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

whatismyname · 14-10-2015 05:02PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Wasn't the place they were in when the fire started also temporary? And weren't they there for 9 years or something?

Just wondering, where did you see / hear this? (Not saying this is right or wrong, just wondering where you'd seen it, would love to find out more on this).

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 05:06PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Wasn't the place they were in when the fire started also temporary? And weren't they there for 9 years or something?

Indeed but please abandon logic and facts if you agree with the residents.............. that isnt fair to pc brigade

yop · 14-10-2015 05:12PM

Seen that mentioned that it was, no time period, only "There for years".
http://www.herald.ie/news/two-couples-and-five-children-including-baby-among-ten-people-dead-following-blaze-31598267.html

whatismyname · 14-10-2015 05:15PM

Interesting.

Not clear if they are Rockville residents though.

https://twitter.com/joemagraollaigh/status/654310144046723072/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/joemagraollaigh/status/654310144046723072/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

My name is URL · 14-10-2015 05:17PM

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Because those 5 residents had the balls to protest the rash move that didn't consult them

Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask. How about answering the ones I did ask?

Why does the word or experience of 5 people outweigh the many more who have spoken highly over the last week of the families and their place in the community?

Kids are schooled in the community and are part of local sports clubs, why should that be made not so, and the people forced out of the community by a small minority of residents?

Would people here have the same support for the handful of residents if they opposed the building of a new site in a more appropriate location... one similar to the old site, with direct access from a road rather than a cul de sac?

OldNotWIse · 14-10-2015 05:20PM

whatismyname wrote: »

Just wondering, where did you see / hear this? (Not saying this is right or wrong, just wondering where you'd seen it, would love to find out more on this).

I heard it from my Dad. Anecdotal. Hearsay. Etc

But let's be honest, "temporary" tends to have a very different meaning in Ireland.

whatismyname · 14-10-2015 05:21PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I heard it from my Dad. Anecdotal. Hearsay. Etc But let's be honest, "temporary" tends to have a very different meaning in Ireland.

Thanks. Someone posted a link up above that answers it.

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 05:25PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask. How about answering the ones I did ask?

Why does the word or experience of 5 people outweigh the many more who have spoken highly over the last week of the families and their place in the community?

Kids are schooled in the community and are part of local sports clubs, why should that be made not so, and the people forced out of the community by a small minority of residents?

Would people here have the same support for the handful of residents if they opposed the building of a new site in a more appropriate location... one similar to the old site, with direct access from a road rather than a cul de sac?

of course not.it is clearly this location. on their doorstep. Thought that was obvious

Dubl07 · 14-10-2015 05:25PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask. How about answering the ones I did ask?

Why does the word or experience of 5 people outweigh the many more who have spoken highly over the last week of the families and their place in the community?

Kids are schooled in the community and are part of local sports clubs, why should that be made not so, and the people forced out of the community by a small minority of residents?

Would people here have the same support for the handful of residents if they opposed the building of a new site in a more appropriate location... one similar to the old site, with direct access from a road rather than a cul de sac?

It's a high-profile case with a lot of media attention and perhaps residents feel there is sleight of hand and bullying going on. There are lots of big green fields with access directly off the main road but they'd be owned by people with access to solicitors and immediate injunctions. Very few in Rockville will want to be identified TO unsavoury elements and made targets of media or others.

Frankly, I feel very sad that there were so many deaths and I'm sorry for the grieving relatives and neighbours but to say that it's 'their way' to need a completely new site because they'll burn the remaining housing where the tragedy occurred is alarming. I would man the barricades in my area if there was any whisper of them moving next to me. There is no such thing as temporary traveller accommodation, however many lies DLRCC spins this week.

Wanderer78 · 14-10-2015 05:36PM

i wonder if theres an empty field for them near endas house?

smash · 14-10-2015 05:38PM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i wonder if theres an empty field for them near endas house?

Merrion square?

Mr McBoatface · 14-10-2015 05:39PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Thanks for answering a question I didn't ask. How about answering the ones I did ask?

Why does the word or experience of 5 people outweigh the many more who have spoken highly over the last week of the families and their place in the community?

Kids are schooled in the community and are part of local sports clubs, why should that be made not so, and the people forced out of the community by a small minority of residents?

Would people here have the same support for the handful of residents if they opposed the building of a new site in a more appropriate location... one similar to the old site, with direct access from a road rather than a cul de sac?

They are representatives of a section of the community that will be affected by the under handed nature of what the council has attempted to do. They stood up and spoke up despite knowing the full brunt of the posion the pc brigade and the likes of Alan Kelly would throw at them.

All they are asking is their concerns be addressed and point out they should have been consulted..... nothing unreasonable is it ?

They didn't force the travellers out of the community the tragic fire done that..... it's a sad event but they are not responsible for that.

The six families displaced by the recent house fires in Newbridge didn't have emergency accommodation built for them. Nor did those displaced by substandard Celtic tiger apartments with fire safety short comings.

end of the road · 14-10-2015 05:41PM

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Because those 5 residents had the balls to protest the rash move that didn't consult them

no balls at all. apart from seeking attention

whisky_galore wrote: »

What criminal charges?
Council tried to pull a fast one on residents by posting them letters and telling them a development was going ahead, with or without their consent. They know full well now they're on the back foot. Think it is naive in the extreme to assume residents were going to take this lying down.

the council aren't on the backfoot at all, they can still go ahead with the development. i'm sure there are other ways to enter the field circumventing the nimby blockade. a few nimbys were always going to cause trouble due to it being travelers, i wouldn't have expected anything less

Richard Hillman · 14-10-2015 05:45PM

There is nothing temporary about it, they will not go back to the old site because of what happened. They are very uneducated and believe in witchcraft and the like. They'll think that the place has a curse on it.

There is an abandoned halting site in Shankill (Not far away from where these people were living and is a very viable option) One of them died about 6-7 years ago on the site. The family burned the caravan and left the place. The place is fine but it hasn't be habited since then as it is "cursed".

Now imagine in 6-8 months time when their shiny new site has been rebuilt on the old site? Imagine the Gardai and the council having to "evict" these people from their temporary site? All the TV Cameras there to witness the poor family getting evicted, just months after the tragedy? The paper's running headlines like "Tragic Family Evicted", with a picture of a crying child plastered on the front page.

Deep Six · 14-10-2015 05:47PM

end of the road wrote: »

the council aren't on the backfoot at all, they can still go ahead with the development. i'm sure there are other ways to enter the field circumventing the nimby blockade. a few nimbys were always going to cause trouble due to it being travelers, i wouldn't have expected anything less

You seem quite aggressive when it comes to the idea that anybody could be opposed to a halting site of travellers being placed in their street. You could probably do with living close to a site like outlined multiple times in this thread, 12 months should be enough to get the full traveller experience. It might change your attitude fairly quickly.

suicide_circus · 14-10-2015 05:48PM

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?

You're quite right. If my home were provided by the state and burnt down, the state would put me in a hotel or whatever as a stop gap measure. Travelers need a field and what they want,they tend to get. If I demanded a houseboat to live in due to my family's rich maritime heritage, something tells me the dept of social protection would not be so obliging.

The thing is, to utter any of this out loud will see you branded as a racist.

Why there is special provision made for travellers in terms of accommodation or any other way is beyond me. They are people, they are citizens and thus should be viewed equal to anyone else by the machinery of the state. If they wish for specific lifestyle requirements it should be for them to provide them. Aren't we all big fans of equality these days?

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 05:51PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

There is nothing temporary about it, they will not go back to the old site because of what happened. They are very uneducated and believe in witchcraft and the like. They'll think that the place has a curse on it.

There is an abandoned halting site in Shankill (Not far away from where these people were living and is a very viable option) One of them died about 6-7 years ago on the site. The family burned the caravan and left the place. The place is fine but it hasn't be habited since then as it is "cursed".

Now imagine in 6-8 months time when their shiny new site has been rebuilt on the old site? Imagine the Gardai and the council having to "evict" these people from their temporary site? All the TV Cameras there to witness the poor family getting evicted, just months after the tragedy? The paper's running headlines like "Tragic Family Evicted", with a picture of a crying child plastered on the front page.

Richard. Firstly the council aren't asking them or arranging them to relocate back to the destroyed sit. They are claiming they are looking for another site. Whether they are or not is debatable as the last site was also temporary.

However who would blame them for not wanting to return to the site where 10 of their family burnt to death. I certainly couldn't. And it has little to do with witchcraft for me. I couldn't live on a site where that happened.

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 05:53PM

Deep Six wrote: »

You seem quite aggressive when it comes to the idea that anybody could be opposed to a halting site of travellers being placed in their street. You could probably do with living close to a site like outlined multiple times in this thread, 12 months should be enough to get the full traveller experience. It might change your attitude fairly quickly.

I'm sure he does already...... and they are all like the Brady bunch.

crazygeryy · 14-10-2015 05:54PM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i wonder if theres an empty field for them near endas house?

no there isnt and you can be damn sure if there was enda would not let them next or near the place.
its a sad fact that no one wants travellers living next door to them and its also a sad fact that there is good reason for it.
the majority of travellers cannot live normal clean living lives.there is a minority that can but the majority far far outweigh them.

eviltwin · 14-10-2015 05:54PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Richard. Firstly the council aren't asking them or arranging them to relocate back to the destroyed sit. They are claiming they are looking for another site. Whether they are or not is debatable as the last site was also temporary.

However who would blame them for not wanting to return to the site where 10 of their family burnt to death. I certainly couldn't. And it has little to do with witchcraft for me. I couldn't live on a site where that happened.

And that's probably why these residents are so worried this will be a long term solution. No one could expect them to return to the site, that would be cruel but shoving them into a bit of land isn't going to help them either.

smash · 14-10-2015 05:56PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Travelers need a field and what they want,they tend to get.

Even when they get houses, they don't appreciate it. A perfect example are the houses in Rathfarnham beside Nutgrove shopping centre. The kids don't go to school and run around the road, there's animals all over the place, one house was burned down because someone died in it, cars have been burnout out on their green and I've personally witnessed them empty bins on the green and set fire to the rubbing.

end of the road · 14-10-2015 05:56PM

smash wrote: »

You assume the residents have not done this...

You see, this isn't an economic force that's affecting their property values. It's an action being taken by a council who have not applied for planning permission or properly inform residents about the building of accommodation for a certain demographic who will certainly cause a devaluation of the local assets, cause an eyesore with the mess they inevitably bring with them, could potentially cause health and safety hazards, and could potentially bring in unsavoury characters as I've previously stated.

well this is just entirety untrue. It's just your opinion, and it's a daft one!

You seem to be of the opinion that those who have worked hard to create a home and a community should just bend over and accept that what they've worked for shall now be taken from them without a fight.

nothing is being taken from them. a devaluation of property is the risk you take when taking out a mortgage.

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Indeed but please abandon logic and facts if you agree with the residents.............. that isnt fair to pc brigade

the pc brigade doesn't exist. its a made up term thrown into a rant by those thinking they are being derogatory

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 06:00PM

end of the road wrote: »

the pc brigade doesn't exist. its a made up term thrown into a rant by those thinking they are being derogatory

Oh they exist alright. They just don't know it.

Richard Hillman · 14-10-2015 06:01PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Richard. Firstly the council aren't asking them or arranging them to relocate back to the destroyed sit. They are claiming they are looking for another site. Whether they are or not is debatable as the last site was also temporary.

However who would blame them for not wanting to return to the site where 10 of their family burnt to death. I certainly couldn't. And it has little to do with witchcraft for me. I couldn't live on a site where that happened.

Agree. There is no way they should be expected to back. I was about to edit my post to say that. But if there is a new site found and built for them, what happens if they want to stay at this temporary site?

smash · 14-10-2015 06:01PM

end of the road wrote: »

nothing is being taken from them. a devaluation of property is the risk you take when taking out a mortgage.

A devaluation as a result of economic forces is a risk. A devaluation as a result of a traver's halting site should never be a risk that you have to consider when purchasing a house.

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 06:06PM

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Agree. There is no way they should be expected to back. I was about to edit my post to say that. But if there is a new site found and built for them, what happens if they want to stay at this temporary site?

then people like End Of The Road start a new thread /pc rant

Mr McBoatface · 14-10-2015 06:07PM

I wonder if the fools in the council who made this mess actually even bothered to consult with the traveller families concerned ?

Maybe they don't even want to be located anywhere in the area at all.

Surely the best thing to have done was provide hotel accommodation let the grieving families come to terms with the enormity of the event and then through consultation decide on a suitable place.

It wouldn't surprise me to hear the concerns or thoughts of the traveller families weren't even considered by the officials who failed to provide suitable accommodation for the last 9 years. I'd imagine this "solution" would be forced down their throats .

end of the road · 14-10-2015 06:09PM

jobyrne30 wrote: »

They are representatives of a section of the community that will be affected by the under handed nature of what the council has attempted to do. They stood up and spoke up despite knowing the full brunt of the posion the pc brigade and the likes of Alan Kelly would throw at them.

All they are asking is their concerns be addressed and point out they should have been consulted..... nothing unreasonable is it ?

They didn't force the travellers out of the community the tragic fire done that..... it's a sad event but they are not responsible for that.

The six families displaced by the recent house fires in Newbridge didn't have emergency accommodation built for them. Nor did those displaced by substandard Celtic tiger apartments with fire safety short comings.

the pc brigade rabel rabel doesn't exist apart from in the minds of certain types. its a made up term thrown into rants by those types thinking by throwing it in they are being derogatory. the council did their bit in consulting the residents. the only concern is simply they are travelers, that doesn't need to be addressed, as the family are known in the area and the majority don't have any issues. anyone effected by incidents have access to emergency accommodation.

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Oh they exist alright. They just don't know it.

oh no they don't. those of us living in the real world know it

suicide_circus · 14-10-2015 06:10PM

smash wrote: »

Even when they get houses, they don't appreciate it. A perfect example are the houses in Rathfarnham beside Nutgrove shopping centre. The kids don't go to school and run around the road, there's animals all over the place, one house was burned down because someone died in it, cars have been burnout out on their green and I've personally witnessed them empty bins on the green and set fire to the rubbing.

Yep I know these houses well. Pavee point and the like are campaigning for recognition of travellers as a separate ethnic group. Fine. But then don't come crying when travellers are "tarred with the same brush" due to the rampant criminality of a "small" minority of travellers. Seems like they want their cake and eat it too. As I said earlier, if we want equality in this country let's have it. And the first step will be this community getting its own house in order.

My name is URL · 14-10-2015 06:12PM

Have any of the travellers themselves actually commented on the proposed temporary location?

Looking at it on Google and I gotta say it doesn't look like somewhere that even they'd be happy to live.

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Carrickmines,+Co.+Dublin/@53.243838,-6.1829963,147m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x48670836c4a85331:0xbfc20f60b44f2318!6m1!1e1

The council fcuked up big time on this. I wonder how they even managed to come up with that as a location. Sure they may as well be offered houses instead with how on top of houses it is! I'm sure it's not the only single piece of land they own in the town or surrounding area

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Agree. There is no way they should be expected to back. I was about to edit my post to say that. But if there is a new site found and built for them, what happens if they want to stay at this temporary site?

I don't think it'd be much of an issue if it were agreed upon beforehand. If they refused to leave after the new site is finished then presumably they'd be moved on by authorities and the council as happens already all the time.

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

Comments

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