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

Plumbthedepths · 25-10-2018 05:19PM

Brendan Bendar wrote:

One term only....thatâ€™s what he said. Florist on a jolly to OZ and NZ funded I assume by The Brenner and others.... nah mate .. over cooked the gravy there, time to jog on and enjoy the numerous pinshuns and write flowery â€˜poetryâ€™

I've read some of his poetry, better he enjoys the pensions and goes for a walk.

Idbatterim · 25-10-2018 05:20PM

mickdw wrote: »

No new polls whatsoever in mainstream media based on info taken after casey comments.
What a corrupt little island this is.

The media scum won’t be able to hide tomorrow’s figures!!!

Gravelly · 25-10-2018 05:20PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Could you give an example of this 'hysteria' from RTE or the IT?

I would like to see what your definition of 'hysteria' is.

Tell ya what - go look at last weeks papers and decide for yourself.

I'm still waiting for your non-traveller house refusals for not having a stable.

JeffKenna · 25-10-2018 05:21PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Could you give an example of this 'hysteria' from RTE or the IT?

I would like to see what your definition of 'hysteria' is.

I think you've actually added a few votes to Casey over the last few days. .. Keep up the good work Francie!

jmayo · 25-10-2018 05:21PM

As I keep saying Higgins massive lead in the polls was in no small part down to FF and FG voters voting for him.

If he loses those, and in rural areas I would say there is huge chance he will, then Higgins will get nowhere near the massive lead he once had in polls.

IMHO Casey is in with one hell of a chance, but it needs everyone who agrees with him, everyone who is tired of the shyte been foisted on it by the media and some politicians to vote for him.

Even in cities Casey's points make sense with a chunk of the electorate.
That would be the chunk that works and gets nothing in return in comparison to those he has spoken about.

Gravelly · 25-10-2018 05:22PM

gmisk wrote: »

The only thing I saw about the blasphemy thing was that Ronan Mullen was on campaigning for a No - I am definitely a yes then!

The only thing I saw about it was ali selim calling for No.

Idbatterim · 25-10-2018 05:25PM

This isn’t just about the travellers. His comments about the welfare state and this budget being an insult to workers was bang on , same as last budget! Seems as nobody gives a **** about you if you have a job, as you’ll be living the high life! Suck of hearing about these “minorities” the majority here , paying for it all , stressed , working to the bone. Does anyone other than Casey stand up for them ? No ... thought not !

Sycamore Tree · 25-10-2018 05:25PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

:D:D

I'm starting to think he could win this.

No Ted, it was Jaws 2, it's a different shark!!

FrancieBrady · 25-10-2018 05:28PM

Gravelly wrote: »

Tell ya what - go look at last weeks papers and decide for yourself.

I'm still waiting for your non-traveller house refusals for not having a stable.

And for the third time I will say (probably pointlessly) that I wouldn't be able to find one. Not sure what point that makes when hundreds of social houses are turned down for a variety of reasons. But you insist, like Casey trying to make this a solely traveller issue. It isn't.
Have a read,
https://www.google.ie/search?q=hundreds+turn+down+social+housing&oq=hundre&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57.3978j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 I made the point and backed it up before when I made it.

So could you back up your point about 'hysteria' from RTE and IT now? I have read the IT since I was a young man and it is part of my daily news reading and I listen to most of RTE's current affairs radio output and have neither read or heard anything approaching 'hysteria' in the last week.
This thread however...where people have talked about 'plagues' and 'towns and villages on their knees' would fit my definition of 'hysteria'. Interested in yours.

pumpkin4life · 25-10-2018 05:28PM

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

No Ted, it was Jaws 2, it's a different shark!!

We're going to need a bigger caravan.

Jackman25 · 25-10-2018 05:31PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am expressing my opinion of what he said and how he said it and what he did next.
First of all, he targeted a community.
Secondly, he said something that is simply not true about SEMS.
Thirdly, he generalised about that community.
And Fourthly, he went to a location for a photo op, singularly designed (and successfully) to stoke anger against a community.

All the hallmarks of an incitement campaign. The results of which are all around you on this thread.

Are the 1st and 3rd points not redundant - he BOTH targetted AND generalised about the community?
The only thing worse than nonsense is padded nonsense.

gmisk · 25-10-2018 05:31PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

This isn’t just about the travellers. His comments about the welfare state and this budget being an insult to workers was bang on , same as last budget! Seems as nobody gives a **** about you if you have a job, as you’ll be living the high life! Suck of hearing about these “minorities” the majority here , paying for it all , stressed , working to the bone. Does anyone other than Casey stand up for them ? No ... thought not !

You do realise as president he wont be able to do anything about any of these things?

He also would take us out of the EU if he could.....what are peoples opinion on that?

25-10-2018 05:31PM

gmisk wrote: »

If travellers hadnt have been brought up...he would likely have come last polling 2%. Do you honestly think different?

I personally dont think his comments are racist at all, he maybe worded a few things poorly but its all been a bit of a storm in a teacup really.

I also wouldnt vote for him in a million years because I think he is a rambling clown and would be an embarrassment as president, which you know is what we are meant to be voting on.....

Good post and fair play to you. Entitled to your opinion just like everyone else and good to see you didn't flash the R-card just because you don't like Peter Casey.

Just on this part;

gmisk wrote: »

If travellers hadnt have been brought up...he would likely have come last polling 2%.

What does that say to you? To me it says something along the lines that someone in a position of influence has finally said something that resonates with a large portion of wider society. Someone with a forum saying something that others are afraid to because it's not PC. Now, whether that's relevant or not to the Presidential race is another story but to me it just shows that a lot of people are fed up of cliched soundbytes that toe the line.

Rightly or wrongly, this is one of the few times someone's said it out and as a result, it's apparently gonna be reflected in polls. I say apparently as we haven't received any official ones since the comments were made which I find odd... but I digress.

Plumbthedepths · 25-10-2018 05:32PM

FrancieBrady wrote:

And for the third time I will say (probably pointlessly) that I wouldn't be able to find one. Not sure what point that makes when hundreds of social houses are turned down for a variety of reasons. But you insist, like Casey trying to make this a solely traveller issue. It isn't. Have a read, I made the point

True lots of houses are turned down for several reasons then the house is offered to someone else who is waiting. The houses the travellers in Tipp turned down are only of use to the McCarthys as no else will get to live there despite what you or any one else will try and claim. Peter McCarthy gave an interview to the Irish Examiner some time back before Casey made his comments. He claimed the council promised them stabling for 2 horses and a half arce of land. The council denies this. No matter what way you look at it, families turning down houses in the middle of a housing crisis because they are not getting houses for their horses is a joke. Any council willing to build stables when the homeless figures are 300 short of 10000 deserves to be dissolved.

FrancieBrady · 25-10-2018 05:35PM

Jackman25 wrote: »

Are the 1st and 3rd points not redundant - he BOTH targetted AND generalised about the community?
The only thing worse than nonsense is padded nonsense.

What?

He first of all targeted a community to speak about and then generalised about them.

Plumbthedepths · 25-10-2018 05:36PM

FrancieBrady wrote:

He first of all targeted a community to speak about and then generalised about them.

I would suggest the interviewer targeted the community you are defending, Casey answered a question posed to him.

Jackman25 · 25-10-2018 05:38PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

He first of all targeted a community to speak about and then generalised about them.

What way did he target them? Was he not asked a question on the subject?

gmisk · 25-10-2018 05:42PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Good post and fair play to you. Entitled to your opinion just like everyone else and good to see you didn't flash the R-card just because you don't like Peter Casey.

Just on this part;

What does that say to you? To me it says something along the lines that someone in a position of influence has finally said something that resonates with a large portion of wider society. Someone with a forum saying something that others are afraid to because it's not PC. Now, whether that's relevant or not to the Presidential race is another story but to me it just shows that a lot of people are fed up of cliched soundbytes that toe the line.

Rightly or wrongly, this is one of the few times someone's said it out and as a result, it's apparently gonna be reflected in polls. I say apparently as we haven't received any official ones since the comments were made which I find odd... but I digress.

I dont disagree with anything you have said.
I liked the fact he was honest enough to say he wouldn't want a halting site on his front door, he was the only candidate who did, the others were disingenuous, comments like that are refreshing. I think he would make a very poor and potentially embarassing president however as I said.

Some of the areas (travellers included) are not relevant at all RE the presidential race imo.

I think he will honestly do well, if he polled over 20% though I would be really shocked (12-15 sounds about right).

But that is some turnaround in fairness.

FrancieBrady · 25-10-2018 05:42PM

Jackman25 wrote: »

What way did he target them? Was he not asked a question on the subject?

It is my opinion, looking at all that he did that it was a carefully worked out strategy.
The comments to incite,
The trip to Tipp,
The weekend break,
The return, because of the support he received.

Brilliant strategy, no doubt about it, but wholly exploitative too. What he lacked, was any facts or backup for what he said. Witness his complete collapse on the issue when questioned, particularly by McCullagh.

jmayo · 25-10-2018 05:43PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

What might play in Higgin's favour is that there will probably be a shockingly low turnout.

Older people tend to vote more than young people and they would be typical Higgins voters.
...

Are you kidding older people in rural Ireland will probably crawl to the polling station to vote for the first candidate for a political office that spoke the truth.

gmisk wrote: »

You might be right.

I think in general young people would be more likely to vote for Michael D though?

...

Depends where they grew up I would say.

gmisk wrote: »

You do realise as president he wont be able to do anything about any of these things?

He also would take us out of the EU if he could.....what are peoples opinion on that?

Ah yes when all else fails resort ot the line "sure why vote for him since he can't do anything."

Why vote for Mickie D when all he does is spend loads of money on jet trips and garden parties?

Well Casey has done more to highlight the divide in this country between the media, the dogooders and political elites on one side and the ordinary people that live with the consequences of their policies day to day.

He will have lit a touchpaper that people who are tired of the shyte can rally behind and it is a warning shot across the bows of the major political parties and politicians.

It is the ultimate protest vote and unlike Trump or Brexit it doesn't destroy the country.

And hell I like and respect the guys honesty.

25-10-2018 05:47PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

taxi man just told me

He
Everyone in his family
And all his friends

Are voting for Casey tomorrow.

If anyone knows how to fix the Government, it's those lads in the taxis.

25-10-2018 05:50PM

gmisk wrote: »

The only thing I saw about the blasphemy thing was that Ronan Mullen was on campaigning for a No

Gravelly wrote: »

The only thing I saw about it was Ali Selim calling for No.

Two fantastic reasons to vote YES.

gmisk · 25-10-2018 05:51PM

jmayo wrote: »

Are you kidding older people in rural Ireland will probably crawl to the polling station to vote for the first candidate for a political office that spoke the truth.

Depends where they grew up I would say.

Ah yes when all else fails resort ot the line "sure why vote for him since he can't do anything."

Why vote for Mickie D when all he does is spend loads of money on jet trips and garden parties?

Well Casey has done more to highlight the divide in this country between the media, the dogooders and political elites on one side and the ordinary people that live with the consequences of their policies day to day.

He will have lit a touchpaper that people who are tired of the shyte can rally behind and it is a warning shot across the bows of the major political parties and politicians.

It is the ultimate protest vote and unlike Trump or Brexit it doesn't destroy the country.

And hell I like and respect the guys honesty.

Did I say a president can't do anything? But let's be honest a lot of the role is ceremonial really, the best the president can do is highlight issues a lot of the time. It suits someone who is articulate, diplomatic and measured, casey is none of those things imo.
I wouldn't trust casey to perform the role well, as simple as that.
He would be far better suited to running as a TD and I have no doubt he would get some votes.

Also
Dogooders? Lol ... Jeepers I haven't heard that word outside of a scooby doo episode!

25-10-2018 05:52PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

He first of all targeted a community to speak about and then generalised about them.

Sweet Lord Baby Jaysis in the manger. He was asked about them. How is that him targetting anyone!?

oceanman · 25-10-2018 05:53PM

gmisk wrote: »

You do realise as president he wont be able to do anything about any of these things?

He also would take us out of the EU if he could.....what are peoples opinion on that?

I didn't know he was anti EU...might give him my vote for that alone!

25-10-2018 05:54PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is my opinion, looking at all that he did that it was a carefully worked out strategy.
The comments to incite,
The trip to Tipp,
The weekend break,
The return, because of the support he received.

No need to call where they live a tip. Show some respect.

gmisk · 25-10-2018 05:55PM

oceanman wrote: »

I didn't know he was anti EU...might give him my vote for that alone!

So you are up for Ireland having there own Brexit? That will work out brilliantly I'd say...

FrancieBrady · 25-10-2018 05:57PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Sweet Lord Baby Jaysis in the manger. He was asked about them. How is that him targetting anyone!?

So why didn't he 'generalise' about all the abuses of social welfare and all the crime committed.
He selected (targetted) one community to attack. And the reaction here alone will show you a motive for doing that.
What ever you think of the other candidates they didn't stoop that low.

oceanman · 25-10-2018 05:58PM

gmisk wrote: »

So you are up for Ireland having there own Brexit? That will work out brilliantly I'd say...

I was having a laugh....I wouldn't vote for the guy in a million years

wexie · 25-10-2018 05:58PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you now comment on the links that show hundreds of refusals of various types of social housing for a variety of reasons including unsuitability (the travellers in Tipp point)

Have any argument been out forward as to why these houses are unsuitable? Beyond not having stables and grazing that is?

If we can all agree that the demand for stables and grazing is completely unreasonable and pretty far from any kind of economic reality...

And they haven't put forward any other reasons do to not think perhaps they need to either finance themselves or change what they consider suitable?

What if I decided only houses with a gym and a 6 car garage are suitable to my 'needs' (which I defined myself) should I now expect the state to furnish me with a house with a gym and 6 car garage?

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

Comments