Residents attempt to blockade temporarily housing of survivors of Glenamuck

super_furry

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/local-protesters-block-surviving-carrickmines-families-from-new-temporary-halting-site-31607191.html

I'm not trying to be over the top here, but I don't think I've ever been more ashamed to be Irish. Those ten people that died aren't even buried yet and already those who survived that tragedy are already being told that they're not welcome in a temporary site because it's too close to 'normal' people.

I had thought that this disaster would be the final tipping point for this country to re-assess just how we treat travellers, but obviously not.

Gatling

Pathetic excuses for humans

whiskeyman

Would you accommodate them, or others from the travelling community, on your road?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Classic case of NIMBY.

(Not in my back yard)

I'll probably get slated for this, but I'll honestly state that whilst I do have sympathy for the families who lost loved ones in the fire, I'd be horrified at the idea of a halting site being sprung up beside my house, regardless of the circumstances which led to it being placed there.

Rubberchikken

hypocrisy is this country's middle name.
a couple of days ago people were weeping enough tears to put out a fire, now they behave like this. good thing nothing surprises me any more.

Gatling

Funny how people were proud so say they will take in illegal economic migrants but yet people won't allow a family to live somewhere temporarily while they grieve for 10 family members ,

We're a nation of hypocrites

super_furry

whiskeyman wrote: »

Would you accommodate them, or others from the travelling community, on your road?

Yes. There's already a halting site about 400m from where I live and there's never a peep from them aside from when a few kids knock on the door come halloween time and they're always polite.

My name is URL

Hopefully the cunts faces are shown on the news later so everyone else can treat them with the contempt they're treating others.

JP Liz V1

It is temporary, haven't the poor families lost enough

Streetwalker

When travellers start treating society with respect they'll get respect back.

Cabaal

super_furry wrote: »

Yes. There's already a halting site about 400m from where I live and there's never a peep from them aside from when a few kids knock on the door come halloween time and they're always polite.

While yes some halting sites can be like that, others are not at all like that and have been known to be a source of a large amount of trouble. Examples of this are in every county.

Other halting sites still while not being troubles spots have turned into what look like dumping grounds due to the level of scrap and other items kept around. Between trouble and litter/junk this puts many people off having them near by,

Yes its unfair to paint a whole community with the same brush but sadly people's interactions tend to be more negative then good with travelers, it might help if the like of Pavee Point spoke out and condemned travelers who did damage to the traveling community by breaking the law. They speak for travellers and they could do alot of good and repairing of lost faith in travellers if they did

My name is URL

Streetwalker wrote: »

When travellers start treating society with respect they'll get respect back.

Any evidence to suggest that the people in question didn't treat society with respect? According to those who lived near them in the other halting site they were all very polite, friendly and active members of the wider community.

Most of the kids were involved in the local GAA and rugby clubs.

So come on, post the evidence you have which shows that they were disrespectful to anyone.

whatismyname

Streetwalker wrote: »

When travellers start treating society with respect they'll get respect back.

Have you met / do you know the people from this halting site who would be moving into this temporary accommodation?

Do you know these 15 people personally? Are you personally fit to comment on how much respect or otherwise these 15 people have shown to society?

These are 15 individual human beings. And you clearly seem to be forming opinions on these individual human beings based on your opinion on travellers at large. These 15 human beings have not, I presume, done anything to you - if you don't know them, you're really not in a position to comment on whether these individuals have shown respect to people, or deserve it back.

Never mind the unimaginable pain they must be in right now. They have my respect for that alone, and always will, and I'm sorry that you are so judgemental towards 15 people I presume you've not even met.

Red Kev

Gatling wrote: »

Funny how people were proud so say they will take in illegal economic migrants but yet people won't allow a family to live somewhere temporarily while they grieve for 10 family members ,

We're a nation of hypocrites

It's not necessarily the same people.

The residents are probably worried that the site will become permanent after the new one is built as well as making the houses more difficult thing sell in the future.

Not backing them up, just trying to see it from their point of view. If I was a resident I'd be looking to know what happens once the new site is built.

AlanG

This is a very sad situation. It would be good to know if this land has gone through zoning or planning for this sort of development. The chances of this site being temporary are pretty close to zero. The council has lots of parks where they could put actual temporary accommodation that would be less contentious. If the work does take 8 months they would have the parks back in time to rent them out to concert promoters next summer.

fiachr_a

What about all the people who offered to house the refugees last month? Surely they'll take these travellers in?

darkpagandeath

fiachr_a wrote: »

What about all the people who offered to house the refugees last month? Surely they'll take these travellers in?

Bob has plenty of room I hear.

Cienciano

My name is URL wrote: »

Any evidence to suggest that the people in question didn't treat society with respect? According to those who lived near them in the other halting site they were all very polite, friendly and active members of the wider community.

Most of the kids were involved in the local GAA and rugby clubs.

So come on, post the evidence you have which shows that they were disrespectful to anyone.

whatismyname wrote: »

Have you met / do you know the people from this halting site who would be moving into this temporary accommodation?

Do you know these 15 people personally? Are you personally fit to comment on how much respect or otherwise these 15 people have shown to society?

These are 15 individual human beings. And you clearly seem to be forming opinions on these individual human beings based on your opinion on travellers at large. These 15 human beings have not, I presume, done anything to you - if you don't know them, you're really not in a position to comment on whether these individuals have shown respect to people, or deserve it back.

Never mind the unimaginable pain they must be in right now. They have my respect for that alone, and always will, and I'm sorry that you are so judgemental towards 15 people I presume you've not even met.

Out of curiosity, if you lived next to a green field or a vacant lot and you found out a halting site was being built right next door to your house, would you be at all bothered?

My name is URL

Cienciano wrote: »

Out of curiosity, if you lived next to a green field or a vacant lot and you found out a halting site was being built right next door to your house, would you be at all bothered?

Not in these circumstances, or for these particular people.

If some out of the blue decision was made to build a permanent halting site for unspecified travelers then yes, I'd have some issue with it.

To object to it in these circumstances, when the people have already being living in your area for years and knowing the tragedy and loss they have just suffered, is nothing short of scummy. I hope they're publicly shamed into changing their minds.

whatismyname

Cienciano wrote: »

Out of curiosity, if you lived next to a green field or a vacant lot and you found out a halting site was being built right next door to your house, would you be at all bothered?

If you're talking about a halting site to accommodate 15 people who have just lost 10 members of their family, then hand on heart, I 100% wouldn't.

If I did find that there was a part of me that was 'bothered' for any reasons, I know myself well enough to know that my humanity towards these people would far override any reasons which I was bothered.

Their needs are much greater than mine in that scenario, and unless I'd met the grieving families (a number of whom are likely to be children) I wouldn't be making pre-judgments on them. I wouldn't be making assumptions on people who I'd not met, based on things done / a reputation gained by other people

But if I had a green field or vacant lot beside me right now, and the council was looking to accommodate them there, it wouldn't occur to be to do anything but welcome them, and when they move in to offer my condolences to them. I would certainly not be looking to do anything to add to the pain of the grieving families, certainly by not putting my own selfish interests first, and I am 100% certain that it wouldn't even occur to me to do so.

mikeym

Just put them in temporary housing.

Then the council can sort out the halting site that was burned down.

Everyones happy.

whatismyname

My name is URL wrote: »

Not in these circumstances, or for these particular people.

Agreed. That is what is at the heart of it.

whatismyname

I wonder where they will live in the long term.

Can't speak for the bereaved, but it it was me, I'd imagine it'd be completely traumatising to go back and live in the same halting site where ten people who were part of my extended family died, especially so horrificly.

fiachr_a

Frances Fitzgerald's refugees coming here will be better taken care of than those surviving travellers. Makes me ashamed to be Irish.

TheNobleKipper

I reckon the biggest problem the residents have is not with having travellers in close proximity as a temporary solution, but that they don't trust that this will be a short term thing.

I bet most people here would not be happy with living next to a halting site, me included. Yes, those people have gone through something terrible and it seems very unfair to be objecting to them being housed, but maybe the council or whatever should just assure the residents that the camp will indeed be removed within x amount of time.

SEPT 23 1989

They are only protecting their property

whatismyname

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They are only protecting their property

Not 'only'.....

whatismyname

TheNobleKipper wrote: »

but maybe the council or whatever should just assure the residents that the camp will indeed be removed within x amount of time.

I agree. I'm not sure if it would change anything for some of the protesters, but it is an important factor.

Not that I really trust anything in the Indo, but article says

The letter from the council states that the accommodation is only on a temporary basis, until the construction and refurbishment of a permanent site is completed, which is due to take eight months.

My name is URL

There's a picture of the actual letter in the article itself which you can zoom in on and read. It clearly states that it's a temporary measuer and outlines what will be done

4 mobile homes and two service structures with shower facilities... it doesn't sound at all extreme

whatismyname

My name is URL wrote: »

There's a picture of the actual letter in the article itself which you can zoom in on and read. It clearly states that it's a temporary measuer and outlines what will be done

4 mobile homes and two service structures with shower facilities... it doesn't sound at all extreme

Cheers. Don't know how, but I'd completely missed the copy of the letter. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

S.O

I was only in a pub the other evening for a coffee, all the tables had reserved notices on them which it normally doesn,t have, reason why I was told there was a traveller funeral in town that day and the pub didn,t want any trouble, I was out cycling that same night there were 3 pubs closed in one area, and this with the locals in Glenamuck, the question has to be phased and asked in the context of why do most pubs have no problem serving other minorities gays/black people/ Asian people, Eastern European people, but would rather close up and lose business when there is a traveller funeral locally ? same likewise with neighbours why do most people have no problem with other minorities gays/black people/ Asian people, Eastern European people living in the same estate/same area but wouldn,t want to have any travellers living near them ?

These poor unfortunate people only want to be together to try and rebuild their lives after what was a horrific catastrophe. Shame on each and every one of those residents. Words fail me.

discus

Sure mary anne, why don't you find a suitable site near your house and produce your solution to the local authorities??

0ph0rce0

S.O wrote: »

I was only in a pub the other evening for a coffee, all the tables had reserved notices on them which it normally doesn,t have, reason why I was told there was a traveller funeral in town that day and the pub didn,t want any trouble, I was out cycling that same night there were 3 pubs closed in one area, and this with the locals in Glenamuck, the question has to be phased and asked in the context of why do most pubs have no problem serving other minorities gays/black people/ Asian people, Eastern European people, but would rather close up and lose business when there is a traveller funeral locally ? same likewise with neighbours why do most people have no problem with other minorities gays/black people/ Asian people, Eastern European people living in the same estate/same area but wouldn,t want to have any travellers living near them ?

Because a high percentage of travellers will smash up your local pub, destroy the surrounding area with ****e, rob houses, cars and intimidate and scare people in their own area whilst not giving a **** to any law that's out there. Not them all but most of them are the same. It's not a generalization it's a fact. That's who they are. Shame really

The Blacks , Europeans & Gays don't seem to be doing all the above as much as the travellers.

whatismyname

discus wrote: »

Sure mary anne, why don't you find a suitable site near your house and produce your solution to the local authorities??

Do you even know what part of the country Mary Anne lives in? Or whether she is living in Ireland at all?

Not a realistic suggestion, but no instead just make them 'someone else's problem', and anyone who's putting the bereaved families first should be finding a suitable site beside them and giving it as solution... No need for such silliness.

Deep Six

I fully support these residents and their right to oppose this site being placed in their area. The ones here slating them obviously have no experience living near this group. As tragic as the event on the weekend was, it won't negate the reputation travellers have and which they have fully inflicted on themselves. You reap what you sow.

discus

discus wrote: »

Sure mary anne, why don't you find a suitable site near your house and produce your solution to the local authorities??

There are 4 different houses of travellers down the road from where I live. They don't cause any trouble. Live and let live. There was one incident shortly after the second house was occupied, but it was nipped in the bud and never a bit of bother since.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

There are 4 different houses of travellers down the road from where I live. They don't cause any trouble. Live and let live. There was one incident shortly after the second house was occupied, but it was nipped in the bud and never a bit of bother since.

Lucky you but maybe others have had different experiences to you and as a result arent so eager to allow that possibility to happen again?

doncarlos

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Because a high percentage of travellers will smash up your local pub, destroy the surrounding area with ****e, rob houses, cars and intimidate and scare people in their own area whilst not giving a **** to any law that's out there. Not them all but most of them are the same. It's not a generalization it's a fact. That's who they are. Shame really

The Blacks , Europeans & Gays don't seem to be doing all the above as much as the travellers.

True. Ever since the gays were allowed marry, their pub smashing days seem to be over.

whatismyname

Deep Six wrote: »

The ones here slating them obviously have no experience living near this group.

'This group' as in this group of 15 people?

Nah, thought not.

Deep Six

whatismyname wrote: »

'This group' as in this group of 15 people?

Nah, thought not.

You know fully well who I'm referring to, don't be pedantic.

My name is URL

Deep Six wrote: »

I fully support these residents and their right to oppose this site being placed in their area. The ones here slating them obviously have no experience living near this group. As tragic as the event on the weekend was, it won't negate the reputation travellers have and which they have fully inflicted on themselves. You reap what you sow.

Or in this case you reap what others have sown...?

Do you have any evidence or sources to suggest that those in question are anything but law abiding people?

whatismyname

Deep Six wrote: »

You know fully well who I mean, don't be pedantic.

I'm not being pedantic.

This situation is about 15 specific people, and 'this group' is who they are.

Those 15 people are who it is about. Nobody else.

Doing what others are doing is being prejudiced.

If I am wrong and I am being pedantic, I'd much rather be pedantic, than extremely prejudiced.

steddyeddy

whiskeyman wrote: »

Would you accommodate them, or others from the travelling community, on your road?

Or Jews, Muslims or any other popular hate targets? Yes because I'm not bigoted. Also they're not ordinary members of the travelling community, they're people who lost children, spouses and friends. They deserve sympathy and the kinder side of humanity. These low characters putting up opposition are pathetic excuses for human beings.

Cienciano

My name is URL wrote: »

Not in these circumstances, or for these particular people.

If some out of the blue decision was made to build a permanent halting site for unspecified travelers then yes, I'd have some issue with it.

To object to it in these circumstances, when the people have already being living in your area for years and knowing the tragedy and loss they have just suffered, is nothing short of scummy. I hope they're publicly shamed into changing their minds.

whatismyname wrote: »

If you're talking about a halting site to accommodate 15 people who have just lost 10 members of their family, then hand on heart, I 100% wouldn't.

If I did find that there was a part of me that was 'bothered' for any reasons, I know myself well enough to know that my humanity towards these people would far override any reasons which I was bothered.

Their needs are much greater than mine in that scenario, and unless I'd met the grieving families (a number of whom are likely to be children) I wouldn't be making pre-judgments on them. I wouldn't be making assumptions on people who I'd not met, based on things done / a reputation gained by other people

But if I had a green field or vacant lot beside me right now, and the council was looking to accommodate them there, it wouldn't occur to be to do anything but welcome them, and when they move in to offer my condolences to them. I would certainly not be looking to do anything to add to the pain of the grieving families, certainly by not putting my own selfish interests first, and I am 100% certain that it wouldn't even occur to me to do so.

Fair play for being honest. Only travellers that have lost people in a tragedy are welcome

Deep Six

My name is URL wrote: »

Or in this case you reap what others have sown...?

Do you have any evidence or sources to suggest that those in question are anything but law abiding people?

Let me just clarify, I am not referring specifically to the people affected by that fire. I am talking about the wider perception of the social class they identify as. The people in this estate obviously have less than positive previous experiences with travellers, and it's the same up and down the country.

An "ethnic group" cannot deem itself above the law or expected standards of a society without a care in the world and then expect open arms in return. People might think that's unfair but for every story of a "good" traveller, there are 99 negative against it. You cannot blame people for being cautious when this reputation is one that has been allowed to fester unchecked by the ethnic group themselves. What happened was a tragic event,make no mistake about it. I am simply saying I can understand the bigger reason behind this blockade.

whatismyname

Cienciano wrote: »

Fair play for being honest. Only travellers that have lost people in a tragedy are welcome

Feel free to twist my words, but I'd really rather that you didn't.

I made sure to comment only on the specific situation that is being discussed.

I stated that in this situation I would absolutely not be bothered by travellers being accommodated beside me, but as you'll have seen nowhere in that did I state that only travellers who have lost people in a tragedy are welcome.

In fact, I didn't make any comment whatsoever on whether travellers who have not lost people in a tragedy would be welcomed by me, as it's not relevant.

Although I didn't give the question of whether I'd welcome travellers who'd not lost people in a tragedy any thought, since it's not what's being discussed, in hindsight, I'm not sure how what I'd said on me not pre-judging people I'd not met would allow you to reach that conclusion.

But again, yep, feel free to twist my words to say that I said something about a situation that I didn't even consider or comment on .

My name is URL

Cienciano wrote: »

Fair play for being honest. Only travellers that have lost people in a tragedy are welcome

lol.. that's a pretty lame attempt at taking the moral high road.

But yeah, it's pretty standard human behavior to want to offer help to those who need it most. And it's not just based on the fact that they have lost loved ones anyway, but also on the fact that they've been living within that community for years and by all accounts tend not to cause trouble or interfere with others. The kids go to local schools and are involved in local sports clubs. There's no justifiable reason that they should be disallowed to continue on living in that community.

A few bitter old cranks aren't going to stop them anyway. The land earmarked is owned by the council. The 5 or so residents opposed to it can put up or shut up

Galwayguy35

Why does a halting site have to be built?

Surely if it's temporary then they can stay in a hotel or any of the vacant Nama houses?

I can see the residents point of view, the site looks to be very close to their houses and the area around where halting sites are can ofton be littered with all kinds of rubbish.

VinLieger

The previous site was also "temporary" so that argument is garbage.

Also whatever about the worry that any trouble would be caused by them the simple fact is their presence that close to the current houses will severely affect the house prices of those in that cul de sac which brings us back to the "temporary" argument in that once these sites are created it takes a long time for them to be vacated excepting extraordinary circumstance like the tragedy over the weekend so the house prices would be pretty much permanently damaged for the foreseeable future.

CatFromHue

If you look at where they want to build the halting site it's not really a great location I have to say.

400m down the end of a narrow cul de sac

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2437208,-6.1815677,3a,75y,348.64h,73.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq0QHGjxnlgPuW5DKNmxbRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en