Traveller houses burnt out **Please Read Mod Warning (posts 6 & 8) before posting**

periodictable

the_syco wrote: »

Certain organisations could bring boards.ie to court if the mods didn't moderate.

As for the fire, we'll probably find out it's part of a long standing feud.

Perhaps then there's a conflict with freedom of expression and the Incitement to Hatred legislation? It seems to me that there's a chilling of free speech on any discussion of Travellers in all the media. Something for the lawyers to challenge perhaps?

Lady Chatterton

periodictable wrote: »

Perhaps then there's a conflict with freedom of expression and the Incitement to Hatred legislation? It seems to me that there's a chilling of free speech on any discussion of Travellers in all the media. Something for the lawyers to challenge perhaps?

With free speech comes responsibilities.

I think the recent Denis O'Brien V Irish Daily Mail case illustrates that you're entitled to an opinion as long as you're in a position to back up your opinions with hard facts and sufficient evidence. I'm not saying it's correct but this is the reality of the situation.

Denis O'Brien wins defamation case against Irish Daily Mail

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0214/367770-defamation-denis-obrien/

Denis O’Brien wins €150,000 in Daily Mail defamation case

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/denis-obrien-wins-150000-in-daily-mail-defamation-case-29070377.html

O’Brien wins €150,000 in damages in 'Mail' case

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0215/1224330058788.html

Clareman

periodictable wrote: »

Perhaps then there's a conflict with freedom of expression and the Incitement to Hatred legislation? It seems to me that there's a chilling of free speech on any discussion of Travellers in all the media. Something for the lawyers to challenge perhaps?

There's no free speech on boards, yuo agreed to this when you signed up.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq

periodictable

I know.
I'm talking about discussion outside of this arena. I'm concerned about a state that attempts to rein in opinion and thought, and in other areas intrude even more into the private sphere, be it Revenue accessing one's bank account or the local planner deciding on what shape windows you can have in your house.
This article may broaden horizons.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/14/the-death-of-free-speech/

Carry

periodictable wrote: »

I know.
I'm talking about discussion outside of this arena. I'm concerned about a state that attempts to rein in opinion and thought, and in other areas intrude even more into the private sphere, be it Revenue accessing one's bank account or the local planner deciding on what shape windows you can have in your house.
This article may broaden horizons.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/14/the-death-of-free-speech/

You make an interesting point here.
Though it's not the topic of this thread I'm equally nonplussed about the general hypocritical attitude in Ireland about calling a spade a spade. And especially the general libel policy.

MIND: I'm not talking about the mods or the rules of boards in this case. It's about the social policy of suing everyone who says something about someone. Or suing all and sundry for that matter. The compensation society.

The discrepancy between naming convicted people with name and address which affects innocent relatives as well and is leading to social exclusion of them, and uttering opinions about circumstances or people, is rather confusing if not appalling. Where I come from names of convicts are seldom named, addresses never.

Almost back to topic.
When I moved to Ireland I was renting of course, before I bought a house. Whenever I was looking for a place the landlords told me that they don't want people on the dole, students, nurses (no, really) or anyone young! Why? Landlord-Explanation: They wreck the place! And as some other people explained (I'm quoting here): Irish people only care about places they own, not places they rent.

I made that experience when I took in two intern working students in my rented house years ago. They couldn't give a damn about the place. Why, they said, it's the landlord's duty to look after the place. No, I said, it's our home for the time being. Who gives a bother, they replied, we're going home anyway after a few months.
Needless to say, I chucked them out.

Back to the original topic.
I am aware that travelers cause a lot of trouble. I know people who happen to live beside them and they are telling appalling stories. I happened to have traveler neighbours a long time ago (in Ennis) who were actually quite nice and polite and kept the place very tidy. Trouble started when the whole clan appeared - multitude is the evil.
I am also aware that family feuds destroy communities not only property which is bad enough. And I am sure, if I would ever feel threatened by anyone (traveler or not) I would defend myself and my loved-ones with every pitchfork I can dig up.

I don't have a final opinion on this special case. I think that the whole stance of Irish policy towards travelers is half-hearted and beyond the point. Inclusion doesn't mean to pacify trouble-makers and giving in to every whim of them or being afraid of consequences.
The community as such, that is society, should be a priority. Destructive forces should be effectively tackled.

2 cents and such like...

CptSternn

JamBur wrote: »

People will come on now and say that they have the greatest traveller neighbours ever, but unfortunately they are the exception that proves the rule.

I think that is one of the most singularly telling things someone can say that inadvertently works against them.

When someone says 'I know a Traveller who is a nice person'. At the same time they are saying basically 'I know most are horrible people, but I found a good one'. It's like saying you won the lotto or something. It actually emphasizes the point that what you have found is an exception to the rule, a total fluke, a one in a million chance sort of thing...and most importantly that underneath your vocal praise you are blatantly aware of this.

It's like saying 'my neighbour was in prison for years, but he is a great guy'. It's more of what you are not saying that really says it all. It's a bit ironic so many people in this thread and other similar threads who think they are helping the cause of the Traveller by saying things like this are oblivious to what they are actually saying.

CptSternn

kstand wrote: »

BWould it not have been prudent for the county council to install CCTV on site while they were in the building process so that anyone caught doing this could have been caught in the act?

Funny story. These sites HAD CCTV installed. But guess what? 'Unknown' people continued to destroy it constantly to the point it cost so much too maintain that the council stopped paying to fix it and monitor it.

They would fix it, and it would be wrecked again in a matter of days. The council felt they were pissing money away paying a company to monitor broken cameras and stopped paying them until they were fixed...but they were never working more than a few days so the whole thing was basically abandoned.

I used to work for a security company which had a council contract to monitor and secure the site.

CptSternn

MrsD007 wrote: »

Finally, students (a small minority) have also been know to damage properties too.



http://cork.studenty.me/2012/02/10/estimated-e15000-in-damages-caused-to-household-during-uccs-raise-and-give-week/



http://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/10000-damage-to-house-at-teens-project-x-party-29031049.html



http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/house-wrecked-as-facebook-party-descends-into-chaos-29021138.html#sthash.tDd72P5O.dpuf

10,000 + 10,000 + 10,000 /= 2.2 MILLION in one town, Ennis.

CptSternn

So as I mentioned earlier I moved to Holland.

Funny story in regards to the Irish Travellers in this area which people here talk about. A few years back they decided to set up shop in a public forest in Belgium, a few minutes down the road from where I now live. A load of caravans, cars, and vans rolled into a national forest and basically set up their own site there. The local police came out and politely asked them to move on, telling them they could not live there as it was a public place where people were welcome to visit, but was closed at night and they could not live there. The police got the normal response, they were told off and said if they wanted them gone they would have to force them off the land.

The next morning about 5:30 am the Belgium Army rolled into the forest with a fecking tank. An army officer called them all outside on a blow horn and told them they had fifteen minutes to evacuate the area. They again started giving out and the officer made a motion with his arm and a lad on the .50 caliber mounted on the tank opened up on one of the caravans turning it into confetti. Within 15 minutes the entire site was EMPTY.

I think Ireland needs to use this story as an example.

ads20101

I think when the whole country is under serious financial constraints we need to have a serious think about local authority housing.

I understand that there are various groups of people that misuse local housing, have to move out, declare themselves homeless, then demand that the council provide housing as per law. But there should be more structured tenancy agreements. People that have a history of damaging community paid for housing have to be accountable for their actions.

I understand that much of the law in this area is defined from European law but there are examples that we can draw from. For example some councils in the uk have not only refused to provide social housing for those proven to engage in anti social behaviour, they have even gone as far as evicting anti social tenants.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying, I am a strong advocate for the state providing shelter and financial support to those temporarily unable to get work, and those unable to work due to disability, but if we are as a civilised community going to continue providing social supports we need to take a much harder line to those that misuse it.

periodictable

CptSternn wrote: »

So as I mentioned earlier I moved to Holland.

Funny story in regards to the Irish Travellers in this area which people here talk about. A few years back they decided to set up shop in a public forest in Belgium, a few minutes down the road from where I now live. A load of caravans, cars, and vans rolled into a national forest and basically set up their own site there. The local police came out and politely asked them to move on, telling them they could not live there as it was a public place where people were welcome to visit, but was closed at night and they could not live there. The police got the normal response, they were told off and said if they wanted them gone they would have to force them off the land.

The next morning about 5:30 am the Belgium Army rolled into the forest with a fecking tank. An army officer called them all outside on a blow horn and told them they had fifteen minutes to evacuate the area. They again started giving out and the officer made a motion with his arm and a lad on the .50 caliber mounted on the tank opened up on one of the caravans turning it into confetti. Within 15 minutes the entire site was EMPTY.

I think Ireland needs to use this story as an example.

Reminds me of the cleanup of NYC under Giuliani in the 90s-Tompkins Square Park on the Lower East Side had become a cardboard city with homeless, drug pushers and general layabouts setting up permanent shop there. They were ordered to leave but laughed it off. At 6am the next day, the national guard rolled in with tanks and bulldozers and emptied the park, reclaiming it for the citizenry of the city by 8.30am. It was an example of the failure of the policy of "pretend it doesn't exist and it will go away attitude" of government, which resulted in a lawlessness in the area. Unfortunately, unless people live by the basic rules of society, such force will be needed to make it clear that breaking the laws are unacceptable.

Johnboy1951

CptSternn wrote: »

So as I mentioned earlier I moved to Holland.

Funny story in regards to the Irish Travellers in this area which people here talk about. A few years back they decided to set up shop in a public forest in Belgium, a few minutes down the road from where I now live. A load of caravans, cars, and vans rolled into a national forest and basically set up their own site there. The local police came out and politely asked them to move on, telling them they could not live there as it was a public place where people were welcome to visit, but was closed at night and they could not live there. The police got the normal response, they were told off and said if they wanted them gone they would have to force them off the land.

The next morning about 5:30 am the Belgium Army rolled into the forest with a fecking tank. An army officer called them all outside on a blow horn and told them they had fifteen minutes to evacuate the area. They again started giving out and the officer made a motion with his arm and a lad on the .50 caliber mounted on the tank opened up on one of the caravans turning it into confetti. Within 15 minutes the entire site was EMPTY.

I think Ireland needs to use this story as an example.

I would consider that action, as described, unacceptable and over the top.
I recognise there might be a lot more to the story that is unsaid .... hence 'as described' above.

Violence begets violence ..... and unnecessary deadly force (even if apparently only on a caravan in this case) is completely unacceptable to me. As I read it I imagined someone hiding in the trailer .....

BTW .... I see no reason at all why vehicles and such which are placed, as in the story, should not be confiscated and destroyed after a short period during which the owner could pay a large fine.

I feel sure that if such a scheme was in operation there would be less inclination on the part of some to put their vehicles/caravans/etc in danger of destruction.

Bowlardo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Violence begets violence ..... and unnecessary deadly force (even if apparently only on a caravan in this case) is completely unacceptable to me. As I read it I imagined someone hiding in the trailer .....
BTW .... I see no reason at all why vehicles and such which are placed, as in the story, should not be confiscated and destroyed after a short period during which the owner could pay a large fine.
I feel sure that if such a scheme was in operation there would be less inclination on the part of some to put their vehicles/caravans/etc in danger of destruction.

why do you think that? They asked them kindly to move their vehicles and were clearly told were to go.

Your suggestion of confiscating the vehicles is flawed on so many levels. You had the wild imagination to believe someone "may" have been hiding in the trailer yet you can not fathom that one or the police/army would be injured when trying to confiscated the trailer.

You mention violence begets violence....what a cliché but I would agree with you on the majority of levels. However when someone is blowing up trailers with a tank I think everyone knows who is boss. The point is proven in the fact that they all ****ed off within 15 minutes

See the link below for the muppets to explain how this works

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWSYiGpLrHY

http://youtu.be/PWSYiGpLrHY

Johnboy1951

Bowlardo wrote: »

why do you think that? They asked them kindly to move their vehicles and were clearly told were to go.

Your suggestion of confiscating the vehicles is flawed on so many levels. You had the wild imagination to believe someone "may" have been hiding in the trailer yet you can not fathom that one or the police/army would be injured when trying to confiscated the trailer.

You mention violence begets violence....what a cliché but I would agree with you on the majority of levels. However when someone is blowing up trailers with a tank I think everyone knows who is boss. The point is proven in the fact that they all ****ed off within 15 minutes

I haven't heard of any vehicle, owned by other members of society being shot to destruction, but am aware that such vehicles get towed, impounded etc etc.

So, care to explain why doing the same with these vehicles "is flawed on so many levels"?

Balagan

ads20101 wrote: »

I think when the whole country is under serious financial constraints we need to have a serious think about local authority housing.

I understand that there are various groups of people that misuse local housing, have to move out, declare themselves homeless, then demand that the council provide housing as per law. But there should be more structured tenancy agreements. People that have a history of damaging community paid for housing have to be accountable for their actions.

I understand that much of the law in this area is defined from European law but there are examples that we can draw from. For example some councils in the uk have not only refused to provide social housing for those proven to engage in anti social behaviour, they have even gone as far as evicting anti social tenants.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying, I am a strong advocate for the state providing shelter and financial support to those temporarily unable to get work, and those unable to work due to disability, but if we are as a civilised community going to continue providing social supports we need to take a much harder line to those that misuse it.

Good post. And if we have any interest in knowing the identities of those who are not law abiding while continuing to receive every support society can give, all we have to do is exercise our constitutional right to attend Court hearings. All is revealed there in the light of day, the identities, the behaviour, the attitude and, above all, the endless cycle of repeat offending of many. Don't worry too much about being safe in the Court. There will be at least 15 and often more than 20 Gardai spread between the court rooms, the foyer and the steps.

Instead of taking up column inches quoting pithy and 'sound-bitey' comments which some Judges make for their own amusement, the reporters might, when giving details of sentences handed down, also list any and all previous convictions of the individuals concerned. Even just listing the number of convictions would fill us in on the massive scale of the dysfunction that exists.

Clareman

Folks, I know that some people think we're very heavy handed mods, this post is just a gentle reminder and isn't directed to any 1 poster or post, that condoning violence or any criminal activity is against the rules of boards and will lead to bans.

Bowlardo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I haven't heard of any vehicle, owned by other members of society being shot to destruction, but am aware that such vehicles get towed, impounded etc etc.

Why do you think that is? might it have to that with at some level they will accept the person in authority?

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So, care to explain why doing the same with these vehicles "is flawed on so many levels"?

It's flawed because I don't believe it would be possible for them to get the trailers towed away without someone getting hurt. I don't think this takes a great stretch of the imagination to come to that opinion.
The people who (aggressively) refused to remove their trailers are hardly going to let them walk in and tow them away.

If you can imagine they came back the next day with a few more people for towing. I would see the same result but with the situation escalating for people on both sides. I would be of the very strong opinion that people (police) providing a public service should not be but in to situations were violence can be avoided. the people that were parked there must have been acting like serious *****.

I do not know what authorization you need in Belgium to get a tank and roll in to a forest to blow up a trailer but i am fairly sure it is not like borrowing the local tractor lawnmower to cut the green in the estate.
You are forgetting that the people with the trailers are completely in the wrong. end of story. they should move. They didn't. Not only didn't but they acted the absolute ***** when asked not to move.
How do i know that? I know that because someone gave the police/army the green light to get the keys for the tank and head down to the forest and blow the ****e out of a tralier. fairly sure a good few boxes would have to ticked before you would get the go ahead on that

I believe respect is earned. You give it in order to get it.
Show no respect and I don't believe respect should be given.

Johnboy1951

So those guys with the guns .... the army .... were incapable of rounding up those objectors present, and holding them while the vehicles were towed away?

Yeah! Right! Heavily armed army personnel incapable of a little bit of crowd control?

There should have been lots of options available other than shooting up one of the vehicles.

Minimum force when dealing with the public is the usual motto .... the story as told does not reflect that.

You disparagingly refer to my thoughts about someone hiding out in their own caravan ...... and you provide this?

If you can imagine they came back the next day with

Some consistency might be helpful.

The next morning about 5:30 am the Belgium Army rolled into the forest with a fecking tank. An army officer called them all outside on a blow horn and told them they had fifteen minutes to evacuate the area. They again started giving out and the officer made a motion with his arm and a lad on the .50 caliber mounted on the tank opened up on one of the caravans turning it into confetti. Within 15 minutes the entire site was EMPTY.

They could just as easily have towed away the vehicles and impounded them.

If that was done often enough it might discourage this behaviour of parking up and daring anyone to move them.

I see no necessity to have .50 calibre bullets flying about .... unnecessary force endangering lives!

the_syco

CptSternn wrote: »

The next morning about 5:30 am the Belgium Army rolled into the forest with a fecking tank. An army officer called them all outside on a blow horn and told them they had fifteen minutes to evacuate the area. They again started giving out and the officer made a motion with his arm and a lad on the .50 caliber mounted on the tank opened up on one of the caravans turning it into confetti. Within 15 minutes the entire site was EMPTY.

I think Ireland needs to use this story as an example.

Awesome! Can't see it working here though, as the travellers would claim discrimination.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So, care to explain why doing the same with these vehicles "is flawed on so many levels"?

A fully armed ERU taskforce is needed to arrest one traveller, as travellers have a history of being violent, not obeying the law, and attacking police officers. How exactly do you intend on taking the caravans?

Johnboy1951

the_syco wrote: »

Awesome! Can't see it working here though, as the travellers would claim discrimination.


A fully armed ERU taskforce is needed to arrest one traveller, as travellers have a history of being violent, not obeying the law, and attacking police officers. How exactly do you intend on taking the caravans?

I don't

It was army personnel, fully armed, and obviously with a tank as well as whatever else they brought.

Apparently they got the whole lot of them outside their caravans .... and so it is reasonable to assume they had them all under control.
You believe they did not?
You think they could have shot up a caravan if the travellers were not under control?

They were heavily armed Belgian army personnel for goodness sake!

It was a planned raid.
As part of the planning they could have arranged to tow the vehicles if they wished.

periodictable

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I see no necessity to have .50 calibre bullets flying about .... unnecessary force endangering lives!

Unfortunately there is a mindset that refuses to accept basic authority, be it the drug running thugs in Moyross or some Travellers who think they can set up camp wherever they wish and view basic law and polite requests to leave as a form of weakness. In those circumstances force is warrented. A bully will always back down when he meets someone willing to play the game on his terms.

Johnboy1951

periodictable wrote: »

Unfortunately there is a mindset that refuses to accept basic authority, be it the drug running thugs in Moyross or some Travellers who think they can set up camp wherever they wish and view basic law and polite requests to leave as a form of weakness. In those circumstances force is warrented. A bully will always back down when he meets someone willing to play the game on his terms.

I don't dispute that for a minute

But based on the info reported in the original post on the Belgian situation, the action taken does not appear to be 'appropriate'.
It hardly seems to fall into the category of minimum force to achieve the objective.

periodictable

Heard about housing anti-social public authority tenants in shipping containers in the Netherlands-something we could try here perhaps?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/abusive-neighbors-to-be-sent-into-container-exile-in-amsterdam-a-870976.html

Cheap, and they can't be burnt down.

bigblackmug

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/sbp-e1397338227894.jpg

Today's Sunday business post

Widespread Feuding blamed for Vacant traveller sites.

delthedriver

It is ironic how many laws protect travellers and how few protect taxpayers

delthedriver

periodictable wrote: »

Heard about housing anti-social public authority tenants in shipping containers in the Netherlands-something we could try here perhaps?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/abusive-neighbors-to-be-sent-into-container-exile-in-amsterdam-a-870976.html

Cheap, and they can't be burnt down.

Proper order. However in Ireland what about their rights?


In any right minded society, people who flout the laws of the land no longer have rights. Simples!

Dtp1979

delthedriver wrote: »

It is ironic how many laws protect travellers and how few protect taxpayers

It's not ironic, it's sickening

delthedriver

Dtp1979 wrote: »

It's not ironic, it's sickening

Agree, however I can't expand on this thought for fear of being banned from the thread.


Obviously the travellers have more rights here too

SterlingArcher

delthedriver wrote: »

Agree, however I can't expand on this thought for fear of being banned from the thread.


Obviously the travellers have more rights here too

It's societies failings.

Tolerance breathes corruption.

And this applies to all within. To anybody causing trouble , to bankers bringing a country to It's knees, CEOs spending the good will charity money on their own lavish lifestyles ...

As for the forum banning thing. It's understandable. Being politically correct or <Mod snip> is sometimes a necessary evil. You have to be blind not to see this no matter how much you or I disagree with it.

If you still don't get it , I could for example set up a tread...

delthadriverr likes to beat himself off to nature documentaries, believes the voice of David Attenborough is an aphrodisiac. This could be a total lie and defamation of your good character leaving this medium open to legal proceedings against it.

Same goes for topic of " travellers".

dees99

Anybody remember that housing estate the council built for the travellers, Gorris I think it was called, across from the driving range. As soon as it was built they stripped every house of anything valuable copper etc and then burnt them all out. One of them was done for it if I remember.

How come its only travellers housestht are getting burnt out.

You can hardly ban people for pointing the finger at who we all know did it. Pavee Point are deluded people who have never had to live near or have to put up with travellers growing up in Ennis. They're <Mod Snip> from my personal experience.