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

Margaret Cash steals €300 worth of clothes from Penneys and aftermath/etc!

jjmcclure

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/homeless-mumofseven-margaret-cash-appears-in-court-over-stealing-300-worth-of-clothes-from-penneys-37434491.html

Where are RTE now?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Plumbthedepths

tuxy wrote:

I wonder how Mags is getting on over in England, I'm lost without her facebook updates

It was a midterm break with the 'angles' so I assume she is back and the kids are in school, unless she went 'shopping' in Primark.

tuxy

I think she left on Friday so won't be back for a few more days. Lets face it, the childers education is the last thing on her mind.

Plumbthedepths

tuxy wrote:

I think she left on Friday so won't be back for a few more days. Lets face it, the childers education is the last thing on her mind.

Seems to be a cultural thing you could say.

[Deleted User]

Dante7 wrote: »

Ok, so you agree that it was an unsavoury practice?

Well, not necessarily. I have a set of great grandparents who were cousins. If you look into your own history, you almost certainly have, too.

Statistically speaking, it doesn't tend to be a major problem when it happens in a limited way. But absolutely nobody says it should be encouraged either. My only point is that most have us have some consanguinity in our blood, if our family is predominantly from this island. In that sense, our genes are not very different to the travellers.

Dante7

Dante7 wrote: »

Ok, so you agree that it was an unsavoury practice?

Waiting for the answer to this question, Tyrant. Please answer so that we can continue this rational debate...

Paddy Cow

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

So anyway. That's my own personal experience of what happens when one wants to better themselves.

And people like gormdubhgorm and tranny named matilda will tell you that it's all the fault of settled people.

Someone made a post a few days ago about Francie Barrett and another boxer who were doing very well for themselves until they had their careers ruined and were dragged down by other Travellers. It made for very sad reading. Tall poppy syndrome is definitely a thing in Traveller culture.

I even hate referring to it as "culture". It's regressive, oppressive and keeps people trapped in the benefits cycle. Traveller males have a much higher suicide rate that settled people. I wonder how many of them are gay men who can't find their place in their "culture"?. I wonder how many lesbians are married off and forced to have sex with a man whenever he feels like it, even though that's the last thing they want? Funny how the outspoken LGBT+ community won't touch that with a barge pole.

We look down on regimes like Saudi Arabia where women are denied education and teen brides are the norm. We say they need to progress and join the rest of the developed world, yet if we say the same thing about Travellers, suddenly we're racist (despite them being the same race).

[Deleted User]

Dante7 wrote: »

Waiting for the answer to this question, Tyrant. Please answer so that we can continue this rational debate...

I thought I'd just answered this.

Nobody would encourage repeated consanguinity through generations, but there's good evidence which suggests that we all have it to some extent..

That's why CF is so dominant in the Irish population, for example. Its not necessarily to be encouraged, but most of us have this tradition in our families.

padd b1975

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

My great grandfather died at the age of 96. Not an arranged marriage and as I said first time I heard the claim on hear. I can only assume your parents are from India tbh.

Lol.

They're from rural Mayo.

I can think of at least six marriages off the top of my head within a five mile radius of where I grew up that were what we would call a 'cleamhnas' or match, you could double that if speaking to my mother.

Like a lot of things at that time, the finer details weren't really up for public discussion, but it would still have been known how certain couples got together, an open secret I suppose.

Dante7

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I thought I'd just answered this.

Nobody would encourage repeated consanguinity through generations, but there's good evidence which suggests that we all have it to some extent..

That's why CF is so dominant in the Irish population, for example. Its not necessarily to be encouraged, but most of us have this tradition in our families.

You haven't answered the simple question I asked. Was the arranged marriage practice that you mentioned a bad thing? You can take your time. I'm not going anywhere. When you eventually answer that question we can move on to the next logical step. Or do you want to bow out now?

AllForIt

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I wonder how many of them are gay men who can't find their place in their "culture"?. I wonder how many lesbians are married off and forced to have sex with a man whenever he feels like it, even though that's the last thing they want? Funny how the outspoken LGBT+ community won't touch that with a barge pole.

Not sure what you mean by that. The last thing LGB activists would do is support exclusion. LGB folk have the same views on the traveller community as everyone else speaking as one of them. I would find it bizarre if LGB activists in Ireland are defending the traveller demographic simply because of a loose similar issues of discrimination. If they are, and you seem to think they are, I personally wouldn't share their stance on it. Not in a million years would I.

Paddy Cow

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I thought I'd just answered this.

Nobody would encourage repeated consanguinity through generations, but there's good evidence which suggests that we all have it to some extent..

That's why CF is so dominant in the Irish population, for example. Its not necessarily to be encouraged, but most of us have this tradition in our families.

If you go back far enough, we're all related. CF is dominant in Ireland not because of cousins marrying cousins (which is what consanguinity means in the Traveller community) but because we didn't have a lot of outsiders coming in to mix with us. I can guarantee you that it was not tradition in my family for cousins to marry cousins. It's actually not something that's accepted. I've a relative who married her 4th cousin. At that stage it's so far removed there's very little genetic over lap. She still gets slagged for being inbred.

Just so you know, first cousins have 12.5% of their DNA in common. Fourth cousins have only 0.2%. Third cousins have 0.78%. Long ago when people didn't travel much and married within their village, it probably wasn't unheard of for third or fourth cousins to marry. That is completely different to first cousins marrying generation after generation.

Whatever happened in the past, we are far more educated on DNA now. I doubt you'll find many/any Irish people (excluding Travellers) who would be willing to marry their first cousin. We can argue back and forth about what happened in the past. It's irrelevant. We're talking about today and today consanguinity is not a part of Irish culture (apart from Travellers).

Ipso

Irish people seem to be fairly endogamous, but it’s more to do with small rural poulations with little influx.
Given travellers are from the same ancestral background and became more isolated you’d expect them to be more endogamous.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987482/#!po=0.877193

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But certainly when you go further back in history, between the mid-18th century up until the Famine era, arranged marriages would have been far more explicit.

There's no justification whatsoever for someone like Margaret Cash, born in an advanced Western democracy circa 1990, to have been taken out of school at age 12 and married off at 15 so that she could start popping out babies at an age when other girls her age were sitting the Junior Cert.

You're trying to legitimize the practice of arranged consanguineous marriage by referring back to the eighteenth century. Well, how would it sound if I tried to justify owning a slave, or burning a witch, on the basis that such practices were also acceptable in the eighteenth century? Pretty ridiculous, right?

To point out the obvious, numerous things were acceptable centuries ago that are no longer acceptable today. The arranged consanguineous marriage of girls in their mid-teens, still going on among Travellers in 2019, is a disgraceful practice that cannot be rationalized by reference to history, culture, or anything else.

I appreciate that those on the left will defend Traveller culture to their dying breath -- but I also suspect that most on the left would want their own daughters to finish school, go to university, get decent jobs, marry spouses of their own choosing, and have children when they are financially secure and emotionally mature. It's beyond me why they defend practices that render many teenage Traveller girls illiterate, married, and raising kids before they can legally vote.

Cryptopagan

Rex Tasteless Gutter wrote: »

There's no justification whatsoever for someone like Margaret Cash, born in an advanced Western democracy circa 1990, to have been taken out of school at age 12 and married off at 15 so that she could start popping out babies at an age when other girls her age were sitting the Junior Cert.

You're trying to legitimize the practice of arranged consanguineous marriage by referring back to the eighteenth century. Well, how would it sound if I tried to justify owning a slave, or burning a witch, on the basis that such practices were also acceptable in the eighteenth century? Pretty ridiculous, right?

To point out the obvious, numerous things were acceptable centuries ago that are no longer acceptable today. The arranged consanguineous marriage of girls in their mid-teens, still going on among Travellers in 2019, is a disgraceful practice that cannot be rationalized by reference to history, culture, or anything else.

I appreciate that those on the left will defend Traveller culture to their dying breath -- but I also suspect that most on the left would want their own daughters to finish school, go to university, get decent jobs, marry spouses of their own choosing, and have children when they are financially secure and emotionally mature. It's beyond me why they defend practices that render many teenage Traveller girls illiterate, married, and raising kids before they can legally vote.

So if these practices are common in the travelling community, how do we go about changing them? Some will argue we need to end child welfare parents and other such benefits, but not having any money has never stopped people marrying young and having large families, quite the opposite. Schools have difficulty addressing truancy among the settled community, never mind those who may be moving around the country, and between countries.

So how do you address these issues among travellers?

Ruraldweller56

Cryptopagan wrote: »

So if these practices are common in the travelling community, how do we go about changing them? Some will argue we need to end child welfare parents and other such benefits, but not having any money has never stopped people marrying young and having large families, quite the opposite. Schools have difficulty addressing truancy among the settled community, never mind those who may be moving around the country, and between countries.

So how do you address these issues among travellers?

I don't accept that point at all. People like Margaret would not be popping out 7 kids if she had to feed and clothe them herself. And even if she did, you can be full sure at least some of her own kids would grow up seeing how hard it was to just about exist and say "f this for a game of marbles".

No I'm afraid nip it at the source. Cut out the welfare farce they exist on and the whole thing will die a death within a few generations. Either that or they fund their "culture" themselves.

Lillyfae

Had a read about Andy Lee- had never heard of him but what a guy. If that's the stereotype I'm completely on board.

Very sad to hear about Francie Barrett aswell, went to see that documentary about him when I was in school and he was clearly driven and ambitious.

These two exemplify what is possible for travellers, and certainly in the case of Francie it proves that if we continue to ignore the law in favour of their "culture" then their standard of living will not improve no matter what they are given or how the rest of society views/treats them. They are hell bent on stamping out any deviance from their self made norms, to the detriment of their own people. They are already unrecognisable from the people who's children I went to school with in the 80s.

The persistant infantilisation of travellers by the Irish government needs to end. The ruling of the EU on their ethnic minority status needs to investigated (they are not a separate race to indigenous Irish people) and rather than turning them into another version of Roma, we need to stand up and demonstrate that no matter how many of their "demands for racial recognition" they are granted, it is not improving their lot or preserving their culture. If their children are put at risk by their own behaviour they need involvement of Tusla. Disruption to education fined. Underage marriages should be stopped- the Catholic Church also need to be answerable regarding the support of the practice. Criminal behaviour should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Criminal damage to provided shelter fined and minimum standards put in place as a result. Animal cruelty, driving infractions, petty thievery, harrassment of ordinary decent citizens addressed fairly and correctly.

They are invited to the party, they'd just rather throw rocks through the windows than come in.

Cryptopagan

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

I don't accept that point at all. People like Margaret would not be popping out 7 kids if she had to feed and clothe them herself. And even if she did, you can be full sure at least some of her own kids would grow up seeing how hard it was to just about exist and say "f this for a game of marbles".

No I'm afraid nip it at the source. Cut out the welfare farce they exist on and the whole thing will die a death within a few generations. Either that or they fund their "culture" themselves.

So what? It was common for the poor and uneducated to have large families before there was ever any sort of welfare system in place. Take away the welfare, and poor uneducated people will still have large families.

tuxy

Cryptopagan wrote: »

So what? It was common for the poor and uneducated to have large families before there was ever any sort of welfare system in place. Take away the welfare, and poor uneducated people will still have large families.

Yes but then it will require them to resort to even more criminality so at least they have to make a real effort, win/win!

Igotadose

Cryptopagan wrote: »

So what? It was common for the poor and uneducated to have large families before there was ever any sort of welfare system in place. Take away the welfare, and poor uneducated people will still have large families.

Not really, no. When US welfare (much less than Ireland's) stopped going up for additional children (under Clinton), fewer children were born into welfare families. Poor people aren't stupid and having children can be managed easily.

Poor people with huge families coincided with an era of no birth control nor abortion. Those days are over, and they'll stay over if we remain vigilant.

Ruraldweller56

Cryptopagan wrote: »

So what? It was common for the poor and uneducated to have large families before there was ever any sort of welfare system in place. Take away the welfare, and poor uneducated people will still have large families.

Exactly.

Very different times.

Do you know of many poor uneducated people that aren't travellers with large families?

Let me guess. You live next door to one?

Ruraldweller56

Igotadose wrote: »

Not really, no. When US welfare (much less than Ireland's) stopped going up for additional children (under Clinton), fewer children were born into welfare families. Poor people aren't stupid and having children can be managed easily.

Poor people with huge families coincided with an era of no birth control nor abortion. Those days are over, and they'll stay over if we remain vigilant.

Horray for infanticide

Cryptopagan

Igotadose wrote: »

Not really, no. When US welfare (much less than Ireland's) stopped going up for additional children (under Clinton), fewer children were born into welfare families. Poor people aren't stupid and having children can be managed easily.

Poor people with huge families coincided with an era of no birth control nor abortion. Those days are over, and they'll stay over if we remain vigilant.

I wouldn't know much about the US situation, but I believe those sorts of welfare payments are mostly managed at state level since Clinton's reforms. Nevertheless, teen pregnancy rates have been decreasing steadily since at least 1990 https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-development/reproductive-health-and-teen-pregnancy/teen-pregnancy-and-childbearing/trends/index.html

Cryptopagan

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Exactly.

Very different times.

Do you know of many poor uneducated people that aren't travellers with large families?

Let me guess. You live next door to one?

F****** hell, I thought everyone knew that poorer, less well educated people were more likely to have more children and start having children at a younger age than better off and well educated people.

tuxy

Cryptopagan wrote: »

F****** hell, I thought everyone knew that poorer, less well educated people were more likely to have more children and start having children at a younger age than better off and well educated people.

Yup, all you have to do is look at developing countries and see how birth rates drop significantly as people become more educated and wealthy.

Ruraldweller56

Cryptopagan wrote: »

F****** hell, I thought everyone knew that poorer, less well educated people were more likely to have more children and start having children at a younger age than better off and well educated people.

OK let's see.

Could everyone who looks at this thread (of which there are many) confirm or deny that in their own experience that poor non educated settled folk have large families?

Say they do. As a % of their respective communities (settled, travellers for the purposes of this conversation) would you say that settled poor non educated people have the same amount of these large families? If not why not?

Paddy Cow

Cryptopagan wrote: »

So what? It was common for the poor and uneducated to have large families before there was ever any sort of welfare system in place. Take away the welfare, and poor uneducated people will still have large families.

The biggest reason people had large families in the past was because there was no contraception. Plenty of woman would have preferred to have had smaller families but they had no say in the matter. Once condoms became available in the UK, relatives would be sneaking them back in their suitcases. The birth rate dropped rapidly once Irish woman could easily access contraception.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Cryptopagan wrote: »

...not having any money has never stopped people marrying young and having large families, quite the opposite.

According to the CSO, only about 4 percent of women in the general population have six or more children, while over a quarter of Traveller women have six or more. This can't be explained by poverty alone. If Travellers don't have any money, where do all those new cars and vans come from? Where do the lavish displays come from at weddings and First Communions? How are they paid for, if these people are living in poverty?

Cryptopagan wrote: »

So how do you address these issues among travellers?

1) Rigorously enforce the minimum school-leaving age of 16 across all groups in society, including the Traveller community.
2) The state has already taken steps to prevent people from getting married under the age of 18 (as of January 1st, the courts may no longer grant permission for under-18s to wed). The state now has to take the further step of not recognizing anyone under the age of 18 as legally married in Ireland, even if they were wed under the laws of another state such as the UK. Just put the foot down and say that we will no longer recognize these child brides.
3) Make child benefit and other welfare benefits payable for the first four children only. If you want to have 9 kids, go ahead, but you'll pay for the last five yourself.

Cryptopagan wrote: »

edit: just googling quickly, here is an article from 2015, in which an activist from the travelling community denies a priest's claim that arranged marriages among young Travellers are common https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/traveller-group-rejects-priest-s-claim-on-young-or-arranged-marriage-1.2101955

From the article you linked:

The priest who officiated at the wedding of a 17-year-old bride and 16-year-old groom, both of who were Travellers, said on a number of radio programmes yesterday he had conducted “umpteen” Traveller weddings where the couple was very young. Fr Michael Kelly of St Mary’s Church, Newtownbutler, said Travellers held weddings in Northern Ireland as the minimum age for marriage was 16, whereas in the Republic it was 18.

So, who do we believe here? A self-proclaimed Traveller activist who claims that arranged marriages among teenage Travellers are rare, or a priest who states that he himself has carried out "umpteen" weddings involving 16- and 17-year-old Travellers?

It might be rare for them to marry in the Republic, where the minimum age is 18, but a priest from just across the border in Newtownbutler would see them flocking up to the North where they can get married as young as 16 with parental permission.

Here's a parallel story:

Senator James Heffernan told TheJournal.ie that he wants the phenomenon of people under the age of 18 getting married to be examined as a matter of children’s rights.

“I was a Traveller support teacher in a school and young girls were coming into my class at 12 and 13 years of age who knew whom they would be marrying. That would not be accepted in any other element of society,” he said.

“It’s accepted to be part of a culture. I think it is wrong on every level for anyone to be so treated.”

However, Ronnie Faye from Pavee Point told us that the group had “never heard of a girl as young as 12 or 13 knowing who she would marry”.

See the pattern here? People in the know (in this case a priest and a Traveller support teacher) come out and say that it's common for Travellers to marry at a very young age, and even common for girls aged 12 or 13 to have a husband already picked out for them. And then members of Traveller advocacy organizations come out to deny that this goes on.

When faced with a practice within the Traveller community that advocates know is wrong, they will either (a) deny that it happens, (b) somehow try to blame the settled community, or (c) say that those making the allegations are racists. This is what Pavee Point and other groups do for a living -- deny the undeniable and excuse the inexcusable, day after day.

Mad_maxx

AllForIt wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by that. The last thing LGB activists would do is support exclusion. LGB folk have the same views on the traveller community as everyone else speaking as one of them. I would find it bizarre if LGB activists in Ireland are defending the traveller demographic simply because of a loose similar issues of discrimination. If they are, and you seem to think they are, I personally wouldn't share their stance on it. Not in a million years would I.

"LGBT" activists ( not regular ordinary gay people) invariably are from the PC Left ideological mindset, travellers are a high ranking sacred cow of the PC Left, it's why when you hear various **** sh1tt1ng on about "toxic masculinity" etc, they don't dare include travellers despite the fact that traveller men are thee most obvious practitioners of those kind of macho traits

Ruraldweller56

https://www.thejournal.ie/vee-point-why-these-7-traveller-myths-are-untrue-849182-Mar2013/

This is probably a little off topic but for anyone who hasn't seen it already, Martin Collins of Pavee Point "busts" (by not busting at all but actually confirming) these 7 traveller myths.

In point 4 he "busts" the "myth" that travellers marry their cousins.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

In point 4 he "busts" the "myth" that travellers marry their cousins.

It's funny how the Traveller Consanguinity Working Group, in a 2003 study of Traveller marriage patterns, found that up to 40 percent of Traveller marriages were between first cousins. "Cousin marriage has long been a central element of the culture of these peoples," they wrote.

At the time, a Traveller working for Pavee Point said: "We've never seen anything wrong with it... We've always had cousins marrying."

Pavee Point has since switched gears and is now trying to dismiss consanguineous marriage among Travellers as a "myth." It's anything but -- and its impact on the health of the Traveller population is well documented.