Residents object to temporary halting site

brooke 2

foggy_lad wrote: »

I will most likely be hated and have little dolls of me made and hung/burned/stabbed for a long time for saying this but I can't understand how people who are unable to buy a bit of land for themselves to live on or find other accommodation for themselves are able to bury relatives in the most elaborate and most expensive coffins costing thousands of euro each?

If the travellers at yesterdays funeral were any use they would stump up together and sort out their relatives the same way other families do in normal society.

We look after our own, travellers don't seem to give a pfhuck as long as the funeral is far lavish and expensive and sure the settled community will house the women and children afterwards!

Was just thinking the same, but did not have the nerve to post it!

Regarding their much vaunted 'respect for the dead', there is not much of that in
evidence in the graveyards where they bring slash hooks and machetes to funerals and terrify onlookers with their savagery.

ninja 12

Just curious ,
If the council go ahead and set up this site and use it for six months to house the families affected by the fire , what's to stop the council from using it to temporarily house other families on a rolling basis ?

After all , services will have been installed , and it will be sitting idle .

Dubl07

brooke 2 wrote: »

Was just thinking the same, but did not have the nerve to post it!

Regarding their much vaunted 'respect for the dead', there is not much of that in
evidence in the graveyards where they bring slash hooks and machetes to funerals and terrify onlookers with their savagery.

That's been the problem for far too long. Decent people hesitated to point out travellers' behavioural problems affecting our entire society. We can feel a genuine sadness for the plight of travellers/itinerants but much of their situation is not of our making and there's little we can do to improve it unless we start treating them as real equals instead of pandering to outdated notions. Travellers are not a newly discovered tribe in the Amazon who need protection from modern society. Many of them are intelligent people who know how to milk every single system but they need to cop on. Settled people, politicians, media need to cop on.

I hope the Rockville residents have been looking in on this thread and are aware that they have support online as well as in the general community.

Penn

foggy_lad wrote: »

I will most likely be hated and have little dolls of me made and hung/burned/stabbed for a long time for saying this but I can't understand how people who are unable to buy a bit of land for themselves to live on or find other accommodation for themselves are able to bury relatives in the most elaborate and most expensive coffins costing thousands of euro each?

If the travellers at yesterdays funeral were any use they would stump up together and sort out their relatives the same way other families do in normal society.

We look after our own, travellers don't seem to give a pfhuck as long as the funeral is far lavish and expensive and sure the settled community will house the women and children afterwards!

Why spend money on a site when apparently it's the duty of the government to just give them land and protect their culture and traditions by any means necessary, and without due regard for anyone else or maintaining some semblance of treating people equally regardless of their ethnic background.

Mary63

But foggy,if your default position is to expect someone else to pick up the tab for everything why would you suddenly decide to help your traumatised fellow community travellers out of your own pocket.

If my house burns down I put in an insurance claim and in the meantime because I have been putting money away I buy the essentials I need and I turn up on my families doorstep to be housed temporarily.it wouldnt even occur to me to ask any Government Department for help so why did Dunlaoghaire Rathdown county council try and force this emergency accommodation through in the first place.That is the questions we need to ask,why werent the travelling community asked to step forward to offer accommodation to their relatives,its not as if individual travelling families arent huge,they are enormous.

smash

Dubl07 wrote: »

That's been the problem for far too long. Decent people hesitated to point out travellers' behavioural problems affecting our entire society. We can feel a genuine sadness for the plight of travellers/itinerants but much of their situation is not of our making and there's little we can do to improve it unless we start treating them as real equals instead of pandering to outdated notions.

You can't treat someone as an equal if they don't want to be an equal. They refuse to obey the rules of a civilised society!

gandalf

ninja 12 wrote: »

Just curious ,
If the council go ahead and set up this site and use it for six months to house the families affected by the fire , what's to stop the council from using it to temporarily house other families on a rolling basis ?

After all , services will have been installed , and it will be sitting idle .

Of course it will set a precedence. Next time they will just say "but the site is already set up".

Dubl07

smash wrote: »

You can't treat someone as an equal if they don't want to be an equal. They refuse to obey the rules of a civilised society!

You can start by treating them the same as anyone else whose neighbour's home burned down.
As anyone else who has become homeless.
As anyone else who has decided their current home no longer suits.

After that, you can get into child welfare, animal welfare, education, domestic violence, criminality etc.

Mary63

I really hope the Rockville Residents know they arent alone and most people are thinking thank god its their locality and not mine.

I would be terrified myself to think I couldnt walk out the front door without double locking everything and then being afraid my child would be attacked by a traveller dog who isnt kept under control.This is the reality for people who have to live in proximity to travellers and edge of the road with his answers hasnt acknowledged peoples genuine fears in anyway.He wants us to have empathy for a particular ethnic group and if old people are terrified of travellers that is their problem and not the marauding gangs who are supplied with information by local travellers and are told which old person is vulnerable and whether they have a dog or not.

It would be interesting to have a poll,all who support the Rockville residents vote yes.

Una Mullally and her wittering from the safety of the irish Times office does not represent the reality of what most people feel about travellers living near them.If it was just South Dublin nimbyism there would be no need for any local authority to enact emergency legislation,this legislation was enacted so local authorities can force halting sites in particular areas against local residents wishes.Halting sites will never be forcibly put in areas where the great and the wealthy live.

The Rockville residents really need to be careful if they allow the site to go ahead.The council may swear in blood that this particular family will be moved on,they need to swear that no other travelling family will move in either and the site will be signed over to the local residents association for amenity purposes in perpetuity and will be maintained by the county council.If the council get their way on this one they will know the residents have been browbeaten and the council can ride rough shod over them in future rather than starting another battle with another group of residents.

ninja 12

gandalf wrote: »

Of course it will set a precedence. Next time they will just say "but the site is already set up".

That's what I was thinking , thin end of a wedge .

The travellers involved have my sympathies for their loss , but I back the residents on this issue .

I have had a few negative dealings with various travellers , and would not want a halting site set up beside me ( either temporary or permanent )

Mary63

In six months time the council can pull the emergency legislation out of their back pocket again and say the accommodation is still emergency housing and this will over ride anything signed.The media will be gone by then and the Rockville Residents will be stuck with an eyesore and a site which will be a public health nuisance beside them.No one will want to buy their houses so they wont even be able to move.They wont be able to claim ethnic minority status so they cant declare themselves homeless and halting sites are only for travellers so they cant even buy a Roadmaster and apply for a vacancy on a halting site.

If I pull up on a halting site I will be run out of it by the travellers even though my taxes have paid for it,how is this fair.I will ask Una Mulally to write an article defending my right to live on a halting site free of charge if I want to.I cant be discriminated against because I am not a traveller.

smash

Dubl07 wrote: »

You can start by treating them the same as anyone else whose neighbour's home burned down.

No state support then. Seems fair enough.

Dubl07 wrote: »

As anyone else who has become homeless.

Very little state support either. but more to the point, they don't want a house, they want land and horses and free everything that goes with it.

Dubl07 wrote: »

As anyone else who has decided their current home no longer suits.

So they should buy a new one.

foggy_lad

ninja 12 wrote: »

Just curious ,
If the council go ahead and set up this site and use it for six months to house the families affected by the fire , what's to stop the council from using it to temporarily house other families on a rolling basis ?

After all , services will have been installed , and it will be sitting idle .

Once a family are put into that temporary site that will be them "housed" and the council will not do any more for them or any residents.

The council only started work on the other site when they knew they were getting nowhere trying to railroad the residents with their Skulduggery lies and deception.

If the residents allow that site within the week all work will stop on the other site and their neighbourhood will be destroyed for as long as the travellers want to stay.

gandalf

ninja 12 wrote: »

That's what I was thinking , thin end of a wedge .

The travellers involved have my sympathies for their loss , but I back the residents on this issue .

I have had a few negative dealings with various travellers , and would not want a halting site set up beside me ( either temporary or permanent )

That's the thing that most rushing for a quick fix are forgetting. They are imposing this "quick fix" on a community that doesn't want it and they are creating an opportunity for a council that through their actions have been proven to be unscrupulous by the very actions they took trying to sneak this into the site on Rockville Drive.

What happens in six months when the permanent location is finished and the family in question refuse to move to it (some have already said that they have refused it in the past)? Will the council evict them from this "temporary" site?

What happens when the next emergency comes up?

Logically they will use this site again to house people because it wil have been setup without the hassle of planning permission.

Wibbs

Mary63 wrote: »

Una Mullally and her wittering from the safety of the irish Times office does not represent the reality of what most people feel

You could have stopped there M. She's a near cardboard cutout loony lefty, great for clickbait mind you, so the paper and its advertisers love her and her ilk.

Mary63

The most important thing to remember is who owns the site and it is the County Council.

They in fact could have called the Gardai for protection and just installed the tarmac,the showers and the toilet facilities anyway.

They didnt do this because they didnt want the media descending on them and making it look like the Rockville residents were being bullied.It was much better to make it look like the local residents had some say,ie engage in talks and let the talks go on and then proceed with the halting site anyway.They probably thought too that because of the loss of life the rockville people wouldnt object.The council have probably been made aware through the local politicans that there is huge local support for the local residents and probably a lot of money pledged to help them fight the council.There might even be enough money raised to offer to purchase the site,its only one acre in size.

Most of the halting sites that have been built on a permanent basis started off as temporary.There is no way the council is going to service this site and then not use it again.Its probably also in a better location than the planned new site and I cant see the travellers agreeing to move once they settle in unless they are paid to go.

gandalf

Looks like the mods aren't Leeds United fans either

foggy_lad

gandalf wrote: »

Looks like the mods aren't Leeds United fans either

Possibly not, Apologies to the mods for the off topic chatter.

To Elland Back

Wexford, like a lot of provincial towns, is struggling economically. We are entering a period in the retail sector where money has to be made to tide them over in the lean months. Certainly, an influx of a few hundred people would usually be most welcome. Can you explain why the town retailers have independently decided to go in to partial lockdown tomorrow, if it was not for fear of what might happen to their businesses? They know the possible consequences are not worth it. Says it all really

KERSPLAT!

MOD

gandalf wrote: »

Looks like the mods aren't Leeds United fans either

foggy_lad wrote: »

Possibly not, Apologies to the mods for the off topic chatter.

Bayern fan :eek: Yes I did!!!

Back on topic please.

Also to note, traveller bashing isn't tolerated. More bans will be handed out.

Dubl07

To Elland Back wrote: »

Wexford, like a lot of provincial towns, is struggling economically. We are entering a period in the retail sector where money has to be made to tide them over in the lean months. Certainly, an influx of a few hundred people would usually be most welcome. Can you explain why the town retailers have independently decided to go in to partial lockdown tomorrow, if it was not for fear of what might happen to their businesses? They now the possible consequences are not worth it. Says it all really

Out of respect, boss. Nothing to do with criminality. Even the pubs will have closed out of respect.

eeepaulo

To Elland Back wrote: »

Can you explain why the town retailers have independently decided to go in to partial lockdown tomorrow, if it was not for fear of what might happen to their businesses? They now the possible consequences are not worth it. Says it all really

Saw one photo from twitter that said 'out of respect' and on the piece on vincent browne last night they used the phrase 'mourners lined the road and businesses closed'

Pubs all over ireland will keep showing that respect for years

foggy_lad

Dubl07 wrote: »

Out of respect, boss. Nothing to do with criminality. Even the pubs will have closed out of respect.

The Irish are very respectful of Funeral processions especially in rural towns and villages, Here in Carlow all shops pubs etc on Dublin St will close over their doors a short while before a funeral cortège is due to pass down the street on the way to the Cathedral or over to St Claire s in Graigue.

They only close up for the whole day when travellers are in town for a funeral/wedding/fight/sulky race/horse fair. This has always been happening and is traditional at this stage.

jmayo

end of the road wrote: »

asking a reporter to leave a public meeting? something to hide? you don't get to decide that a meeting with public representitives is private. that reporter was stupid to leave.

end of the road wrote: »

its not something you get to decide. if you want a private meeting hold it in one of your homes

At this stage I don't know if you are totally deluded or one of the greatest p**stakers on this site.

Either way you actually manage somehow, through all the much repeated waffle, to provide some actual comic relief.

irishpancake wrote: »

I'll gladly attempt that for you, as soon as you provide proof that I said that in the post you quoted....which was a reply to a very different poster than you, but not a much more articulate one.

Even if you didn't post it you did (from my recollection) post about how good it was they were possibly getting ethnic group status.

So please answer why in your opinion they deserve that status, rather than try and obfuscate or deflect the question.

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

Mary63

The reason the shop owners and the pub owners close their doors is because if they dont there is a strong possibilty they wont have a business to open after the travellers have left.

Dubl07

Mary63 wrote: »

The reason the shop owners and the pub owners close their doors is because if they dont there is a strong possibilty they wont have a business to open after the travellers have left.

It's practically a guarantee at this stage.

looksee

End of the Road, any comments about the examples in the above post?

Chorus_suck

Chorus_suck wrote: »

I've been reading this thread on and off over the last few days ... can't honestly say I've read every single post, but I'll contribute anyway.

I saw this happening with my own eyes so this is a first hand account. Over the last year I've had reason to spend a lot of time in and out of various hospitals. On one occasion, an elderly traveller woman was admitted very sick. From the moment she was admitted, the traveller woman constantly had a large amount of visitors who totally ignored visiting hours, limits to people around the bedside, and many other hospital rules and protocols. On one particular day, dozens of travellers arrived at the same time (I heard they were called in as she was getting worse) and parked cars, 4x4's, vans etc all over the place, on footpaths, in ambulance bays etc. Nurses and doctors were unable to exit the car park because of illegally parked vehicles in some instances. I personally saw traveller vehicles parked in disabled spaces (no disabled stickers) and an ambulance bay outside of A+E. Hospital visitors and staff were badly inconvenienced that day, and even though the owners of the vehicles were asked to move they mostly ignored the requests. And btw, there were plenty of spaces available in the (paid) hospital car park.

Something similar here in Sligo Hospital
Another example ...
A lot for travellers to be proud of here in a hospital in Fermanagh ...
And one more example.

The hospital staff told me that something similar (they even had a few worse stories) happens whenever a traveller is admitted. So it seems this type of blatant disregard for everyone, including the sick and people visiting sick relatives/friends as well as hospital staff, is commonplace.

Its because of this, and many other extremely negative experiences I have personally had with travellers, that I would vehemently oppose any halting site anywhere near me.

End of the road probably reckons you made this up!!!!!

Dubl07

EazyD wrote: »

When you say force their way in, have they actually managed to get to the site itself or are they still blocked by cars on both sides?

If you look at that poster's history neither of their two posts indicated under their name come up. A bit odd.

Site issues, not user issues. Thanks to Listermint who pointed that out and apologies to Seek First.