Residents object to temporary halting site

alcea

end of the road wrote: »

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

What was his answer?

irishpancake

whatismyname wrote: »

Do you know how 'reasonable excuse' is defined? (Many would certainly say that the residents had that, given their concerns about the suitability of the field, etc.)

Same with 'public place'?

Do you much about the ins and outs of the law, or are you just deciding that they've broken the law, and finding some laws that suit this decision?

Genuine question.

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, barstool or any other kind...

so I cannot give a definitive answer to you.

Do you know the answers yourself?

If you do, why not share your knowledge.

Anyway, as a lay person, I would suggest that the Garda would interpret such an excuse, if offered, and convey that in evidence to a Judge, and the Judge would rule on the whether the excuse was reasonable or not.

Don't forget, lawful authority is also mentioned, and no resident would have such authority, unless he/she were an Officer of the Council.

I'm not sure a Judge would see the validity of what you offer as reasonable, giving that the LA are acting within their lawful remit.

"Public place" is a public road...which all estates taken in charge by a LA are, for access to Sewerage, Lighting, all public services....and should/dare I mention....... water!!

Some stuff I know from my own time as a Secretary with a couple of Residents Associations, in areas where I lived.

You did ask for suggestions as to what law residents were breaking, I suggested a couple which may be applicable.

Here is a something you may find helpful:

http://bfy.tw/2MoG

I'm just giving my opinion, which is what you asked for.

Genuine answer.

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

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!

no they aren't. kelly and o'riordan have spoken out against people blocking a council from using its site under its legal powers. nothing more. nobody blackmailed, nobody's name blackened by these 2. the council are entitled to get into that site and thats all they have done.

gandalf wrote: »

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.

there is no need to change the law and force travelers to live in the type of house you want them to live in . if travelers want so called "normal" houses they are availible. if they wish to continue the nomadic traditions and live on a haulting site then we have a duty to ensure basic facilities are provided.

runawaybishop

end of the road wrote: »

no they aren't. kelly and o'riordan have spoken out against people blocking a council from using its site under its legal powers. nothing more. nobody blackmailed, nobody's name blackened by these 2. the council are entitled to get into that site and thats all they have done.

The residents have protected the victims from being housed in an unsuitable location.

BoatMad

end of the road wrote: »

no they aren't. kelly and o'riordan have spoken out against people blocking a council from using its site under its legal powers. nothing more. nobody blackmailed, nobody's name blackened by these 2. the council are entitled to get into that site and thats all they have done.

I dont think you can just divorce the reality that many people have serious issues with the siting of halting sites, especially with LA leaving " temporary " halting sites in place for years and years.

I dont support the actions of the residents, but I understand the fears and issues of the residents and to think that DLRCC can literally bulldoze their way in is ridiculous

whatismyname

irishpancake wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, barstool or any other kind...

so I cannot give a definitive answer to you.

Do you know the answers yourself?

If you do, why not share your knowledge.

Nope, I do not know the answers. I think it's pretty reasonable to presume that someone who asked you for the information so they could be "better informed", does not know the answers, hence seeking it from you.

irishpancake wrote: »

You did ask for suggestions as to what law residents were breaking, I suggested a couple which may be applicable.


I'm just giving my opinion, which is what you asked for.

Genuine answer.

No, I didn't ask for suggestions or your opinion. You stated that laws are


Not that, in your opinion, laws are being broken, but that laws are being broken.

So I asked what laws are being broken, so that I could understand better and be better informed.

Given that you state that laws are being broken, so was asking for what these laws were as you seemed sure that they were being broken, rather than suggestions or opinions on what they might be.

Filmer Paradise

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

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

Your USC.;)

runawaybishop

end of the road wrote: »

there is no need to change the law and force travelers to live in the type of house you want them to live in . if travelers want so called "normal" houses they are availible. if they wish to continue the nomadic traditions and live on a haulting site then we have a duty to ensure basic facilities are provided.

No, we have no such duty. What's nomadic about a fixed site by the way?

BoatMad

f travelers want so called "normal" houses they are availible. if they wish to continue the nomadic traditions and live on a haulting site then we have a duty to ensure basic facilities are provided.

I know we do that, but you do have to ask why, It I decided it was my nomadic right to live in a tent, I dont see the LA building camping sites for me across the country in order to fulfil my nomadic existence

Most people have to pay for their own accommodation , whatever type it is

Dan_Solo

Just watching Vincent Browne and I notice something.
When travellers want something everybody's only too happy to hear "travellers need this, travellers need that". But as soon as you say "travellers do this, travellers do that" you get called a racist. They can't have it both ways, demanding to be an identifiable group for getting free stuff and whining when the same group label is used for something negative.

Paulzx

end of the road wrote: »

if they wish to continue the nomadic traditions and live on d.

I fail to see how a 40 foot mobile home enables anyone to be "nomadic"

BoatMad

runawaybishop wrote: »

No, we have no such duty. What's nomadic about a fixed site by the way?

the lifestyle of those in a halting site is nomadic , in that they see it as a non-permant living place, even if they stay for years

in reality the whole traveller situation is riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities on all sides

runawaybishop

BoatMad wrote: »

the lifestyle of those in a halting site is nomadic , in that they see it as a non-permant living place, even if they stay for years

in reality the whole traveller situation is riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities on all sides

They were on the site 8 years. I haven't lived somewhere longer than that, does that make me a traveller?

irishpancake

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

What would happen if the bereaved refuse to move from the Emergency Accommodation in Rockville to the newly refurbished site?

That is something that could happen in fairness.

Irish Pancake might know what law could be invoked to ensure that they leave when the new site is ready.

Hypothetical I know, but if I were a resident of Rockville, it is something I would like reassurance on.

Why me Boss??

Singled out for "special mention".....

not that I don't appreciate your obvious admiration for my legal prowess now, nor at all.

But why?

I'm not a lawyer, and I am not a law maker.

There are many here more qualified than I to give you a legal opinion.

Go ask them.

Barry Badrinath

If I wanted to live in a campervan, it would be illegal for me to stay in the same spot for 9 months of the year.....even in my driveway.

Jus' sayin' s'all.

Spanish Eyes

irishpancake wrote: »

Why me Boss??

Singled out for "special mention".....

not that I don't appreciate your obvious admiration for my legal prowess now, nor at all.

But why?

I'm not a lawyer, and I am not a law maker.

There are many here more qualified than I to give you a legal opinion.

Go ask them.

Ah it was just that upthread you quoted some laws or other and it made me think that you might know. That's all. Take it as a compliment.

BoatMad

runawaybishop wrote: »

They were on the site 8 years. I haven't lived somewhere longer than that, does that make me a traveller?

I merely state what I know of several travellers, who feel that by remaining in a caravan , they are retaining their essence of being a traveller, i.e. living a nomadic existence , even if the caravan never moves


Like I said the reality of modern traveller culture and the way we deal with it is riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities

Kermit.de.frog

When "Traveller Girl" came on to boards to discuss the community she was asked over and over again broadly where does the income come from to support her family? She refused to answer. Asked where she thought the income of travellers generally came from again she refused to answer.

irishpancake

foggy_lad wrote: »

When have similar extraordinary lengths been undertaken by any arm of government/state for any other citizen or group of citizens after such a tragic event?

The same can be said of your own posts and your own agenda.

I didn't ask any stupid silly questions, over and over and over again, ad nauseam.....now did I?

My posts have been on point, and full of facts.

If you have a problem with any post, you are free to come in on the debate, as far as I know nobody is debarred from debating here, if they observe a few simple, very welcome, rules relating to content.

Sniping from a ditch is just that, sniping, when one has very little to say.

gandalf

end of the road wrote: »

there is no need to change the law and force travelers to live in the type of house you want them to live in . if travelers want so called "normal" houses they are availible. if they wish to continue the nomadic traditions and live on a haulting site then we have a duty to ensure basic facilities are provided.

Travellers can have any accommodation they want providing they pay for it themselves. If they cannot afford to pay for it then they should be housed as everyone else is and not given a bespoke solution.

Imagine all the social housing that would have been in place if the hundreds of millions used to prop up this chaotic traveller accommodation scheme wasn't wasted.

The one positive that may come of this is that society will examine the waste of traveller accommodation and future children of Ireland won't die because their sub-culture dictates they live a extinct medieval lifestyle model.

Again I don't hear one positive from the cheerleaders of the "nomadic" lifestyle about it? The question is still open what positives are there to traveller culture?

BoatMad

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

When "Traveller Girl" came on to boards to discuss the community she was asked over and over again broadly where does the income come from to support her family? She refused to answer. Asked where she thought the income of travellers generally came from again she refused to answer.

its clear why she would not answer that question, its a bad idea to incriminate your self

Roger Hassenforder

irishpancake wrote: »

I cannot agree at all with you final two sentences, as they are obviously motivated by some deep seated hatred within you towards those you don't understand, and don't try to understand.

Life is a broad tapestry, with room for all, and Irish culture, including Traveller culture, is rich indeed.

You need to look at the musicians who came from that culture, The Fureys, Ted their Dad, Johnny Doran, the famous piper from Wexford, Pecker Dunne, Margaret Barry, Dolores Keane, and more.......

We are rightly proud of these musicians, and singers, I hope, and they all come from Traveller Culture.

Au contraire Pancake!
Reread it and you might get a hint of what it means to be a traveller in Ireland. Statistically I'm not wrong!
Although I can't prove it, I suspect I am more familiar with travellers, their culture, their plight, and their effects. There is no hatred, just a familiarity with them from school, growing up (near Rathkeale!), and now work. They offer very little in return for what they ask. And no, they shouldnt be discriminated against, they should be treated like every one else. No special/preferential treatment. Their rights shouldn't supercede anothers.

A couple of musicians can't be the totality of what traveller culture has produced, is it? There must be more...?

foggy_lad

alcea wrote: »

What was his answer?

Travellers have a tradition and "emotional" attachment to their horses and the councils have been stopping them from killing keeping horses.

Basically he hid behind a big girls skirt throughout and refused to deal with any real issue or answer any question without making travellers out to be poor innocents and victims.


If travellers set themselves apart from society they can't expect the same society to protect them or offer them the same segregated facilities as the settled communities.

There is a housing department in every council and local authority, there should be no duplication or special status for travellers just because they want to live in a small wooden trailer on a filthy rat infested site surrounded by their own filth and rubbish and scrap metal.

BoatMad

gandalf wrote: »

Travellers can have any accommodation they want providing they pay for it themselves. If they cannot afford to pay for it then they should be housed as everyone else is and not given a bespoke solution.

Imagine all the social housing that would have been in place if the hundreds of millions used to prop up this chaotic traveller accommodation scheme wasn't wasted.

The one positive that may come of this is that society will examine the waste of traveller accommodation and future children of Ireland won't die because their sub-culture dictates they live a extinct medieval lifestyle model.

Again I don't hear one positive from the cheerleaders of the "nomadic" lifestyle about it? The question is still open what positives are there to traveller culture?

indeed I think there is a time for a debate about the situation regarding Traveller culture

certainly in time long past , their standard of living would not have been all that dissimilar from poor rural labourers, today however, based on the standards we have set ourselves, there are certainly questions to be asked, if it is right that the state should perpetuate the poor and unsuitable Traveller accommodation offerings,

I certainly think they should be offered all incentives to settle down in conventional housing and very many have, living what the rest of us m would classify as normal lives

I think a debate is clearly needed as to whether the state should be facilitating sub standard mobile accommodation particularly so called " temporary " halting sites

irishpancake

Eugene Norman wrote: »

These laws would apparently ban protests, particularly wild cat protests. Wasn't that what Murphy was arrested for?

Nope.....

Paul was charged with False Imprisonment [Joan Burton]......

Other "suspects" are to be charged with violent disorder and criminal damage as well.......

He wasn't charged when arrested, they delivered the summons to his office....low key like....

irishpancake

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.

You're welcome.

I doubt that defence would fly, but I don't believe there will be any prosecutions really, at least I hope not,

This needs to be de-escalated, not escalated.

Just sayin.....

alcea

foggy_lad wrote: »

Travellers have a tradition and "emotional" attachment to their horses and the councils have been stopping them from killing keeping horses.

Basically he hid behind a big girls skirt throughout and refused to deal with any real issue or answer any question without making travellers out to be poor innocents and victims.


If travellers set themselves apart from society they can't expect the same society to protect them or offer them the same segregated facilities as the settled communities.

There is a housing department in every council and local authority, there should be no duplication or special status for travellers just because they want to live in a small wooden trailer on a filthy rat infested site surrounded by their own filth and rubbish and scrap metal.

In other words, the question was not answered.

I remember years ago the Gardaí advised our local shop to close for the day as there was traveller wedding going on in the village - is this really because they have an emotional attachment to their horses?

irishpancake

katydid wrote: »

Of course they should. What has that got to do with this discussion? We're not talking about ethnicity here.

If you mean travellers as a group, they should definitely be treated equally. Not given special treatment, as they are now.

Well, if you actually follow the discussion, you will find that I was answering this question, as I do.

I'll admit, it was a tad difficult to decipher, but I gave it a stab anyway, to oblige.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97430689&postcount=547

Originally Posted by sasta le

Travellers want equal status but also want to be an ethnic race.But they demand many different services that we would not get

irishpancake

katydid wrote: »

There's quite a difference between sympathising with a family on its loss and agreeing to have a carefully tended green area on their road turned into an encampment, with possible social problems following on.

I know.

foggy_lad

BoatMad wrote: »

the lifestyle of those in a halting site is nomadic , in that they see it as a non-permant living place, even if they stay for years

in reality the whole traveller situation is riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities on all sides

They want to have Land without having to pay for it, they look for halting sites then move in on other land with their horses. The statistic posted earlier in the thread showd how some councils were spending much more on maintaining each single halting site bay (which consists of ground enough for two caravans and a toilet and shower block) than they spent on maintaining individual council houses. Why would a shed on a halting site cost so much? it is because of the costs of removing the scrap rubbish and cleaning up after their bonfires etc etc.

BoatMad wrote: »

its clear why she would not answer that question, its a bad idea to incriminate your self

Traveller women are not allowed talk about money! she would most likely been beaten badly by her husband or her mother if she wasn't married if she answered such questions.