The glorious 12th

FrancieBrady

citytillidie wrote: »

I just got to ask what has WW2 got to do with the 12th some goal post moving to get the conversation going there.

As for criteria where parades should not be is in areas where the majority of the locals would feel uncomfortable and police having to have a big presence just to make sure nothing happens between OO, bands and the locals

There is a form on the PC website. Literally anyone can object to a parade by filling it out.
The PC then deliberate on whether the parade meets very the criteria or not.

It doesn't require a threshold of numbers, in other words.

Dytalus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It doesn't require a threshold of numbers, in other words.

More specifically, it's not as if "1000 people have complained, cancel the whole thing" is how it works. Once a parade has received complaints to be considered 'contentious', the Commission looks at the entire scenario in greater detail.

I'd say number of complaints does come into it, but it's not the sole criteria that's used to determine if a parade should be cancelled/rerouted.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What you haven't proven jan, is that it was 'Hitler's plan', which is what I said. It was a Nazi plan (made by Raeder I think, who worked on other scenarios too, NORMAL military behaviour) and it never happened...like many many plans.
It never happened. That was the point I was making.

.

No Francie, the point you made was that there was not a plan to invade. There was. You were proven wrong. What else do you say that is not factually correct, that you try to spoof your way out of later? Like certain things you said yesterday about some victims..

FrancieBrady

Dytalus wrote: »

More specifically, it's not as if "1000 people have complained, cancel the whole thing" is how it works. Once a parade has received complaints to be considered 'contentious', the Commission looks at the entire scenario in greater detail.

I'd say number of complaints does come into it, but it's not the sole criteria that's used to determine if a parade should be cancelled/rerouted.

Definitely the 'numbers would be a part of the consideration. But one person can technically complain, no threshold has to be reached to instigate a PC deliberation, is the answer to downcow's question.

Which makes absolute sense.

Sofiztikated

janfebmar wrote: »

No Francie, the point you made was that there was not a plan to invade. There was. You were proven wrong. What else do you say that is not factually correct, that you try to spoof your way out of later? Like certain things you said yesterday about some victims..

You do know you can have a plan for something, without having "plans" to carry it out.

When I was younger, myself and a couple of mates had a plan of how to rob a petrol station, but never actually had any plans to carry it out.

janfebmar

Sofiztikated wrote: »

You do know you can have a plan for something, without having "plans" to carry it out.

When I was younger, myself and a couple of mates had a plan of how to rob a petrol station, but never actually had any plans to carry it out.

Except Operation Sea Lion was a proper plan, with according to records many millions of man hours invested in training, developing new weapons, adapting barges and vessels, assembling a large fleet of vessels in the channel for the invasion etc. I doubt that you and your school chums invested millions of hours in planning and working towards robbing the petrol station?

Francie was caught out saying there was no plan , there was. There are different books on the plan ( Operation Sea Lion) to prove it.

FrancieBrady

Sofiztikated wrote: »

You do know you can have a plan for something, without having "plans" to carry it out.

When I was younger, myself and a couple of mates had a plan of how to rob a petrol station, but never actually had any plans to carry it out.

I wouldn't worry too much. It is just one of jan's pedantic ways of avoiding points she doesn't want to deal with. Familiar tactic to the regulars.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wouldn't worry too much. It is just one of jan's pedantic ways of avoiding points she doesn't want to deal with. Familiar tactic to the regulars.

Pedantic? What criteria are you using?

Would saying that it wasn't Hitler's plan but the Nazi's plan to maintain that there wasn't a plan be pedantic enough for you?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Pedantic? What criteria are you using?

Would saying that it wasn't Hitler's plan but the Nazi's plan to maintain that there wasn't a plan be pedantic enough for you?

Think whatever you want. My readin tells me Hitler didn't have a plan to invade Britain, he hoped to be able to necogiate with them and when that didn't happen was happy to see them hemmed in and turned his attention to Russia with another 'plan' - Barbarossa.

I know you and Rob need to support jan, but deal with the main point I was making. It is pedantic to fight on this beach in order not to have address something she doesn't want to address - that to a large degree, for a number of reasons Britain and Churchill got lucky.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Think whatever you want. My readin tells me Hitler didn't have a plan to invade Britain, he hoped to be able to necogiate with them and when that didn't happen was happy to see them hemmed in and turned his attention to Russia with another 'plan' - Barbarossa.

I know you and Rob need to support jan, but deal with the main point I was making. It is pedantic to fight on this beach in order not to have address something she doesn't want to address - that to a large degree, for a number of reasons Britain and Churchill got lucky.

Britain and Churchill didn't get lucky. That is a fantasy up there with your dreams of a peaceful united Ireland.

Pedantically point out how I am wrong though:D:D

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

a peaceful united Ireland.

I genuinely believe you would hate that. A blow to your ego. At least Unionists believe in something. You guys...pfft.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I genuinely believe you would hate that. A blow to your ego. At least Unionists believe in something. You guys...pfft.

I want a peaceful Ireland, it just doesn't have to be united.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Think whatever you want. My readin tells me Hitler didn't have a plan to invade Britain, he hoped to be able to necogiate with them and when that didn't happen was happy to see them hemmed in and turned his attention to Russia with another 'plan' - .

"Another" plan? So you are admitting now that the Nazis had a plan to invade Britain?

And as regards Britain hemmed in, if they were hemmed in how come they could supply the Russians with the arctic convoys: how come they could still use their heavily armoured battleships; how come they and their commonwealth allies could defeat the axis forces in north Africa a few years later in 1942?

janfebmar

citytillidie wrote: »

As for criteria where parades should not be is in areas where the majority of the locals would feel uncomfortable and police having to have a big presence just to make sure nothing happens between OO, bands and the locals

I agree with you there, I think it is wrong for the O.O. to have parades which pass though areas where they are not wanted, just because they used to pass through that area decades ago before the area changed or whatever. In fairness however, I believe most parades pass though areas where they are wanted or tolerated.

I think a little bit of give and take on both sides is what is needed.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

"Another" plan? So you are admitting now that the Nazis had a plan to invade Britain?

And as regards Britain hemmed in, if they were hemmed in how come they could supply the Russians with the arctic convoys: how come they could still use their heavily armoured battleships; how come they and their commonwealth allies could defeat the axis forces in north Africa a few years later in 1942?

When did I ever suggest that the Naziz got everything right?

The history of wars, especially those fought by arrogant empires and empire builders is littered with mistaken calculations that cost ordinary men and women their lives. Churchill's arrogance at Galipoli in WW1 or Hitler's arrogance in WW11 being just 2 cases in point.

Fionn1952

janfebmar wrote: »

citytillidie wrote: »

As for criteria where parades should not be is in areas where the majority of the locals would feel uncomfortable and police having to have a big presence just to make sure nothing happens between OO, bands and the locals

I agree with you there, I think it is wrong for the O.O. to have parades which pass though areas where they are not wanted, just because they used to pass through that area decades ago before the area changed or whatever. In fairness however, I believe most parades pass though areas where they are wanted or tolerated.

I think a little bit of give and take on both sides is what is needed.

This looks like a reasonably grown up and mature post, Jan. Which parades did you agree with banning/redirecting?

I 100% agree there should be some degree of give and take. Passing within proximity of three houses in a Nationalist area....residents should probably get over it. Stopping outside Catholic chapels to play the Famine Song, well they should probably have that taken into consideration when deciding on whether to approve that route the following year.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When did I ever suggest that the Naziz got everything right?

.

Nobody claimed you suggested that the Nazis got everything right. What did happen though is you claimed The Nazis had no plan to invade the UK. Rather than admit your mistake you then tried to waffle your way out of it by saying the UK was hemmed in etc. When I point out how the UK was able to supply Russia with the Arctic convoys , the North Africa campaign etc, you are now waffling about poor Francie being accused of suggesting he said the Nazis got everything right. In the middle of this you make the freudian slip of mentioning " another plan" by the Nazis, so you now realise the Nazis had a plan to invade the UK ( Operation Sea Lion) but you cannot bring yourself to admit it because it shows your limited and bigoted knowledge of history. You cannot even get basic facts right.

janfebmar

?

Fionn1952 wrote: »

I 100% agree there should be some degree of give and take. Passing within proximity of three houses in a Nationalist area....residents should probably get over it. Stopping outside Catholic chapels to play the Famine Song, well they should probably have that taken into consideration when deciding on whether to approve that route the following year.

I agree with all of the above. I think the vast majority of parades do not involve the famine song or stopping outside Catholic chapels, and I would strongly condemn any of that behaviour. It is not good neighbourlieness, for want of a better term. There should be a certain amount of respect for "the other sides" traditions on both sides.

Hundreds of Orange halls and such like have been attacked and vandalised, some burnt down, over the years: that is not on either. There are extremists on both sides who are wrong. As in all disputes, I think a bit of reasonableness, consideration for the other side and a bit of give and take is required.

downcow

Dytalus wrote: »

More specifically, it's not as if "1000 people have complained, cancel the whole thing" is how it works. Once a parade has received complaints to be considered 'contentious', the Commission looks at the entire scenario in greater detail.

I'd say number of complaints does come into it, but it's not the sole criteria that's used to determine if a parade should be cancelled/rerouted.

“I’d say” sort of somes up the problem - no one knows for sure.
The commission is not trusted by most unionists and certainly seen as anti unionist culture.
It regularly gives in to the greater threat.
It does not give the reason it reached conclusions because it is so inconsistent.
Indeed the guy who recently received £10,000 in a secret payout by NIO because he complained he had to walk past a portrait of the queen holds a senior position in it.

I have tried to engage with it many times in the past an have been disgusted by its power and arrogance.

Can you imagine if this applied to something important in your life. Eg maybe the right to strike or right to protest or right to hold cultural event. And a unelected body could meet in private and issue a determination to say they thought your protest about say women’s reproductive rights would upset some people so therefore should be moved or banned. And they won’t tell you how they reached that conclusion other than they consulted. And they allow an anti abortion protest in same area the next week. Again no rational given

Try and consider this with an open empathetic mind and tell me it’s not unfair and inflammatory

Ps everyone’s comments that it’s to do with complaints seems incorrect as I understand no one has to complain.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Nobody claimed you suggested that the Nazis got everything right. What did happen though is you claimed The Nazis had no plan to invade the UK. Rather than admit your mistake you then tried to waffle your way out of it by saying the UK was hemmed in etc. When I point out how the UK was able to supply Russia with the Arctic convoys , the North Africa campaign etc, you are now waffling about poor Francie being accused of suggesting he said the Nazis got everything right. In the middle of this you make the freudian slip of mentioning " another plan" by the Nazis, so you now realise the Nazis had a plan to invade the UK ( Operation Sea Lion) but you cannot bring yourself to admit it because it shows your limited and bigoted knowledge of history. You cannot even get basic facts right.

What are you talking about?

Come out of your British good bubble and read what is actually said.

Once again, IMO Hitler had no plan to invade Britain, signified by his expressed opinion that he hoped to negotiate a settlement with them.

The Nazis (his multiple commanders/military planners) had many plans.

And none of them calculated corrected the strength of the RAF or the Navy...the mistakes Empires and Empire builders make.

I cannot be any clearer and if you want to trumpet some petty 'win' you think you got for the benefit of cheers from your tag team, fire away. I will ignore it until you deal with what was the main point - that Churchill and Britain, considering a number of factors got a very lucky break at that point in the war.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

“I’d say” sort of somes up the problem - no one knows for sure.
The commission is not trusted by most unionists and certainly seen as anti unionist culture.
It regularly gives in to the greater threat.
It does not give the reason it reached conclusions because it is so inconsistent.
Indeed the guy who recently received £10,000 in a secret payout by NIO because he complained he had to walk past a portrait of the queen holds a senior position in it.

I have tried to engage with it many times in the past an have been disgusted by its power and arrogance.

Can you imagine if this applied to something important in your life. Eg maybe the right to strike or right to protest or right to hold cultural event. And a unelected body could meet in private and issue a determination to say they thought your protest about say women’s reproductive rights would upset some people so therefore should be moved or banned.

Try and consider this with an open empathetic mind and tell me it’s not unfair and inflammatory

I don't think marching where you are not wanted or where it is likely to cause a breach of the peace can be considered 'something important' in anyone's life.

People throughout history have had to stop doing things that are damaging to others.

Mindful that the OO has never engaged with the PC, can you show any evidence of your 'engagement with them'?
It is a body that has a code of practice it must operate by and has the same oversight as any other agency. I am not aware of anybody taking them to task on that. Some evidence of that would be good too.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Dytalus wrote: »

More specifically, it's not as if "1000 people have complained, cancel the whole thing" is how it works. Once a parade has received complaints to be considered 'contentious', the Commission looks at the entire scenario in greater detail.

I'd say number of complaints does come into it, but it's not the sole criteria that's used to determine if a parade should be cancelled/rerouted.

“I’d say” sort of somes up the problem - no one knows for sure.
The commission is not trusted by most unionists and certainly seen as anti unionist culture.
It regularly gives in to the greater threat.
It does not give the reason it reached conclusions because it is so inconsistent.
Indeed the guy who recently received £10,000 in a secret payout by NIO because he complained he had to walk past a portrait of the queen holds a senior position in it.

I have tried to engage with it many times in the past an have been disgusted by its power and arrogance.

Can you imagine if this applied to something important in your life. Eg maybe the right to strike or right to protest or right to hold cultural event. And a unelected body could meet in private and issue a determination to say they thought your protest about say women’s reproductive rights would upset some people so therefore should be moved or banned. And they won’t tell you how they reached that conclusion other than they consulted. And they allow an anti abortion protest in same area the next week. Again no rational given

Try and consider this with an open empathetic mind and tell me it’s not unfair and inflammatory

Ps everyone’s comments that it’s to do with complaints seems incorrect as I understand no one has to complain.

If you start with 100% of the cake, get told you have to share it, and end up giving away 10% of the cake, it might seem terribly unfair, because you used to have more cake.....but ultimately you've still got 90% of your cake and should probably consider it a win that you had the whole cake for so long instead of boycotting the bakery because you had to share a small portion of it.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think marching where you are not wanted or where it is likely to cause a breach of the peace can be considered 'something important' in anyone's life.

People throughout history have had to stop doing things that are damaging to others.

Mindful that the OO has never engaged with the PC, can you show any evidence of your 'engagement with them'?
It is a body that has a code of practice it must operate by and has the same oversight as any other agency. I am not aware of anybody taking them to task on that. Some evidence of that would be good too.

I have been on both sides.
I have met them 20+ years ago to point out how one sided their publications were and how their photography. The pictures of orange parades were taken from ground level pointing up at big stern men while their pictures of nationalists parades were from high up looking down on smiling faces. They would give no rational for this but reluctantly accepted it was clearly evident. That changed in next publication.
I have met them to try and point out that they siding with the bullies in my town by preventing any show of my culture. They would not accept that but were clearly uncomfortable with the evidence I provided and refused to answer a single question.
I have carried out a number of mediations for them in disputed parades. But their inability to move at all no matter what loyalists done was unacceptable. Indeed I felt it left me with no integrity when loyalist bands agreed to do everything asked of them and still the determination was NO.
I could go on and on. But it is a very unsatisfactory way to build respect between communities

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If you start with 100% of the cake, get told you have to share it, and end up giving away 10% of the cake, it might seem terribly unfair, because you used to have more cake.....but ultimately you've still got 90% of your cake and should probably consider it a win that you had the whole cake for so long instead of boycotting the bakery because you had to share a small portion of it.

You are starting to sound like the parades Commission. Maybe you could write their determinations for them.

downcow

I don’t know a single unionist who would not be happy with a completely open transparent method of determine how cultural displays take place and of all communities being treated completely equally with the same criteria.
The problem is some republicans fear that as it may further normalise the existence of the unionist community on this island

And I’d be happy for the same rules applying across this island indeed both islands.

And that could apply to flags, banners, parades, sport, dance, whatever - anything that is perceived by a significant number of people as belonging to s community

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

If you start with 100% of the cake, get told you have to share it, and end up giving away 10% of the cake, it might seem terribly unfair, because you used to have more cake.....but ultimately you've still got 90% of your cake and should probably consider it a win that you had the whole cake for so long instead of boycotting the bakery because you had to share a small portion of it.

You are starting to sound like the parades Commission. Maybe you could write their determinations for them.

So basically it's, 'No Surrender' for you, Downcow?

It seems that unless you get to keep 100% of the cake, then the Parades Commission is corrupt. No matter what way you look at it, the vast, vast majority of Orange parades are allowed to proceed without any obstruction whatsoever.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

So basically it's, 'No Surrender' for you, Downcow?

It seems that unless you get to keep 100% of the cake, then the Parades Commission is corrupt. No matter what way you look at it, the vast, vast majority of Orange parades are allowed to proceed without any obstruction whatsoever.

All I ask is clarity, transparency, integrity, equality.
But you may struggle to understand that concept

Dytalus

downcow wrote: »

I don’t know a single unionist who would not be happy with a completely open transparent method of determine how cultural displays take place and of all communities being treated completely equally with the same criteria.
The problem is some republicans fear that as it may further normalise the existence of the unionist community on this island

And I’d be happy for the same rules applying across this island indeed both islands.

Such a level of bureaucratic pain isn't necessary outside of NI. Across the British and Irish Isles, only Northern Ireland has such sectarian/cultural division in modern times. Protests and parades in Ireland are all welcome with advance warning (at least legally, there's never a guarantee they'll be well accepted by the population) and no intent to stir up trouble. No other country on the isles needs an independent public body to act as mediator between two communities so opposed to one another.

Even the most historically and provably peaceful unionist/nationalist parade/protest/event can incite violence if it happens in the wrong place, or is seen by the wrong people.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I have been on both sides.
I have met them 20+ years ago to point out how one sided their publications were and how their photography. The pictures of orange parades were taken from ground level pointing up at big stern men while their pictures of nationalists parades were from high up looking down on smiling faces. They would give no rational for this but reluctantly accepted it was clearly evident. That changed in next publication.
I have met them to try and point out that they siding with the bullies in my town by preventing any show of my culture. They would not accept that but were clearly uncomfortable with the evidence I provided and refused to answer a single question.
I have carried out a number of mediations for them in disputed parades. But their inability to move at all no matter what loyalists done was unacceptable. Indeed I felt it left me with no integrity when loyalist bands agreed to do everything asked of them and still the determination was NO.
I could go on and on. But it is a very unsatisfactory way to build respect between communities

What you don't seem willing to accept is that in some cases, the answer will sometimes be No.

Do some method acting, pretend you are alien with no connection to either side and try to see what it is you are asking to be let do. That will require you to question what the '12th' even in it's most benign, family friendly form actually is about.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

I have been on both sides.
I have met them 20+ years ago to point out how one sided their publications were and how their photography. The pictures of orange parades were taken from ground level pointing up at big stern men while their pictures of nationalists parades were from high up looking down on smiling faces. They would give no rational for this but reluctantly accepted it was clearly evident. That changed in next publication.
I have met them to try and point out that they siding with the bullies in my town by preventing any show of my culture. They would not accept that but were clearly uncomfortable with the evidence I provided and refused to answer a single question.
I have carried out a number of mediations for them in disputed parades. But their inability to move at all no matter what loyalists done was unacceptable. Indeed I felt it left me with no integrity when loyalist bands agreed to do everything asked of them and still the determination was NO.
I could go on and on. But it is a very unsatisfactory way to build respect between communities

Define "bullies", and how it is "your" town?