Residents object to temporary halting site

Full Marx

Seek first to understand wrote: »

Hi All,

as a close friend and supporter of two of the families that live in Rockville road I want to say thanks for the words of support and encouragement.

I think Dubl07 nailed it with "The council need to treat all residents of the borough fairly."

There is so much more to this story than any of us will ever know and some is better left unsaid. It is a horrific tragedy made inordinately worse by the clumsy knee jerk reaction and lack of planning and foresight by the County Council and those who would judge either these poor traveller families or the residents without facts compassion and insight.

We only see parts and some unfortunately only see the parts they want to see.

I hope the council learn for this and provide adequate and suitable accommodation not just for these poor families but others who are disadvantaged in our society and community.

Thanks agin to everyone for thinking, discussing and debating. I hope we all keep debating and sharing points of view so we can enjoy a better less judgmental society in the future.

Best regards

In case it makes you look bad?

The Talking Bread

bajer101 wrote: »

Apparently this site is not suitable due to feuding between the current residents of this site and the bereaved family who are looking to be rehomed.

It seems strange the the residents who do not want a halting site set up next door to them are being castigated and guilt-tripped by the media, yet no one has said a word about feuding family in the other halting site who won't call off their of their feud with their recently bereaved kinsmen who just lost 10 family members!

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Culture.

ha, indeed!We should embrace these violent feuds as well as 'the occasional crime'. Perhaps set up fields for them to bareknuckle.... I was passing between Cheeverstown & Citywest on the Luas 5 weeks ago & there was an all out war happening between two group of travellers on a derelict factory site with no facilities and rubbish everywhere. If this was a settled group fighting they wouldnt hvae to fight in such an unsuitable environment...........

Disgraceful Joe

Bebopclown

brooke 2 wrote: »

Priest at the Connors' family funeral in Ballally to speak about the terrible prejudice shown to travellers. Hope he also presents the other side.

I hope he remembers to talk about how the family have terrorised people working in local stores for years on end!

Bebopclown

Full Marx wrote: »

In case it makes you look bad?

Knowing the family in question, I would assume it would be because it would make them look much worse!

Dubl07

Seek first to understand wrote: »

Hi All,

as a close friend and supporter of two of the families that live in Rockville road I want to say thanks for the words of support and encouragement.

I think Dubl07 nailed it with "The council need to treat all residents of the borough fairly."

There is so much more to this story than any of us will ever know and some is better left unsaid. It is a horrific tragedy made inordinately worse by the clumsy knee jerk reaction and lack of planning and foresight by the County Council and those who would judge either these poor traveller families or the residents without facts compassion and insight.

We only see parts and some unfortunately only see the parts they want to see.

I hope the council learn for this and provide adequate and suitable accommodation not just for these poor families but others who are disadvantaged in our society and community.

Thanks agin to everyone for thinking, discussing and debating. I hope we all keep debating and sharing points of view so we can enjoy a better less judgmental society in the future.

Best regards

Full Marx wrote: »

In case it makes you look bad?

While residents of the wider area may have come together to support Rockville against an onslaught, some information may not be fully verified or even where it is may not currently be timely to share.

Corvo, I hope the remaining burials pass peacefully in your neck of the woods over the coming days.

Barry Badrinath

Case closed.

This thread should be nuked from orbit!

Richard Hillman

RTE News were quick to mention the criticism of the residents. Nothing said about the outpouring of support for them.

Any social media outlet that I have seen comments on the issue seems to be in support of the residents (barring special interest groups)

Penn

end of the road wrote: »

the council will probably have found something better. it won't be because of a few nimbys if they have decided not to use the site.

So I take it then you're admitting the decision to use the site in Rockville Drive was a poor and rushed decision and that better options were available?

I mean it's either that or you're trying to save face by not admitting the residents' arguments and protesting succeeded.

BoatMad

Richard Hillman wrote: »

RTE News were quick to mention the criticism of the residents. Nothing said about the outpouring of support for them.

Any social media outlet that I have seen comments on the issue seems to be in support of the residents (barring special interest groups)

of course , far greater PC kudos for RTE to be seen to bash , rich white middle class sub-urbanites then to shine a spotlight on the real issues

end of the road

FortySeven wrote: »

You are unbelievable. Clearly a victory for the residents and rightfully so.

no victory as possibly any legislation in relation to giving travelers ethnicity could include legislation to stop the blockading of planned haulting sites by local residents, possibly even using lethal force. of course thats just speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if this doesn't end well for anyone having an issue with haulting sites

Jayop wrote: »

lol

Of course it's because the residents blocked them.

its not. the laws are on the council's side. if they wanted to badly use that site they could do it.

NomadicGray

end of the road wrote: »

no victory as possibly any legislation in relation to giving travelers ethnicity could include legislation to stop the blockading of planned haulting sites by local residents, possibly even using lethal force.

Lethal force? Seriously?

Jayop

end of the road wrote: »

no victory as possibly any legislation in relation to giving travelers ethnicity could include legislation to stop the blockading of planned haulting sites by local residents, possibly even using lethal force. of course thats just speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if this doesn't end well for anyone having an issue with haulting sites


its not. the laws are on the council's side. if they wanted to badly use that site they could do it.

And it's perfectly legal to stage a peaceful protest which the residents did to great effect.

Eutow

end of the road wrote: »

no victory as possibly any legislation in relation to giving travelers ethnicity could include legislation to stop the blockading of planned haulting sites by local residents, possibly even using lethal force. of course thats just speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if this doesn't end well for anyone having an issue with haulting sites


its not. the laws are on the council's side. if they wanted to badly use that site they could do it.

Lethal force, as in killing any protester? I thought you were against the death penalty?

end of the road

Penn wrote: »

So I take it then you're admitting the decision to use the site in Rockville Drive was a poor and rushed decision and that better options were available?

the use of the site wasn't a poor and rushed decisian at all. the council probably did think of the car park as well at the time but felt it would be better to move the family to a site near by so not to disrupt them to much at this tragic time.

Penn wrote: »

I mean it's either that or you're trying to save face by not admitting the residents' arguments and protesting succeeded.

i'm not saving any face, as i've no need to. the residents had no argument once they blockaded a site being planned to be used legitimately by the council who own it. if the council really wanted to use the site the law would be on their side and make no mistake about it those residents would be moved on. the decisian came from the council and any nimby protests don't work on local authorities.

The Talking Bread

end of the road wrote: »

the residents don't get to "allow" anything. the council makes the decisian. if the council want the site to happen badly enough they will make it happen. if the council decide not to it will be the councils decisian.



so the nimbys block the land and the council should implement amenities maintained by them for the residents? absolutely no way. why should the council do any of that considering the residents are blocking them from using their site for its purpose. the council owe these people no favours. the council own the land, they can do what they like with it. as i said, why don't the residents make the council a decent offer for the land and buy it. then they can do whatever they like with it.



if the council get their way? the council are following the laws. they have to find accommodation for this family by law. there was no and will be no riding rough shot. the council are entitled to use the land. the nimbys are blocking them and the council are stupidly not moving them on. the law is on the councils side.

Of course they should have a voice as clearly now conceded by The Council in decision today. If it was a private residence that was being set up it would go through a planning process. The least the Council should of done, even if it was an emergency situation is consult with the long term residents who pay council taxes and in way contribute towards such sites even if it was an emergency situation You have given up accepting other opinions as you are so blindsided in proving your point and disputing for the sake of it that you wont give up or accept other logic at this stage.

FrStone

end of the road wrote: »

its not. the laws are on the council's side. if they wanted to badly use that site they could do it.

Council said part of the reason it is changing sites is that it was afraid residents could take legal action... That suggests the law is on the residents side.

end of the road

Jayop wrote: »

And it's perfectly legal to stage a peaceful protest which the residents did to great effect.

its illegal to blockade entrance and access to a site which would be used for legitimate purposes. so their peaceful nimbyism would not be covered, compared to the laws that exist and would be on the council's side

Eutow wrote: »

Lethal force, as in killing any protester? I thought you were against the death penalty?

yes i am, and if you read my post i suggest it would be speculation, however i don't believe this will end well for nimbys wishing to blockade council sites to stop them from being used.

Barry Badrinath

end of the road wrote: »

possibly even using lethal force

Im sorry but do you actually know what that phrase means? You are really up in the clouds arent ya!

Protesting and blockading = Bad
Using force to harm or kill = Good

Would you ever log off!

Eutow

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not saving any face, as i've no need to. the residents had no argument once they blockaded a site being planned to be used legitimately by the council who own it. if the council really wanted to use the site the law would be on their side and make no mistake about it those residents would be moved on. the decisian came from the council and any nimby protests don't work on local authorities.

The council did want to use the site, and if none of the residents blocked the entrance, the council would be there onsite preparing it. The travellers may also have been onsite already at this stage. The protest obviously had some effect. The residents now need to make sure the council stay away and that they don't try anything sneaky.

end of the road

FrStone wrote: »

Council said part of the reason it is changing sites is that it was afraid residents could take legal action... That suggests the law is on the residents side.

it actually doesn't, it suggests that the council do not wish to have nimbys cost us tax payers money in fighting their nimbyism. so the council saved me money in a round about way

c montgomery

end of the road wrote: »

its illegal to blockade entrance and access to a site which would be used for legitimate purposes. so their peaceful nimbyism would not be covered, compared to the laws that exist and would be on the council's side


yes i am, and if you read my post i suggest it would be speculation, however i don't believe this will end well for nimbys wishing to blockade council sites to stop them from being used.

What's a nimby? ?

end of the road

Eutow wrote: »

The council did want to use the site, and if none of the residents blocked the entrance, the council would be there onsite preparing it. The travellers may also have been onsite already at this stage. The protest obviously had some effect. The residents now need to make sure the council stay away and that they don't try anything sneaky.

the council can enter the site at any time, any day. the residents will eventually get board of looking over their shoulders. the council can simply sit back and wait. bide their time, and when the time is right enter the site.

c montgomery wrote: »

What's a nimby? ?

not in my back yard

Jayop

end of the road wrote: »

the use of the site wasn't a poor and rushed decisian at all. the council probably did think of the car park as well at the time but felt it would be better to move the family to a site near by so not to disrupt them to much at this tragic time.

It's a tragic time for the family for sure, but what about the disruption to the lives of people who worked all their lives to buy or rent a home at their own great expense.

end of the road wrote: »

its illegal to blockade entrance and access to a site which would be used for legitimate purposes. so their peaceful nimbyism would not be covered, compared to the laws that exist and would be on the council's side


yes i am, and if you read my post i suggest it would be speculation, however i don't believe this will end well for nimbys wishing to blockade council sites to stop them from being used.

It may be illegal to blockade a road, it's illegal for the taxi drivers to create blockades, it's illegal for lorry drivers and tractors to do it too. I don't remember anyone threatening them with lethal force.

Forget lethal force, lethal farce this argument is from you.

The Talking Bread

end of the road wrote: »

no victory as possibly any legislation in relation to giving travelers ethnicity could include legislation to stop the blockading of planned haulting sites by local residents, possibly even using lethal force. of course thats just speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if this doesn't end well for anyone having an issue with haulting sites


its not. the laws are on the council's side. if they wanted to badly use that site they could do it.

Travellers mantra is equality. How about starting with equal laws on planning permission for sites. Settled people cant even build an extension most of time without going through a legal process. My uncle wasn't even able to close the gate on hsi own property as it was on the mainstreet and the Council wanted to use it for public parking!!!! Took him 2 years and a lot of money & stress for them to concede he had the right to shut it!

NomadicGray

c montgomery wrote: »

What's a nimby? ?

Not In My Back Yarders.

Jayop

end of the road wrote: »

the council can enter the site at any time, any day. the residents will eventually get board of looking over their shoulders. the council can simply sit back and wait. bide their time, and when the time is right enter the site.

A bit like someone who would break into peoples homes and farms to rob them?

FortySeven

c montgomery wrote: »

What's a nimby? ?

Not in my back yard

Eutow

end of the road wrote: »

its illegal to blockade entrance and access to a site which would be used for legitimate purposes. so their peaceful nimbyism would not be covered, compared to the laws that exist and would be on the council's side


yes i am, and if you read my post i suggest it would be speculation, however i don't believe this will end well for nimbys wishing to blockade council sites to stop them from being used.

Well, I can assume you would be against lethal force then. It won't happen anyway here.

Spanish Eyes

Best solution all round.

The residents are to be commended for the peaceful way they undertook their legitimate protest. They didn't go mad and bad, they just peacefully did what I and others would have done in similar circumstances.

Now the bereaved will have a home and the Rockville residents can hopefully go back to peaceful enjoyment of THEIR homes.

I would be very wary still though. That site at Rockville is zoned for Social Housing, now I'm not saying they will, but what is to stop the council from building social houses and accommodating travellers in those houses out of sheer bloody spite lol.

I need to take a step back and breathe. This has been a terrible episode for all concerned.

Jayop

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Best solution all round.

The residents are to be commended for the peaceful way they undertook their legitimate protest. They didn't go mad and bad, they just peacefully did what I and others would have done in similar circumstances.

Now the bereaved will have a home and the Rockville residents can hopefully go back to peaceful enjoyment of THEIR homes.

I would be very wary still though. That site at Rockville is zoned for Social Housing, now I'm not saying they will, but what is to stop the council from building social houses and accommodating travellers in those houses out of sheer bloody spite lol.

I need to take a step back and breathe. This has been a terrible episode for all concerned.

Social housing with travellers likely wouldn't be a problem for the residents although I can't say that with any certainty. The issue is a messy halting site which would be there for ever.