Fire at a halting site in Dublin Mod Warning Post #1

gandalf · 14-10-2015 01:56PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Only 5 residents bothered to turn up to the meeting with the council this morning. 5... out of a community of what, 2000+?

From my understanding these are representatives of the residents (of the effected Cul-de-sac), the meeting would have been chaos if everyone turned up. It's only a small cul-de-sac of maybe at most 50 houses so I am unsure where you are getting your figure of 2000+ from.

brooke 2 · 14-10-2015 01:58PM

conorhal wrote: »

Well you seem so sure that he's on top of this that I just presumed you knew?

I believe he called the protesting residents' actions 'shameful'.

Penn · 14-10-2015 01:59PM

prawn_lover wrote: »

settled people dont make the list of liberal sacred cows so therefore are not entitled to special treatment

this is the kind of future we are facing into , where self appointed enlightened betters will decide which people are worthy of special treatment , as for the rest of us , we are to shut up and keep paying taxes so as to fund these pet projects

What?

Calm down. No need to try and fit more babies into the bath before throwing out the bathwater.

whatismyname · 14-10-2015 02:00PM

Chimera88 wrote: »

Nice to assume that because people don't think that particular site is fitting, that instantly means they don't care about the loss of life.

The poster was comparing the number of posts overall in both threads.

Although it might seem otherwise, this is not a thread specifically about the new proposed site

My name is URL · 14-10-2015 02:00PM

gandalf wrote: »

From my understanding these are representatives of the residents, the meeting would have been chaos if everyone turned up. It's only a small cul-de-sac of maybe at most 50 houses so I am unsure where you are getting your figure of 2000+ from.

The population of Carrickmines is over 2000 and Carrickmines is a relatives tiny place.

How many Carrickmines residents want rid of the families or don't want them to continue living in the community they've been living in and part of for years now?

And who decided that these 5 people in particular are representative of the wider community? They're (presumably) the same 5 people that decided to set up road blocks yesterday, while hundreds more did not do so.

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 02:07PM

My name is URL wrote: »

The population of Carrickmines is over 2000 and Carrickmines is a relatives tiny place.

How many Carrickmines residents want rid of the families or don't want them to continue living in the community they've been living in and part of for years now?

And who decided that these 5 people in particular are representative of the wider community? They're (presumably) the same 5 people that decided to set up road blocks yesterday, while hundreds more did not do so.

its the residents of rockville drive??? not the whole town?? think about it

Sure they already lived in the area.

The reason there was no objections when they lived in the other I'll fated site was because it wasn't at the end of a residential cul de sac.

the_syco · 14-10-2015 02:09PM

gandalf wrote: »

the residents of this cul-de-sac

This is the crux of the matter; the residents picked a cul-de-sac for no through road. Putting the halting site there turns the cul-de-sac into an entrance into another estate.

It's this simple; the local county council has decided to turn the cul-de-sac into a main road on a whim, without consulting the people that live there.

brooke 2 · 14-10-2015 02:12PM

prawn_lover wrote: »

being a good PC liberal is all about sounding good , doing good has little to do with it

thats why its not only useless , its dangerous as it attempts to silence criticism when the topic involves sacred cows , vincent browne is a major offender in this way , i know browne is quite mad but is sheer wrongheadedness on this issue is only equaled by his conviction on the subject

Just listening to some shrill on Joe Duffy calling a very reasonable caller a racist. She was rightly called up on it!

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 02:14PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

Just listening to some shrill on Joe Duffy calling a very reasonable caller a racist. She was rightly called up on it!

wheres efb????

Suspiciously awol.

Minderbinder · 14-10-2015 02:16PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

I believe he called the protesting residents' actions 'shameful'.

he has a very big heart. presumably they rejected the invitation to stay in his backyard for 6 months

brooke 2 · 14-10-2015 02:35PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

wheres efb????

Suspiciously awol.

Haha! I had the same thought as I listened to her
shrieking at that poor man on JD.

Boom_Bap · 14-10-2015 02:40PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

wheres efb????

Suspiciously awol.

brooke 2 wrote: »

Haha! I had the same thought as I listened to her
shrieking at that poor man on JD.

MOD I'm sure that all posters have life away from boards and are not contracted to reply immediately.

efb · 14-10-2015 02:54PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

wheres efb????

Suspiciously awol.

Hi, I was out donating blood and feeding the (legitimate- no drug addicts or nasty Romas

- homeless...

Not really, cos Im all talk. I got lunch and posted an Ireland flag to my niece. I did donate money like I did to the Syrian refugee and other crises though- is that enough information or do want to know what I ate? Chicken fillet roll and Can of Club.

what did I miss?

efb · 14-10-2015 02:55PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

Haha! I had the same thought as I listened to her
shrieking at that poor man on JD.

Says so much about you... (Im male btw)

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 02:59PM

efb wrote: »

Hi, I was out donating blood and feeding the (legitimate- no drug addicts or nasty Romas - homeless...

Not really, cos Im all talk. I got lunch and posted an Ireland flag to my niece. I did donate money like I did to the Syrian refugee and other crises though- is that enough information or do want to know what I ate? Chicken fillet roll and Can of Club.

what did I miss?

heasray..... i demand proof.

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 03:01PM

Joke by the way. Just feeding on you doubting the reasoning the residents are giving.

efb · 14-10-2015 03:02PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Joke by the way. Just feeding on you doubting the reasoning the residents are giving.

I give people the presumption of innocence. I thought we'd established this...

Penn · 14-10-2015 03:12PM

efb wrote: »

I give people the presumption of innocence. I thought we'd established this...

Then why not give the residents the presumption of acting in good faith due to legitimate concerns rather than acting out of prejudice?

Shurimgreat · 14-10-2015 03:13PM

Presumption of innocence based on past experience..

The potential for anti social behaviour though possibly real is just one part of it. What about traffic? Waste disposal? Noise? So many things to be considered.

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 03:14PM

efb wrote: »

I give people the presumption of innocence. I thought we'd established this...

but you are blaspheming the protesters without any evidence to claim that the reasoning they have given is made up. maybe give them the benefit of your open mind and dont jump sides so strongly when you are none the wiser

end of the road · 14-10-2015 03:23PM

efb wrote: »

Are you saying I only talk the talk? Based on what?

based on the fact you try be decent to all. certain types don't like those who are decent to minorities, so come out with "look at me i'm trying to be derogatory" terms like "pc"

brooke 2 · 14-10-2015 03:28PM

Interesting conversation between Ray D'Arcy and Johnny Connors, the actor, on RTE at the moment.

end of the road · 14-10-2015 03:30PM

pauliebdub wrote: »

The Travellers have the right to accommodation but the council and the likes of Alan Kelly do not have the right to ride roughshod over the wishes of the residents. Their wishes need to be taken into account. I wouldn't be keen on living next to a halting site.

they didn't. the residents decided to obstruct the council to seek attention. the site should now be made permanent and the public order unit brought in to remove these protesters by full force.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Unfortunately travellers have chosen a way of life that is largely incompatible with settled life and society in general. If they made an effort to conform to social norms I don't think anyone would object to having them as neighbours. However certain parts of their culture such as machismo, violence, lack of social integration, and so on don't make them ideal neighbours. I'm also with carrickmines residents on this one, tragedy or no tragedy.

The tragedy shouldn't be used as a stick to beat the residents into submission or have a difficult situation forced on them.

not their job to "conform" to anything. nobody has to "conform" to "social norms" . all one has to do is be decent. if they aren't, plenty of systems exist to deal with them. no matter what travelers do it would never be good enough. their way of life is their way of life. the residents are obstructing the council and the full force of the law and full force must be used to remove from the site. we have a system to object to council proposals which these blockaders refused to use because they would rather seek attention using a tragedy to do so. vilify them, remove them from the site, make the site permenant. let people know that if you don't engage via the proper channels then the council will go ahead with its plans. if you want to object, use the proper channels or keep quiet

brooke 2 · 14-10-2015 03:34PM

end of the road wrote: »

they didn't. the residents decided to obstruct the council to seek attention. the site should now be made permanent and the public order unit brought in to remove these protesters by full force.

not their job to "conform" to anything. nobody has to "conform" to "social norms" . all one has to do is be decent. if they aren't, plenty of systems exist to deal with them. no matter what travelers do it would never be good enough. their way of life is their way of life. the residents are obstructing the council and the full force of the law and full force must be used to remove from the site. we have a system to object to council proposals which these blockaders refused to use because they would rather seek attention using a tragedy to do so. vilify them, remove them from the site, make the site permenant. let people know that if you don't engage via the proper channels then the council will go ahead with its plans. if you want to object, use the proper channels or keep quiet

Wow! Just wow!!

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 03:35PM

"based on the fact you try be decent to all. certain types don't like those who are decent to minorities, so come out with "look at me i'm trying to be derogatory" terms like "pc""

But he /she is not being decent to all. He has vehemently took an agenda and ran with it without even considering other aspects or the considerations of the 40 to 100 residents. It's clearly a one sided opinion and a classic case of keyboard warrior. As I said in my very first post give the residents the benefit of why they are protesting and allow them make their point. This was not done and now the leader of the country as well as the leader of travellers representation, Pavee Point is admitting the correct process wasnt adhered to.

But oh no. Not here. People like that poster can't fathom that anything other than their view is right because they are claiming to stand up for the minority group in this situation.

REPONSE TO END OF THE ROAD BOARDS IS ACTING UP

whatismyname · 14-10-2015 03:36PM

end of the road wrote: »

they didn't. the residents decided to obstruct the council to seek attention. the site should now be made permanent and the public order unit brought in to remove these protesters by full force.

I might agree with quite a bit of what you say on this, but on the site being made permanent just because local residents protested and obstructed it... definitely not...

There's a hell of a lot about the society we live in that is horrible, but that is not the type of society I'd want to live in either.

Penn · 14-10-2015 03:37PM

end of the road wrote: »

they didn't. the residents decided to obstruct the council to seek attention. the site should now be made permanent and the public order unit brought in to remove these protesters by full force.

not their job to "conform" to anything. nobody has to "conform" to "social norms" . all one has to do is be decent. if they aren't, plenty of systems exist to deal with them. no matter what travelers do it would never be good enough. their way of life is their way of life. the residents are obstructing the council and the full force of the law and full force must be used to remove from the site. we have a system to object to council proposals which these blockaders refused to use because they would rather seek attention using a tragedy to do so. vilify them, remove them from the site, make the site permenant. let people know that if you don't engage via the proper channels then the council will go ahead with its plans. if you want to object, use the proper channels or keep quiet

The point is, the Local Authority did not adhere to their own proper channels. That's the problem. The residents didn't have an opportunity to engage via the proper channels because the proper channels were ignored.

Mr McBoatface · 14-10-2015 03:41PM

But the council itself didn't engage in the normal practices. They didn't consult, they didn't seek permission. They attempted to rail road the resident's. The residents broke no laws. They merely parked their taxed cars on a road.....they demanded their concerns be addressed.

The council failed to provide a permanent housing solution to the travellers for the year's preceding the tragedy. I've no doubt the tragedy would not have happened of a permanent solution was found before hand.

It's not the first fatal fire at an unofficial/temp halting site. How about you direct you anger at the officials responsible for traveller accommodation for their failing to do their job.

Leave the residents of the estate alone.... they're caught up in a mess they didn't create

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 03:43PM

Such a likeable witty man, Johnny Connor. Thought he was at least late 30s. Only just 25

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 14-10-2015 03:44PM

end of the road wrote: »

they didn't. the residents decided to obstruct the council to seek attention. the site should now be made permanent and the public order unit brought in to remove these protesters by full force.

not their job to "conform" to anything. nobody has to "conform" to "social norms" . all one has to do is be decent. if they aren't, plenty of systems exist to deal with them. no matter what travelers do it would never be good enough. their way of life is their way of life. the residents are obstructing the council and the full force of the law and full force must be used to remove from the site. we have a system to object to council proposals which these blockaders refused to use because they would rather seek attention using a tragedy to do so. vilify them, remove them from the site, make the site permenant. let people know that if you don't engage via the proper channels then the council will go ahead with its plans. if you want to object, use the proper channels or keep quiet

Jesus Christ.

Fire at a halting site in Dublin *Mod Warning Post #1*

Comments

Fire at a halting site in Dublin Mod Warning Post #1