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

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 03:45PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

Wow! Just wow!!

SAYS IT ALL............................

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 03:47PM

Ha! Had to laugh there at Johnny.... "it's only bare knuckle boxing, no one gets hurt"!!

Shenshen · 14-10-2015 03:48PM

You'll have to forgive a non-native, but there's something rather fundamental I don't really understand about this crisis:

If the fire had been in a regular house somewhere, the council(s) would now surely be trying to find alternative accommodation for the families, rooms or apartments somewhere. Council houses. I'm not entirely sure they would be trying to find a "halting site" to house the people made homeless by a fire.

So why are they looking for one for these families now? Because they're travellers? Don't travellers also live in regular houses? Or is there something that demands they need to live in halting sites instead?

Or is it just cheaper for the council to throw together a few pre-fabs? If that's the case, wouldn't that be a handy short-term solution to the current problem we have with other families losing their homes?

efb · 14-10-2015 03:48PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

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

I disagreed with their strong arm tactics and any point that house prices were a legitimate reason to object. Emergency powers are just than - emergency

My name is URL · 14-10-2015 03:49PM

end of the road wrote: »

if they had gone through the proper channels like anyone else who has an objection to council proposals to launch their objection, i'd be willing to listen. however they blockaded a site, obstructing the council, costing money because i should imagine a contractor was used who could have been off doing something else, so therefore any sympathy i might have had for their point of view is not there and won't be

In fairness, the council didn't even follow the correct process in this case.

The letter residents received stated that work would begin on the same day the letter was received. That doesn't give anyone the opportunity to 'go through the proper channels' to file an objection.

Hopefully the meeting and consultations taking place now will allay any concerns and allow for things to move forward.

Mr McBoatface · 14-10-2015 03:50PM

end of the road wrote: »

if they had gone through the proper channels like anyone else who has an objection to council proposals to launch their objection, i'd be willing to listen. however they blockaded a site, obstructing the council, costing money because i should imagine a contractor was used who could have been off doing something else, so therefore any sympathy i might have had for their point of view is not there and won't be

How could they go through the proper channels when the proper channels here ignored by those who objections would be made too. The same people who where responsible for allowing an unsafe site exist in the first place ?

VinLieger · 14-10-2015 03:50PM

I do love when EotR drops his draconian bombshells into threads,

"what you stood up for yourself? now now only those who agree with me 100% have the right to do that, off with your heads!!!!!! ...... also your extended families can give me their houses as an example so that nobody else ever thinks of disagreeing with me.... now bow down and worship my glorious omnipotence!!!!!!!!"

Lord Trollington · 14-10-2015 03:50PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

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

Did I just hear him call the residents or equate them to "Nazis"

gandalf · 14-10-2015 03:51PM

end of the road wrote: »

if they had gone through the proper channels like anyone else who has an objection to council proposals to launch their objection, i'd be willing to listen. however they blockaded a site, obstructing the council, costing money because i should imagine a contractor was used who could have been off doing something else, so therefore any sympathy i might have had for their point of view is not there and won't be

And if the council had gone through normal planning channels this may have been resolved in a proper manner. Why should the residents be expected to go through "proper channels" when the council didn't bother and tried to railroad it through with a maximum of 2 hours notice?

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 03:51PM

end of the road wrote: »

if they had gone through the proper channels like anyone else who has an objection to council proposals to launch their objection, i'd be willing to listen. however they blockaded a site, obstructing the council, costing money because i should imagine a contractor was used who could have been off doing something else, so therefore any sympathy i might have had for their point of view is not there and won't be

DO YOU know how the planning permission process works. its about openness and the ability to object before the property is constructed

Therefore they were given no other choice. They had to react

You can say they used their "emergency powers" to a peaceful protest.

JustTheOne · 14-10-2015 03:51PM

Shenshen wrote: »

You'll have to forgive a non-native, but there's something rather fundamental I don't really understand about this crisis:

If the fire had been in a regular house somewhere, the council(s) would now surely be trying to find alternative accommodation for the families, rooms or apartments somewhere. Council houses. I'm not entirely sure they would be trying to find a "halting site" to house the people made homeless by a fire.

So why are they looking for one for these families now? Because they're travellers? Don't travellers also live in regular houses? Or is there something that demands they need to live in halting sites instead?

Or is it just cheaper for the council to throw together a few pre-fabs? If that's the case, wouldn't that be a handy short-term solution to the current problem we have with other families losing their homes?

Nonsense. Some of them are staying in hotels.

They don't want houses.

There is 20 houses the other end of the street boarded up that were given to the travellers for free 15 years ago.

They didn't want them then and they don't want them now.

end of the road · 14-10-2015 03:51PM

jobyrne30 wrote: »

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

they blocked a contractor from doing their work. their cars should have been towed away. plenty of ways they could have taken issue with the council other then blocking a road.

VinLieger · 14-10-2015 03:52PM

jobyrne30 wrote: »

How could they go through the proper channels when the proper channels here ignored by those who objections would be made too. The same people who where responsible for allowing an unsafe site exist in the first place ?

Enough of your logic, your house now belongs to travelers, your locks have been changed and possessions sold off

Richard Hillman · 14-10-2015 03:55PM

Is there an online petition to support the residents anywhere?

Mr McBoatface · 14-10-2015 03:56PM

end of the road wrote: »

they blocked a contractor from doing their work. their cars should have been toed away. plenty of ways they could have taken issue with the council other then blocking a road.

They parked their cars legally on a road. What law did they break that would allow for the car's to be towed away ?

efb · 14-10-2015 03:57PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

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

Where did I blaspheme them?

smash · 14-10-2015 03:57PM

end of the road wrote: »

they blocked a contractor from doing their work. their cars should have been toed away. plenty of ways they could have taken issue with the council other then blocking a road.

After the Travellers moved in?

Bottom line is that the vast majority of people who have paid a premium for their house will not want a halting site anywhere near them. They're messy, they can be loud, the occupants can be pretty unsavoury characters and they seriously devalue property in the area.

I'm with the residents here. The fire was tragic but the council need to wise up and not just dump the travellers in the nearest field they can find. The residents have very legitimate concerns!

end of the road · 14-10-2015 03:59PM

gandalf wrote: »

And if the council had gone through normal planning channels this may have been resolved in a proper manner. Why should the residents be expected to go through "proper channels" when the council didn't bother and tried to railroad it through with a maximum of 2 hours notice?

it was an emergency situation. no excuse for blockading a road.

efb · 14-10-2015 03:59PM

jobyrne30 wrote: »

They parked their cars legally on a road. What law did they break that would allow for the car's to be towed away ?

When is parking in front of an entrance refusing to move legal???

gandalf · 14-10-2015 04:00PM

end of the road wrote: »

they blocked a contractor from doing their work. their cars should have been toed away. plenty of ways they could have taken issue with the council other then blocking a road.

They protected their properties from a council that didn't follow due process and I commend them for their actions.

How do you suggest that they "take issue" with the council when they get two hours notice and the digger is already at their doorstep to start to construct this site. Bear in mind that the temporary site this is replacing was a temporary site itself? I believe it's been in situ 15+ years?

Lord Trollington · 14-10-2015 04:01PM

efb wrote: »

When is parking in front of an entrance refusing to move legal???

An entrance to what?

efb · 14-10-2015 04:01PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

DO YOU know how the planning permission process works. its about openness and the ability to object before the property is constructed

Therefore they were given no other choice. They had to react

You can say they used their "emergency powers" to a peaceful protest.

They had no choice but to act illegally???

They could have gotten an injunction preventing the work- lots do

end of the road · 14-10-2015 04:01PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

DO YOU know how the planning permission process works. its about openness and the ability to object before the property is constructed

Therefore they were given no other choice. They had to react

You can say they used their "emergency powers" to a peaceful protest.

they had choices. they don't get to block a public road. their cars should have been toed away and they be removed by the public order unit.

efb · 14-10-2015 04:01PM

Lord Trollington wrote: »

An entrance to what?

Council property. Are you not aware of all of this????

brooke 2 · 14-10-2015 04:02PM

end of the road wrote: »

they blocked a contractor from doing their work. their cars should have been toed away. plenty of ways they could have taken issue with the council other then blocking a road.

So, while they would be in 'discussions' with the Council, the bulldozers would have already moved in! That would finish well!!

Jamsiek · 14-10-2015 04:03PM

jobyrne30 wrote: »

They parked their cars legally on a road. What law did they break that would allow for the car's to be towed away ?

I wouldn't take much of what eotr says seriously
He said on another thread that pubs should be prosecuted for closing when travellers are in town. Such nonsense

efb · 14-10-2015 04:05PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

then why not put them in a hotel. That is the norm.

I am not the council I didn't make the decision!!!!

Lord Trollington · 14-10-2015 04:05PM

efb wrote: »

Council property. Are you not aware of all of this????

As far as I'm aware it was a cul de sac with a gate already blocked by boulders to a field that has been lying there for quite some time.

I didn't notice any "do not park signs". I see nothing wrong with where they parked myself.

VinLieger · 14-10-2015 04:05PM

end of the road wrote: »

it was an emergency situation. no excuse for blockading a road.

Blocking a road is an emergency? Suddenly I have visions of you in charge of police at a protest

"Sir one of the protestors looked at us funny"

"well we cant have that can we?open fire!"

efb · 14-10-2015 04:07PM

Lord Trollington wrote: »

As far as I'm aware it was a cul de sac with a gate already blocked by boulders to a field that has been lying there for quite some time.

I didn't notice any "do not park signs". I see nothing wrong with where they parked myself.

my gate doesn't have a sign doesn't mean you can park there either!

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

Comments

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