Travellers want a state apology

Vincent Vega

Gravelly wrote: »

I hear stories on here about lovely, kind, generous, hard-working, law-abiding travellers all the time.
I've never seen one, nor has anybody I know in real life, so, like unicorns, leprechauns, and angels, I'll respect anybodies right to tell stories about them, and even believe in them, but until I actually see one with my own eyes, or even see evidence that one exists, I'll assume they are the wishful thinking of naive innocents.

You generally have to give people the time of day, set your prejudices aside and actually get to know them before you'd experience the first three.
The fourth would require them to actually receive equal opportunity employment. Even still, I have worked with a number of Travellers working hard to better their community.
And the last I've known quite a few

iamwhoiam

Gravelly wrote: »

I hear stories on here about lovely, kind, generous, hard-working, law-abiding travellers all the time.
I've never seen one, nor has anybody I know in real life, so, like unicorns, leprechauns, and angels, I'll respect anybodies right to tell stories about them, and even believe in them, but until I actually see one with my own eyes, or even see evidence that one exists, I'll assume they are the wishful thinking of naive innocents.

I would never be so rude as to presume a post of yours was a figment of your imagination . Then any post on any subject you have no experience of could be a figment of that posters imagination ?

Gravelly

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I would never be so rude as to presume a post of yours was a figment of your imagination . Then any post on any subject you have no experience of could be a figment of that posters imagination ?

If I said I'd seen a rainbow-coloured unicorn, you would assume that rainbow-coloured unicorns not only exist, but are quite common, and anybody who doesn't believe in rainbow-coloured unicorns are wrong?

iamwhoiam

Gravelly wrote: »

If I said I'd seen a rainbow-coloured unicorn, you would assume that rainbow-coloured unicorns not only exist, but are quite common, and anybody who doesn't believe in rainbow-coloured unicorns are wrong?

Not even close to my point .But whatever

Gravelly

Vincent Vega wrote: »

You generally have to give people the time of day, set your prejudices aside and actually get to know them before you'd experience the first three.
The fourth would require them to actually receive equal opportunity employment. Even still, I have worked with a number of Travellers working hard to better their community.
And the last I've known quite a few

Not at all. The vast majority of people I come across, from all walks of life, every day, base their behaviour on their own moral code rather than waiting for me to get to know them before they decide whether they will act civilised, or like savages.

Gravelly

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Not even close to my point .But whatever

Read your post again, you seem to have either misunderstood it, or are afraid to address criticisms of it.

Loves_lorries

Vincent Vega wrote: »

What.

I'm referring specifically to people who have this always generalised, unwaveringly bigoted view of what in their mind is the 'Traveller' or 'Travellers' that they use to dismiss, disregard, ridicule and denigrate a people as a whole.

And hold the idea that all and anyone who identify as such are both somehow responsible and culpable for the actions of some others who also do.

I fully accept that there are major issues prevalent within the community, but at the same time not exclusively so. Sure, why not go after all Lithuanians for these supposed Lithuanian crime gangs running amok at the moment? Should they not also be held fully accountable for the crimes of their kind?

I simply don't believe that the hateful response from the settled community can go anyway towards resolving these problems, only worsening them.

What we may really be looking at here are a people who perhaps to some degree have had a hand in digging themselves into an inescapable hole over time, cut themselves off, and as generations pass the problems associated with that are effectively snowballing.

From working within the community I can assure you that there is an awful lot of unspoken suffering.
People carrying the burden of generations upon generations of untreated mental illness, undealt with trauma from physical and emotional abuse, both past and ongoing.
It's also mixed up with a tough sense of pride, so seeking and accepting help is far too uncommon, though progress is being made.

And then there's being made to feel like a fúcking pariah for even existing in the world outside as a 'Traveller' due to the actions of others that are far beyond your control.

Basically, what I'm getting at is to suggest that if people genuinely wish to see an overall improvement between settled and Traveller relations, it may be first of all helpful to try to see them as HUMAN BEINGS.

I would never attempt to excuse some of the cruelty, abuse and what I personally would consider sociopathic behaviour I have seen from certain members of the community.
However, I'd like to feel that these problems do originate from somewhere, can be related to and understood, worked with and over time resolved.

No amount of ridicule, hatred or vitriol is ever going to achieve that, it needs to be met with compassion.

Agreed about the pride thing, traveller culture is an honour culture.

Vincent Vega

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Dont bother, his argument is a childish strawman!

No doubt we will get a response of "ugh then if those groups you refused were black then you're a racist and support Trump and probably love Hitler" and blahblahblahblah.......

Nah.

And I haven't been in any way histrionic in how I've commented on this topic so far.

If a specific Traveller family had trouble with a specific venue it's more than understandable that they should be refused in the future.

Punishing others for their actions isn't.

Gravelly

Vincent Vega wrote: »

Nah.

And I haven't been in any way histrionic in how I've commented on this topic so far.

If a specific Traveller family had trouble with a specific venue it's more than understandable that they should be refused in the future.

Punishing others for their actions isn't.

Out of curiosity, do you think all the hotels and bars that refuse to take bookings for travellers weddings do so out of some weird prejudice against taking money from travellers, or out of the knowledge that the damage to their premises, and the risk to their staff is too high based on decades of experience?

CinemaGuy45

Gravelly wrote: »

Out of curiosity, do you think all the hotels and bars that refuse to take bookings for travellers weddings do so out of some weird prejudice against taking money from travellers, or out of the knowledge that the damage to their premises, and the risk to their staff is too high based on decades of experience?

Nah all those hotel owners are just nasty racist bigots that love Hitler.
I took this photo yesterday I suppose your going to infare I am lying too.

Vincent Vega

Gravelly wrote: »

Out of curiosity, do you think all the hotels and bars that refuse to take bookings for travellers weddings do so out of some weird prejudice against taking money from travellers, or out of the knowledge that the damage to their premises, and the risk to their staff is too high based on decades of experience?

Well like I said, I feel like it should come down to whether or not there is any history between the specific family and the specific establishment.

A refusal on the basis of 'look, your family was here before and you caused trouble, so no' seems more than reasonable.

I don't believe its in any way fair to assume that because the O'Briens from Donegal caused trouble that the Maughans from Kerry will necessarily do so also.
These could be entirely different types of people.

That said, I wouldn't claim that I don't at least understand the apprehension from the owners POV given the general consensus regarding Travellers.

Gravelly

Vincent Vega wrote: »

Well like I said, I feel like it should come down to whether or not there is any history between the specific family and the specific establishment.

A refusal on the basis of 'look, your family was here before and you caused trouble, so no' seems more than reasonable.

I don't believe its in any way fair to assume that because the O'Briens from Donegal caused trouble that the Maughans from Kerry will necessarily do so also.
These could be entirely different types of people.

That said, I wouldn't claim that I don't at least understand the apprehension from the owners POV given the general consensus regarding Travellers.

The thing is, all travellers of the same "clan" will attend the wedding of a member of that clan. This is one of the reasons that there is trouble at so many traveller functions - in many cases, it's the same groups of people all the time.
Unless you can extract a guarantee (which wouldn't be enforceable) that "XX family and YY family and ZZ family will not attend the wedding" then your are almost certainly going to have trouble. This is the same reason there is trouble at traveller funerals, christenings etc.

CinemaGuy45

Vincent Vega wrote: »

That said, I wouldn't claim that I don't at least understand the apprehension from the owners POV given the general consensus regarding Travellers.

Signs of progress bravo.:D
And what group do you think are to blame for this?

CinemaGuy45

Loves_lorries

Gravelly wrote: »

The thing is, all travellers of the same "clan" will attend the wedding of a member of that clan. This is one of the reasons that there is trouble at so many traveller functions - in many cases, it's the same groups of people all the time.
Unless you can extract a guarantee (which wouldn't be enforceable) that "XX family and YY family and ZZ family will not attend the wedding" then your are almost certainly going to have trouble. This is the same reason there is trouble at traveller funerals, christenings etc.

If a traveller goes to accident and emergency for as much as a dislocated finger, the entire extended family shows up within an hour.

A wedding is a gathering fifty times that and the chaos in hospital waiting rooms is pretty evident when Johnny ward gets an ingrown toenail.

Vincent Vega

Gravelly wrote: »

The thing is, all travellers of the same "clan" will attend the wedding of a member of that clan. This is one of the reasons that there is trouble at so many traveller functions - in many cases, it's the same groups of people all the time.
Unless you can extract a guarantee (which wouldn't be enforceable) that "XX family and YY family and ZZ family will not attend the wedding" then your are almost certainly going to have trouble. This is the same reason there is trouble at traveller funerals, christenings etc.

I can't disagree with much of what you're saying here really, other than trouble being a given

I still don't feel like outright across the board refusal is the answer but I do admit it's a tricky one.

Whether having some sort of intermediary to deal with and negotiate bookings and offer assurances/make agreements with venues, and build up some sort of a trust relationship could be a possible option to explore, I'm unsure.

I certainly wouldn't claim to have the answers to these issues, but I just don't think the current situation is one that either Travellers or potential venues particularly enjoy having to deal with.

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Signs of progress bravo.:D
And what group do you think are to blame for this?

I've no trouble acknowledging the difficulty in these situations.

Consensus is formed by a lot of factors unrelated to direct experience with Travellers, so I wouldn't attempt to pinpoint blame.

Eggs For Dinner

Arkham City wrote: »

Is it possible to see the names of who voted? I'd love to know who are the 23 clowns who voted yes.

Only 22 are unknown 😎

wexie

Vincent Vega wrote: »

I still don't feel like outright across the board refusal is the answer but I do admit it's a tricky one.

Whether having some sort of intermediary to deal with and negotiate bookings and offer assurances/make agreements with venues, and build up some sort of a trust relationship could be a possible option to explore, I'm unsure.

I think the problem with that would be that while there are certainly traveller's out there that would be of good will and would behave at a family event, it takes only a few to cause problems.

You say you know some travellers, so I suppose you would be happy to vouch for them right?

Would you be happy to vouch for the fact if they had their wedding at X venue there wouldn't be any trouble? At all?

Cause the intermediary wouldn't be just vouching for the ones they know, they'd have to vouch for all the guests, and they'd have to vouch for all the guests....with alcohol taken....

I don't know what the solution is either by the way. Perhaps we could get Pavee point to put their money where their mouth is and be this intermediary.

In an honest way, if the event goes off without a hitch and without trouble they get to publicize it as much as they want as an example of how we should give travellers a chance, but if it doesn't then they reimburse the venue for any costs and also publicly condemn and address whatever behaviour caused the issues?

Liamario

Sorry, just saw this. State apology, for what?! HAHAHAHAHa

CeilingFly

I was dropping into a local Aldi today.

Saw a white a4 strewn across the pedestrian crossing beside the entrance "parked"

Said to the wife - has to be a Traveller only such scum would park without a care to the obstruction they'd cause other. She laughed and said I just had an issue with them and it was probably someone collecting someone.

I had a €5 bet with her.

We waited a few minutes.

I won my bet.

Vincent Vega

wexie wrote: »

I think the problem with that would be that while there are certainly traveller's out there that would be of good will and would behave at a family event, it takes only a few to cause problems.

You say you know some travellers, so I suppose you would be happy to vouch for them right?

Would you be happy to vouch for the fact if they had their wedding at X venue there wouldn't be any trouble? At all?

Cause the intermediary wouldn't be just vouching for the ones they know, they'd have to vouch for all the guests, and they'd have to vouch for all the guests....with alcohol taken....

I don't know what the solution is either by the way. Perhaps we could get Pavee point to put their money where their mouth is and be this intermediary.

In an honest way, if the event goes off without a hitch and without trouble they get to publicize it as much as they want as an example of how we should give travellers a chance, but if it doesn't then they reimburse the venue for any costs and also publicly condemn and address whatever behaviour caused the issues?

I appreciate your taking the time to respond in a reasonable manner here, as opposed to just trying to cut my post down for what it was never trying to be.

I don't get why even trying to see a way forward and progress a dire situation gets mixed up with and read into as being a blind defense of all and every action under the umbrella.

With regards to me myself vouching... Even vouching for a number of settled friends and family, that they were good people, vouching for those same people absolutely smashed out of it and highly emotional, perhaps not.

I don't know who or what form this intermediary would or could be, but ideally one that was a middle ground with a strong interest in things running smoothly for both sides, with the hope of improving overall relationships and setting an example for future Traveller events.
Maybe there could be some incentives involved to encourage and promote positive behaviour, leading to repeat custom.

I'd say Pavee Point hold a far too established position for such a role, and I wouldn't see them holding Travellers accountable and calling them out for wrongdoing if it were to occur because it would probably damage their relation to the community.

In any case, as far as Travellers are concerned, coming up with a perfect solution for a high concentration of drunk and highly emotional people with plenty of other issues in the mix seems well down the list of priorities. Maybe it will just continue as is for the foreseeable future.

The trouble that can happen at these events is merely a symptom of much greater underlying issues which need to be looked at and addressed first.

It's a slow road ahead, but i think everyday engagement from the settled community, in they hope that these people might or could be good people too would be a positive start.

Odelay

CeilingFly wrote: »

I was dropping into a local Aldi today.

Saw a white a4 strewn across the pedestrian crossing beside the entrance "parked"

Said to the wife - has to be a Traveller only such scum would park without a care to the obstruction they'd cause other. She laughed and said I just had an issue with them and it was probably someone collecting someone.

I had a €5 bet with her.

We waited a few minutes.

I won my bet.

Noticed the same myself, only it was an old Toyota. Knew who would have parked it in such a manner.

NIMAN

CeilingFly wrote: »

I was dropping into a local Aldi today.

Saw a white a4 strewn across the pedestrian crossing beside the entrance "parked"

Said to the wife - has to be a Traveller only such scum would park without a care to the obstruction they'd cause other. She laughed and said I just had an issue with them and it was probably someone collecting someone.

I had a €5 bet with her.

We waited a few minutes.

I won my bet.

How did you know they were a traveller?

Eggs For Dinner

NIMAN wrote: »

How did you know they were a traveller?

Load of used power tools on the back seat???

Gravelly

NIMAN wrote: »

How did you know they were a traveller?

The same way I knew the Avensis parked skewways across the door of my local petrol station shop last Saturday was a traveller - they are lazy and inconsiderate as a rule.
Go to any supermarket in any provincial town anywhere in Ireland any weekend and look out for cars parked across the doorways, in handicapped spaces, or blocking entrances. There’s a good chance the driver will be a traveller.

rn

My own recent encounter with the travelling community was disappointing. There's a vacant development site of a few acres in size joined to the estate I live in. On other side of the estate a settled traveller has built a nice house and set up a sales business. The same traveller has kept a few horses on the vacant site. Rumour is he bought it off nama, but others say he just grazes it. Either way he has about 10 horses of various sizes and colours along with 4 donkeys in the land. They often use one or two of them for pulling those jaunting cars on main road.

Anyway last week the horses walked through the rotten fence between our housing estate and the field. The horses were delighted with the lush green grass and were frightened of the gathering neighbours. They were bit wild to say least and were running through gardens, jumping fences and around cars. Luckily nothing was damaged.

I went up to the family and spoke to adult son and mother. They disowned the horses completely to my face, twice. Queue call to guards, who promptly arrived to corral the horses back into the field using garda cars. The mother and son drove down to watch this from their 4x4.

So much for good neighbour relations.

NIMAN

Gravelly wrote: »

The same way I knew the Avensis parked skewways across the door of my local petrol station shop last Saturday was a traveller - they are lazy and inconsiderate as a rule.
Go to any supermarket in any provincial town anywhere in Ireland any weekend and look out for cars parked across the doorways, in handicapped spaces, or blocking entrances. There’s a good chance the driver will be a traveller.

To be fair you want to come to Derry....its full of inconsiderate eejits who park across bays, in disabled spaces etc, and none of them are travellers.

Ally Dick

I heard a good one from a few years ago. A man with some land arrived one day to find about 10 piebald horses grazing in his fields. He found the perpetrators and had a chat with them. He told them that he didn't have a problem with them putting the horses on his land, but he couldn't be held responsible if anything happened the horses, or if the horses did anything, and he got them to sign a disclaimer as such. The next week all the horses in the field were found dead. Someone mysteriously shot them.

BBFAN

Ally Dick wrote:

I heard a good one from a few years ago. A man with some land arrived one day to find about 10 piebald horses grazing in his fields. He found the perpetrators and had a chat with them. He told them that he didn't have a problem with them putting the horses on his land, but he couldn't be held responsible if anything happened the horses, or if the horses did anything, and he got them to sign a disclaimer as such. The next week all the horses in the field were found dead. Someone mysteriously shot them.

What's good about that?

fleet_admiral

I just armed my house alarm

My apologies, traveller's