Peter Casey believes Travellers should not be recognised as an ethnic minority

....

elperello wrote: »

Security and logistics are not a red herring.
Getting the head of State to his destination safely and home again in one piece is an operation entirely depending on security and logistics.

I did mention the training aspect as well as the hours.
Having real operational experience within our own country is important.

I agree that it is only minor enough in the grand scheme.

Ah come on now he's going to Kerry and Belfast he's not walking down through downtown Detroit at one in the morning. A trip to Kerry would need very little security and the PSNI would provide security for him up North. Like I said he just didn't want to go by car. I'm sure the crew are training all the time outside ferrying MDH around - theyre not waiting for the latest 20 minute trip to Belfast to get experience.

If you have no issue with it that's fine but it annoys the hell out of me TBH. I expect more from those in power - especially when they are constantly preaching to us little folk how we should live our lives.

Anyway I'm out.

Omackeral wrote: »

He said he wouldn't want to live beside Travellers, as in a camp site. Eh yeah, I'd wager most people wouldn't. I'd say you yourself really wouldn't. Give out about it if you want but you know you wouldn't fancy it and neither would your family. FWIW, I thought they were all telling porkies too and that rubs me up the wrong way.

Proper disingenuous - I'd nearly go as far to say downright liars the lot of them. That was the point I said I'd vote for Peter. If a halting site appeared next to any of their houses I'd say theyd be the first onto the guards and their local council to get it sorted. How they kept a straight face while saying it baffles me TBH

sonic85 wrote: »

Proper disingenuous - I'd nearly go as far to say downright liars the lot of them. That was the point I said I'd vote for Peter. If a halting site appeared next to any of their houses I'd say theyd be the first onto the guards and their local council to get it sorted. How they kept a straight face while saying it baffles me TBH

MDH lives very close to a halting site (according to somebody here who lives near him) and has engaged with them throughout his political life.

Earlier on in the campaign didn't Peter Caseys mention about giving his salary to different charities every month or something? I didn't hear anything about it in the debates. Did he mention it?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

MDH lives very close to a halting site (according to somebody here who lives near him) and has engaged with them throughout his political life.

Just a thought, but the amount you post on here Francie leads me to believe that you are more than one person posting and that you are spinning for MDH.
You seem to know a lot about his expenses, his home/private life and are intent on attacking Casey at every opportunity,
No polls in the last week of an election, unheard of previously, looks like you are running scared of Casey and just how well he might actually be doing

Anyway, have to get to bed now, work tomorrow and today was a long day.

Royal Legend wrote: »

Just a thought, but the amount you post on here Francie leads me to believe that you are more than one person posting and that you are spinning for MDH.
You seem to know a lot about his expenses, his home/private life and are intent on attacking Casey at every opportunity,
No polls in the last week of an election, unheard of previously, looks like you are running scared of Casey and just how well he might actually be doing

Anyway, have to get to bed now, work tomorrow and today was a long day.

I see the conspiracy theories are being lined up to excuse in the event Casey doesn't do as expected.

I am delighted in one way, at least it isn't 'shinner bot' and 'Parnell Sq paying my wages'.

Or maybe I am just a mercenary, available to the highest bidder? Wonder would Casey have much spare cash lying around? :rolleyes:

BTW, small points of order yet again. I know nothing of MDH's expenses, I related my experience of dealing with the president's office under another president.
And I only know he lives near a halting site because he said it on the first TV debate and another poster confirmed it. Both could have been lying about something easily checked I suppose.

And you are right - As a lifelong democrat, Casey as President scares the hell out of me, that is why I am passionately against him.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No idea. Perhaps the original poster will reveal if they are still reading. Higgins said it himself as well by the way.

Do you ever leave boards Francie?, you really need to take a break.

Presumably Boards.ie and other online platforms are subject to tomorrow's moratorium so here goes..

A low turnout has to be a positive for Casey as from everything I can see online the only significant portion of voters who are truly exercised enough to really care about this election are his supporters - aside from the few stalker-ish type weirdos on here and Twitter who reply to everything supportive of anyone other than SF or Michael D.

I do wish the candidate was somebody more articulate and capable of putting across the views that are common amongst the average person I encounter but he has started something.

I spend the majority of my time between one of the ****tiest most sectarian places in the north, a working class town in Louth and a well to do area in South Dublin and I've yet to meet an intelligent informed person who's moral compass was accurately portrayed by the daily outrage in the media.

The only vote that will make a difference is a vote for Casey!

goat2 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance
Blasphemy means, slandering other religions, is this right

It means saying things like “god is a bollix’.

Oops...

goat2 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance
Blasphemy means, slandering other religions, is this right

No that is not right. You can’t slander a religion. You can slander a person. Removing blasphemy from the constitution means that one is free to make comment on or criticize a religion, which may cause offense. In other words ‘Free speech’. The Danish cartoons depicting Mohamed or indeed the Charlie Hebdo publications would likely never have happened here because of our blasphemy laws.

haley79 wrote: »

i wanted to retain the blasphemy law but i see Ali selim from clonskeagh mosk wants to keep it too
whatever he wants i will vote the opposite

Nice to see you have a rational way of making decisions.

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a while ago now since Peter Casey’s original remarks that Travellers were ‘basically people camped in someone else’s land’. Does he mean illegally camped? Even a cursary look at the CSO stats would show this not to be the case, so why say it?

The CSO has stats on who slept where last night? Please show us what you mean.

goat2 wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance
Blasphemy means, slandering other religions, is this right

Quick google shows.
the act or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.

And the constitution says
the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

So saying Jesus, Mary and Fcuking Joseph would probably count.