nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why aren't traveller children placed in foster homes?

JoeyPeeps

I'm sure may of us wouldn't like our children raised on a halting site yet it is regarded as an acceptable standard of living for travellers. Why do we allow it? I think if more traveller children were placed in foster homes we would have far less problems.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Surreptitious

RUH OH

tomwaterford

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

I'm sure may of us wouldn't like our children raised on a halting site yet it is regarded as an acceptable standard of living for travellers. Why do we allow it? I think if more traveller children were placed in foster homes we would have far less problems.

What's wrong woth a halting site....once their healthy and cared for??

I know many people what grew up in mobile homes due to old farmhouses/cottages etc being condemned etc?

rodge68

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

I'm sure may of us wouldn't like our children raised on a halting site yet it is regarded as an acceptable standard of living for travellers. Why do we allow it? I think if more traveller children were placed in foster homes we would have far less problems.

Joey, you might take a few yourself..

Ubbquittious

I don't like this idea of forced poshening up that will eventually give way to the idea that you'll need a €400k dwelling with all the mod cons and a shopping centre up the road before you're allowed have kids.

A halting site might not be the lap of luxury but there's nothing inherently unhealthy about living in a caravan long term. Bejoseph there's a lot of kids out there now who could badly do with being sent to live in a place with no wifi, or electricity or running water for a few months

ED E

Ubbquittious wrote: »

A halting site might not be the lap of luxury but there's nothing inherently unhealthy about living in a caravan long term. Bejoseph there's a lot of kids out there now who could badly do with being sent to live in a place with no wifi, or electricity or running water for a few months

Yeah, and when the camp burns down because they're leeching from ESBN that'll be great for their health too.

jca

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I don't like this idea of forced poshening up that will eventually give way to the idea that you'll need a €400k dwelling with all the mod cons and a shopping centre up the road before you're allowed have kids.

A halting site might not be the lap of luxury but there's nothing inherently unhealthy about living in a caravan long term. Bejoseph there's a lot of kids out there now who could badly do with being sent to live in a place with no wifi, or electricity or running water for a few months

Sure bring back the mother and baby homes while your at it. Hard times but happy times eh? Yeah right...

[Deleted User]

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

I'm sure may of us wouldn't like our children raised on a halting site yet it is regarded as an acceptable standard of living for travellers. Why do we allow it? I think if more traveller children were placed in foster homes we would have far less problems.

I wouldn't like my children discriminated against by some randomer because of my background, but that's how it is.

Kids are reasonably resilient. Growing up in a mobile home is only as inhibiting as we allow it to be.

If *we* didn't have this bias, it wouldn't make much difference whether a person were raised in a mobile home, a council flat, or a country estate.

I'm not abrogating traveller parents of their responsibilities, of course, but I know of very few people who don't prejudge a traveller, be they an educator or an employer, or indeed a member of the public. How many employers here would knowingly hire a traveller? Very few if any.

Anyway, Why be so quick to suggest the forcible removal of traveller children from halting sites , when this state houses Irish children in direct provision in the very same situation, in caravans.

Doesn't make sense to be honest.

Ubbquittious

ED E wrote: »

Yeah, and when the camp burns down because they're leeching from ESBN that'll be great for their health too.

Isn't that some sports channel over in the states? I'd doubt that they have much of an interest in that

JoeyPeeps

I saw that new movie trespass against us and I think it reflects the traveller lifestyle rather well. Definitely not an environment to bring children up in.

Atlantic Dawn

It's their culture.

Ubbquittious

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

I saw that new movie trespass against us and I think it reflects the traveller lifestyle rather well. Definitely not an environment to bring children up in.

I saw a great documentary there a while back about a fella who got stuck on mars and lived self-sufficient growing his own spuds and all. Maybe they can go and live over there instead

JoeyPeeps

Ubbquittious wrote: »

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

I saw that new movie trespass against us and I think it reflects the traveller lifestyle rather well. Definitely not an environment to bring children up in.

I saw a great documentary there a while back about a fella who got stuck on mars and lived self-sufficient growing his own spuds and all. Maybe they can go and live over there instead

You're talking science fiction. Im talking about reality.

Ubbquittious

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

You're talking science fiction. Im talking about reality.

Jaysis now lad next you'll be telling me the moon landings didn't happen

Suckit

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

I'm sure may of us wouldn't like our children raised on a halting site yet it is regarded as an acceptable standard of living for travellers. Why do we allow it? I think if more traveller children were placed in foster homes we would have far less problems.

Is this even worth replying to?

hatrickpatrick

People in this thread are jumping to conclusions far too quickly - isn't it clear that the OP is proposing mobile foster homes?

Ken.

There are not foster parents enough for the children already in care. Imagine dumping another 5-6000 children in to the system.

Jurgen Klopp

I'd rather them in a rough halting site than trust Tusla with them thats for sure

sunny2004

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

I'm sure may of us wouldn't like our children raised on a halting site yet it is regarded as an acceptable standard of living for travellers. Why do we allow it? I think if more traveller children were placed in foster homes we would have far less problems.

is this your "Final Solution"

D0NNELLY

Suckit wrote: »

Is this even worth replying to?

No, school is back tomorrow. Just ride it out, nearly there.

Donald Trump

Ubbquittious wrote: »

I saw a great documentary there a while back about a fella who got stuck on mars and lived self-sufficient growing his own spuds and all. Maybe they can go and live over there instead

I don't think I'd be able to live on Mars meself....Cadburys maybe, but Mars isn't as good.

Your Face

Personally I think travellers should be put under closer scrutiny by the state but they should not be harassed as result.
Halting sites like other domicles, can be of various conditions. So I don't think they should be singled out.

PirateShampoo

Same reason they are aloud to burn endless piles of rubbish in the middle of our estate. The bloody place is destroyed because of them. Every two days they pile it up and set it alight and two days later the council show up to clear it all away. The neighbours can't do **** about it because they will get thier windows put in and the council will remove them before confronting the Travellers. The government is terrified to deal with them, so it's play by the rules for normal decent people and do what the **** you want for them. Nothing is going to change until it's the politicians local areas getting completely trashed by them.

tedpan

Ubbquittious wrote:

Isn't that some sports channel over in the states? I'd doubt that they have much of an interest in that

ESB Network..

This thread is entertaining! ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚

Neighsayer

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

I'm sure may of us wouldn't like our children raised on a halting site yet it is regarded as an acceptable standard of living for travellers. Why do we allow it? I think if more traveller children were placed in foster homes we would have far less problems.

The health services have obviously failed you. Have you considered a faith healer

[Deleted User]

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

I saw that new movie trespass against us and I think it reflects the traveller lifestyle rather well. Definitely not an environment to bring children up in.

You saw a film?

Arra sure that makes you the expert on their lifestyle and why the children should be placed in care.

super_furry

They tried it in Australia.

Turns out it's a really, really awful idea - http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/sorry-day-stolen-generations

VinLieger

OP needs to read history books about australian aboriginals having their children foricbly removed for similar reasons

Widdershins

JoeyPeeps wrote: »

I saw that new movie trespass against us and I think it reflects the traveller lifestyle rather well. Definitely not an environment to bring children up in.

If they made a movie about State Child-Snatching maybe that would swing your opinion in the opposite direction. Maybe it would be better to try not to base your views on movies, which are naturally designed to be dramatic, not balanced!

And the answer is because we don't do that in Ireland and plenty of those kids are fine, happy and would prefer to be with their families.

Iseedeadpixels

VinLieger wrote: »

OP needs to read history books about australian aboriginals having their children foricbly removed for similar reasons

It worked for Kylo Ren.

Samaris

super_furry wrote: »

They tried it in Australia.

Turns out it's a really, really awful idea - http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/sorry-day-stolen-generations

Hah, I was thinking that too.

Yeah, the answer is "because it's an appalling idea", OP.