Residents attempt to blockade temporarily housing of survivors of Glenamuck

13-10-2015 06:14PM

These poor unfortunate people only want to be together to try and rebuild their lives after what was a horrific catastrophe. Shame on each and every one of those residents. Words fail me.

discus · 13-10-2015 06:24PM

Sure mary anne, why don't you find a suitable site near your house and produce your solution to the local authorities??

0ph0rce0 · 13-10-2015 06:28PM

S.O wrote: »

I was only in a pub the other evening for a coffee, all the tables had reserved notices on them which it normally doesn,t have, reason why I was told there was a traveller funeral in town that day and the pub didn,t want any trouble, I was out cycling that same night there were 3 pubs closed in one area, and this with the locals in Glenamuck, the question has to be phased and asked in the context of why do most pubs have no problem serving other minorities gays/black people/ Asian people, Eastern European people, but would rather close up and lose business when there is a traveller funeral locally ? same likewise with neighbours why do most people have no problem with other minorities gays/black people/ Asian people, Eastern European people living in the same estate/same area but wouldn,t want to have any travellers living near them ?

Because a high percentage of travellers will smash up your local pub, destroy the surrounding area with ****e, rob houses, cars and intimidate and scare people in their own area whilst not giving a **** to any law that's out there. Not them all but most of them are the same. It's not a generalization it's a fact. That's who they are. Shame really

The Blacks , Europeans & Gays don't seem to be doing all the above as much as the travellers.

whatismyname · 13-10-2015 06:29PM

discus wrote: »

Sure mary anne, why don't you find a suitable site near your house and produce your solution to the local authorities??

Do you even know what part of the country Mary Anne lives in? Or whether she is living in Ireland at all?

Not a realistic suggestion, but no instead just make them 'someone else's problem', and anyone who's putting the bereaved families first should be finding a suitable site beside them and giving it as solution... No need for such silliness.

Deep Six · 13-10-2015 06:31PM

I fully support these residents and their right to oppose this site being placed in their area. The ones here slating them obviously have no experience living near this group. As tragic as the event on the weekend was, it won't negate the reputation travellers have and which they have fully inflicted on themselves. You reap what you sow.

13-10-2015 06:31PM

discus wrote: »

Sure mary anne, why don't you find a suitable site near your house and produce your solution to the local authorities??

There are 4 different houses of travellers down the road from where I live. They don't cause any trouble. Live and let live. There was one incident shortly after the second house was occupied, but it was nipped in the bud and never a bit of bother since.

VinLieger · 13-10-2015 06:33PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There are 4 different houses of travellers down the road from where I live. They don't cause any trouble. Live and let live. There was one incident shortly after the second house was occupied, but it was nipped in the bud and never a bit of bother since.

Lucky you but maybe others have had different experiences to you and as a result arent so eager to allow that possibility to happen again?

doncarlos · 13-10-2015 06:33PM

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

Because a high percentage of travellers will smash up your local pub, destroy the surrounding area with ****e, rob houses, cars and intimidate and scare people in their own area whilst not giving a **** to any law that's out there. Not them all but most of them are the same. It's not a generalization it's a fact. That's who they are. Shame really

The Blacks , Europeans & Gays don't seem to be doing all the above as much as the travellers.

True. Ever since the gays were allowed marry, their pub smashing days seem to be over.

whatismyname · 13-10-2015 06:33PM

Deep Six wrote: »

The ones here slating them obviously have no experience living near this group.

'This group' as in this group of 15 people?

Nah, thought not.

Deep Six · 13-10-2015 06:34PM

whatismyname wrote: »

'This group' as in this group of 15 people?

Nah, thought not.

You know fully well who I'm referring to, don't be pedantic.

My name is URL · 13-10-2015 06:36PM

Deep Six wrote: »

I fully support these residents and their right to oppose this site being placed in their area. The ones here slating them obviously have no experience living near this group. As tragic as the event on the weekend was, it won't negate the reputation travellers have and which they have fully inflicted on themselves. You reap what you sow.

Or in this case you reap what others have sown...?

Do you have any evidence or sources to suggest that those in question are anything but law abiding people?

whatismyname · 13-10-2015 06:36PM

Deep Six wrote: »

You know fully well who I mean, don't be pedantic.

I'm not being pedantic.

This situation is about 15 specific people, and 'this group' is who they are.

Those 15 people are who it is about. Nobody else.

Doing what others are doing is being prejudiced.

If I am wrong and I am being pedantic, I'd much rather be pedantic, than extremely prejudiced.

steddyeddy · 13-10-2015 06:36PM

whiskeyman wrote: »

Would you accommodate them, or others from the travelling community, on your road?

Or Jews, Muslims or any other popular hate targets? Yes because I'm not bigoted. Also they're not ordinary members of the travelling community, they're people who lost children, spouses and friends. They deserve sympathy and the kinder side of humanity. These low characters putting up opposition are pathetic excuses for human beings.

Cienciano · 13-10-2015 06:46PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Not in these circumstances, or for these particular people.

If some out of the blue decision was made to build a permanent halting site for unspecified travelers then yes, I'd have some issue with it.

To object to it in these circumstances, when the people have already being living in your area for years and knowing the tragedy and loss they have just suffered, is nothing short of scummy. I hope they're publicly shamed into changing their minds.

whatismyname wrote: »

If you're talking about a halting site to accommodate 15 people who have just lost 10 members of their family, then hand on heart, I 100% wouldn't.

If I did find that there was a part of me that was 'bothered' for any reasons, I know myself well enough to know that my humanity towards these people would far override any reasons which I was bothered.

Their needs are much greater than mine in that scenario, and unless I'd met the grieving families (a number of whom are likely to be children) I wouldn't be making pre-judgments on them. I wouldn't be making assumptions on people who I'd not met, based on things done / a reputation gained by other people

But if I had a green field or vacant lot beside me right now, and the council was looking to accommodate them there, it wouldn't occur to be to do anything but welcome them, and when they move in to offer my condolences to them. I would certainly not be looking to do anything to add to the pain of the grieving families, certainly by not putting my own selfish interests first, and I am 100% certain that it wouldn't even occur to me to do so.

Fair play for being honest. Only travellers that have lost people in a tragedy are welcome

Deep Six · 13-10-2015 06:49PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Or in this case you reap what others have sown...?

Do you have any evidence or sources to suggest that those in question are anything but law abiding people?

Let me just clarify, I am not referring specifically to the people affected by that fire. I am talking about the wider perception of the social class they identify as. The people in this estate obviously have less than positive previous experiences with travellers, and it's the same up and down the country.

An "ethnic group" cannot deem itself above the law or expected standards of a society without a care in the world and then expect open arms in return. People might think that's unfair but for every story of a "good" traveller, there are 99 negative against it. You cannot blame people for being cautious when this reputation is one that has been allowed to fester unchecked by the ethnic group themselves. What happened was a tragic event,make no mistake about it. I am simply saying I can understand the bigger reason behind this blockade.

whatismyname · 13-10-2015 06:53PM

Cienciano wrote: »

Fair play for being honest. Only travellers that have lost people in a tragedy are welcome

Feel free to twist my words, but I'd really rather that you didn't.

I made sure to comment only on the specific situation that is being discussed.

I stated that in this situation I would absolutely not be bothered by travellers being accommodated beside me, but as you'll have seen nowhere in that did I state that only travellers who have lost people in a tragedy are welcome.

In fact, I didn't make any comment whatsoever on whether travellers who have not lost people in a tragedy would be welcomed by me, as it's not relevant.

Although I didn't give the question of whether I'd welcome travellers who'd not lost people in a tragedy any thought, since it's not what's being discussed, in hindsight, I'm not sure how what I'd said on me not pre-judging people I'd not met would allow you to reach that conclusion.

But again, yep, feel free to twist my words to say that I said something about a situation that I didn't even consider or comment on .

My name is URL · 13-10-2015 06:53PM

Cienciano wrote: »

Fair play for being honest. Only travellers that have lost people in a tragedy are welcome

lol.. that's a pretty lame attempt at taking the moral high road.

But yeah, it's pretty standard human behavior to want to offer help to those who need it most. And it's not just based on the fact that they have lost loved ones anyway, but also on the fact that they've been living within that community for years and by all accounts tend not to cause trouble or interfere with others. The kids go to local schools and are involved in local sports clubs. There's no justifiable reason that they should be disallowed to continue on living in that community.

A few bitter old cranks aren't going to stop them anyway. The land earmarked is owned by the council. The 5 or so residents opposed to it can put up or shut up

Galwayguy35 · 13-10-2015 06:54PM

Why does a halting site have to be built?

Surely if it's temporary then they can stay in a hotel or any of the vacant Nama houses?

I can see the residents point of view, the site looks to be very close to their houses and the area around where halting sites are can ofton be littered with all kinds of rubbish.

VinLieger · 13-10-2015 06:54PM

The previous site was also "temporary" so that argument is garbage.

Also whatever about the worry that any trouble would be caused by them the simple fact is their presence that close to the current houses will severely affect the house prices of those in that cul de sac which brings us back to the "temporary" argument in that once these sites are created it takes a long time for them to be vacated excepting extraordinary circumstance like the tragedy over the weekend so the house prices would be pretty much permanently damaged for the foreseeable future.

CatFromHue · 13-10-2015 06:54PM

If you look at where they want to build the halting site it's not really a great location I have to say.

400m down the end of a narrow cul de sac

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2437208,-6.1815677,3a,75y,348.64h,73.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq0QHGjxnlgPuW5DKNmxbRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

discus · 13-10-2015 06:54PM

My name is URL wrote: »

The 5 or so residents opposed to it can put up or shut up

Do you own any property? Do you think the council can come up with plans made up in 3 or 4 days, with no public consultation, and change the area that people have paid 200k/300k for?

freshpopcorn · 13-10-2015 06:57PM

We can travel two ways to our local town.
On one road their are three houses of travellers. All would have being housed in the mid 2000's. Don't really know how the people living near them get's on.
A couple of years ago they filled the place with caravans and the council eventually moved them on.(no big deal really)
My main issue with the site would be walking from house to house with no reflective clothing.
Cruelty to animals would be another. Dogs are often left in the road. These are often very skinny and can be very dangerous for motorists and pedestrians.
In the local town their are another few houses of travellers and apart from the odd incident they don't cause two much trouble.
In generally what I find angers people is when they see travellers driving big/new cars/weddings/funerals/headstones
with no really means of paying for them and they read stories or know people who've been robbed/burgled by members of the travelling community.

Kermit.de.frog · 13-10-2015 07:02PM

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

Classic case of NIMBY.

Eh, if it was your estate, you might not mind given the circumstances if it was temporary. But the residents might feel it could become permanent. And of course they are going to be concerned about criminality and burglary. A few years a go just up the road from me a tiny encampment was set up and the burglaries began. Everyone knew who was doing it. Took over a year to get them moved.

The fear of being burgled is just as bad as actually being broken in to.

The council don't care.

Mearings · 13-10-2015 07:04PM

They see travellers as the thin edge of the wedge. God knows what would arrive next? Culchies?

Willfarman · 13-10-2015 07:09PM

super_furry wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/local-protesters-block-surviving-carrickmines-families-from-new-temporary-halting-site-31607191.html

I'm not trying to be over the top here, but I don't think I've ever been more ashamed to be Irish. Those ten people that died aren't even buried yet and already those who survived that tragedy are already being told that they're not welcome in a temporary site because it's too close to 'normal' people.

I had thought that this disaster would be the final tipping point for this country to re-assess just how we treat travellers, but obviously not.

It's time for travellers to assess how they conduct themselves and add to society.

super_furry · 13-10-2015 07:12PM

Willfarman wrote: »

It's time for travellers to assess how they conduct themselves and add to society.

Indeed. How dare they burn to death in such numbers. They should be charged by the council for destroying their old site too.

Barry Badrinath · 13-10-2015 07:22PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Do you have any evidence or sources to suggest that those in question are anything but law abiding people?

Actually, yes.

I am familiar with this group and while most of them are fine, a small few have been involved with regular low level theft in the area.

I dont have any evidence to provide to you but I have honestly been personally been affected by it.

However, I'm sure that theft and anything else is far from their minds right now.

I dont agree with what the residents are doing but I can understand their hessitation at the councils intentions.

The Council should have thought this through better. There is a lot of land available round the area. Consultations should have taken place between the Council and residents prior to this hoing ahead.

Ultimately, irrespective of their denomination, these people deserve support, respect, aid and a level of common decency to be shown to them by us all.

The Council should have forseen the possible resistance to such a move and planned accordingly....not just plop them in a field up t'road.....be grand!

eviltwin · 13-10-2015 07:26PM

I've lived beside and worked with travellers. They aren't suited to living in a housing estate. They have a lifestyle that was built around halting sites and that doesn't translate well to a small, residential area. Travellers tend to have a lot of loose animals, create rubbish, excess traffic as they tend to have a lot of vehicles and visitors, they can be very loud and don't mix well with settled people. Even if they are the nicest of people those problems still exist. I'm sure the residents are sympathetic but are worried about them being left there long term which isn't good for anyone

Willfarman · 13-10-2015 07:28PM

super_furry wrote: »

Indeed. How dare they burn to death in such numbers. They should be charged by the council for destroying their old site too.

Tragic accident. Awful thing to happen. But I wouldn't want an encampment of these people on my road. I get enough aggravation with them as it is. I understand why the residents blockaded them. The tragic accident isn't their fault but people not wanting them in the area may well be their own fault.

hatrickpatrick · 13-10-2015 07:32PM

Deep Six wrote: »

The people in this estate obviously have less than positive previous experiences with travellers

It's not obvious at all. It could just as easily be prejudice with no prior experience whatsoever.

Residents attempt to blockade temporarily housing of survivors of Glenamuck

Comments