Why is Traveller disadvantage not a mainstream concern?

K-9

seavill wrote: »

I would like to say that I am in no way against travellers or their culture but I would like to argue your point above.

I would suggest that some of the levels of opportunity are down to choices made by traveller parents in relation to their children's level of opportunity.
If I decided tomorrow to live on the side of the road in a caravan with my children I am not giving them the same level of opportunity to have a healthy life due to living in damp cold conditions that may not exist in housed accommodation.

I am not giving my child the same level of opportunity if I decide to make my child attend 60 days out of the 167 secondary school days.
I am not giving my child the same level of opportunity if I decide to withdraw my son from school aged 12 years old to work.
(both actual examples from schools I worked in)

I would argue in fact that traveller children are given a greater opportunity than some lower level so called "middle class" children.
If I am from a traveller background up to last year we would have had a dedicated traveller teacher who's job it was to travel to us in our homes to teach us. Settled children do not get this.
If I am from a traveller background my school gets a greater allocation of teachers hours within the school due to me being a teacher. This increase in teacher hours are not afforded if a child from a settled home is to join a school.

I will quote a traveller mother I met one day in relation to her son that I was teaching. Her son repeatedly lost his locker keys, lost his school bags, "lost" his books (I have put "lost" like this as I caught him throwing them in the bin one day). She told me that you (the school) get €3000 a year to "keep my son in books and all that stuff".
We "the school" certainly do not get €3000 a year to keep the "middle class" kids in books and stuff each year.

So I would argue with you that traveller children are afforded some huge opportunities that some settled children are not given, however it is their parents that are getting in the way of some of this opportunity.

Any positive experiences, as a teacher? We are all aware of the negatives.

AlekSmart wrote: »

However,it then appears that those folk who dispute the assertion with anecdotal or personal experience are thoroughly derided for daring to enter the debate without the benefit of comprehensive statistical "evidence".

Which I pointed out as a mod, there are no stats

The unfortunate, but pertinent,fact that the group under discussion are remarkably,and often violently,averse to ANY form of statistical collection by Authority figures is then glossed over in the pursuit of a positive outcome to the original question,which by now has been considerably broadened in it's scope.

Yet showed a 32% increase in participation in the Census!

later12

seavill wrote: »

I never mentioned that it was one sections fault over another or that one is more to blame than another. I did not get into this discussion with you.

I was responding to the point where you said "...the levels of opportunity are down to choices made by traveller parents[...]
If I decided tomorrow to live on the side of the road in a caravan with my children I am not giving them the same level of opportunity...". I presumed you were arguing that this is not society's fault, but the fault of the travellers' alone.

You claimed that these children are not afforded the same opportunity my counter argument was that I feel at times they are afforded a greater opportunity.

That may be the case in a small number of specific respects. However, if you read the ESRI report or the 2008 Maitre report, I really do think it's clear that the aggregate result is that traveller children are more disadvantaged than settled children or even more disadvantaged than other minorities.

I mean if I may use an analogy, your statement is a bit like suggesting that an intellectually disabled child has more opportunities than an otherwise healthy child because he might get special support at school. You're really ignoring the bigger picture.

later12

AlekSmart wrote: »

[
However,it then appears that those folk who dispute the assertion with anecdotal or personal experience are thoroughly derided for daring to enter the debate without the benefit of comprehensive statistical "evidence".

We all use anecdotes to inform our thinking sometimes. What is not acceptable is the use of anecdotes, or pointless references to tv shows to inform a general depiction of the traveller population.

Difficulty in accessing statistical data is not an acceptable excuse for making whatever generalisations we like.

I don't know how many black people work in the underground economy (because the whole idea of working in the underground economy is that it be concealed). Nevertheless, the existence of such an evidential challenge does not permit me to portray black people in this manner just because the information does not exist or is undependable.

For what it's worth, I think the suggestions that the census data in particular is untrustworthy is a particularly fanciful speculation.

gizmo555

later12 wrote: »

For what it's worth, I think the suggestions that the census data in particular is untrustworthy is a particularly fanciful speculation.

Not speculation at all - it's a self evident fact that the 2006 figures and the 2011 ones can't both be accurate.

Indeed, in the news report I linked to, a Pavee Point spokesman gives his viewthat the 2011 figures still understate traveller numbers by 6,000. His estimate is 36,000. That's 60% more than the 2006 census total!

later12

Like most 'self evident' facts, that's not self-evident at all.

A large part of the increase can indeed be accounted for by the natural increase, which is enhanced among travellers because of their particularly young age group and tendency to marry and procreate at a young age. One in every four travellers aged 15-24 is married, compared with one in every fifty between the same age bracket in the general population. This trend is depicted in the age pyramid.



I don't know where the Pavee point man is getting his 36,000 figure. The census would be widely held to be the most thorough examination of demographics available. All minorities may have a vested interest in overstating their numbers. I find it interesting that people are keen to quote Pavee point when it suits their argument. Is it the case you consider Pavee Point a reliable source? Great, because they have lots of information on disadvantage amongst travellers if you're curious.

murphaph

My father used to own a motor spares business. I saw and dealt with many travelers back then when I'd help out. The travelers I dealt with taught me enough to realise that the census data they provide in relation to their vehicles cannot be trusted in any way shape or form. On more than one occasion I personally saw the Guards taking vehicles from travelers as they had absolutely no documents for these UK reg vehicles. They were untaxed, uninsured and completely illegaly on the road. The rest of us were coughing up hundreds of € in road tax to drive equivalent motors.

OldNotWIse

later12 wrote: »

They exhibit the same characteristics as third world populations: high fertility rates and low life expectancies. That's hardly thriving.

There is a suggestion that the reason the increase may have come about in the traveller population was because the question about membership of the traveller community was worded differently in 2011 relative to previous years.

Yes and third world communions are exactly the same aswell...If I see one more starving child on the side of a trocaire box sporting a mini wedding dress and 10 foot long train I'll just lose it :rolleyes:

glic71rods46t0

later12 wrote: »

Like most 'self evident' facts, that's not self-evident at all.

A large part of the increase can indeed be accounted for by the natural increase, which is enhanced among travellers because of their particularly young age group and tendency to marry and procreate at a young age. One in every four travellers aged 15-24 is married, compared with one in every fifty between the same age bracket in the general population. This trend is depicted in the age pyramid.



I don't know where the Pavee point man is getting his 36,000 figure. The census would be widely held to be the most thorough examination of demographics available. All minorities may have a vested interest in overstating their numbers. I find it interesting that people are keen to quote Pavee point when it suits their argument. Is it the case you consider Pavee Point a reliable source? Great, because they have lots of information on disadvantage amongst travellers if you're curious.

First post on this thread ... I think its pretty disingenuous to suggest that the previous poster was endorsing the reliability of Pavee Point information. It was legitimately mentioned that Pavee Point themselves, as a traveller advocacy group, do not accept the reliability of the census figures - a pertinent point when debating the reliability of the census figures when other posters describe such thinking as "fanciful":rolleyes:

later12

Where are Pavee point getting the 36,000 figure?

glic71rods46t0

K-9 wrote: »

Any positive experiences, as a teacher? We are all aware of the negatives.



Which I pointed out as a mod, there are no stats



Yet showed a 32% increase in participation in the Census!

Is there stats on traveller participation in criminality and public disorder? The papers are regularly reporting on traveller feuds with incidents taking place in schools, churches, graveyards and the tried and trusted wedding reception!
I think it is important for mainstream society to be very concerned about so-called minorities failing to behave in a civil manner in our society.
Misunderstood? There is nothing to misunderstand about Hatchet or slash hook wielding thugs (male and female) attacking each other in churches or school yards - time for mainstream society to adopt zero tolerance for such actions

glic71rods46t0

later12 wrote: »

Where are Pavee point getting the 36,000 figure?

Don't know and don't care - but speculation on the accuracy of the census is hardly "fanciful" in the context of the leading traveller advocacy group openly disagreeing with its findings!

later12

i06kgrw7h59dxn wrote: »

Don't know and don't care

But surely you'd question it? I mean are they counting children or descendants of travellers who no longer identify as such? I can see why a minority rights group might be tempted to over-state their numbers using such methods. Do you adapt a "don't know, don't care" policy in accepting other things that pavee point say, or is it just this?

jmayo

later12 wrote: »

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


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

No I find it frighteningly damming of traveller society.

So OP stop trying to lay the blame for the ills of the traveller way of life on the rest of society.

I bet I could find you on other threads, particularly economic related ones, telling people to show a bit of personal responsibility.
Well isn't it about time that travellers showed some personal responsibility for their own situation.

later12 wrote: »

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.

So you are blaming the rest of society for not forcing the traveller subgroup to comform to the basics of our society ?
What an utter load of boll***s.
This is just yet another excuse, much like the ones often trotted out by traveller excusors as to why they once again have not adhered to the normal social norms that the rest of society do for the most part.

The reason they feel detached is because they damm well make themselves detached and persist in a way of life which is often antisocial and aimed at keeping them isolated.

later12 wrote: »

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?

It is not a mainstream issue frankly because the rest of society for the most part could not give a flying fook.
The rest of society are tired of seeing resources poured into a group that want to persist in their isolationism and trott out yet more drivel at the next outbreak of an incident of traveller extreme violence.

BTW I equate the continued sad path of a lot of travellers to that of alcoholics.
They will never improve their lot, no matter how much others try, unless they decide to help themselves.

BTW before the righteous brigade get up in arms I have not said travellers are alcoholics, I have said there is a similarity that they can't get better until they help themselves :rolleyes:

glic71rods46t0

later12 wrote: »

But surely you'd question it? I mean are they counting children or descendants of travellers who no longer identify as such? I can see why a minority rights group might be tempted to over-state their numbers using such methods. Do you adapt a "don't know, don't care" policy in accepting other things that pavee point say, or is it just this?

I dont get too worked up about what they say - they are an advocacy group and I have a healthy scepticism for anything they say.
In my opinion, they exist to defend the self destructive lifestyle choices of travellers by seeking to legitimise these lifestyle choices as a cultural trait of an "ethnic minority".
They have been very successful in extracting funds from the public purse during the good times but I think that mainstream society have reached their limits in that regard!

RiseToTheTop

I'm sorry for this blunt answer, but where i'm from a large amount of the total crime would be instigated by travellers.

They only make up less than 5% of the total population, but make up over 50% of all crimes. I do not feel sympathy for them thus.

later12

Travellers are disproportionately over-represented in crime statistics, and it would be interesting to look into that.

But where are you getting these statistics? 5%? Divide that by 10.

Where does the 50% figure come from?

edit: the most recent figure for travellers in prison is 4.6%

the_syco

lividduck wrote: »

The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989

Pathetic. Like the hooligans who storm discussions that they do not agree with, you slap the above up to stifle discussion.

Believe it or not, but stifling discussion will do more harm than good, and will lead to a more abrupt "solution".

antoobrien wrote: »

Can we discuss our personal experiences without fear of libel or being called racist?

If you call them anything other than nice law-biding people, you shall most likely be called racist by a few people here, even though they are not a different race, and are mostly Irish (look at their DNA for proof), they just decide to not follow the same rules as we do.

murphaph

later12 wrote: »

Travellers are disproportionately over-represented in crime statistics, and it would be interesting to look into that.

But where are you getting these statistics? 5%? Divide that by 10.

Where does the 50% figure come from? AFAIK the traveller prisoner population is <10%

Are you saying that they make up 0.5% of the population and ca. 10% of the prison population, or have I read you wrong?

later12

It's an unacceptable figure, like all of the other unacceptable figures that have been mentioned since the OP ten pages ago.

But all we've got so far is vitriol and indignation.

EDIT

This is why I shouldn't quote statistics from memory. The more recent figure is 4.6%

http://www.dohc.ie/publications/aiths2010/TR2/AITHS2010_TechnicalReport2_HR_PartC.pdf?direct=1

In the 2002 and 2006 Censuses, while Travellers represented approximately half of one percent of the total ROI population, Traveller prisoners (Table 1) comprised 5.9% and 4.6% respectively of the prisoner population (Central Statistics Office, 2003b, 2004 and 2007b, 2007c).

gizmo555

later12 wrote: »

It's an unacceptable figure, like all of the other unacceptable figures that have been mentioned since the OP ten pages ago.

But all we've got so far is vitriol and indignation.

Whatever about vitriol, it's fair to say you yourself started the indignation ball rolling at the end of your first post . . .

later12 wrote: »

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

jmayo

later12 wrote: »

Travellers are disproportionately over-represented in crime statistics, and it would be interesting to look into that.

But where are you getting these statistics? 5%? Divide that by 10.

Where does the 50% figure come from?

edit: the most recent figure for travellers in prison is 4.6%

I would not use prison statistics as a measure of anything relating to crime in this gombeen state. :rolleyes:

After all we have a criminal justice system that allow convicted killers that are under investigation for rape out on bail (gerard barry in Galway) and a prison service that sends convicted killers with 91 previous convictions and history of escape (martin mcdermott) to open prisons. :mad:

I wouldn't trust them to know how many inmates they have.

later12

gizmo555 wrote: »

Whatever about vitriol, it's fair to say you yourself started the indignation ball rolling at the end of your first post . . .

That is fair to say. I think indignation is a good starting position. But right now we've just had what, 12 pages of it?

glic71rods46t0

later12 wrote: »

That is fair to say. I think indignation is a good starting position. But right now we've just had what, 12 pages of it?

Disagree. Consensus opinion evident of people seeing travellers as largely responsible for their current collective situation - and they, themselves must take responsibility and conform with their responsibilities as citizens of this country. They appear to have no problem with conforming with our social welfare system - now its time to conform with our justice system!

gizmo555

later12 wrote: »

That is fair to say. I think indignation is a good starting position. But right now we've just had what, 12 pages of it?

So it's OK for you to be indignant, but others shouldn't follow suit - right . . .

Personally, I'm not indignant about travellers (although I might feel differently if, for example, my child had been making his confirmation at that ceremony in Ballinrobe).

So far as the disadvantages they suffer from are concerned, rather than indignation, I mostly feel indifference, since as I already said, they are in the main self inflicted.

later12

gizmo555 wrote: »

So it's OK for you to be indignant, but others shouldn't follow suit - right . . .

No. You'll notice I said indignation can be a good starting position. This applies to people on both sides of the fence and none. But sooner or later you have to start proposing something constructive or else it just becomes all noise.

Every time something is suggested, like welfare reform or educational initiatives or support services or penalties for parents who refuse to engage with education people are responding with noise. When I proposed more effective support services I was labelled an out of touch liberal. When I proposed penalties i was labelled as a genocide enthusiast.

It's like this topic cannot be discussed rationally.

southsiderosie

i06kgrw7h59dxn wrote: »

Is there stats on traveller participation in criminality and public disorder? The papers are regularly reporting on traveller feuds with incidents taking place in schools, churches, graveyards and the tried and trusted wedding reception!
I think it is important for mainstream society to be very concerned about so-called minorities failing to behave in a civil manner in our society.
Misunderstood? There is nothing to misunderstand about Hatchet or slash hook wielding thugs (male and female) attacking each other in churches or school yards - time for mainstream society to adopt zero tolerance for such actions

The problem with this is that without statistics, this doesn't tell us anything about this being a Traveller problem or a general social problem. Having seen appalling public disorderly and thuggish behavior in Dublin among what were presumably non-Traveller populations, I would want to see some data on actual differences between Traveller and non-Traveller populations in that regard before coming to any conclusions.

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

I'm sorry for this blunt answer, but where i'm from a large amount of the total crime would be instigated by travellers.

They only make up less than 5% of the total population, but make up over 50% of all crimes. I do not feel sympathy for them thus.

Do you have some data for this? Because without data we get comments like...

nuac wrote: »

This is €800 in the case of travellers. A very high number of travellers drink it.

...this. And I don't think that either of these kinds of comments are particularly conducive to having a rational discussion.

gizmo555

later12 wrote: »

No. You'll notice I said indignation can be a good starting position. This applies to people on both sides of the fence and none. But sooner or later you have to start proposing something constructive or else it just becomes all noise.

I and other posters did propose something constructive - let travellers take responsibility for their own life choices and the resulting consequences. In particular, the open ended and indefinite entitlement to social welfare is in my opinion doing many travellers more harm than good. I don't intend that comment as specifically anti-traveller - there are many settled people of whom the same could be said.

But when you have the travellers' own spokespeople making statements to the effect that it is no longer possible to pursue the traveller lifestyle without funding from social welfare, the rest of the country is entitled to ask why it should be expected to pay for it.

later12

gizmo555 wrote: »

In particular, the open ended and indefinite entitlement to social welfare is in my opinion doing many travellers more harm than good.

I agree. I don't think anyone who looks at the situation objectively could deny that the social welfare system is not appropriately empowering the traveller community to participate constructively in society. Access to welfare seems to be too unconditional. It appears very ineffective.

But when you have the travellers' own spokespeople making statements to the effect that it is no longer possible to pursue the traveller lifestyle without funding from social welfare

Is that a verbatim quote? Do you have a link?

Also, there are no traveller spokespeople. Who's your spokesperson as a member of the settled community? Who is your spokesperson as a white man?

I appreciate that Pavee point does aspire to speak for travellers' concerns, but travellers are no more a homogenous people than anybody else. A major shortcoming of some of the contributors of this thread has to speak of travellers in one enormous bloc, often using little more than anecdotes. That's the sort of attitude that only serves to promote segregation and resentment.

glic71rods46t0

later12 wrote: »

A major shortcoming of some of the contributors of this thread has to speak of travellers in one enormous bloc, often using little more than anecdotes..

Are you for real???? You started this thread specifically about a "bloc" of Irish society identified as travellers and now you are unhappy that other contributors tackle the topic in the same fashion.
I have rarely come across an OP who has policied a thread as vigourously as you have done with this one. Your position is baffling and seems to move in whatever direction the wind is blowing.:eek:

AlekSmart

later12 wrote: »

We all use anecdotes to inform our thinking sometimes. What is not acceptable is the use of anecdotes, or pointless references to tv shows to inform a general depiction of the traveller population.

The use of anecodtal accounts to support a POV,as far as I'm concerned,is a valid action,once such anecdotes are not the sole basis for that.

I'm quite confident that the posters who choose to disagree with Later12's assertion of lack of mainstream concern are doing so for a variety of reasons,supported by their own experiences.

The TV shows,whether Later12,likes it or not,are high profile and popular showcases for Travellers to put their traditions forward for mass viewing,opportunities which the Traveller participants grasp with obvious eagerness.

Difficulty in accessing statistical data is not an acceptable excuse for making whatever generalisations we like.

I would suggest that alleging that Mainstream Irish society is unconcerned at Traveller "disadvantage" is somewhat cynical and perhaps self-serving generalization in itself.

My own belief is that Mainstream Irish society has largely had it's concerns ignored or overidden in Traveller matters,to a degree which has alienated it further from matters Traveller.

I don't know how many black people work in the underground economy (because the whole idea of working in the underground economy is that it be concealed). Nevertheless, the existence of such an evidential challenge does not permit me to portray black people in this manner just because the information does not exist or is undependable.

For what it's worth, I think the suggestions that the census data in particular is untrustworthy is a particularly fanciful speculation.

Im afraid the suggestion doubting the veracity of the Census data is far from "fanciful speculation" to many posters.

The data collected and collated by "mainstream" Irish society can only be relied upon if the methodology of its accquisition can be shown to be robust.

One of the prime methods of this is the presence of a verifiable address or place of residence to cross reference against.

This basic method of verification is notably absent from much of the Traveller related census data,because if it's not then the popular definition of the term "Traveller" surely ceases to be true ?

a