Northern Ireland kick's off again

[4play]

I often go down the pub and not get into a fight just as the people marching often march and dont start off a riot. It seems to be more the uvf looking for an excuse to attack the police and get themselves noticed rather than the people marching smashing the place up.

would you stop travelling on the tube to work because of a terrorist attack im guessing not. then why should these people stop marching because a terrorist organisation wants to use them as an excuse to cause trouble.

[manker]

I often go down the pub and not get into a fight just as the people marching often march and dont start off a riot. It seems to be more the uvf looking for an excuse to attack the police and get themselves noticed rather than the people marching smashing the place up.

would you stop travelling on the tube to work because of a terrorist attack im guessing not. then why should these people stop marching because a terrorist organisation wants to use them as an excuse to cause trouble.

It's simply about using discretion in order to give rise to compromise.

It's a free country, I should be able to watch Man United Vs Liverpool in the Liverpool supporters end and be able to cheer when my team scores and wear a shirt of my choosing with a bunch of like-minded mates.

However, I use my discretion and realise that it would be a bad thing and I'd be better off in the Man United end. I still get to watch the game, except in a different seat (The Orangemen still get to march, except along a different route), I still get to cheer (the Orangemen still get their message out), I still get to wear attire of my choosing (the Orangemen still get to wear their funky clothes).

It's fairly easy if you're a reasonable person, however, reason has always been in short supply regarding this issue.

[JPaul]

they go to a place knowing they will get attacked yet they still do it. Why?

they may be wrong to march through somewhere they are not wanted but they should have the right to do so.

The people who live on the streets they wish to march down also have the right to say, "No we do not want you here, please march somewhere else. Somewhere the local residents appreciate your message". That seems fair to me. In my view the rights of the people who live there outweigh the rights of those who want to march.

That way they have their march, the local residents have there peace and quiet and everyone should be satisfied.

Unless the only point in marching is to upset other people, which can only be achieved by proving you are the dominant force and that you can march where you want, whatever anyone else thinks.

[manker]

The people who live on the streets they wish to march down also have the right to say, "No we do not want you here, please march somewhere else. Somewhere the local residents appreciate your message".

Good point.

[Busyman]

The people who live on the streets they wish to march down also have the right to say, "No we do not want you here, please march somewhere else. Somewhere the local residents appreciate your message".

Good point.

.....sure as long as it's just talk.

[JPaul]

Good point.

.....sure as long as it's just talk.

I said " ... the right to say ..." which would mean it was talk.

I don't think that's ambiguous, if so my apologies.

They have the right to make their views know. To the Parades Commission, the Police and any other relevant local authority. It is then up to those people to decide whether a march should be allowed to go ahead, or whether it's route should be changed.

Again, this seems fair to me.

These are the people who decide

[Busyman]

.....sure as long as it's just talk.

I said " ... the right to say ..." which would mean it was talk.

I don't think that's ambiguous, if so my apologies.

My apologies as well. I should have said, "sure as long as it stay just talk".

Rights to verbally object are obvious. Unless you live in a communist country.

[JPaul]

@BM,

Then we are agreed.

The one group has a right to request to march and specify the route they wish to take.

The other group has the right to protest, saying that they wish the march to be held elsewhere as they do not want it (and what it represents) going thro' their streets.

Someone then arbitrates on what is the fairest solution. Which in this instance, as I understand it, was the march going ahead with a different route.

That all seems perfectly reasonable and makes sense to me.

Compromise is, as maker said, the only way.

[j2k4]

@BM,

Then we are agreed.

The one group has a right to request to march and specify the route they wish to take.

The other group has the right to protest, saying that they wish the march to be held elsewhere as they do not want it (and what it represents) going thro' their streets.

Someone then arbitrates on what is the fairest solution. Which in this instance, as I understand it, was the march going ahead with a different route.

That all seems perfectly reasonable and makes sense to me.

Compromise is, as maker said, the only way.

Hmmm.

I beg to differ.

Arbitration is not compromise, last I looked.

Good, though, if it works, and peacefully.

I'm not sure that particular solution would work in a lot of circumstances over here.

[Rat Faced]

It didnt in this circumstance either, the Orangemen's supporters rioted all over Ulster from what i heard. (I havent been watching the news though, just hearsay)