Residents object to temporary halting site

katydid

foggy_lad wrote: »

If your house burns down you will be made aware of homeless groups and services and in more tragic cases with deaths and serious injuries the council will often arrange accommodation for families but as for paying and providing clothing and other needs that is usually left to relatives and charities like the Lions Club and St Vincent de Paul

I wonder where the extended families are in all this. Travellers talk a lot about how much they value the extended family, but it doesn't seem like the extended families are contributing to the plight of this family.

The Talking Bread

This isn't a shot at travellers. It's a genuine question. But why are travellers so against residing in a brick and mortar house rather than, as Michael Collins described it himself, crowded, filthy halting sites. Surely at the moment a comfortable house for those bereaved from the horrific events would be the most appropriate comfort. In the short term, a few months until a decent site is set up.

I respect traveller heritage but why are they so obsessed to segregate themselves from settled society that they won't reside in a normal house.

And I respect that financial constraints are a big aspect. But not for all.

SEPT 23 1989

Just watching clare byrne on Rte now if the government takes away the councils power when it comes to dealing with travellers it will go down very badly with the majority in this country

Who dumps the rubbish in the halting site

I dunno says the traveller woman ffs

katydid

Deleted User wrote: »

People have no right to an expectation that vacant land near them belonging to AN Other will be used for purposes that will enhance the value of their own. It's just...insane. If I buy land and 200 apartments full of Dubs go up in the field next door, thems the breaks, I can't say oh they should have preserved it just the way I liked it.

Have you ever heard of planning permission?

foggy_lad

katydid wrote: »

I wonder where the extended families are in all this. Travellers talk a lot about how much they value the extended family, but it doesn't seem like the extended families are contributing to the plight of this family.

They won't go to extended family and there is always going to be some feud or other stopping them from settling beside another family because the government keeps flinging good hard cash at travellers and pandering to their ridiculous claims of being an ethnic minority or in some way different and deserving of special status.

Our ways are not their ways just as Our Laws are not their laws!

CruelCoin

end of the road wrote: »

its not subjective at all. discrimination is never deserved and must be eradicated.

Would you hire someone from the sex offenders register to drive your school bus/work in a creche/etc ?
Of course you wouldn't. Not all discrimination is a bad thing.

irishpancake

foggy_lad wrote: »

I would consider how they stuck letters in through the residents doors when most were not at home and then turned up to start work an hour later as bullying and railroading the residents and trying to shaft them!

If the council were in any way honest and decent with this situation they would not be trying to "DUMP" this group of people onto the area where they will clearly know they are not wanted! They would have found temporary homeless accommodation for them the same as they would do for any average Joe/Mary who had lost half his family in a house fire.

As for the comments of Alan Kelly about the residents well I think the less said about that waster **** the better! how dare he and other useless ministers and td's basically call these residents bigots and racists for trying to protect the way of life they have sweated for and paid dearly for! Shame on them and may they have the finest of traveller families move into lands all around them!

That is a very strange interpretation of bullying, if you don't mind me saying so.

It may be evidence of lack of forethought by the Council, who obviously believed, given the sympathetic soundings and actions by these residents, that they would be sympathetic to an interim, emergency solution, with a timeline for completion and de-commissioning guaranteed, when the permanent accommodation would become available.

The Council certainly were blind-sided by these apparently skin-deep, in hindsight, protestations from the residents.

Please don't refer to DUMP'ing human beings on anybody....that's in no way helpful to debate or argumentation.

Your extraordinary suggestion of some kind of conspiracy by a LA which has legal responsibilities in this area is ludicrous, bordering on paranoia, and your adding of elected politicians and Government Ministers is just ranting and shouting like Howard Beale......

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any-more!"


Poor man.......

irishpancake

jackofalltrades wrote: »

How does the poll show that?

Anymore racist comments you care to share with us?

Don't be ridiculous now....you just used a bad word too.....

gandalf

Just caught the end of the segment on Claire Byrne live there. When Martin Collins was asked about leadership in dealing with the anti-social element in the traveller community he started off into a rant about horse ownership and not getting handed halting sites. Jesus wept they don't really do themselves any favours do they.

foggy_lad

irishpancake wrote: »

That is a very strange interpretation of bullying, if you don't mind me saying so.

It may be evidence of lack of forethought by the Council, who obviously believed, given the sympathetic soundings and actions by these residents, that they would be sympathetic to an interim, emergency solution, with a timeline for completion and de-commissioning guaranteed, when the permanent accommodation would become available.

The Council certainly were blind-sided by these apparently skin-deep, in hindsight, protestations from the residents.

Please don't refer to DUMP'ing human beings on anybody....that's in no way helpful to debate or argumentation.

Your extraordinary suggestion of some kind of conspiracy by a LA which has legal responsibilities in this area is ludicrous, bordering on paranoia, and your adding of elected politicians and Government Ministers is just ranting and shouting like Howard Beale......

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any-more!"


Poor man.......

Why did nobody from the council call door to door and talk to residents?

Why did they sneak around with letters at a time they knew people would not be home??

The council knew how the people would react and tried to get around that using underhand sneak-thief tactics much like many criminals use in burglaries and when ripping off some poor unfortunate for thousands of euro after "fixing" their roof.

jackofalltrades

irishpancake wrote: »

Don't you believe that all ethnicities should be treated as equal under the Law?

Who is this "we"......and who are "not we"?

Well for a start Travellers aren't recognised as a separate ethnicity under Irish Law.
And if they were and you wanted them to receive equal treatment to other citizens, then they would not be entitled to traveller specific accommodation.
The state does not extend equal treatment to all ethnicities.

There is a need for new Emergency accommodation ASAP...

This is not a halting site, it is Emergency accommodation, which will suffice until their Permanent accommodation has been made ready, some time after Christmas.

Yes, but why does this emergency accommodation need to be traveller specific?
Surely if your in emergency accommodation, any emergency accommodation would do.

There are time frames which have rigid deadlines.

Delays and unforeseen circumstances can occur.

However, a large number of these residents were to the forefront in sympathising with the bereaved people, which no-doubt was genuine, in the immediate aftermath, so the Council might have expected more co-operation would have been forthcoming.
This was their mistake.

The council let emotions go to their head.
They saw the public outpouring of grief and naively mistook this as a turning point in settled-traveller relations.
That or the thought the residents would be too scared to publicly oppose it.

katydid

Deleted User wrote: »

It's all a bit like "Love Thy Neighbour", the UK sitcom, when the white people regarded the black family who moved in next door with fear and suspicion. Hard to think that you still get traces of that same mentality over 40 years later, the "but what will it do to the neighbourhood, what will it do about house prices" routine. Even in 1970s Britain it was held up for ridicule.

The difference might be that black people in the UK were just ordinary, law abiding people moving into a neighbourhood, living in houses and minding their own business, while in this case the issue is about a section of society with a reputation for living in a dirty, littered environment, which is validated by the state of the majority of halting sites, being moved into an area where people have bought and cared for their properties and fear the consequences of this enforcement.

BoatMad

katydid wrote: »

Does the council normally house people whose houses burn down? I thought you were expected to fend for yourself.

The law requires LAs to provide Traveller accommodation

katydid

ted1 wrote: »

They are getting the houses.

While there are hundreds of families in hotel rooms for months and years. Hmm.

foggy_lad

The council hoped to get into that site unnoticed and start work but they were caught out in their sneaky ways and now we have the worst of political dregs like kelly adn o'riordan calling the residents names and implying they are racist bigots for the stand they are taking, they are using the tragedy of ten deaths to Publicly blacken and blackmail the residents to further their own agenda and that is the lowest of the low!

end of the road

tom_k wrote: »

Thanks for these links.

Residents may wish put up the defence of reasonable excuse under the 1994 Act or unavoidable accident under the 1961 Act given the "shock and awe" tactics of DLR council. That's if any charges will ever be brought which I'd think unlikely unless they want this thing to spin out of control altogether. Either way it'd be for a judge to decide.

blocking access to a council site deliberately has no reasonable excuse, and well it certainly wouldn't be an unavoidable accident now would it, seeing as they knew what they were doing. all the council did was to legally attempt to use one of its sites

BoatMad

katydid wrote: »

While there are hundreds of families in hotel rooms for months and years. Hmm.

yes its a rather strange situation Ill give you that , but travellers are now a well organised group with good representation . The " settled" homeless are essentially voiceless

BoatMad

end of the road wrote: »

blocking access to a council site deliberately has no reasonable excuse, and well it certainly wouldn't be an unavoidable accident now would it, seeing as they knew what they were doing. all the council did was to legally attempt to use one of its sites

i think its fair to say , it will not come to that, the council will have no desire to prosecute its own " rate payers "

jackofalltrades

BoatMad wrote: »

The law requires LAs to provide Traveller accommodation

Does it require them to provide traveller specific emergency accommodation?

gandalf

BoatMad wrote: »

The law requires LAs to provide Traveller accommodation

Maybe it is time to change the law and house travellers like everyone else.

Condemning them to live on halting sites and to a way of life that fosters low education levels, poverty, high levels of criminality and lower lifespans is not the way a modern society should accommodate it's citizens.

end of the road

The Talking Bread wrote: »

This isn't a shot at travellers. It's a genuine question. But why are travellers so against residing in a brick and mortar house rather than, as Michael Collins described it himself, crowded, filthy halting sites. Surely at the moment a comfortable house for those bereaved from the horrific events would be the most appropriate comfort. In the short term, a few months until a decent site is set up.

I respect traveller heritage but why are they so obsessed to segregate themselves from settled society that they won't reside in a normal house.

And I respect that financial constraints are a big aspect. But not for all.

whats a "normal" house? houses can be constructed and are constructed of many different materials these days. i'd suggest you go and ask travelers who are of the nomadic variety why they want to live on a haulting site and continue the nomadic tradition

Dyr

Surely a simple solution is for the council to confirm that no-one with a criminal conviction will be rehoused on the site would be the way to show that these residents are basing their objections purely on bias?

SEPT 23 1989

end of the road wrote: »

whats a "normal" house? houses can be constructed and are constructed of many different materials these days. i'd suggest you go and ask travelers who are of the nomadic variety why they want to live on a haulting site and continue the nomadic tradition

How does one earn money to support a family leading a nomadic lifestyle in the year 2015?

end of the road

gandalf wrote: »

Just caught the end of the segment on Claire Byrne live there. When Martin Collins was asked about leadership in dealing with the anti-social element in the traveller community he started off into a rant about horse ownership and not getting handed halting sites. Jesus wept they don't really do themselves any favours do they.

they asked him a question and he answered it. i'm sorry to hear the answer or answeres weren't what you wanted to hear but maybe email mr collins and tell him about it

foggy_lad wrote: »

Why did nobody from the council call door to door and talk to residents?

Why did they sneak around with letters at a time they knew people would not be home??

The council knew how the people would react and tried to get around that using underhand sneak-thief tactics much like many criminals use in burglaries and when ripping off some poor unfortunate for thousands of euro after "fixing" their roof.

the council did no such thing. they acted within their legal powers to implement emergency accommodation, which is within their legal remit and duty.

runawaybishop

end of the road wrote: »

blocking access to a council site deliberately has no reasonable excuse, and well it certainly wouldn't be an unavoidable accident now would it, seeing as they knew what they were doing. all the council did was to legally attempt to use one of its sites

Nonsense, of course there is a reasonable excuse. Also, according to you, people can choose to disobe laws when they feel like it.

runawaybishop

end of the road wrote: »

whats a "normal" house? houses can be constructed and are constructed of many different materials these days. i'd suggest you go and ask travelers who are of the nomadic variety why they want to live on a haulting site and continue the nomadic tradition

One without wheels probably. Why should the state fund a lifestyle choice?

tom_k

end of the road wrote: »

blocking access to a council site deliberately has no reasonable excuse, and well it certainly wouldn't be an unavoidable accident now would it, seeing as they knew what they were doing. all the council did was to legally attempt to use one of its sites

That's your opinion - buts that's all it is.

In the unlikely event of prosecutions being brought, it would be for the accused to make a defence and a judge to decide in court. The legality of either parties actions can only be decided in such a setting.

That's the beauty of having a legal system, as opposed to a rigid interpretation of the law. The previously quoted Acts allow for a flexibility of interpretation.

BoatMad

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Does it require them to provide traveller specific emergency accommodation?

No

BoatMad

runawaybishop wrote: »

Nonsense, of course there is a reasonable excuse. Also, according to you, people can choose to disobe laws when they feel like it.

we all do so every day of our lives

BoatMad

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

How does one earn money to support a family leading a nomadic lifestyle in the year 2015?

i think thats obvious