Parades Commission statement on Whiterock…

It looks like the Parades Commission are not pleased with the noises off in the media of late. Indeed one of the lines it uses is remarkably similar to some of Jim Gibney’s piece and Alex Maskey on Hearts and Minds last night. Full text below the fold:

23rd June 2006. A spokesperson from the Parades Commission said, “It is with some frustration that we have listened to political representatives publicly deny that meaningful dialogue has taken place between Springfield Residents Action Group (‘SRAG’) and the North & West Belfast Parades and Cultural Forum (‘The Forum’). It is unhelpful for people who have not been involved in these processes to make adverse public comment on them.

“The Parades Commission is completely clear on this issue. The dialogue that has taken place to date has been genuine, worthwhile and courageous. While we regret the fact that the dialogue process did not have time to reach a full and positive conclusion, we are confident that this dialogue will recommence as soon as possible and we are hopeful that this may be one of the last occasions when the Parades Commission will be required to issue a determination in relation to this particular parade.

“Today’s proceedings in the High Court have confirmed the genuine nature of the dialogue process and we continue to encourage all those involved to redouble their efforts over the coming weeks and months to find a long term and mutually agreeable solution to parading issues in this community.”

  • fair_deal

    I would have thought Sean ‘Spike’ Murray is about as senior as you can get for republicans so it is hardly low level.

    This is probably putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 but is the SF attack of Gibney and Maskey on the dialogue to shift it from the residents up the food chain to the local MP so Gerry can gain a few kudos points from any agreement?

  • aquifer

    What Gibney says seems to add up to that ‘low level’ residents and activists who get to negotiate cannot be trusted to keep to the ‘no parades’ party line.

    Dialogue changes things. Good news surely.

    And if freedoms such as the right to demonstrate can be widely exercised, subject to local accommodation, that should be good news for radical republicans.

    But it is not. For if radical republicans obtain permission for their own parades, their historical ‘state oppression’ cover story is blown, and with it the excuse for a resort to arms.

    They have their own traditional routes to defend, irrespective of the masses using the public highway.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    It is clear from the dialogue that has taken place that the loyalists ie the UDA and UVF reps from the unionist side deliberately re-inserted contentious issues that had already be conceded by them years ago.
    The insistance by UVF rep Plum Smith that the Brian Robinson (sectarian killer) bannerette be allowed to be carried was pathetic and a indication that loyalists weren’t interested in finding a solution. They knew that if they failed to agree a settlement the Orange slanted parades Commission would judge in their favour.

    For the outsider let this be clear, this is a UVF parade in everything but name. The O.O. delegate is effectively sidelined by Smith and the UDA rep Mc Quiston.

  • fair_deal

    So much for confidential talks when Pat is around.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Confidential? When you blabber about Spike urray you are hardly in a position to lecture. Typical unionist.

    BTW I put my full name on the line and don’t hide in anonymity, I publicly stand over everything i post.

  • gusty

    Its seems pretty clear that the orange order and loyalist paramilitarism is one in the same.

    An orange order parade is a paramilitary parade with large numbers of active terrorists marching in bands and with orange sashes.

  • Harry

    Nonsense, it’s a religious parade.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Fair_Deal: “So much for confidential talks when Pat is around.”

    So… when Loyalists behave badly or push the ugly stereotype, what is there to do, but take a pot-shot at the messager, eh. Fair_Deal? I mean, its not as if you’re suggesting that Pat is incorrect or inaccurate, just inconvenient.

  • 50%+

    “Nonsence, it’s a religious parade…..”

    What part of scripture speaks of marching behind UFF colour parties and banners celebrating the murderers of innocent catholics?

  • fair_deal

    “When you blabber about Spike urray”

    Spike Murray is the public spokesperson for the Residents group and has given interviews this week as such. No breach in confidentiality there.

    Nor have I attributed any comment to him other than his public ones. Again no breach of confidentiality.

    DC

    1. I don’t know whether he is right or wrong. I wasn’t at the meetings. From the tone of Pat’s comments he probably wasn’t there either.
    2. Anything I have heard about the details of the talks I have had the good sense to keep my mouth shut about. It doesn’t help the process if comments real or false get attributed to individuals A process of confidential dialogue is ongoing, if people want it to work then they should respect it and exercise some self-control whether it be Jim, Alex or Pat.

  • willis

    Fair Deal

    You recognised on another thread that the parade had gone off very well and everyone had contributed to that.

    The reality is that this year we have got Jaw-Jaw instead of War-War. Inevitably there is going to be wounded pride no matter what happens. Pat’s points were good ones and should be accepted as such. They certainly gave me more of an insight than the Bele Tele or BBCNI.

    Are the OO and UVF one and the same? Drive up the Albertbridge Road and tell me they are not intertwined.

  • norman

    Why were the uvf negotiating the terms of the parade.

    Was it an orange order march or a loyalist paramilitary march?

    Or both ?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Fair Deal: “Anything I have heard about the details of the talks I have had the good sense to keep my mouth shut about. It doesn’t help the process if comments real or false get attributed to individuals A process of confidential dialogue is ongoing, if people want it to work then they should respect it and exercise some self-control whether it be Jim, Alex or Pat. ”

    Uh-huh… and, assuming arguendo, that Pat is accurate, just how in the world was the turd in the punchbowl, aka the the Brian Robinson (sectarian killer) bannerette, going to explained away?

    As always, you blow hot and cold. Pray you ne’er meet a satyr on a snowy day…