 – that makes 2 of us then, can I be Jack 1 or Jack 3 as this posting under my own name seems to be an endangered species?

  • Skinner

    PeterBrown

    An assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

    Waving a stick in the guy’s face in an agressive fashion and saying ‘I’m warning you’ would create an apprehension of an imminent harmful contact. Likewise shouting “I’ll knock your c*nt in” (albeit that appears to have been a different person). Each constitutes an assault. Which is a criminal offence.

    A morris dancer waving a stick as part of a dance does not create any apprehension at all, though you could argue it is mildly offensive to the eye on grounds of taste. It is not a criminal offence. The morris dancing analogy thus has absolutely zero application to this issue.

    Asking for balance is fine but you cannot seek to redress any perceived imbalance by making inaccurate statements yourself.

    Jumping the shark is a cultural reference to situations where the bounds of reality are stretched to the point that the narrative loses all credibility.

  • andnowwhat

    Peter

    Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

    The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

    Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim’s head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Verbal+assault

  • tacapall

    Peter your dancing on the head of a pin. Clearly you know who prevented Nationalists from parading through Portadown city center its there in black and white. But just 4 months later again in Portadown –

    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/csc/reports/rituals4.htm

    “Today proved that we can walk in a dignified manner and that we will continue to walk along our traditional routes. There will be no compromise in spite of expected negotiations this week. We will not accept any re-routing in any shape or form. It will be resisted and I can guarantee that loyalists are not going to tolerate any more tampering with their civil rights”

    I take it civil rights is something only Orangemen can avail of.

    As for not being able to parade through Belfast city center thats a question I would like to know although apparently wearing a bit of shamrock on St Patrick’s day is offensive to Unionists so I would just add two and two together mix in a bit of RUC appeasement and you get a result that results in a heavy presence of RUC and British army landrovers blocking the routes into Belfast city center.

  • PeterBrown

    why then were we refused entry to town centers around the six counties

    So in short tacapall you’re now accepting that you weren’t refused entry execpt this one case in protadown which appears to have been based on possible disorder after permission was initially granted (cf Ardoyne)?

    And since when was a shamrock offensive to anyone – its the tricolours that cause the problems about inclusivity? If you argument would stay still in one place for long enough then maybe I could deal with it but I’ve never been any good with moving targets!

    As for the assault I was aware of the definition of assault without a free American online legal dictionary which is of limited use under the circumstances. I think that nothing that happened in shot constitutes assault (the stick is never intended to strike Mr Magee or even used to make him think he is about to be struck) although the PSNI may have seen more out of shot which could give rise to prosecutions but in all honesty thereare very few grounds for criminal prosecution in what went on. That’s not to say that it was right but it may not have been criminal….it’s pointless to discuss this as the PSNI & PPS will have more evidence than just the video anyway.

  • tacapall

    This is like haggling with a Turk at a flea market. Even though nationalists had been prevented from marching or parading through Belfast city center until the 1990s, something that Unionists have been able to do since the formation of this state you still cant let yourself that maybe that was wrong and nationalist were discriminated against. By the way it was Belfast city Unionist councilor’s who objected to “Green” shamrock being displayed by anyone partaking in St Patricks day parades through Belfast. – Why dont you just google it ?

    Dont know what you’re talking about re the assault. Maybe your talking to someone else.

  • Mister_Joe

    Please leave the Turks out of it. They saved my life 6 weeks ago and a nicer lot of folks you could not meet.

  • Submariner

    andnowwhat (profile) 19 July 2012 at 11:14 am
    The PNI report said that they intervened immediately at the moment when the assault took place ie. when JJ’s filming goes pear shaped.

    Swearing is very strictly against the law but JJ does not use threatening language. Yes indeed, I can tell you as a former doorman that even waving your finger in someone’s face is against the law as is any body contact by anyone without the authority to do so.

    JJ: Wha?

    Bandman: Take yourself off.

    JJ: No, you fucking take yourself off.

    Bandman steps back and raises stick to beside his head then points it in to JJ’s face: I’m fucking warnin’ ya!!:: Bandman continues to wave stick and repeats threat.

    Man intervenes and asks for things to calm down.

    Lots of camera shake and a man in a colarette is seen to approach.

    Someone shouts, “I’ll knock your c**t in!!”

    At 1.54, the second bandsman can be seen to raise his right hand, very briefly.

    Andnowwhat watch the video again and listen carefully at around1.38 it is the fat bandsman who says you fucking take your self off and not JJ Magee. if you listen carefully you will hear and see the fat bandsman saying im fucking warning you. this is the same voice that says you fucking take yourself off. The words wha, and take yourself off are spoken by the same voice which i believe is JJ Magee. Also with regard to assault there is grounds for assault in that the fat bandsman waving his stick and shouting im fucking warning you can be construed as causing the person he is directing it at to fear or apprehend immediate violence.There is also an argument for possession of an offensive weapon against the fat bandsman as well as disorderly behavior.

  • Mister_Joe

    Look, it’s obvious that no charges will be laid so no point in arguing.
    Apart from anything else, a police officer does have some discretion when he or she sees an apparent minor offence. They can issue a caution, for example, and this was but a minor offence since no physical violence did occur. .

  • galloglaigh

    My comment just disappeared!

  • andnowwhat

    Submariner

    Cheers for that. There’s sod all chance that the law hasn’t been broken here.

    This is very important Joe. There are serious indications that NI has slipped back to the bad old times. The imbalance of republicans Vs loyalists arrested during last year’s riots (including the Ballyclare riots where the cops said sorry to loyalists), the UVF attack on the Short Strand did not result in any of the attackers being arrested but the organisation got tea with the FM.

    Now, here’s the dangerous bit; Sinn fein are falling well short of the mark and there’s serious anger with them on a closed republican website. The dissident posters there are loving what is going on and they are perfectly right to be happy.

  • Fergie Pie

    There were arrests after both Ballyclare and Short Strand riots.

    Don’t let facts get in the way of your MOPE.

  • andnowwhat

    5 for Ballyclare and none convicted yet

  • PeterBrown

    “Officers intervened when a member of the public privately recording the incident was approached by a group of men. Throughout this incident police worked closely with stewards and organisers to resolve the situation peacefully.

    A considerable amount of footage has been recorded and will be studied closely. If any criminal offences are detected a full and thorough investigation will be carried out”

    As you can see for the sake of accuracy the PSNI statement to the BBC makes no reference to an assault so I’m not sure where Submariner’s quote comes from – any assault charge will not be based on the Magee video because there isn’t one on it!

  • Skinner

    PeterBrown

    I am pretty sure that it is an assault. However even if you don’t believe that, you must surely admit that it at least comes very close to one, such that it is arguable and anyone stating that it is an assault is not simply putting a gross and dishonest spin on the facts.

    Meanwhile what you have described as the bandsman ‘politely telling the camera man to move on’ is actually a bandsman approaching the camera man in an aggressive manner, holding a stick up at eye level and telling him “f*cking take yourself off…I’m warning you”.

  • PeterBrown

    Skinner

    The initial altercation is a matter of opinion – it is just either side of a very fine line and we can reasonably agree to differ on that one.

    The initial request from the bandsman is out of shot and we only hear him say “Take yourself off” to which we hear the reply I have assumed form the cameraman “No take your f******* self off” and then the bandsman quickly becomes less polite. If it was outside a pub in Belfast or anywhere else on a Saturday night the police would do what they did here at the time – break it up and send everyone on their way and I would be surprised if anyone is prosecuted as a result of what is seen on the video unless the police witnessed anything else out of shot. If it was football (soccer if you prefer but probably in gaelic football too) there probably wouldn’t even be yellow cards for this sort of handbags.

    More worryingly I suspect that no-one will face any formal proceedings for what is going on with the band and its supporters as I don’t see the criminal offence here either…

  • galloglaigh

    Peter

    A piece of shite is a piece of shite, no matter how much you butter it up. You’re defending sectarian and racist behaviour. What’s the craic with the Polish flags on the bonfires? What have to poles done to further the cul-de-sac mentality?

  • ArdoyneUnionist

    Given a choice of a band playing out side a chapel or church or this republican reaction to a parade. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18928571

    Let the band play on…….

  • ArdoyneUnionist

    Where was JJ Magee, and the rest of the republican media chasers today. Not so keen on publicity today after the BBC program on the horrors of Bloody Friday.

  • salgado

    “Given a choice of a band playing out side a chapel or church or this republican reaction to a parade. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18928571

    Let the band play on…….”

    We could have neither of them. It’s not an either/or situation.

  • PeterBrown

    I have not defended it G I have condemned it (repeatedly) but pointed out that either it wasnlt criminla or that it won;t be prosecuted – I even descrbed that as worrying, but presumably even if I and the rest of the PUL community put on sackcloth and ashes that still wouldn;t be good enough.

    The flags is despicable too – both of them among hundreds of bonfires and at least one apparently last years – but if you really want to see something despicable watch Bloody Friday on iplayer and then you’ll see who needs to or deserves to wear sackcloth and ashes. We don’t vote these people who blacken our communities name into government…

  • Skinner

    Peter – you missed my point. By your own admission it is a fine line as to whether it is an assault, so on that basis you cannot accuse someone who claims it is an assault of purposely exagerrating what went on. It makes you look like you’re deflecting. The plain fact that everyone can see (including you), regardless of the technicalities of the law, is that the band behaved in a pretty unpleasant manner and it reflects very badly on the OO for inviting them on parade. It would mitigate the damage somewhat if the OO made a statement condeming the behaviour and saying they wouldn’t invite the band back. But instead we hear the message “oh it’s not that bad, it’s just Sinn Fein propaganda”. That’s the message you have given here, whether you intended it or not.

  • dwatch

    “but if you really want to see something despicable watch Bloody Friday on iplayer and then you’ll see who needs to or deserves to wear sackcloth and ashes. ”

    Indeed PeterBrown, watched it last night. I don’t think republicans were all that worried back then about burning flags and loyalist bands playing tunes outside an RC Chapel in Donegal St.

    “Bloody Friday remembered: Carnage and heartbreak”
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/bloody-friday-remembered-carnage-and-heartbreak-16187485.html

    The BBC Bloody Friday progamme can be watched here for those who missed it.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01kxsxn/Bloody_Friday/

  • PeterBrown

    Skinner

    If you check my profile and previous comments you will see I have consistently condemned the actions of the band and have expressed the wish that the Order take action after due process having been challenged in the courts already when internal due process was not followed.

    I have merely pointed out almost everyone contributed to a greater or lesser extent to the situation at the Twlefth ands suddenly I’m deflecting – I like to call it being balanced, but apparently that’s a fault.

  • looneygas

    From my perspective, across the Atlantic and 5 generations removed, the incident of the Orange band at St. Patrick’s is a case of the first-class citizens being outraged at the second-class citizens not taking their insults and dispays of superiority lying down. Yes, I’m of Catholic descent, though I try to be objective and understand this business of “my culture and tradition” that Loyalists are so keen to maintain. The culture and tradition is one of intimidation and dominance. You would think that after 300 years, it would sink in—yes, you won, stop beating your goddamned drum and try to live with the people you defeated.

  • PeterBrown

    Indeed Dwatch

    I don’t remember Bloody Friday like I remember La Mon and Enniskillen and Teebane as it happened 2 years before I was born but my parents often talked about it – I missed it last night and watched it this evening on iplayer and I defy anyone with an ounce of humanity to watch it without shedding a tear or more than one for each of those familes. Someone I know has suggested that it should be the main feature presentation at the Maze and I couldn’t agree more.

    And if you really want to know what deflection is Skinner follow Dwatch’s link and concentrate on the last five minutes with Adams and the total absence of republicans other than Danny Morrison’s input to the Bel tel artcicle, with his crocodile tears that didn’t seem to prevent him being the mouthpiece of the organisation responsible for another 25 years.

    Many will always believe that Joe Cahill’s reaction rather than the 2002 apology reflects the true attitude of republicans to Bloody Friday and who can blame them.

  • Mister_Joe

    I was in Belfast that day. And I normally got the bus from Oxford street to Bangor every day although a little bit later. I was stuck in traffic for hours and didn’t get home eventually until after 8:00, by train, and found my wife freaked out with the carnage and worry about me (nobody had a phone back then).
    Yes, I cried my eyes out when I saw the TV coverage. I think most people did the same. It redoubled my hatred of what the IRA were trying to do.

  • http://WindowsIDHotmail danielsmoran

    Mr Joe. I was in Belfast since nearly a month on Bloody Friday, [except weekends] but in Antrim Rd area, I must have been in Newtownabbey all day, working. Only saw on the scene of carnage on UTV Reports in the evening, some of it selfcensored. Had left home about 16 hours earlier, and 65 miles away in Claudy.

  • Skinner

    PeterBrown

    We have not conversed before on here but rest assured I don’t hold up republicans as a paragon of straight-talking.

    Back to the YCV band incident, I know you have condemned it, I know you have stated action should be taken. I think that is admirable (though as far as I know not mirrored by the OO itself, which was my point).

    My comments are purely that the points you have chosen to present as ‘balance’ are pretty weak. That just undermines the strength of your condemnation. All we hear is ‘yeah but look at themuns’. Far better for the OO not present these opportunities in the first place to those with their own agendas to discredit the organisation. If you want to complain about themuns’ behaviour, get out and film it like JJ Magee did and raise it as a seperate matter for the media to address.

  • PeterBrown

    Skinner

    The OO has said it will look ayt it as part of its review of the parade and this will take time, it has not said that action will or indeed will not be taken…we’ll all have to wait and see.

    I suspect it will do little about what happened given the role played by supporters but will take steps to prevent any repetition by keeping the road outside St Patricks clear during the cenotaph wreath laying in future or not permitting any playing as per PC guidelines and I suspect there will be ltittle reporting of anything it does or says….

  • andnowwhat

    So, the orange order is too private to let us know it’s procedures but public enough to demand it has god given rites to march where and when it wants?

  • The Lodger

    andnowhat,

    Why shouldn’t they have private procedures?

  • Roy Walsh

    PeterBrown, away back to where you read Laws and demand a refund of fees paid for both Criminal law and Evidence, seriously, responding ‘fuck off’ to someone who rushes at you demanding you cease an otherwise lawful activity is not an offence, threatening someone with a stick is clearly an assault, undoubtedly observed by those constables who eventually intervened, I shan’t hold my breath waiting them to bring these charges against this violent bands’man’.
    Abroad at the time with a Shankill woman who was disgusted at this behavior, she undoubtedly speaks for most of the people there when she said, they should be ashamed of themselves

  • Neil

    Affray, section 3 Public Order act:

    The seriousness of the offence lies in the effect that the behaviour of the accused has on members of the public who may have been put in fear. There must be some conduct, beyond the use of words, which is threatening and directed towards a person or persons.

    and further down

    The level of conduct appropriate for charges under section 3 will often fall comfortably within the ambit of that anticipated within section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. Affray should be considered in circumstances of serious and indiscriminate violence. Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a section 3 offence include:

    The wielding of a weapon of a type or in a manner likely to cause people substantial fear for their safety or a person armed with a weapon who, when approached by police officers, brandishes the weapon and threatens to use it against them;

    Section 4(2) of same:

    The following types of conduct are examples which may at least be capable of amounting to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour:

    ncidents which do not justify a charge of assault where an individual is picked on by a gang.
    Conduct which may be capable of amounting to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour for the purposes of an offence under section 4 will be more serious than that required under section 5 or section 4A.

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_offences

    Regarding the swearing legality debate, like the above it’s down to the beholder. Where above the offences seem predicated on the victim’s fear of being beaten by a whole bunch of Orangemen (I would personally have been shitting my pants) one of whom at least had a weapon, it’s determined that a public order offence has been committed if someone is alarmed, harassed or distressed by a third party’s words or behaviour.

    Context is everything though, and as many Nationalists would know from bitter experience you’re not fronting off with a couple of pissed off, pumped up, armed orange geezers but rather a whole Shankill Lodge. I know who I reckon had the sweat on and it wasn’t the morbidly obese guy funny enough.

  • PeterBrown

    Roy

    Fortunately QUB Faculty of Law owes me nothing – Neil is quoting the equivalent English offences but the most recent judgement is here

    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/daniel-harvey-v-dpp.pdf

    which as he says makes it clear that its all about context but it is generally accepted that in most cases swearing in public in still a criminal offence, in NI disorderly behaviour. In fact this week I will defend a client who is charged with disorderly behaviour merely for swearing at the police who have overcome the new hurdle in the case above by claiming passing members of the public heard him.

    It is a hypothetcial – there will no prosecutions here as would be the case if this had happened outside a bar on a Saturday night, if every altercation like this resulted in arrests or prosecutions or both the criminal justice system would collapse!