VanguardBears are to join protests against Glasgow City Council

[JohnMc 2,750]

Okay, I live in Glasgow, I also work in Glasgow and my children attend our local school. I feel I'm qualified to comment on this. 

As someone who still has an involvement in our local Church Of Scotland I can say I don't in any way feel I'm discriminated against by the local council. 

Firstly let's be very careful about conflating the rerouting of an ABOD march with discrimination against Protestants. Someone spat on a priest in the street, let that sink in. Spitting on someone you don't know and who in this case had clearly hadn't done anything to deserve it is abhorrent. Surely no one disagrees with that? That person was following a 'walk' when he did it. For all the various loyal orders can say they have no control over who 'follows' them on the street they have to take some responsibility for the people they attract. This isn't a new problem for them either. I understand there's a distinction between the OO, the bands they hire and the people who walk alongside them. But for the vast majority of people they see them as one, all connected and only there in the first place because of the 'walk'. 

So, the 'banning' of this particular march is no surprise and frankly the wise thing to do. I can understand entirely why the council and police made the decision. That's no conspiracy. 

 

I lived in Northern Ireland in the 1990s and I watched the Orange Order make exactly the same mistakes then as I'm watching them make now. It's astonishing how resistant to learning they seem to be. 

In Glasgow today the majority of people have no connection to loyal orders. Most people won't care if they don't see another Orange march in their life. That's the harsh reality. 

 

As someone still involved in organised, mainstream Presbyterianism, I can tell you that Glasgow City Council are the least of our concerns.

I'm now late for the Easter service.

[buster. 5,184]

18 minutes ago, JohnMc said:

Okay, I live in Glasgow, I also work in Glasgow and my children attend our local school. I feel I'm qualified to comment on this. 

As someone who still has an involvement in our local Church Of Scotland I can say I don't in any way feel I'm discriminated against by the local council. 

Firstly let's be very careful about conflating the rerouting of an ABOD march with discrimination against Protestants. Someone spat on a priest in the street, let that sink in. Spitting on someone you don't know and who in this case had clearly hadn't done anything to deserve it is abhorrent. Surely no one disagrees with that? That person was following a 'walk' when he did it. For all the various loyal orders can say they have no control over who 'follows' them on the street they have to take some responsibility for the people they attract. This isn't a new problem for them either. I understand there's a distinction between the OO, the bands they hire and the people who walk alongside them. But for the vast majority of people they see them as one, all connected and only there in the first place because of the 'walk'. 

So, the 'banning' of this particular march is no surprise and frankly the wise thing to do. I can understand entirely why the council and police made the decision. That's no conspiracy. 

 

I lived in Northern Ireland in the 1990s and I watched the Orange Order make exactly the same mistakes then as I'm watching them make now. It's astonishing how resistant to learning they seem to be. 

In Glasgow today the majority of people have no connection to loyal orders. Most people won't care if they don't see another Orange march in their life. That's the harsh reality. 

 

As someone still involved in organised, mainstream Presbyterianism, I can tell you that Glasgow City Council are the least of our concerns.

I'm now late for the Easter service.

In the wake of 'spitgate', some of the statements to come from the O.O. were actually very good, politically enlightened even (IMO). 

 

One specific being, IIRC was a suggestion, an offer to come together and stand against bigotry whilst on the march. It was an olive branch of sorts that didn't seem to be talked about or considered. I thought it the exact line they should be taking and that they should have pushed it further, forcing a conversation on it.

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2019 by buster.

[Bluedell 5,624]

5 hours ago, JohnMc said:

 

Firstly let's be very careful about conflating the rerouting of an ABOD march with discrimination against Protestants. Someone spat on a priest in the street, let that sink in. Spitting on someone you don't know and who in this case had clearly hadn't done anything to deserve it is abhorrent. Surely no one disagrees with that? That person was following a 'walk' when he did it. For all the various loyal orders can say they have no control over who 'follows' them on the street they have to take some responsibility for the people they attract. This isn't a new problem for them either. I understand there's a distinction between the OO, the bands they hire and the people who walk alongside them. But for the vast majority of people they see them as one, all connected and only there in the first place because of the 'walk'. 

So, the 'banning' of this particular march is no surprise and frankly the wise thing to do. I can understand entirely why the council and police made the decision. That's no conspiracy. 

 

There's been other marches and demos in the city where people have been assaulted and the Council don't seem to care.

 

If there were some level of consistency then that would go somewhat to reducing the conspiracy theories.

 

I wonder if I stand with a UJ and Rangers top on in the middle of George Square during the next pro-independence rally and I get assaulted, will the council ban all future pro-independence rallies? I think that we all know the answer to that.

[Stevie - 4lads Blog 922]

. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by Stevie - 4lads Blog
Wrong folder

[BEARGER 1,830]

50 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

There's been other marches and demos in the city where people have been assaulted and the Council don't seem to care.

 

If there were some level of consistency then that would go somewhat to reducing the conspiracy theories.

 

I wonder if I stand with a UJ and Rangers top on in the middle of George Square during the next pro-independence rally and I get assaulted, will the council ban all future pro-independence rallies? I think that we all know the answer to that.

Why would you or anyone else want to do that? There is a group who stand at the side of the road at every Independence march, approximately a dozen of them led by right wing nutter and holocaust denier Alistair McConnachie, don’t think any of them have been assaulted so far.

[Gonzo79 15,292]

From the reports I've read, the priest went out of his way to be very visible when the march walked past.  Why would he do that, other than as a deliberate attempt to antagonise those in attendance and further his chances of martyrdom. 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2019 by Gonzo79

[BEARGER 1,830]

1 minute ago, Gonzo79 said:

From the reports I've read, the priest went out of his way to be very visible when the march walked past.  Why would he do that, other than as a diberate attempt to antagonise those in attendance and further his chances of martyrdom. 

 

 

How would a priest or any other religious person standing on the pavement antagonise any normal person? The fact is that some who follow these marches are morons.

[Gonzo79 15,292]

A chap in an England shirt, standing on a pavement, might antagonise participants on a Republican or Scottish nationalist march.  That's life.

 

The priest intentionally left his church at a specific moment.  I agree that it is moronic to spit at or abuse him but he could easily have avoided that happening.

[barca72 440]

7 hours ago, buster. said:

Barca

 

IMO the point you are making about the comparison is a bit of a force-fit that doesn't really hold much water when held up to any objective scrutiny. I could say potatoes and oranges, but maybe it would be considered as a bad joke.

 

What is your definition of a "follower" on these marches ?

 

 

 

To use the words of the SNP leader of the GCC - ... "Official participants may not be involved in sectarian and anti-social incidents around parades but it’s simply not enough to absolve themselves by pointing to hangers-on."

The guy who assaulted the priest committed vile acts. Can you honestly say that it is the responsibility of the Loyalist Order, whichever is on parade, has the duty of care of taking this guy out before he commits an assault or even during the assault?
You're calling that a force fit argument. How about looking at the flip-side of the argument and recognize that Susan Aitken has been disingenous in using this one inflammatory incident to circumvent the fact that the Loyalist Orders themselves are not guilty of any inflammatory behaviour because they are well-stewarded by their own personnel, but she continues to push her agenda and that of her supporters such as 'Call It Out'.
If Aitken will give some kind of official standing to the stewards of the Loyalist Orders to detect and deal with unsavoury and unwanted characters who have attached themselves to the general route of the walk then that would be something else, but for me all she is doing is absolving the Police from doing their duty. She knows full well that if she was to give the Loyalist Orders stewards permission to police the public on the sidewalk and just one of them made a mistake then there would be all hell to pay and she would hold the can.
What is her next step, let the parade move 200 yds. up the London road and then bus the parade to Glasgow Green? Human rights be damned.
Those who see the Loyalist Orders who are on parade and their supporters on the side walk as one and the same are wrong. It is an easy argument to say that the Orders should be responsible for them but it is wrong. This is not like a football club and its supporters where the club knows(for the greater majority) to whom it is selling a ticket, and hence a degree of control. Anybody can come from anywhere, yes even tourists, to attach to the walk and you want to say the Loyal Orders are responsible for them? That is a specious argument.
You may not agree with the protestors, but surely they have that right to protest a perceived wrong?
There are many good Presbyterian members of the Loyal Orders who are presently uncomfortable about the agenda in place at GCC.

[BEARGER 1,830]

On 18/04/2019 at 22:21, Bill said:

Why don’t you feel able to just take the word of people who live there? Is there a reason why you need to check if they’re telling the truth? Do you not trust them?

 

7 hours ago, JohnMc said:

Okay, I live in Glasgow, I also work in Glasgow and my children attend our local school. I feel I'm qualified to comment on this. 

As someone who still has an involvement in our local Church Of Scotland I can say I don't in any way feel I'm discriminated against by the local council. 

Firstly let's be very careful about conflating the rerouting of an ABOD march with discrimination against Protestants. Someone spat on a priest in the street, let that sink in. Spitting on someone you don't know and who in this case had clearly hadn't done anything to deserve it is abhorrent. Surely no one disagrees with that? That person was following a 'walk' when he did it. For all the various loyal orders can say they have no control over who 'follows' them on the street they have to take some responsibility for the people they attract. This isn't a new problem for them either. I understand there's a distinction between the OO, the bands they hire and the people who walk alongside them. But for the vast majority of people they see them as one, all connected and only there in the first place because of the 'walk'. 

So, the 'banning' of this particular march is no surprise and frankly the wise thing to do. I can understand entirely why the council and police made the decision. That's no conspiracy. 

 

I lived in Northern Ireland in the 1990s and I watched the Orange Order make exactly the same mistakes then as I'm watching them make now. It's astonishing how resistant to learning they seem to be. 

In Glasgow today the majority of people have no connection to loyal orders. Most people won't care if they don't see another Orange march in their life. That's the harsh reality. 

 

As someone still involved in organised, mainstream Presbyterianism, I can tell you that Glasgow City Council are the least of our concerns.

I'm now late for the Easter service.