Orange Order parade held at north Belfast interface
It assembled at Woodvale Parade at about 08:30 BST before moving along Woodvale Road and Crumlin Road towards Ligoniel Orange Hall.Organisers had said the march represented the "homeward" part of their Twelfth of July parade.The commission barred evening return parades from passing the Ardoyne shops on Saturday.It permitted the Sunday plans, but with conditions such as only hymn music being played past the shops and no accompanying supporters on that part of the route.The commission said it had received some objections to the morning parade which warned it would "harm community relations".A few people observed the march but there were no formal protests organised.
There was a policing presence in the area as the parade took place.Fr Gary Donegan, who observed the march, said there had been a "certain anxiousness" in the area.But he added: "It seems actually what the community has done is ignore it and if it passes by then we can just get on to Sunday."Encouraging dialogue on parading disputes, he added: "The more people talk, the less likelihood there's going to be adverse responses."The area of the Crumlin Road is an interface between mainly unionist and nationalist communities.In the past it was one of Northern Ireland's most contentious parading routes, with years of protests, violence and disorder.A deal was stuck in 2016 which sees a number of morning parades held each year.But the agreement broke down in 2024, raising concerns of further tensions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
Striking doctors have badly misjudged the mood of the nation
The most crucial statistic relating to the current threat by resident (formerly 'junior') doctors to go on strike is derived not from the inflation indices, or even the pitiful state of the UK public finances, but from the latest readings of public opinion. In a dramatic shift from where it stood during those long-running disputes under the Conservatives, when the medics were cheered on even by disappointed patients, support for their cause has collapsed. A year ago, some 52 per cent of the public felt that strike action was justified. Now that figure has exactly halved, to a mere 26 per cent. Without the backing of public sentiment, or the political pressure it brings to bear, it is much less likely that the doctors will win this time round. Nor, despite widespread sympathy for their complaints, do they deserve to. The doctors, or rather their representatives at the British Medical Association, have badly misjudged the mood of the public. Since the general election, resident doctors have seen their wages rise by much more than most other working people, and – in the case of the award they won shortly after Labour came to power – with few (if any) commitments to improving productivity. The newly installed chancellor, Rachel Reeves, wanted the strikes over and done with quickly because of the damage they were doing to the NHS and the wider economy. So did the public. The government did the right thing in immediately honouring the recommendations of the independent pay review body, though they should have insisted that progress be made on productivity. Instead, they hoped that the BMA would join them in rebuilding and reforming the NHS to make it once again an institution that people could rely on and the country could be proud of. Now, the five-day strike scheduled for the end of July – with no doubt more to follow – puts all of that in jeopardy. All the signs are that the health secretary, Wes Streeting, will resist the pay demands – and he is right to do so. The pay of doctors in the NHS – as with other groups providing a vital public service, such as the police and the civil service – should be insulated from politics and determined by the independent bodies tasked with deciding a fair settlement, taking all the factors into account, including affordability. This has been done, and will be done again. The BMA always submits its own evidence and arguments, and these are fully accounted for. The whole process is designed to avoid the kind of damaging industrial action that is now about to take place. Mr Streeting is being pragmatic and sensitive in agreeing to hold direct talks with BMA representatives, but he is under no obligation to submit to their demands. He has a duty to protect the patient and the taxpayer, too. What is too little noticed is just how arbitrary the central demand of the BMA is. The doctors want their pay to be further boosted such that it regains the real value that prevailed in 2008, as determined by the movement in the retail prices index – so by around 29 per cent. Other indices suggest a lower adjustment, but that's beside the point. Not only does this 'non-negotiable' figure look outlandish to people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis, many of whom have no hope of ever earning as much as a doctor, let alone a consultant; it is also illogical. There is nothing special about 2008, except that – as the resident doctors (fairly) point out – it was when their salaries began to decline in real terms. Well, that broadly applies to many other jobs, albeit some more than others, in reference to various points in the past. But there is no law, of man or of nature, that can guarantee a given level of income for any group in perpetuity – and certainly not in a dynamic economy. It is absurd. For reasons that are sometimes obscure, productivity and real wage growth in the UK – and to some extent across other advanced economies – have generally stagnated since the global financial crisis of 2008. Doctors are not alone in experiencing a painful squeeze, and in fact, many have suffered more – including nurses. The doctors seem very out of touch with their public. They thereby risk losing the very thing they profess to love – the National Health Service itself – by making it look unreformable, unsustainable, and unworkable. If Labour can't rescue the NHS from its own staff, who can? Politically, the voters will conclude that Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting are no more able to fix it than were Rishi Sunak, Jeremy Hunt and Victoria Atkins. They will simply note that the endless strikes are back, as the waiting lists once again begin to grow longer. The electorate may then be more ready to listen to radical siren calls from Nigel Farage for the NHS to be dismantled. If the public finally lose faith in it, and the health service ends up privatised, then the doctors' world will change radically – and not necessarily to suit their own interests.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Women's sports ‘must ban trans players or face legal action'
Women's sports have been told they will face legal action if they fail to ban trans players. Sharron Davies, the former Olympic swimmer, will say on Tuesday that British sporting groups such as tennis and weightlifting could end up in court if they do not prevent transgender women from competing. She will speak at a meeting of the new all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on women's rights, established by Rosie Duffield, the former Labour MP. The meeting comes three months after the Supreme Court ruled that the word sex in the Equality Act is defined by biological sex, not self-declared gender identity. A number of sporting bodies, such as the Football Association, changed their rules to state that trans players could not play in women's sports. But many others did not, leaving them open to the threat of legal action. The group Women's Rights UK, which acts as the secretariat to the APPG, said while 21 UK sporting bodies restrict women's sport to biological sex, 38 do not. Another 18 have no policy or are currently under review. The Lawn Tennis Association, the UK's governing body for tennis, protects elite women but not lower-level players. England Golf not only allows trans women, who are biologically male, to compete against women in the amateur game, it also allows them to use the women's changing rooms. Ms Davies, who won two gold medals in the 1978 Commonwealth Games and a silver medal in the 1980 Moscow Olympics, said: 'Even after the very clear Supreme Court ruling on what a woman is and the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, sports are still choosing men's feelings over women's reality and our rightful opportunities to fair sport, free from any and all males. 'It's simply wrong. It's time for women to firmly say no. And if we have to, we will resort to more litigation. 'Bringing women together at this event is ever-more-needed as women continue to be treated like second-class citizens in our own races and spaces.' Ms Duffield, who is now the independent MP for Canterbury, said: 'I set up the APPG on women's rights following the Supreme Court ruling because so many issues arose from that and it's clear that so many public bodies and institutions have been misinterpreting the Equality Act, and there are many ongoing discussions to be had. 'We need to have discussions with sporting bodies, public buildings providing bathrooms, clubs and organisations. It's important that the law is followed correctly and we will be keeping an eye on how that unfolds.' The Lawn Tennis Association said last year that trans women would not be eligible to compete in female events in higher-graded competitions. But the rules do not extend to events taking place between players from the same venue. British Weight Lifting allows trans women to compete in female categories as long as they can demonstrate that their testosterone levels are within the range of biological women. Other examples of sports which do not ban trans women are rounders, taekwondo and wrestling. Heather Binning, founder of the Women's Rights Network said: 'Tomorrow's meeting will focus on protecting and promoting women's sports and the failure by too many sporting bodies to protect single-sex sport and encourage greater participation by women and girls. 'In the absence of leadership to address the erosion of women and girls sports, the APPG will be an opportunity for parliamentarians to discuss how we can address this and promote safe and fair sporting opportunities for women and girls at both elite and grass-roots levels.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Ofcom launches probe into whether BBC Gaza documentary narrated by Hamas official's son misled audience
Ofcom has said it will launch a probe into whether the BBC 's controversial Gaza documentary, narrated by the son of a senior Hamas official, misled audiences. The watchdog announced the measure this afternoon following the shambolic release of the Beeb's programme, Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone. The documentary was axed from BBC iPlayer in February after it emerged its 13-year-old narrator, Abdullah, is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as Hamas' s deputy minister of agriculture. In a newly published review, Peter Johnston - director of editorial complaints - said the programme was in breach of accuracy for 'failing to disclose information about the child narrator's father's position within the Hamas-run government'. His report found nobody at the BBC knew of the father's position when the documentary first aired on February 17, but three people at Hoyo Films, the independent production company that made the film, were aware. Mr Johnston said Hoyo Films did not 'intentionally' mislead the BBC about the position of the narrator's father, but says the independent production company 'bears most responsibility for this failure'. He said the BBC also 'bears some responsibility'. BBC director-general Tim Davie has apologised for a 'significant failing' in relation to the documentary and pledged the corporation would take action to prevent it happening again. The report cost approximately £100,000 to carry out. The review found no other breaches of editorial guidelines, including breaches of impartiality, and also found no evidence that 'outside interests' 'inappropriately impacted on the programme'. It said that 'careful consideration of the requirements of due impartiality was undertaken in this project given the highly contested nature of the subject matter'. The detail of the background information regarding the narrator's father is deemed as 'critical information', which the report says was not shared with the BBC before broadcast. Mr Davie said: 'Peter Johnston's report identifies a significant failing in relation to accuracy in this documentary. I thank him for his thorough work and I am sorry for this failing. 'We will now take action on two fronts - fair, clear and appropriate actions to ensure proper accountability and the immediate implementation of steps to prevent such errors being repeated.' The BBC board said: 'We thank Peter Johnston for his work. His report is a comprehensive examination of a complex programme, the production of which spanned many months from concept through to broadcast - and is critical in laying bare the facts of what happened. 'Nothing is more important than trust and transparency in our journalism. We welcome the actions the executive are taking to avoid this failing being repeated in the future.' The scandal drew the ire of Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, who described feeling 'exasperated' as she called for an 'adequate explanation from the BBC about what has happened'. 'I have not had that from the chair or director-general yet,' she told The Times earlier this month.. She added: 'I have been very clear that people must be held accountable for the decisions that were taken. I have asked the question to the board (of the BBC). Why has nobody been fired? 'What I want is an explanation as to why not. If it is a sackable offence then obviously that should happen. 'But if the BBC, which is independent, considers that it is not, I think what all parliamentarians want to know is why.' The review led the broadcaster to delay and then pull entirely another documentary from the region, Gaza: Doctors under Attack, which has since been broadcast on Channel 4. The documentary was originally commissioned by the BBC more than a year ago but paused its production in April and was eventually aired by Channel 4 earlier this month. It is a one off-documentary that examines allegations that Israeli forces have repeatedly targeted hospitals in breach of international law. The programme was made by two-time Emmy-winning journalist Ramita Navai, fellow two-time Emmy-winning director Karim Shah and ex-Channel 4 News Editor Ben De Pear, who is the executive producer of Basement Films, which was commissioned by the BBC to create the film. Channel 4 said it had fact-checked the documentary to ensure that it meets its editorial standards and the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Hoyo Films said in a statement that they take the report findings 'extremely seriously' and 'apologise for the mistake that resulted in a breach of the (BBC) editorial guidelines'. They added: 'We are pleased that the report found that there was no evidence of inappropriate influence on the content of the documentary from any third party. 'We appreciate the rigorous nature of this investigation, and its findings that Hoyo Films did not intentionally mislead the BBC, that there were no other breaches of the editorial guidelines in the programme, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the programme funds were spent other than for reasonable, production-related purposes. Hoyo Films welcomes the report's recommendations and hope they will improve processes and prevent similar problems in the future. 'We are working closely with the BBC to see if we can find an appropriate way to bring back to iPlayer the stories of those featured in the programme. 'Our team in Gaza risked their lives to document the devastating impact of war on children.
