The Issue of Travellers.

KieranusTyranus

Believe me Im not a racist( I and I Hope no one makes Racist comments on this thread)but Im fed up of anyone who accuses Travellers of committing any crime instantly being branded a racist. For example the town of Ballyhaunis co. Mayo was invaded by a group of Travellers in the summer of 2004. They stole from shops dumped huge amounts of rubbish and were a general menace. As soon as the Gardai tried to prosecute them they were accused of being Racists. This type of reverse discrimination has to stop.
I havent made any racist comments and wont so dont call me a racist.

mountainyman

That's right the police never hassle travellers. Oh wait they do but just the poor ones just like settled people.

ratboy

you get what you give and the state give **** all to the travelling community so they can expect **** back.

murphaph

Ratboy, the state (that's the taxpayer like me and perhaps your good self) builds halting sites and provides services like water to them at no charge to the travellers. They also provide social welfare were applicable. How you can claim the state gives them nothing is beyond me.

I will readily admit to having a disliking for all but TWO travellers I have ever met. I have met more than most of you I'll bet too, as my father's business resulted in them calling every day and I used to help out. Now, I disliked them because they were a pain in the hole to deal with, never ever ever just paying the list price, always trying to get ridiculous discounts that would cost our family business money! Then they had a much higher per capita incidence of theft from us too. Their kids were often encouraged to steal. I witnessed this with my own eyes on many occasions and it gets very tiresome.

mcgarnicle

KieranusTyranus wrote:

Believe me Im not a racist( I and I Hope no one makes Racist comments on this thread)but Im fed up of anyone who accuses Travellers of committing any crime instantly being branded a racist. For example the town of Ballyhaunis co. Mayo was invaded by a group of Travellers in the summer of 2004. They stole from shops dumped huge amounts of rubbish and were a general menace. As soon as the Gardai tried to prosecute them they were accused of being Racists. This type of reverse discrimination has to stop.
I havent made any racist comments and wont so dont call me a racist.

Since when are travellers a seperate race?

Guy:Incognito

ratboy wrote:

you get what you give and the state give **** all to the travelling community so they can expect **** back.

HAHAHAHAH. Besides the fact of what they are given for free (see post above) what do they deserve exactly. they contribute NOTHING to the country, so why should they be given anything. I guarentee if i parked a caravan outside leinster house and decided to live in it, i wouldnt be left long, and I certainly would not have a hous ebuilt for me. But hey, I'm just a law abiding citizen who sbeen paying my taxes for the past 8 years, why should I get anything.

Airblazer

Stekelly wrote:

HAHAHAHAH. Besides the fact of what they are given for free (see post above) what do they deserve exactly. they contribute NOTHING to the country, so why should they be given anything. I guarentee if i parked a caravan outside leinster house and decided to live in it, i wouldnt be left long, and I certainly would not have a hous ebuilt for me. But hey, I'm just a law abiding citizen who sbeen paying my taxes for the past 8 years, why should I get anything.

hear hear..

Ray777

I don't like to consider myself prejudiced, but I have to admit that I've never had a positive experience with a member of the travelling community in my entire life. I worked in a busy newsagent in Dublin city centre for three years and we had quite a few 'regular' customers who happened to be travellers. Basically, when they weren't shoplifting (and blatantly encouraging their children to shoplift), they would attempt to defraud us out of money, via the old "I gave you a £50 note, boss", when in actual fact, they had tendered a fiver. Any time we ever needed to call the gardai, it was as a result of travellers.

What really annoys me, is the apologists and organisations (Pavee Point, being a perfect example), who steadfastly refuse to admit that travellers could possibly be guilty of any crime. I've never seen any official figures, but going by my own personal experiences, I can only presume that there is a far higher rate of crime amongst members of the travelling community (many of whom are far from poverty-stricken), than amongst the rest of the population.

Again, I consider myself very liberal and broadminded, but I've yet to see any evidence to suggest that the vast majority of travellers aren't scum.

billy the squid

Stekelly wrote:

HAHAHAHAH. Besides the fact of what they are given for free (see post above) what do they deserve exactly. they contribute NOTHING to the country, so why should they be given anything. I guarentee if i parked a caravan outside leinster house and decided to live in it, i wouldnt be left long, and I certainly would not have a hous ebuilt for me. But hey, I'm just a law abiding citizen who sbeen paying my taxes for the past 8 years, why should I get anything.

bit of a generalisation isn't it?

can any of you there tell me what percentage of the "skangers" you lot piss and moan about in After hours are travellers.

SteKelly, what makes you think that a traveller would be allowed to park a caravan outside leinster house? I believe that outside leinster house is a double-yellow line zone and no one is allowed to park outside, not even travellers.

Believe me Im not a racist( I and I Hope no one makes Racist comments on this thread)but Im fed up of anyone who accuses Travellers of committing any crime instantly being branded a racist. For example the town of Ballyhaunis co. Mayo was invaded by a group of Travellers in the summer of 2004. They stole from shops dumped huge amounts of rubbish and were a general menace. As soon as the Gardai tried to prosecute them they were accused of being Racists. This type of reverse discrimination has to stop.

have you ever seen a whole town close down because a member of the travelling community want to bury their dead. and that is before they even show up.

settled people have been dumping rubbish here in limerick ever since refuse collection was privatised, they just refuse to pay for their rubbish collection. Pat Kenny has a frequent feature on his show all about catching people who dump their rubbish on roadsides, in fields, and in rivers.

If you dont think you are a racist, then why do you need to back up your arguements based on generalisations?

Ray777

billy the squid wrote:

have you ever seen a whole town close down because a member of the travelling community want to bury their dead. and that is before they even show up.

I have seen a pub that didn't lock its doors because of a traveller's funeral. A mass brawl broke out and much damage was caused. Unfortunately, I don't think it's a risk worth taking.

billy the squid

Ray777 wrote:

I have seen a pub that didn't lock its doors because of a traveller's funeral. A mass brawl broke out and much damage was caused. Unfortunately, I don't think it's a risk worth taking.

Im reminded of the two teenagers who beat another man to death outside a pub in dublin outside a pub. I dont remember them being travellers. To close a pub because there is a risk of a fight breaking out in or around it is silly. given that most drink related brawls occour in city centres on a saturday night amongst settled people.

Ray777

billy the squid wrote:

Im reminded of the two teenagers who beat another man to death outside a pub in dublin outside a pub. I dont remember them being travellers. To close a pub because there is a risk of a fight breaking out in or around it is silly. given that most drink related brawls occour in city centres on a saturday night amongst settled people.

In the case of large groups of travellers, I think there is a higher risk of a brawl breaking out. A far higher risk. Yes, the vast majority of violent crime in this country is carried out by 'settled' people, but again, I'd love to be able to find some official statistics about the crime-rates (settled vs travelling communities), as opposed to the number of crimes.

mcgarnicle

billy the squid wrote:

Im reminded of the two teenagers who beat another man to death outside a pub in dublin outside a pub. I dont remember them being travellers. To close a pub because there is a risk of a fight breaking out in or around it is silly. given that most drink related brawls occour in city centres on a saturday night amongst settled people.

I'd imagine that's simply because most people are settled people. Travellers always play the victims but they have the same rights and opportunities as the rest of us, they choose to let their kids go with no education and they choose to park up their caravans where they are not wanted. I don't believe they should be allowed do either of these, if I like somebody elses land I can't just stick a foundation down and build a house on it. If I claim it is a tradition, my way of life, am I suddenly entitled to do this? Or why not go one step further, if I see immigrants coming here and race becoming a hot topic can I decide that my desire to have free access to another's land suddenly makes me and those like me a distinct race?
While there may be some decent travellers their general way of life is not compatible with modern Ireland and this means that wherever they go they will always be met with hostility. No matter how politically correct people want to be I doubt there would be many willing to have a few caravans on their front garden.

the_syco

billy the squid wrote:

SteKelly, what makes you think that a traveller would be allowed to park a caravan outside leinster house? I believe that outside leinster house is a double-yellow line zone and no one is allowed to park outside, not even travellers.

Because they get away with it everywhere else. Hell, they could call it a protest, that they do't have anywhere else to stay (and they can't stay down the road, as Paddy's family lives there, and they have an on-going fued with them).

=-=

Also, in my experience, travellers are good, decent, people. Easy to get along with, and usually work in the locale, with no trouble. Up to recently (5 or 6 years ago), a group, nicknamed the "Castletown Travellers", as they parked nearby, used to come to Leixlip, to work in the summers. They stopped coming here, as the knackers would come to their site, and leave it in a mess.

The knackers have since exploited nearly every green area around Leixlip, including the carpark at the royal canal, the field where the circus just left, both sides of a bridge after it was built, and recently, the road from the Celbridge/Leixlip connection to HP. In every incident, they broke the law, by trespassing, and when they finally left, they'd leave behind as much rubbish as they could. Sinks, cookers, baths, everything. In a neighbouring region, a school had to stop using its football pitch, as the knackers were taking a sh|t on the pitch, among other things. The cost of a clean-up each time would be ten's of thousands of euro.

So whats the difference between a knakcer littering, and us littering? We'll get fined. The knackers NEVER get fined. Or even charged.

billy the squid

Ray777 wrote:

In the case of large groups of travellers, I think there is a higher risk of a brawl breaking out.

oh yeah, i forgot, settled people don't congregate in large groups and your statement that the risk of incidents amongst travellers is higher is your opinion.

A far higher risk. Yes, the vast majority of violent crime in this country is carried out by 'settled' people,

So you do agree that you are more likely to be attacked on the street by a member of the settled community. yet if one traveller walks into a bar he is more likely to not be served than a settled person.

I'd love to be able to find some official statistics about the crime-rates (settled vs travelling communities), as opposed to the number of crimes.

the proportion of rich and poor amongst the settled people versus the travelling community would also have to be factored into your statistics if and when you should chose to find them.

billy the squid

@the_syco

the same could be said for the settled person who gets a five euro fine in court and the probation act because "he came from a broken home"

All criminals should be treated equally in my opinion, I just don't agree with the OPs assertion that all members of the travelling community should be penalised for the acts of a few. The OPs claims about travellers are generalisations and apart from one experience quoted, the rest of his post is based on nothing.

If we are going to go down that route, then why not criminalise being poor, or black, or jewish?

two other things I wanted to add, but the backup prevented me

1. I also disagree with the OPs assertion that the judicial system gives members of the travelling community favorable treatment.

2. I hope you were not referring to all travelers when you use the word "knackers"

I find it somewhat amusing when I hear people use words like "knacker" and "tinker," two perfectly legitimate trades, to describe people who they claim are good for nothing.

Ray777

billy the squid wrote:

oh yeah, i forgot, settled people don't congregate in large groups and your statement that the risk of incidents amongst travellers is higher is your opinion.

A large group of settled people go to a pub after a funeral. On the same night, a large group of travellers go to another pub after a funeral. Which pub do you think is more likely to see broken glass that night?

billy the squid wrote:

So you do agree that you are more likely to be attacked on the street by a member of the settled community. yet if one traveller walks into a bar he is more likely to not be served than a settled person.

Again (and this should be really easy to understand), settled people make up the vast majority of the population of this country. Going by my own previous experiences, if one traveller walks into a bar, he is more likely to cause trouble than one settled person. Those are only my experiences though. Maybe I've just been extremely unlucky, and the vast majority of travellers are really decent, law-abiding people, let down by a tiny minority...

billy the squid

A large group of settled people go to a pub after a funeral. On the same night, a large group of travellers go to another pub after a funeral. Which pub do you think is more likely to see broken glass that night?

you would be surprised. I have been to funerals for both travellers where glass was broken. I have also been to funerals of both communities where nothing was broken.

Again (and this should be really easy to understand), settled people make up the vast majority of the population of this country. Going by my own previous experiences, if one traveller walks into a bar, he is more likely to cause trouble

in your opinion.

Those are only my experiences though. Maybe I've just been extremely unlucky, and the vast majority of travellers are really decent, law-abiding people, let down by a tiny minority...

but you don't see people wanting to crack down on poor people because there is a high rate of crime in disadvantaged areas, but it is more acceptible in society to jump up and down and berate those "nasty travellers" while at the same time condemning someone for saying something bad about Nigerians because of a "small minority" involved in 419 scams.

It is obvious that we both have different experiences of the travelling community, and without solid statistics and facts, this thread is a crock of ****.

patzer117

billy the squid wrote:

but you don't see people wanting to crack down on poor people because there is a high rate of crime in disadvantaged areas, but it is more acceptible in society to jump up and down and berate those "nasty travellers" while at the same time condemning someone for saying something bad about Nigerians because of a "small minority" involved in 419 scams.

Hmm. I don't think that's fair. For a start I think most people don't like crime - and as a result we should be cracking down on... wait for it... criminals. Who gives if they are poor or not? Why does that make any difference at all? I think that if a group of people, rich or poor, native or foreign, settled or travellers, are causing trouble then it's our duty to combat the problem. If they are criminals then we shouldn't have any problems labelling them as that, otherwise you are treating them differently which is prejudice.

If you are suggesting that we don't mind Nigerian criminals that much then i'm suggesting that you mentioned Nigerians and therefore must feel that there are negative conotations attached to them which you recognise, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. Why would someone mention travellers like the Op if they haven't had a bad experience with them? And if they have had a problem, then what's the matter with complaining about it?

Lastly I'd like to point out the hearsay incidence of crime associated with travellers - is not the fact that so many people here have had a bad experience with travellers (they robbed my bike for one), an indication of the wider problem? Surely if statistics aren't available then the fact that travellers have angered so many people on this thread alone? Well i reckon if you asked people here just how many times they have been robbed, the amount of times it has been by travellers and then worked out the percentage - then it would represent a WHOLE LOT more than their relatively minor percentage in the community.

Patzer

KieranusTyranus

KieranusTyranus wrote:

For example the town of Ballyhaunis co. Mayo was invaded by a group of Travellers in the summer of 2004. They stole from shops dumped huge amounts of rubbish and were a general menace.

Pretty much the same thing happens in my town every weekend. Except the perpetrators are youngsters on stags and hens from Cork City. Of course, noone jumps up and down and makes generalisations about Cork people or settled people because of it, but then again it's easy to demonise travellers.

lazygit

I worked as a bar man for 7 years in a pub that regulary had travellers calling..
in the 7 years i was there we had many funerals, weddings partys etc in.. and in the seven years there was almost never any trouble with them..

They would get pissed as farts and fall around the place, but leave when told at the end of the night and alsways left a large ammount of cash behind the bar to pay for drinks..

The only time i had any hassle was one day i caught travller kids breaking in to the pool table and robbing the cash from it.. i dragged the two of them out to the bar where there was another travller drinking (not related to the kids) he preceded to give them a good kicking after he found out what they had done, and informed there father, who paid for the damages without any hassle..

bonkey

Ray777 wrote:

but again, I'd love to be able to find some official statistics about the crime-rates (settled vs travelling communities), as opposed to the number of crimes.

Number of crimes + Population information == crime-rates.

Which is it you can't get? Population information, or information on the numbers of crimes in the first place?

And lets not forget that correlation still doesn't equate to causation.

On a seperate point....

To a degree, I agree with the OP, that there's too many people willing to claim oppression of some sort in order to "cheat" the system. Whats amusing is that its the flipside generalisation to the "all travellers" arguments that we're seeing being presented here.

If its acceptable for us to make generalisations that we should treat all travellers by (for whatever reason) then we're actually giving credence to their claims. Any action taken on these grounds is discriminatory...even when there is an actual case to be answered.

If its ok for us to suggest that this discrimination against travellers is an ok practice in general, then the logic follows that it must also be ok to generalise all allegations as being racist/discriminatory.

If you're going to judge on generalities, you can't complain when those generalities are reversed back in your face. Well...you can complain, but you're wrong to do so.

Dave!

They demonise themselves, if they integrated themselves at all, then maybe they wouldn't be seen in such a light. But as it is, they keep with their own group/family, don't contribute anything to society (tax, work, etc), and get special treatment from the Gardaí and the government when they break the law (something they're fond of doing). Then, whenever someone tries to accuse them of it, it backfires and they become racists. I'm f*cking sick of it, I can't stand them.

ferdi

i agree that travellers are easily victimised but they dont really do anything to help their rep. i can only speak from my experience (south dublin), i've never had any hassle from travellers personally. there are one or two families who call to the door looking for money for the kids tea and are time and time again seen later in the town pissed out of their heads. any halting sites in my experience which have been abandoned are left in an appaulingly dirty state ie:dunlaoghaire and that are near tesco rathfarnham (i think?) by the Dodder which was completely destroyed.they also go through the skips etc but i have never had a bad personal experience with a traveller.

Dragan

Man I love generalisations. Travellers are bad. Ha ha ha. Makes me laugh. I know plenty of Travellers, some of them are **** heads, some of them are great, just like EVERY OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.

Folks, you need to get over the stigma.

Dave!

ferdi wrote:

i agree that travellers are easily victimised but they dont really do anything to help their rep. i can only speak from my experience (south dublin), i've never had any hassle from travellers personally. there are one or two families who call to the door looking for money for the kids tea and are time and time again seen later in the town pissed out of their heads. any halting sites in my experience which have been abandoned are left in an appaulingly dirty state ie:dunlaoghaire and that are near tesco rathfarnham (i think?) by the Dodder which was completely destroyed.they also go through the skips etc but i have never had a bad personal experience with a traveller.

What about a good one...?

You may not have had a first-hand experience with them, but you've seen the damage and the trouble they cause, with the fights and rubbish, etc.

the_syco

From working in a local pub, any time a knacker group came in, there was trouble. If one of them is spotted, management calls in every available bouncer. They are not denied entrance, but every time they come, by the time they leave, there is blood on the ground, and Garda riot vans waiting to take them away.

Boggle

Simple question: If you or I raised our children in a squallor such as a halting site (with very limited access to education) then the children would be removed from us. But why is it that if they tried to apply this standard to travellers then there would be uproar about discrimination??

Admittedly, I cannot provide stats to backup my assertions of the standard of living provided to traveller children - but I can say that there's very few (if any) traveller sites that I've seen which look suitable to house a child.

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

Simple question: If you or I raised our children in a squallor such as a halting site (with very limited access to education) then the children would be removed from us. But why is it that if they tried to apply this standard to travellers then there would be uproar about discrimination??

Thats not a simple question.

Thats an assumption presented as fact followed by a second assumption rephrased as a question implying that it too is a fact.

You admit you can't provide stats for cleanliness amongst travelling communities. The implication would seem to be that you can provide stats for the level of cleanliess below which children are removed from the care of their parents in non-travelling communities. Can you?

jc

ferdi

one thing i never really got - if the travellers choose to live a seperate and independent lifestyle from that of the rest of the population how can they demand benifits?

Zaph0d

I've had regular dealings with travellers for the past 15 years and never had any trouble from them.

People have a tendency to fear and hate those who are different from them. My neighbours go into KKK mode whenever the subject of travellers comes up.

This attitude is common around the world where there is a small national ethnic group that is treated as subhuman by the majority culture. A lot of Europeans are shocked the first time they hear white australians discussing aborigines.

As for the endless myths about travellers, ever heard that asylum seekers get free cars from the state? that black people don't use toilets?

People like to believe stories that make them feel more comfortable with their hateful views.

Zombrex

I think the problem is the only time most settled people and travellers have proper contact with each other is when the travellers are doing something against the settled person. Thats when you notice and remember they are travellers. I personally can only remember times when travellers were either begging for money off me, or stealling stuff from the shop I worked in or from my front garden.

But thing to remember is if the only contact settled people have with travellers is negative a negative view of the entire community is going to emerge that doesn't necessarily reflect reality. The same thing happens with people living in afluent areas and "skangers," ... if the only contact you notice in the first place is negative it shapes your entire picture.

I have no idea if petty crime is as wide spread in the travelling community as my experiences would lead me to believe, and I doubt most people here do either.

super_furry

The fact is, if a settled person brought up children in a manner that many of the travelling community choose to, that child would be taken off them and put into care. Living in hovels by the side of the road and denying the children a right to a decent education, should not be tollerated - they can choose their own 'lifestyle' if they want, but shouldn't be allowed inflict it on their children.

bonkey

ferdi wrote:

if the travellers choose to live a seperate and independent lifestyle from that of the rest of the population how can they demand benifits?

At a guess, its because our law doesn't make those benefits dependant on your choice of lifestyle, and so they have every right to demand them.

bonkey

super_furry wrote:

The fact is,.

No, thats an assumption. There's a distinction, and the rules of this forum ask that you make an effort to distinguish the two.

if a settled person brought up children in a manner that many of the travelling community choose to, that child would be taken off them and put into care.

I know non-travellers who raise their kids in a comparable manner. Guess what? They weren't taken off them and put into care.

jc

Boggle

You admit you can't provide stats for cleanliness amongst travelling communities. The implication would seem to be that you can provide stats for the level of cleanliess below which children are removed from the care of their parents in non-travelling communities. Can you?

Tell me - have you ever visited a halting site that you would consider a satisfactory environment in which to raise children?

Education is an easier point to argue...
From:http://www.youthreach.ie/aatopmenu/Library/TravellersSubmission.htm

Only a minority of Traveller children transfer from primary to second level schooling, and it is estimated that 80% of those aged between 12 and 15 years of age did not attend any school. The majority of those who attend second level school leave within the first two years.

Your parents would have had social services onto them had you not turned up in secondary school - so why do traveller children not get this protection?


Oh, and by the way - I pointed out that my opinion was based on personal experience in the same post thus never claiming it as fact. Why don't you argue for or against the point mentioned instead of just building up your post count with pointless posts??

Zombrex

Boggle wrote:

Your parents would have had social services onto them had you not turned up in secondary school - so why do traveller children not get this protection?

I would imagine cause none of the local social services could be arse trying to take the kids away from their parents, or are even aware the kids exist, or where to find them, in the first place.

I thought kids in Ireland could be home schooled if the parents agreed? Maybe I am wrong about that.

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

Tell me - have you ever visited a halting site that you would consider a satisfactory environment in which to raise children?

That doesn't answer the question I asked in the slightest.

I asked about the conditions of non-travellers, and at what point the law intervenes. Without this information, your assertion to the effect that "if we raised our kids like them, they'd taken off us" is utterly baseless.

Its not question as to whether or not the conditions are acceptable. Its a question as to whether or not travellers and non-travellers are treated similarly. If they wouldn't be taken off us, but would be off them, then the cries of discrimination are entirely justified on their part.

So stop dodging the issue. Show that they would be taken off us.

That you won't even address that point, but try and turn it back to "do you think the travellers conditions are acceptable" is supporting the notion that you *are* discriminating against them. You claim there is an inequality of treatment that should be rectified...but you can't (or won't) show that this inequality exists.

If there is no such inequality then you are, in fact, suggesting we create one.

Education is an easier point to argue...

You've levelled one accusation against them, and now seem to be backing off and saying "well, maybe thats not true, but this other one is....". Throw any and every accusation you can, and not worry about whether or not you can actually make teh case stick? And you're doing all this to show how you're not biased against them?

Your parents would have had social services onto them had you not turned up in secondary school

Can you show me that this is no less an assumption than the "if you were raised in those conditions" claim?

Oh, and by the way - I pointed out that my opinion was based on personal experience in the same post thus never claiming it as fact.

Nowhere have you clarified that your understanding of what would happen to a child of a settled family is opinion. You have stated it as a fact. No "I believe...", no "I think", no conditionality at all.

The only thing you admitted to being based on personal experience was your judgement of the standards of travellers sites etc. You'll notice that I haven't questioned that side of things at all.

What I am questioning is your assertions about the type of treatment non-travellers receive. These have only been presented as definitives, and I'm asking you to show me that your statements are true because in my experience they are not and so I believe you're entirely mistaken about the baseline you are comparing the travelling community to.

jc

gurramok

Zaph0d wrote:

I've had regular dealings with travellers for the past 15 years and never had any trouble from them.

People have a tendency to fear and hate those who are different from them. My neighbours go into KKK mode whenever the subject of travellers comes up.

This attitude is common around the world where there is a small national ethnic group that is treated as subhuman by the majority culture. A lot of Europeans are shocked the first time they hear white australians discussing aborigines.

As for the endless myths about travellers, ever heard that asylum seekers get free cars from the state? that black people don't use toilets?

People like to believe stories that make them feel more comfortable with their hateful views.

Try living beside a halting site. I invite you to pop up to the huge halting sites at Dunsink Lane and Cappagh Road, Dublin in your spare time and cherish those myths, day or night.
If a traveller halting site was designated to beside your house, would you welcome them in open arms ?

Zaph0d

There was a traveller site a couple of hundred yards from my house for years. I didn't know of any problems.The neighbours organised a posse to drive them out. When I asked why all the anger against travellers, they told me stories about other peoples' houses being broken into. I think their real motivation was to improve their property prices.

Sherlock

This thread seems typical of a lot of threads. Poster gives an opinion and is then asked to give chapter and verse of unobtainable statistics to back up this opinion. We all know the unofficial sites where travellers live are filthy and unsuitable places for rearing kids but like the other posters I have no stats for this. All you have to do is look at them or listen to the travellers themselves.

I have no stats on crime rates viz a viz the travelling and settled communities but given that there are far less travellers in Ireland than settled people there do seem to be proportionately far more travellers involved in crime. Look at the record of Frog Ward, he'd never worked a day in his life and was involved in crime since 15.
Why do pubs close up on days of traveller funerals, is just because all the publicians are bigots?. Is it possible that its because there has been such a history of violence between traveller families, look at the regular fights between the Wards and McDonaghs. Why would publicans turn away paying customers.
Most peoples opinion of travellers is formed by what they see. The last traveller I spoke to was coming out of my drive on a dark Sunday evening. When challenged he asked "are you looking for coal?"....yeah right, obviously he was seeing if anyone was home. Later that night the deserted house two doors away was robbed.
I live near Rathfarnham where 3 years ago about 100 caravans camped at the Dodder and turned into a tiphead, throwing rubbish everywhere for months.
These were driving some very expensive caravans and cars, many English regs. The crime rate in the area shot up (sorry no statistics), petty theft from shops and gardens and went down again when they decided to leave after the summer. If my English relations decided to holiday in their caravans and park on my local green I guarantee the guards would move them on sharpish.

Boggle

What I am questioning is your assertions about the type of treatment non-travellers receive. These have only been presented as definitives, and I'm asking you to show me that your statements are true because in my experience they are not and so I believe you're entirely mistaken about the baseline you are comparing the travelling community to.

Thats more like an argument - and an entirely fair one... apologies if I mistook your previous post as "insert boards.ie phrase here".

The following article raises these concerns:
http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=4496

Can I show that any parent choosing to live in such an environment would be allowed keep their children? Not from the web with the limited time I have on my hands but I find it hard to believe that it would be ignored to the same extent. (I remember my parents telling me about teachers who reported parents to social services as they were fearful for their living conditions but as you may expect - there is no hard and fast rule of what constitutes intolerable living conditions...)

You've levelled one accusation against them, and now seem to be backing off and saying "well, maybe thats not true, but this other one is....". Throw any and every accusation you can, and not worry about whether or not you can actually make teh case stick? And you're doing all this to show how you're not biased against them?

Firstly, I don't see a seperation between being deprived a clean safe environment and being deprived an education... and indeed I mentioned it in the initial point to emphasise this so this point is mute. Secondly, your allegation that I am saying this out of contempt for their culture, whether it is true or not is balls... Did you read the link or even the quote?

Can you show me that this is no less an assumption than the "if you were raised in those conditions" claim?

(referring to the enforcement of school attendances)
See the "Education Welfare Act in the Year 2000"
Maybe they write these things for fun...

You accuse me of bias but I believe you are equally guilty of bias and unwilling to see what is right before your eyes unless someone can provide you with pages of stats... I dunno - maybe the travellers you know are alot different to the ones I (and pretty much everyone I know) see...

So tell : Would you allow your kids be raised in such a condition??

billy the squid

patzer117 wrote:

Hmm. I don't think that's fair. For a start I think most people don't like crime - and as a result we should be cracking down on... wait for it... criminals. Who gives if they are poor or not? Why does that make any difference at all? I think that if a group of people, rich or poor, native or foreign, settled or travellers, are causing trouble then it's our duty to combat the problem. If they are criminals then we shouldn't have any problems labelling them as that, otherwise you are treating them differently which is prejudice.

If you are suggesting that we don't mind Nigerian criminals that much then i'm suggesting that you mentioned Nigerians and therefore must feel that there are negative conotations attached to them which you recognise, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. Why would someone mention travellers like the Op if they haven't had a bad experience with them? And if they have had a problem, then what's the matter with complaining about it?

Lastly I'd like to point out the hearsay incidence of crime associated with travellers - is not the fact that so many people here have had a bad experience with travellers (they robbed my bike for one), an indication of the wider problem? Surely if statistics aren't available then the fact that travellers have angered so many people on this thread alone? Well i reckon if you asked people here just how many times they have been robbed, the amount of times it has been by travellers and then worked out the percentage - then it would represent a WHOLE LOT more than their relatively minor percentage in the community.

Patzer

I think it is perfectly fair, there are countless threads on this site which were locked because people came on posting about nasty foreigners and associating all foreigners with 419 scams and ATM scams,

I do agree that it is the criminal that should be targeted, not the ethnic group to which he belongs, but in the real world that does not seem to be happenning.

I dodnt say that "we dont mind nigerian criminals," I said that people jump up and down and shout "biggot" when people make generalisations about all nigerians because of a small number of nigerian criminals, yet they won't think twice about makeing the same generalisations themselves when it comes to travellers. The reason I am mentioning it is that it is evidence of the hypocracy demonstrated by Irish society. The fact that the word "knacker" has been used to refer to travellers twice by the same person in this thread has gone unanswered by anyone is evidence of this. how many times would a post be reported if a thread referring to a foreign group by their reletive derogetory nickname was used in a thread about them.

As for the number of angry people posting in this thread to which you are referring to, why dont you toddle off to after hours or even here on politics and count the number of angry people posting about being victims of "skanger" attacks. also you might want to count the number of people in this thread who have not had bad experiences with travellers.

Zaph0d

Boggle wrote:

Can I show that any parent choosing to live in such an environment would be allowed keep their children? Not from the web with the limited time I have on my hands but I find it hard to believe that it would be ignored to the same extent.

Pass by any methadone clinic and you'll see plenty of prams in the queue, so it appears that being a heroin addict doesn't make you an unfit parent in the eyes of the state. I would guess that having heroin addicts for parents is more dangerous to the health of a child than living in a caravan without rubbish collection or showers.

The idea that travellers are better treated by the state than settled people helps ease the jealousy and inadequacy people feel when they see a traveller driving a new car.

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

(I remember my parents telling me about teachers who reported parents to social services as they were fearful for their living conditions but as you may expect - there is no hard and fast rule of what constitutes intolerable living conditions...)

Its also worth noting that this situation is where social services have been called because a child who is enrolled to attend a school is presenting problems and is reported by someone to Social Services.

If you have a child enrolled in a school and not attending, I would suggest they will receive the same treatment regardless of their background. If you have them reported for concerns about their upbringing, they will receive the same treatment regardless fo their background. If they are not reported, it is because the general public are applynig different standards to travellers and non-travellers. That would be discrimination by the public, not by the law.

Firstly, I don't see a seperation between being deprived a clean safe environment and being deprived an education... and indeed I mentioned it in the initial point to emphasise this so this point is mute.

Secondly, your allegation that I am saying this out of contempt for their culture, whether it is true or not is balls...

Not out of contempt. I'm saying that you're holding them to a standard that you're simply assuming applies to others. In short, you are being discriminatory by assuming firstly the standard exists and is applied to others, and then by assuming it isn't applied to them. Without fact, all you have is two differing sets of assumptions about how laws are and aren't applied.

In short, you appear to be assuming a discrimination exists to argue that there is discrimination! (Dependant, of course, on me being correct that these are assumptions, which is why I asked you to show otherwise).

Did you read the link or even the quote?

I did indeed read the article. I read with interest comments like the following, which indicate that its far from the open-and-shut condemnation you seem to be suggesting...

While integration is still favoured, there is now an understanding of the complex cultural and familial factors involved, as is clear from the report of the Task Force on the Travelling Community (1995).

It is also the case that many aspects of Traveller culture and society are beneficial to children’s wellbeing

However, the strong emphasis in Traveller culture on work, trading and money is also a factor in early school leaving. Pragmatism is strongly in evidence amongst young Travellers in YOUTHREACH settings, and their families. Parents and young people evaluate the benefits and losses likely to accrue from continued participation in school and make consequent rational choices.

Shall I continue?

Maybe they write these things for fun...

I'm sure they don't, just as they don't write the bits I've selected for fun either.

I believe you are equally guilty of bias and unwilling to see what is right before your eyes unless someone can provide you with pages of stats...

Your belief is entirely yours. It doesn't change reality. I suggested you were making an assumption stated as fact. So far you've failed to show that it was anything but an assumption stated as fact. I've tried to why this assumption/fact is central to your argument being balanced.

Not once have I commented on my opinion of how travellers live....so please...where is my bias? I admit to being biased against people who present assumption as fact, but other than that...please....who am I biased against here?

I dunno - maybe the travellers you know are alot different to the ones I (and pretty much everyone I know) see...

Again, you'll note that I haven't been commenting on travellers. I've been commenting on the baseline that you are holding them up against.

So tell : Would you allow your kids be raised in such a condition??

Irrelevant to the point I'm making and tangential to anything I've seen on this thread to date, so you'll forgive me if don't go down that particular blind alleyway.

What would be a relevant question is are settled people allowed rear their kids in a similar way. That, of course, would be exactly what I've ben driving at...you have assumed that they wouldn't be, in order to conclude there is a difference. I have experience that they are allowed to do so, hence my questioning.

jc

mcgarnicle

Zaph0d wrote:

Pass by any methadone clinic and you'll see plenty of prams in the queue, so it appears that being a heroin addict doesn't make you an unfit parent in the eyes of the state. I would guess that having heroin addicts for parents is more dangerous to the health of a child than living in a caravan without rubbish collection or showers.

The idea that travellers are better treated by the state than settled people helps ease the jealousy and inadequacy people feel when they see a traveller driving a new car.

Saying travellers' kids are ok because heroin addicts are worse parents is a pretty riduculous point. Surely the conditions in both circumstances are bad enough to warrent the children being taken away.

billy the squid

mcgarnicle wrote:

Saying travellers' kids are ok because heroin addicts are worse parents is a pretty riduculous point. Surely the conditions in both circumstances are bad enough to warrent the children being taken away.

but they are not taken away though, are they? I think a traveler parent would put their child higher on their list of priorities than a heroine addict, whose main aim is to get their next fix.

bonkey

mcgarnicle wrote:

Surely the conditions in both circumstances are bad enough to warrent the children being taken away.

Arguably, yes. The point is, however, that they aren't. In both. So both are being treated in the same way, yes?

However, it also suggests that the allegations that travellers get special treatment may be suspect. Unless someone can show that there is a group who gets treated differently, then there is no special treatment.

Its entirely possible that everyone is being held to what we believe is the wrong standard, but as long as everyone is being held to it, then the cries of discrimination which started us talking about this issue are bogus, and potentially indicative of discrimination themselves.

jc

Zaph0d

mcgarnicle wrote:

Saying travellers' kids are ok because heroin addicts are worse parents is a pretty riduculous point.

I didn't say that. I was arguing against the position that the state allows travellers to rear children in worse conditions than it would permit for setlled children.

mcgarnicle

bonkey wrote:

Arguably, yes. The point is, however, that they aren't. In both. So both are being treated in the same way, yes?

However, it also suggests that the allegations that travellers get special treatment may be suspect. Unless someone can show that there is a group who gets treated differently, then there is no special treatment.

Its entirely possible that everyone is being held to what we believe is the wrong standard, but as long as everyone is being held to it, then the cries of discrimination which started us talking about this issue are bogus, and potentially indicative of discrimination themselves.

jc

Well you won't find many people pleading the case of the poor misunderstood heroin addicts raising their kids in squalar and filth for the sake of their lifestyle choice. Travellers on the other hand will claim that their own lifestyle choice justifies leaving their kids out of school and letting them live in filth. Travellers have jumped on the idea that they are a race and therefore criticising a traveller's way of life makes you a racist, that is bull ****. I don't think travellers deserve any more rights to mess their kids up than any settled person. This is the reverse descrimination that the OP was referring to (IMO). It is not institutional but it is clearly being used by travellers and their supporters.

billy the squid

mcgarnicle wrote:

Well you won't find many people pleading the case of the poor misunderstood heroin addicts raising their kids in squalar and filth for the sake of their lifestyle choice. Travellers on the other hand will claim that their own lifestyle choice justifies leaving their kids out of school and letting them live in filth. Travellers have jumped on the idea that they are a race and therefore criticising a traveller's way of life makes you a racist, that is bull ****. I don't think travellers deserve any more rights to mess their kids up than any settled person. This is the reverse descrimination that the OP was referring to (IMO). It is not institutional but it is clearly being used by travellers and their supporters.

but they both are being treated the same way by the state, both travellers, (whom who are accused of being cruel to their children here) and heroin addicts (whom (who are being accused of being cruel to their children here) are allowed to keep their children. So where is the discrimination between travellers and settled people then. If the heroin addicts were loosing their kids to the state and the travellers were not, then it would be discrimination, but they are not, hence discrimination here does not exist.

isn't heroin consumption a lifestyle choice?