Rhineshark wrote: » So...despite that you know Casey misrepresented it, that there was an agreement understood (or misunderstood), that horses blatantly need grazing land and tat the stables thig was a red herring (they built their own stables on the land they were living on for the past 40 years) you want their horses seized and them to be told to go f*ck themselves...just on general principles? Why?
Spanish Eyes wrote: » We just need Galway city/county council to plan for a halting site near MDH house in Galway. Will fly through the planning process no doubt. They are all a bunch of lilting hypocrites.
blanch152 wrote: » Here is his article from the Sunday Indpendent:https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election-2018/dont-quit-amazing-support-has-helped-me-to-stay-in-race-37441896.html I don't expect everyone to agree with his views, but I struggle to find anything in his words that he needs to apologise for. Fair enough that you don't want to vote for him, but why are some posters going off on some stupid notion that he should apologise for what he said?https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election-2018/casey-sparks-outrage-with-his-racist-remarks-on-travellers-37429086.html Again, his views in this second article could be considered extreme, rude or even a little crude, but where in anything he has said, was it criminal, discriminatory, unfair or untrue? I am struggling to find it. I don't fully agree with him, I think his way of approaching issues is too outspoken and controversial, but he is entitled to his views and entitled to put them forward. Those on here who are calling for him to apologise to the Irish people are full of bluster and hyperbole and nonsense.
naughtb4 wrote: » Why are heads in the council not rolling due to this? The travellers family owned their own land which they were living on in their own bought caravans and from reading on here caused no trouble in the area. They also owned and area for their horses building stables on the land they owned. Can anyone explain why they were having houses built for them??
Matt Barrett wrote: » He's entitled to a view and I don't like it and am of the opinion he should drop out. Well that would be wrong. Disagreeing requires a degree of interest. I disagree and do not like him for the office. Any problem you have with my having an opinion and you calling it into question seems like odd behaviour to me.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Far as I can gather, the family don't own the land but it is privately owned. I haven't been able to find any complaints from the owner about them being there. The council want the land for another use and so came to them with the offer. I could be wrong about that, but I read it in the IT, the family solicitor, was being quoted.
naughtb4 wrote: » Thanks, so and sorry for being dim, they are renting it from a private owners but the council want to buy it and put it to another use? Surely like as would happen to private renters they could just be given notice that they have to vacate? It's not exactly a cost efficient solution by the council, they don't own the land and have no claim for compensation or rights to it
Rhineshark wrote: » What, DNA-testing? They are not "my tests", I'm not a DNA analyst, geneticist or researcher. But applying the standard against which genetic differences in and between populations are measured, the Travellers appear to be distinct, descended but seperate from a diverging point with the rest of the population. The Unionists descended from the Plantations absolutely fit the definition, and are.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots_people Aran Islanders seem highly likely to meet the same isolated population basis that can lead to a distinct group. The only real difference is that it's a more traditional region-based isolation, a defined territory. However, there's then the culture, history etc parts of it. Which, given their experience has been fairly dissimilar to "mainland" Ireland, even the coast, and various other seperate traits, such as the continuation of Irish and the longer survival of traditions that have faded out of mainland Irish society, may qualify. From a friend who grew up on one, there's a strong sense of islanders and mainlanders and its difficult to settle in without family roots on the island. Ultimately, it is similar to nationality as a question of identity, and to some extent it has to be sought or chosen by a large enough group. Nationality is based in identifying with a territory, ethnicity in ancestry and tradition/culture, with enough people. So if the Aran Islanders recognised themselves as and wanted others to recognise them as an ethnic group, there is probably a legit argument for it. Dubs and South Kerry I'm not convinced by, where are you coming from with those? Dublin, being the capital, has always had a regular flow of people, which should have made insularism or partitioning a genetic pool difficult. Regarding differences, I would assume less than Ulster Scots, similar to Aran Islanders but that's just a guess. I think people are putting too much importance into this tbh. It is what it is, we're all covered by nationality. And crime in the Traveller communities is easier to deal with when there is any trust at all. Unsurprisingly, rabble rousing for attention on the basis of attacking their identity (settled or not) and slandering the whole lot doesn't help with either trust or dealing with criminal activity. Especially for such a blatant, cynical political boost by a guy that thinks Romany is a country. It was cheap as hell.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Well, the family have said that they are happy to see the houses go to others, so I am not quite sure what the problem is. The family say they are happy were they are.
naughtb4 wrote: » Maybe that isn't an option? Either way the councils approach makes no sense. If the family the person they are renting off are happy for them continue to live there why build a house? If the person who owns the land wants to sell, let the family look for alternate locations Building them a 1.7m estate in nonsense!!! Something doesn't add up. The land itself isn't worth it. Anyways I digress, just surprised more questions aren't being asked of the council on this.
MrMusician18 wrote: » Clearly the council want them to move so there's less pollution from their current site. At present they are in a section of load that was abandoned 40 years ago when the road was realigned. I can't imagine the council want anything with that land other than to clean it up.
blanch152 wrote: » That does not answer the issue as to what distinguishes an ethnicity.
Cockneys and Scousers would have claims of similar validity to the Travelling Community. To suggest that if a group "recognised themselves as and wanted others to recognise them as an ethnic group, there is probably a legit argument for it" just isn't sufficient. Neither is an isolationist culture, which is what the Travelling Community have, an active refusal to get with their neighbours, a sufficient criterion.
I haven't seen Casey slandering the whole lot of Travellers either, rather than make such unfounded allegations, maybe you could link to where he did. He also didn't attack their identity, he made clear that they should be treated equally to all others.
As I said, I don't like the way he said things, but I find the politically correct outrage against Casey to be distasteful, sinister and the censorious nature of it is particularly surprising coming from people who claim to be left-wing in nature.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Spanish Eyes wrote: » We just need Galway city/county council to plan for a halting site near MDH house in Galway. Will fly through the planning process no doubt. They are all a bunch of lilting hypocrites. Did he not say on the debate that he lived near one? The man has engaged with travellers all his life, there is nothing to suggest to me that he would object.
Choochtown wrote: » Casey is indeed a buffoon. Some direct quotes from his performance on Newstalk this morning: When asked about Varadkar "It's not his perogative to get involved in the process of the presidency a duly elected nominated by 4 counties and a candidate and he tells people not to vote for the person who has been nominated by Kerry, Clare, Limerick and Tipperary" And when asked about his comments on a welfare state..."Do you know if you give a person a fish you feed him for a day you know people are if you teach we should the middle Ireland are the ones that are being squeezed" What is he on about? Seriously how could anyone vote for that man to represent us on the international stage?
Choochtown wrote: » Casey is indeed a buffoon. Some direct quotes from his performance on Newstalk this morning: When asked about Varadkar "It's not his perogative to get involved in the process of the presidency a duly elected nominated by 4 counties and a candidate and he tells people not to vote for the person who has been nominated by Kerry, Clare, Limerick and Tipperary" And when asked about his comments on a welfare state... "Do you know if you give a person a fish you feed him for a day you know people are if you teach we should the middle Ireland are the ones that are being squeezed" What is he on about? Seriously how could anyone vote for that man to represent us on the international stage?
FrancieBrady wrote: » I listened to the tape where he talked about Varadkar being Indian
expectationlost wrote: » which station was it?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Good question! Far as I recall they played it on the News at one on Saturday RTE radio. We discussed it as it happened on one of the threads, I will try and find a time.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Based on the current odds, the race for second place is wide open: MDH 1/50 (unchanged) Gallagher 20/1 (ditto) Na 33/1 (was 30/1 yesterday) Casey 40/1 (was 80/1) Freeman 100/1 (was 80/1) Duffy 100/1 (unchanged)
Rhineshark wrote: » Eh, sorry but if a definition and going through each point of the definition for three different groups as examples doesn't cover it, I'm not sure how to help you. But it is a combination of ancestry and cultural markers, as well as a large enough group strongly udentifying with that culture over a long enough time for it to become traditional (as ultimately, you have to be born into it). All of the above apply to Travellers. If you have a problem with the definition of ethnicity, that is fair enough but we don't have a better working one.
blanch152 wrote: » The problem I have with the definition of ethnicity as put forward (not just by you but in making decisions) is that there is both an element of self-selection and an element of subjectivity to it. How many ancestral markers? How many cultural? What element of genetic drift? Do you exclude consanguinity from the genetic consideration? None of that is written down anywhere, making any decision on ethnicity a subjective one, and therefore can be challenged by anyone, including Casey.
