Why is Traveller disadvantage not a mainstream concern?

murphaph · 02-04-2012 5:27pm

later12 wrote: »

From their social welfare payment. It's not supposed to be affordable, that would somewhat defeat the purpose. The requirement could be applied to the parents of a child who missed N school days in the previous term, with respect to that child and on a diminishing scale with respect to second, third or fourth schoolgoing children who are also poor attendees.

To be honest people who couldn't give a fiddlers about their children should be prosecuted for neglect. It's an age old adage that one needs a licence for a dog but can have as many kids as they want, regardless of how they rear them.

gozunda · 02-04-2012 7:30pm

later12 wrote: »

Again, I have no vehement interest in defending nor criticising whatever traveller culture is. I don't think anyone's culture ought to be considered inflexible or unmovable if it gets in the way of an adequate education and the potential to participate in society. This applies to travellers as much as anybody else. That's for the first point you raise.

Yes however if the will is not there due to 'cultural' influences or norms etc then you aint got a chance in hell of persuading those who do not wish to avail of FREE educational resources to do so. You also are on dangerous ground of forcing or coercing those who do not avail of education into a situation where they start to believe that they are being victimised because of who they identify themselves to be. What a traveller may consider 'adequate education' and what you might consider the same are likley to be poles apart. No amount of flexability is going to solve this problem imo

later12 wrote: »

As for the second point you raise, ask anyone from a certain vocational background if there is an expectation of continuing the family business. This applies widely across society, from newsagents to politicians to farmers to builders to horse-people, and amongst them, travellers.

Yes of course I understand this but it would appear to be a large proportion of travellers from their own admission that consider education past PS level surplus to their requirements in relation to taking up the family business. NOT newsagents, politicians, farmers, builders etc. Again this will be a brick wall to getting travellers to avail of education for the purposes of a range of wider benefits than just going to school to learn the basics.

There is no easy solution to this problem. Education is already free. Supports for traveller children are already provided. The base has been set - it is now up to traveller families to up the mark and adopt some enlightened self interest for the furure of their children and not just a cultural tunnel with no light at the end.

later12 · 03-04-2012 12:22am

gozunda wrote: »

Yes however if the will is not there due to 'cultural' influences or norms etc then you aint got a chance in hell of persuading those who do not wish to avail of FREE educational resources to do so.

Sorry but that just isn't true.

If we look at the developing world, we see that the problem is no longer the existence of free education: the problem in recent times has been the low level of engagement. In almost every country in the world, there is free education, at least to primary school level. And yet, it often has minimal impact because parents don't see a point in engaging, or because teacher's don't see a point in teaching. And various studies have shown that these unfortunate trends are reversible by the use of conditional cash transfers

http://www.crin.org/docs/Evaluating%20the%20Imapact%20of%20Cash%20Transfer%20Programs.pdf

I'm not suggesting we need to mirror CCTs here in Ireland, but CCTs demonstrate that it is certainly possible to incentivise and encourage parents who are hesitant to engage their children in education.

For their children's sake, I dislike the attitude that we should just step back and wipe our hands clean of any intervention, lest we be labelled paternalist or Heaven forbid, statists.

gizmo555 · 03-04-2012 12:35am

later12 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting we need to mirror CCTs here in Ireland, but CCTs demonstrate that it is certainly possible to incentivise and encourage parents who are hesitant to engage their children in education.

For their children's sake, I dislike the attitude that we should just step back and wipe our hands clean of any intervention, lest we be labelled paternalist or Heaven forbid, statists.

It sort of already exists here, to a very limited extent, in the form payment of child benefit for children between 16 and 18 years, provided they remain in school.

Given that the precedent is already there, why not extend it to children of all ages? Make child benefit for children of all ages conditional on regular school attendance.

gozunda · 03-04-2012 10:07am

later12 wrote: »

Sorry but that just isn't true.

If we look at the developing world, we see that the problem is no longer the existence of free education: the problem in recent times has been the low level of engagement. In almost every country in the world, there is free education, at least to primary school level. And yet, it often has minimal impact because parents don't see a point in engaging, or because teacher's don't see a point in teaching. And various studies have shown that these unfortunate trends are reversible by the use of conditional cash transfers

http://www.crin.org/docs/Evaluating%20the%20Imapact%20of%20Cash%20Transfer%20Programs.pdf

I'm not suggesting we need to mirror CCTs here in Ireland, but CCTs demonstrate that it is certainly possible to incentivise and encourage parents who are hesitant to engage their children in education.

For their children's sake, I dislike the attitude that we should just step back and wipe our hands clean of any intervention, lest we be labelled paternalist or Heaven forbid, statists.

If parents cant understand that education is for the benefit of their children on many different levels - then throwing money at them to cadge or bribe them into some half hearted attempt to get their children to school is laughable

All they will see is an extension of a cash cow that can be milked for monetary pirposes only - 'ah sur the kiddies only go to school for the money' - great foundation there altogether to appreciate the value of education :rolleyes:

As other posters point out - not only is education is free for travellers but also finacially supported and as the last poster pointed out there are financial incentives in the system already. What should we do give unlimited expense cards as well? The country is already bankrupt and throwing good money after what is already available is a joke imo, this is simply taking the proverbial...

later12 · 03-04-2012 10:30am

gizmo555 wrote: »

It sort of already exists here, to a very limited extent, in the form payment of child benefit for children between 16 and 18 years, provided they remain in school.

Given that the precedent is already there, why not extend it to children of all ages? Make child benefit for children of all ages conditional on regular school attendance.

I'd have no problem with that as part of the plan. I do wonder how well a "this is what you could be earning" method works with travellers, given the remarkable ability of many of the poorest in society to discount the future.
After all, we all know the potential income benefits of an education, and evidently the carrot of higher expected future income has failed to waltz travellers into the school system itself.

However, the child benefit scheme you propose is a potential short term gain (not a long term gain like future income), so yes, travellers could see its benefits more tangibly and respond more appropriately.

I would still maintain the deposit scheme in addition, however. I don't think it's safe enough merely to give travellers something to gain, but give them something to physically lose out of their pockets by non-participation too.

gozunda wrote: »

If parents cant understand that education is for the benefit of their children on many different levels - then throwing money at them to cadge or bribe them into some half hearted attempt to get their children to school is laughable

Sorry, but I have already given you an example of where this works via CCTs.

It started in Mexico, where they made it costly for the parents to fail to send their children to school, and parents were not long overcoming their reluctance about education. It has been replicated very well around the world, so I'm not convinced that your assertion (rather without evidence) that it is 'laughable' to incentivise parents is actually valid at all. Evidently, it can work.

Different methods have been used in India (where there is low engagement with education, despite the fact that primary schooling is free,and 95% of children have a school within a half-mile. Clearly 'free education' is not enough for the poor, who may not be fully cognisant of its benefits, or be sceptical that those benefits apply to poor kids as well as rich.

Permabear · 03-04-2012 10:43am

This post has been deleted.

walrusgumble · 03-04-2012 10:46am

later12 wrote: »

A very interesting equality analysis based on Census 2006 has emerged recently, entitled Multiple Disadvantage in Ireland.

The pdf. can be viewed on the ESRI website
http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/MultipleDisadvantageinIreland2011.pdf

The aim of the report was to examine the risk of disadvantage associated with gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race and membership of the Traveller community. However, it might be better to restrict ourselves to the issue of the traveller community, as the findings made in relation to that community were particularly stark.

Here are some basic figures that emerged or were cited from other reports.
Travellers have a lower life expectancy, with the result that only 9 per cent of the Traveller population is over age 50, compared with 28 per cent of white Irish adults.

Over half of the Traveller population is under age 20 (53 per cent), compared with 28 per cent of the other white Irish population.

Over eight out of ten Irish Travellers in the 25–44 age group and almost the same number in the 45–64 age group have not completed second- level education.

61 per cent of Travellers aged 25 to 44 years and 49 per cent of those aged 45 to 64 years are in the labour market, when we control for their level of education and other factors Travellers are less likely than other white Irish adults to be in the labour market.

Figures from Census 2006 show that less than 1 per cent of Travellers aged 15 years or over have a third-level qualification

only a further 4 per cent have completed upper secondary level and 16 per cent have lower secondary qualifications (Nolan and Maître, 2008).

Graphical depiction of the age distribution:

Does anybody else find these statistics frighteningly damning of Irish society and our ability to address travellers' disadvantage?

It seems to me that we are allowing an educational and a social famine to persist amongst a minority group which a large body of the Irish people feel detached from. I would be curious to explore what people think of these statistics, and why we think this is not more of a mainstream political issue?

1. It is completely self imposed. Their form of lifestyle is not possible to retain considering the way our society is today.

2. Society has not ignored them, they have be given educational assistance, they refuse to use it. Many are out of school by 16 years. What can the State do about that?

3. If they ended the feuds, that might ease rise their life expectancy

4. Stop breaking into fights in public places, maybe business people would not treat them as criminals when they enter their premises.

OldNotWIse · 03-04-2012 12:13pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

1. It is completely self imposed. Their form of lifestyle is not possible to retain considering the way our society is today.

2. Society has not ignored them, they have be given educational assistance, they refuse to use it. Many are out of school by 16 years. What can the State do about that?

3. If they ended the feuds, that might ease rise their life expectancy

4. Stop breaking into fights in public places, maybe business people would not treat them as criminals when they enter their premises.

Some good points. I think it is very telling that a lot of estabishments will not facilitate traveller weddings, communions etc. At times like this when business is bad, they must be a complete liability for business owners to make the choice to turn them away.

nuac · 03-04-2012 1:01pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have been dealing with travellers for over 40 years and I agree fully with this post.

the ethnic argument is bogus, designed to screw more ouf of the taxpayer.

the legal basis seems be be based on an English case involving a Sikh in an English city

later12 · 03-04-2012 2:12pm

I cannot recall a single argument in this thread whereby someone demanded that travellers be recognized as an ethnic identity.

Has anyone actually demanded this here? It looks like your arguing against an idea that nobody here has put forward.

walrusgumble · 03-04-2012 2:41pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Some good points. I think it is very telling that a lot of estabishments will not facilitate traveller weddings, communions etc. At times like this when business is bad, they must be a complete liability for business owners to make the choice to turn them away.

Not all of them are bad. But, I know people who would only allow a traveller's party etc be booked on their premises at last resort, or, they knew exactly who was coming . Other than that, their attitude is that it would be worth to be down on money than having to answer to the police about a disorderly premises and the clean up that it costs.

If they want to live and behave like animals then they can't expect the local population to treat them anything other than animals.

It is about time that these representative groups cop themselves on and realise that their client's are the problem not the local population

Monty Burnz · 03-04-2012 8:02pm

later12 wrote: »

I cannot recall a single argument in this thread whereby someone demanded that travellers be recognized as an ethnic identity.

Has anyone actually demanded this here? It looks like your arguing against an idea that nobody here has put forward.

Indeed. He'd have much more success adopting the tactic of repeatedly asking the same question and pretending it had not been repeatedly answered.

nuac · 04-04-2012 9:31am

later12 wrote: »

I cannot recall a single argument in this thread whereby someone demanded that travellers be recognized as an ethnic identity.

Has anyone actually demanded this here? It looks like your arguing against an idea that nobody here has put forward.

I have read most of this thread at different times - I think there was a reference to ethnic status

However this ethnic argument is being pushed by their various advocates who have sought ot have igt added to Local Authority 0Traveller Accomodation Plans etc

walrusgumble · 05-04-2012 5:15pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No different to the "ordinary people" of then (pre 1970 or even 1980) compared with today. Maybe the Travellers go all out visually, but, the bills would not be too far apart.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

More money. Money does not always bring happiness. Money = bad idea if you don't know what to do with it. The same problems could be given for the "ordinary people".

If you can recall Charlie Bird's programme on Padraig Nally for instance, Padraig pointed out that the local travellers back when he was a boy were vastly different. He blamed "social welfare" or free money, as the route to the change of their behaviour. (remember, the ordinary person has also changed with new found wealth)

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Maybe our media then etc were not so self obsessed with questions like "who are we", "what makes us great"? . Probably left that to the playwriters and poets.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Or, for them (and not the traveller) to make a nice market in an ever growing industry . Over indulgence on the notions of individualism . Eager beavers (or eagles) trying out their ability in "revolution" ala America 1960

walrusgumble · 05-04-2012 5:16pm

nuac wrote: »

I have read most of this thread at different times - I think there was a reference to ethnic status

However this ethnic argument is being pushed by their various advocates who have sought ot have igt added to Local Authority 0Traveller Accomodation Plans etc

Even the Immigration and Integration Councils (many who never stepped near a halting site) get in on the bandwagon, without one iota of a clue as to what they are talking about.

Social Engineering, the way forward?

AlekSmart · 05-04-2012 10:09pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed. He'd have much more success adopting the tactic of repeatedly asking the same question and pretending it had not been repeatedly answered.

Monty Burnz.....are you referring to this question....

Why is Traveller disadvantage not a mainstream concern?

Because it appears that someplace along the line,it grew wings and took flight ?

lividduck · 07-04-2012 8:24am

Excellent article in todays irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0407/1224314499129.html

glic71rods46t0 · 07-04-2012 8:45am

lividduck wrote: »

Excellent article in todays irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0407/1224314499129.html

What is excellent about this article?
Its more of the same from the advocacy groups with cultural concerns on the provision of healthcare! WTF . All men of a certain age seem to be allergic to seeking help on health issues - but these crowd try to make it a cultural issue!!!
Enough of my tax euros spent on pandering to this nonsense.

mikemac1 · 07-04-2012 9:06am

She says many of the health services on offer aren’t culturally appropriate for Travellers. “And there’s a pride that men wouldn’t want to be seen looking for help.”

She believes the Department of Health should produce a plan of action to improve Traveller health, covering areas such as health checks, eye and hearing tests and mental heath supports.

Underfunded is a problem. So is wastage of resources.
So is availability throughout the country.
There are many issues with the health service, we have had many threads on it here on boards.

But what is culturally appropriate?

Do we need to setup a separate scheme with staff dedicated only to the traveller population?

Who else gets this special treatment?

Ok, a lobby group is there to lobby and they want to be proud and that's great

“When you have respect for yourself, others should have respect for you.

But if you want to be the same why do they demand and lobby for extra services that nobody else gets?

And realy not asking for medical help is not confined to traveller men, that goes for many men in this country. Certainly not just a traveller issue

Head The Wall · 07-04-2012 10:30am

We all know what happens when they go to A & E for medical help. Maybe they don't want to be disturbed while they are in the midst of their melee by the police.

AlekSmart · 07-04-2012 10:38am

mikemac1 wrote: »

Do we need to setup a separate scheme with staff dedicated only to the traveller population?

Who else gets this special treatment?

Ok, a lobby group is there to lobby and they want to be proud and that's great

But if you want to be the same why do they demand and lobby for extra services that nobody else gets?

And realy not asking for medical help is not confined to traveller men, that goes for many men in this country. Certainly not just a traveller issue

Indeed,and what first appeared to be an article relating to factual issues regarding Traveller "Culture" was swiftly directed down another superhighway altogether....

The census found only 12 per cent of Travellers now live in caravans or mobile homes, compared to 25 per cent in 2006. But this is not necessarily a positive development, according to Travellers. Ms Collins says some Travellers are not being given a choice and are forced into standard local authority housing when they would prefer to live in group housing or on halting sites with their extended families. She lives in a group housing scheme in Finglas, surrounded by her children and grandchildren. “Extended family is very important to us. I’d hate to be put in a house or apartment away from family. I think it can damage you and make you depressed if you are living in an environment with strangers, and maybe facing discrimination.”

What possible reaction can be expected from anybody inhabiting the Real World,and belonging to the "Contributing Class" can be expected ?,save perhaps a choking reflex as this stuff is digested.

Nonsense like this response, will see an increased clamour for far LESS funding to be allocated to this grouping,whetever advocates such as Later12 or Pavee Point think.

gizmo555 · 07-04-2012 11:02am

I wonder what the Central Statistics Office thinks of this comment to the effect that it couldn't do its job without training from Pavee Point - especially the allegation about some of its staff deliberately ignoring travellers during the 2006 census.

Martin Collins of Pavee Point says many Travellers did not even get census forms in the 2006 census and had no chance to be counted. “Some enumerators wouldn’t touch a halting site with a barge pole the last time,” he says. Pavee Point was very active in liaising with the Central Statistics Office and doing training with enumerators before last year’s census to ensure this did not happen again.

As for this bit - Matt Cooper had an official from Clare County Council on in the last few weeks talking about how brand new €500,000 houses built specifically for travellers had been destroyed by arson before they were ever occupied, because some travellers had a grudge against those to whom the houses had been allocated. He also spoke of a traveller woman in poor health and who wanted to move out of a caravan into a house, but who was so fearful of the prospective traveller neighbours around the house she'd been allocated that she wouldn't accept it.

Ms Collins says some Travellers are not being given a choice and are forced into standard local authority housing when they would prefer to live in group housing or on halting sites with their extended families. She lives in a group housing scheme in Finglas, surrounded by her children and grandchildren. “Extended family is very important to us. I’d hate to be put in a house or apartment away from family. I think it can damage you and make you depressed if you are living in an environment with strangers, and maybe facing discrimination.”

later12 · 07-04-2012 11:07am

lividduck wrote: »

Excellent article in todays irish Times
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0407/1224314499129.html

The figure relating to the significantly higher risk of suicide amongst traveller men is a little depressing. It seems to have emerged from the 2010 All-Ireland Traveller Health study.

There's an interesting clip about this and other public health problems impacting on travellers in the UCD link below

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2010/09SEP10/030910-shorter-life-expectancy-and-higher-suicide-rates-among-Travellers-study-shows.html

AlekSmart · 07-04-2012 11:14am

later12 wrote: »

The figure relating to the significantly higher risk of suicide amongst traveller men is a little depressing. It seems to have emerged from the 2010 All-Ireland Traveller Health study.

There's an interesting clip about this and other public health problems impacting on travellers in the UCD link below

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2010/09SEP10/030910-shorter-life-expectancy-and-higher-suicide-rates-among-Travellers-study-shows.html

I'd prefer to concentrate my concerns at the significant upswing in suicide rates generally in Ireland,with young males,the gay community and bachelor farmers all competing with Travellers in this regard.

I'm sorry,but the suicide issue is no greater in terms of Mainstream regard for Travellers than it is for every other sector of Irish society.

murphaph · 07-04-2012 11:18am

gizmo555 wrote: »

I wonder what the Central Statistics Office thinks of this comment to the effect that it couldn't do its job without training from Pavee Point - especially the allegation about some of its staff deliberately ignoring travellers during the 2006 census.

Martin Collins of Pavee Point says many Travellers did not even get census forms in the 2006 census and had no chance to be counted. “Some enumerators wouldn’t touch a halting site with a barge pole the last time,” he says. Pavee Point was very active in liaising with the Central Statistics Office and doing training with enumerators before last year’s census to ensure this did not happen again.

As for this bit - Matt Cooper had an official from Clare County Council on in the last few weeks talking about how brand new €500,000 houses built specifically for travellers had been destroyed by arson before they were ever occupied, because some travellers had a grudge against those to whom the houses had been allocated. He also spoke of a traveller woman in poor health and who wanted to move out of a caravan into a house, but who was so fearful of the prospective traveller neighbours around the house she'd been allocated that she wouldn't accept it.

Ms Collins says some Travellers are not being given a choice and are forced into standard local authority housing when they would prefer to live in group housing or on halting sites with their extended families. She lives in a group housing scheme in Finglas, surrounded by her children and grandchildren. “Extended family is very important to us. I’d hate to be put in a house or apartment away from family. I think it can damage you and make you depressed if you are living in an environment with strangers, and maybe facing discrimination.”

When you read stuff like this the natural reaction is one of "fcuk them and their internal feuds". I maintain that reaction is appropriate. We've done way more than enough for these people and that's that.

gizmo555 · 07-04-2012 11:20am

later12 wrote: »

The figure relating to the significantly higher risk of suicide amongst traveller men is a little depressing. It seems to have emerged from the 2010 All-Ireland Traveller Health study.

There's an interesting clip about this and other public health problems impacting on travellers in the UCD link below

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2010/09SEP10/030910-shorter-life-expectancy-and-higher-suicide-rates-among-Travellers-study-shows.html

It is extremely depressing, and I write that as someone who has lost a brother to suicide.

But it is even more depressing to read the Pavee Point spokespeople in today's IT article laying the blame at the door of the health services, while not stopping to question what it is about the traveller culture - which they want travellers to take more pride in - that drives such high suicide rates.

As for the comments about healthcare, it's interesting to note this passage from the key findings section of the article you linked to:

Just under half of all Travellers feel discriminated against. This is experienced in all aspects of life. However, least discrimination is experienced in sport, followed by the health sector.

i.e., the majority of travellers don't feel discriminated against, particularly in health care.

later12 · 07-04-2012 11:22am

AlekSmart wrote: »

I'd prefer to concentrate my concerns at the significant upswing in suicide rates generally in Ireland,with young males,the gay community and bachelor farmers all competing with Travellers in this regard.

I'm sorry,but the suicide issue is no greater in terms of Mainstream regard for Travellers than it is for every other sector of Irish society.

Does suicide account for 11% of all deaths in the gay community or the farming community? I'd be very surprised if that were the case.

Either way, this isn't a competition.

The incidence of suicide, along with concerns about mental health services for travellers, is clearly a worrying statistic. You've already made your opinion on travellers clear; I'm not here to convince you into caring about this or any other statistic.

AlekSmart · 07-04-2012 11:28am

later12 wrote: »

Either way, this isn't a competition.

.

Agreed,but when the posted responses to your OP did not appear sufficiently pro-active for you appeared to feel driven to expand the issue in a competitive manner.

Perhaps it's time to end THIS thread and open another,more specifically related to the wider collection of issues which do not necessarily focus on "Mainstream Concerns",whatever they may be ?

later12 · 07-04-2012 11:29am

gizmo555 wrote: »

the Pavee Point spokespeople in today's IT article laying the blame at the door of the health services

I'm not sure that's quite the case. While she makes a suggestion for the appropriate action to be taken by the dept. of health, Missie Collins only says that the services currently being provided might be culturally inappropriate for travellers. I'm not sure what she means by that exactly, but no, she doesn't indicate that the problem is discrimination.

Furthermore, just because the least discrimination is experienced in the health sector, that doesn't mean that travellers don't still feel discriminated against in that area, even it is to a lesser extent than elsewhere. However, health workers are more likely to be professionally educated with fairly rigorous codes of conduct and that is probably the reason why travellers are less discriminated against in that area.

murphaph · 07-04-2012 2:19pm

"Discrimination" wrt travelers is not the same as discrimination wrt skin colour etc. Travelers do not want to integrate into mainstream society in the same way as an Indian or Ethiopian migrant to Ireland does. The dark skin coloured migrant actively wants to join mainstream Irish society, to work, to pay taxes, to possibly own a home or at least rent one. Travelers (generally, there will be exceptions) do not want any of this.

Travelers largely exclude themselves from society. Black or brown migrants do not. I have time for anyone of any religion or colour who wants to play their part in society. I have no time for a group who want to keep themselves removed from society but at the same time want society to fund their exclusionary lifestyle.

later12 · 07-04-2012 4:23pm

murphaph wrote: »

"The dark skin coloured migrant actively wants to join mainstream Irish society, to work, to pay taxes, to possibly own a home or at least rent one. Travelers (generally, there will be exceptions) do not want any of this.

Do you back up your posts on travellers with anything?

Genuine question.

88% of travellers responded to say they lived in permanent accommodation, for example.

I presume your assertions on "dark skin coloured migrants" homogenous desires for their lives vs travellers' desires were plucked out of thin air.

glic71rods46t0 · 07-04-2012 4:50pm

later12 wrote: »

I'm not sure that's quite the case. While she makes a suggestion for the appropriate action to be taken by the dept. of health, Missie Collins only says that the services currently being provided might be culturally inappropriate for travellers. I'm not sure what she means by that exactly, but no, she doesn't indicate that the problem is discrimination.

You're misrepresenting what was said - and deliberately so in that you are following your previous form on the thread of using caveats or "outs" like might and other such non committal words.
Quote from the article (my bold) "She says many of the health services on offer aren’t culturally appropriate for Travellers."
Missy Collins is quite definite that health services on offer aren't culturally appropriate for Travellers but you replace this with "might be" to tone down the accusation and then supply your own, more sanitised translation to suggest that she is not indicating discrimination.
She is definite on the inappropriateness of many of the health services on offer - the only reasonable interpretaton of this accusation is that she is accusing the health services of discriminating against Traveller culture - I don't know why you want to present what she said differently?

later12 wrote: »

Furthermore, just because the least discrimination is experienced in the health sector, that doesn't mean that travellers don't still feel discriminated against in that area, even it is to a lesser extent than elsewhere. However, health workers are more likely to be professionally educated with fairly rigorous codes of conduct and that is probably the reason why travellers are less discriminated against in that area.

I wonder do they feel discriminated against in the social welfare system?

glic71rods46t0 · 07-04-2012 4:53pm

later12 wrote: »

88% of travellers responded to say they lived in permanent accommodation, for example.

Define a traveller please and how a person who lives in permanent accommodation can be classified as a "Traveller".

later12 · 07-04-2012 4:58pm

i06kgrw7h59dxn wrote: »

Missy Collins is quite definite that health services on offer aren't culturally appropriate for Travellers but you replace this with "might be" to tone down the accusation

No, I was just paraphrasing the woman. Indeed, she said the services aren't culturally appropriate.

Nevertheless, no; that's not at all the same as saying that health service provision is inherently discriminatory.

I can think of lots of things that I think are culturally inappropriate for different groups without there being a logical necessity that such structures are discriminatory.

later12 · 07-04-2012 5:05pm

i06kgrw7h59dxn wrote: »

Define a traveller please and how a person who lives in permanent accommodation can be classified as a "Traveller".

I have already said that I'm not interested in applying my own definitions of travellers to that group of individuals. While I think some aspects of their traditions are culturally interesting, I'm not explicitly concerned about their culture or their ethnicity or anything else.

My concern is that, however we define them, there are a group of about 30,000 Irish individuals who self-identify as a specific group of people, who have a high risk of adverse health, employment and educational attributes.

I don't consider it appropriate to pass judgement on them or their culture or lifestyles outside of that context.

glic71rods46t0 · 07-04-2012 5:10pm

later12 wrote: »

No, I was just paraphrasing the woman. Indeed, she said the services aren't culturally appropriate.

So you acknowledge that you misquoted her with your paraphrasing - good!

later12 wrote: »

Nevertheless, no; that's not at all the same as saying that health service provision is inherently discriminatory.

In the context of the article, it most certainly is.

later12 wrote: »

I can think of lots of things that I think are culturally inappropriate for different groups without there being a logical necessity that such structures are discriminatory.

Wonderful, but we are talking about Travellers here and specifically the IT article and Missy Collins very definite assertion which was made when discussing the lower life expectancy of Travellers.

murphaph · 07-04-2012 5:21pm

later12 wrote: »

Do you back up your posts on travellers with anything?.

To be honest it's just the dealings I have had with them that colour my views of them. I've never experienced anything positive from travelers, I have had plenty of positive experiences with other groups who might genuinely be able to cry discrimination.

I make no bones about it. I don't try to conceal my dislike of them. I accept that there will be a minority of good travelers but I maintain they are a small minority. They are in general trouble IMO.

I've found them to encourage their kids to steal (from my father's business) and we were broken in to and the Guards were 100% sure it was a gang of travelers that did it. Not proven in court but I don't need a court conviction to colour my views.

Galwayguy35 · 07-04-2012 9:45pm

later12 wrote: »

I'm not sure that's quite the case. While she makes a suggestion for the appropriate action to be taken by the dept. of health, Missie Collins only says that the services currently being provided might be culturally inappropriate for travellers. I'm not sure what she means by that exactly, but no, she doesn't indicate that the problem is discrimination.

Furthermore, just because the least discrimination is experienced in the health sector, that doesn't mean that travellers don't still feel discriminated against in that area, even it is to a lesser extent than elsewhere. However, health workers are more likely to be professionally educated with fairly rigorous codes of conduct and that is probably the reason why travellers are less discriminated against in that area.

I had to go into A and E a few weeks ago. The waiting room was full of drunk travellers shouting and roaring around the place so none of them seemed to find it "culturally inappropriate" what ever that rubbish means. But then i was forking out €100 to be seen...

K-9 · 08-04-2012 12:11am

southsiderosie wrote: »

MOD NOTE:

This thread seems to be going in circles at this point, so unless anyone has anything new to add in regards to Travellers and social concerns about them (or lack thereof) it may be time to wrap things up.

A week later, we've definitely reached that point.

Why is Traveller disadvantage not a mainstream concern?

Comments