Dunsink Lane, lazy cops really at fault????

Hagar · 13-10-2004 04:06PM

And today's programme was brought to you by the words:

knackerophobia - an irrational fear of travellers
necroknacrophelia - the act of rogering a dead knacker

Blub2k4 · 13-10-2004 04:26PM

seamus wrote:

You see, the problem I have with "It's not all of us" is that travelling groups are close-knit. Some travellers may not be attacking cars and the people that are in them, but this stuff is still occuring on their doorstep, being perpetrated by their friends, neighbours and family. Their inaction makes them part of the problem. They ask to be left alone, for the Gardai to not interfere, but they fail to do anything about their own social problems. They have a duty, as Irish citizens, and as members of a community (whether it be the travelling community or the Irish community) to act to stop/prevent this crap occuring, or to takes names and numbers and tell the Gardai and let them deal with it. They are in a position to remove the antisocial element of their community, and yet they refuse to.

What else do they expect us to do? If it's a majority who aren't involved in crime and dumping, then that majority have a duty to outnumber and control the minority. If it's a minority who aren't involved, then they should break away and refuse to associate themselves with the destructive element in their society.

Think of it this way - you're living in a house. When people drive down your street, neighbours and friends run outside, smash the windscreens and assault the drivers. There is rubbish dumped all over the road, and all around your house. Burnt out vehicles everywhere. Scumbags roam the streets, drunk, fighting, causing hassle. You refuse to do anything about it, even though you are free to move house whenever you like it. Instead, you just stay where you are, happy to socialise with these people.

Then the Gardai block off one end of your road to stop people illegally dumping there. Would you complain? Do you think you'd have a right to complain?

Sorry about that Seamus (possibly others too) I forgot there were people in among the bigots saying something worthwhile.
Surely what you apply to the travellers you would also apply to other communities as well? Why if that is the case do we have crime?

If it were only travellers involved in the illegal activities that were originally cited as the reason i.e. the dumping etc then your point would be valid, everyone here seems to agree that half of Dublin dumps down that lane and no one disputes that some travellers do.

There is one Group in any case that is definitely involved in the diesel thing, so the people who should deal with this are the people employed by our tax monies to do this, i.e. the Gardai, you cant claim collective responsibility and therefore imply that collective punishment is ok, this may be in Utopia but not anywhere I know.

On a side note the scene you describe above sounds a bit like parts of Neilstown or other settled communities, are they all responsible and by inference all as guilty?

Zulu · 13-10-2004 04:47PM

Would it be fair to assume that the percentage the social group who commits acts of crime/anti social behaviour is higher amoung the traveling community, in comparision to the settled community as a whole?

(possiably due to a number of factors: lack of oppertunities etc..)

seamus · 13-10-2004 05:02PM

Blub2k4 wrote:

On a side note the scene you describe above sounds a bit like parts of Neilstown or other settled communities, are they all responsible and by inference all as guilty?

Not all as guilty, but as somone once said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Now that is a bit simplistic, but a community cannot do absolutely nothing and then complain when the State attempts to crack down on this anti-social behaviour. The irony is if the majority cared, they would welcome a crackdown.

The only difference is that in the settled community, people can't just pack up and go. It's not that simple. In many areas, a majority two or three families are involved in the behaviour, and terrorise the rest of the people into keeping schtum because frankly, they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. Unlike a traveller, they can't just throw all their belongings into the car and move their home somewhere else. They're trapped - if they complain, they'll be terrorised more.

meepmeep · 13-10-2004 05:17PM

Hagar wrote:

necroknacrophelia - the act of rogering a dead knacker

hehehehe *wipes tear from eye*

Oh Hagar, you're a gem

ShiverinEskimo · 13-10-2004 05:34PM

Blub2k4 wrote:

Surely what you apply to the travellers you would also apply to other communities as well? Why if that is the case do we have crime?

If you look at crime statistics for any town or city you sill see that it spikes in certain areas. These areas are areas not disimilar from travellers sites in the fact that those around them are either involved in the crime, do not care about the crime or too scared to stop the crime. These areas are called, rough areas, dodgy whatever. Its the same principal. Crime spikes in places where those willing to perform said crime are in close proximity.

My point is that it is common to look down on these areas and write them off as bad places, even though there may be a few in there that are not bad. Majority rules.

In a good area with low crime gets one family that start causing trouble those around the area will complain and do something about it. Those that choose not to do something about it and watch their neighbourhood deteriorate are as much to blame as those who causing the deterioration.

Slunk · 13-10-2004 07:07PM

Yeah the gardai are useless but I still think the barrier should be left there.Knackers are still scumbags even if the garda dont do thier job properly

OfflerCrocGod · 13-10-2004 08:41PM

Hagar wrote:

knackerophobia - an irrational fear of travellers

There is just one word that has to be changed in that definition for it to be correct. "Entirely Justified" sounds good.

tony 2 tone · 13-10-2004 08:54PM

Blub2k4 wrote:

so dont lecture me on childishness.

Sooo you have a monopoly on that too?

Canis Lupus · 13-10-2004 09:20PM

[semi rant]
blub have you noticed the hordes of posters flocking to say your right? What does that say to you? That you must be right and the majority of people posting in here are clearly insane to not notice the redeemable qualities of the travelling community?

My first experience of travellers was when I was young so details are fuzzy in terms of fights or crime or what have you but the place they left behind where I used to play was full of bags of rubbish, dirty nappies strewn everywhere and 2 kitchen appliances (cant remember what) but like washing machines (why do they always seem to leave a broken washing machine behind?).

Next is the same scenario (in terms of the site when they left behind)but on the day those lovable travellers left, my next door neighbours cattle trailer vanished... funny that coincidence but surely I wouldn't accuse a member of the travelling community of such theft because that would predjudiced of me to wildly jump to conclusions.

My final experience is when a band of travellers arrived in the local village.. These continual roamers were quiet, well behaved and left money to clean up after them shock of shocks that but also they happily parked in a field next to the only car park in the village (they must like the feel of grass under there feet) and then blatently parked 2 vans at the entrance of the car park blocking it. This was during the height of summer and the net result was coaches etc that would normally stop and park in that car park and let people off and shop and eat etc didn't happen they carried on to the next town (altho admittedly this also occurred because people for some inexplicable reason feel nervous around travellers and didn't want to stop in a village which looked like a big caravan and camping site, damn irrational prejudices).

Now I have had limited experiences with the travelling community admittedly but a quick hands up will find you plenty of ppl who have less rosy things to say about travellers than I have and you will also find oddly there aren't many people who will say "those people in the caravans down the road, aren't they great pillars of the local community". In fact can you find me one person on the boards willing to say that?

Deadwing · 13-10-2004 09:34PM

Meh. Call this an unfair generalisation if you will, but knackers are, well...knackers. Scumbags. Tinkers. Pikeys. Theyre 99% scum.
Youre entitled to you opinion if you think they've just got a bad rep, thats fair enough, i respect that and im not gonna try to change your opinion, however im of the opinion theyre all robbing, filthy scum, and by god, its an opinion im entitled to have, and noones gonna change it.

The Muppet · 13-10-2004 10:00PM

Blub2k4 you appear to be of the opinion that this revelations of diesel laundering being the reason for the wall as something new. Have you been following the story for the last week? That aspect has been very well reported in lots of different coverage of this story and is nothing new.

This road is not the first one to be closed to throught traffic in the country.
The others recieve little or no media coverage because the law abiding citizens of the state will either accept the change or protest peacefully.

There are numerous reports of lawlessness from diesel laundering , fly tipping, arms finds, and a couple of murders on this road. Personally I think if I lived there I would be happy to see the authorities taking whatever action necessary to tackle this crime .

Hashbrown · 13-10-2004 10:13PM

Guards at Fault for Dunsink lane Jesus Blub2k4 thats the best I heard in a long time . Why dont you move in with them for a few weeks and then come back and tell us all about it. Just had about 15 Caravans about a mile from my house all with new english reg Cars and Vans, gone now and you would want to see the state they left the place in.. Scum end of story......

Pyr0 · 13-10-2004 11:47PM

I can remember a story a friend of mine told in class one day.He was being chased by a group of travellers holding steel bars and lumps of wood and the likes......he was chased for about a mile when his shoes fell off and the travellers stole them and stopped chasing him.It was very funny in class and at the time to I'd say

.

Now I wasn't sure if they were chasing him to take his shoes or what....:)

Victor · 14-10-2004 12:29AM

The was two ways to block the road, between the halting site and Finglas (what was actually done) or between the halting site and Blanchardstown. It was the wrong choice as it punished everybody by forcing everyone into a long round trip to shops and schools.

ShiverinEskimo wrote:

If you look at crime statistics for any town or city you sill see that it spikes in certain areas. These areas are areas not disimilar from travellers sites in the fact that those around them are either involved in the crime, do not care about the crime or too scared to stop the crime. These areas are called, rough areas, dodgy whatever. Its the same principal. Crime spikes in places where those willing to perform said crime are in close proximity.

Would this be because noice areas like Ballsbridge and Dalkey feature little social depravation? And also reject mixed housing, thereby ghettoising other areas?

Blub2k4 · 14-10-2004 09:34AM

seamus wrote:

The only difference is that in the settled community, people can't just pack up and go. It's not that simple. In many areas, a majority two or three families are involved in the behaviour, and terrorise the rest of the people into keeping schtum because frankly, they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. Unlike a traveller, they can't just throw all their belongings into the car and move their home somewhere else. They're trapped - if they complain, they'll be terrorised more.

The camp in Dunsink is over 30 years old, people dont just move because they can. It is rather silly to contend that travellers always travel, I'm sure some of them from Dunsink have never left the area in their lives like a lot of "settled" people. I've lived in a few different countries in my life and conversely this doesn't make me a traveller, I dont speak Cant for example and despite itinerant patterns to where I have lived I am still not a traveller.

The Muppet · 14-10-2004 09:40AM

Victor wrote:

The was two ways to block the road, between the halting site and Finglas (what was actually done) or between the halting site and Blanchardstown. It was the wrong choice as it punished everybody by forcing everyone into a long round trip to shops and schools.

Thats a good point Victor. Is it true that there is a permannent Garda Checkpoint at the Blanch end of the road now. If so I would imagine that was the reason as I would't fancy manning one the Finglas end.

That road was very busy I would imagine plenty of the local settled community used it. Are they protesting about its closure as well ?

seamus · 14-10-2004 10:01AM

Blub2k4 wrote:

The camp in Dunsink is over 30 years old, people dont just move because they can. It is rather silly to contend that travellers always travel, I'm sure some of them from Dunsink have never left the area in their lives like a lot of "settled" people. I've lived in a few different countries in my life and conversely this doesn't make me a traveller, I dont speak Cant for example and despite itinerant patterns to where I have lived I am still not a traveller.

Then we have a problem, do we not? We have people who claim ethnic minority status, but who no longer practice the very thing that makes them a minority. If they're not nomads, then they're just another bunch of Irish tax-dodgers living in ramshackle housing IMO.

My point still stands. There's a destructive element that exists in their society, like any other. They socialise with them, let them carry out their activities, then protest their innocence when the state attempts to intervene to cut down on this activity. How can we win?

If they don't want to go back out on the road, but they don't want to live with the crap, and are unable to do anything about it, they're free to apply for social housing.

Blub2k4 · 14-10-2004 10:06AM

seamus wrote:

Then we have a problem, do we not? We have people who claim ethnic minority status, but who no longer practice the very thing that makes them a minority. If they're not nomads, then they're just another bunch of Irish tax-dodgers living in ramshackle housing IMO.

My point still stands. There's a destructive element that exists in their society, like any other. They socialise with them, let them carry out their activities, then protest their innocence when the state attempts to intervene to cut down on this activity. How can we win?

If they don't want to go back out on the road, but they don't want to live with the crap, and are unable to do anything about it, they're free to apply for social housing.

UN definition of a minority:
Minority is a "group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of the State, in a nondominant position, whose members--being nationals of the State--possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characterisitics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language."

Sounds like the travellers to me, or can you speak Cant?

seamus · 14-10-2004 10:11AM

Sounds like a linguistic minority to me, I'll concede that. Same could be said for Irish speakers.

How many travellers can speak Cant? Are they travellers if the cannot, but still live with travellers?

Semantics are irrelevant anyway.

The Muppet · 14-10-2004 10:27AM

Theres too much emphasis trying to put a racist slant on this story if you ask me. The travellers have been there for 30 years so the council did what they did because of the recent illegal activities on the road not because there are travellers living on it. I feel allegations of racism are often made too lightly .

Blub2k4 · 14-10-2004 10:30AM

They do come under the definition of a minority on linguistic grounds and yes the majority if not all of them speak Cant. My mother is picking up a few words of it, much to their chagrin as they can no longer give out about her behind her back

Blub2k4 · 14-10-2004 10:32AM

The Muppet wrote:

Theres too much emphasis trying to put a racist slant on this story if you ask me. The travellers have been there for 30 years so the council did what they did because of the recent illegal activities on the road not because there are travellers living on it. I feel allegations of racism are often made too lightly .

It is not particularly racist, it is bigotted and discriminatory and there is no way that it would have been done to a settled community in this manner. The cops would have arrested the people involved full stop.

pork99 · 14-10-2004 10:42AM

Blub2k4 wrote:

Apparently the block was put on Dunsink Lane to block one of the travellers up there from refining marine and agtricultural diesel to white diesel which he is then selling on at a huge profit. He has apparently been busted already and handguns were seized in the bust.
It turns out Gardai and Customs men have been threatened by this criminal and they were too scared to do their jobs and decided that instead of surveillance and arrest they decided to disregard the normal procedures and got into cahoots with the council and pulled a fast one, simply blocking the trucks delivering the diesel instead of arresting those involved.

Why aren't these guys sent in then?

http://www.garda.ie/angarda/sdu.html

"Provision of armed response" being one of their functions. Maybe there needs to be more of them?

(Don't like the Garda website - they should have a look at this one; http://www.gmp.police.uk/ )

Big Ears · 14-10-2004 10:44AM

Blub2k4 wrote:

He has apparently been busted already and handguns were seized in the bust.

Maybe thats why the Gardai don't go down there and arrest this individual .
They are unarmed(the Gardai) after all .

Blub2k4 · 14-10-2004 10:45AM

pork99 wrote:

Why aren't these guys sent in then?

http://www.garda.ie/angarda/sdu.html

"Provision of armed response" being one of their functions. Maybe there needs to be more of them?

(Don't like the Garda website - they should copy this one; http://www.gmp.police.uk/ )

If you'd look at the start of the thread I do think that they should be sent in, seems they are afraid or something, that is my point, they should have sent in a hardcore force targetting the criminals, instead the lazy buggers dropped a big block of concrete. That was originally my point. Although if they're the same muppets that were in Abgbeylara then they are not the Mae West either but at least they are armed.

Blub2k4 · 14-10-2004 10:47AM

Big Ears wrote:

Maybe thats why the Gardai don't go down there and arrest this individual .
They are unarmed(the Gardai) after all .

Since when do Gardai get to pick and choose what crimes they deal with?

You unwittingly are adding ammo to my point.

Big Ears · 14-10-2004 10:53AM

Blub2k4 wrote:

Since when do Gardai get to pick and choose what crimes they deal with?

I know it would be the law to deal with this idividual armed or not , but can you honestly expect someone with a piece of wood to try and arrest someone with a gun ?

Plenty of Gardai have died trying to do the above , and I would not ask anyone (including the Gardai) to try and deal with an individual likie that , without sufficient weoponry or armor to do so .

Blub2k4 · 14-10-2004 10:58AM

Big Ears wrote:

I know it would be the law to deal with this idividual armed or not , but can you honestly expect someone with a piece of wood to try and arrest someone with a gun ?

Plenty of Gardai have died trying to do the above , and I would not ask anyone (including the Gardai) to try and deal with an individual likie that , without sufficient weoponry or armor to do so .

Hence the armed response unit, are you telling me now that all I need is a gun and a few people behind me to get the police to back off?
Gilligan was a multi-millionaire and a scumbag and they got him, despite guns coming out the kazoo, but then the gardai were not as afraid of the known "settled" lifestyle as opposed to the mysterious evil traveller lifestyle ....or something.

<edit>mind you when it came down to Gilligan they did need to perpetrate one of the greatest miscarriages of justice to put him away on a pretext as they were unable to pin a murder on him, another example of their glaring incompetence.

Big Ears · 14-10-2004 11:03AM

Blub2k4 wrote:

Hence the armed response unit, are you telling me now that all I need is a gun and a few people behind me to get the police to back off?

probably , no-one wants another Abbeylara , especially not the gard's .

'Hence the armed response unit' tough enough thing to have them called out , they would not just have to be sure that yer man has guns but also that he could be willing to use them .

Dunsink Lane, lazy cops really at fault????

Comments