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

Means Of Escape · 14-10-2015 08:22PM

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

Define their "way of life"

whatismyname · 14-10-2015 08:23PM

Nodster wrote: »

I was being serious and most likely another site in the general Carrickmines area as they won't return to their former site.

Don't worry, I didn't think you were joking

I think the ideal scenario is for them to stay within their local community - as they've already been through such a huge trauma, further upheaval and disruption isn't likely to help that, particularly I think for the wee ones.

But whether the Southside Travellers Group can network other halting sites, I really don't know. It's not been covered in media, and I doubt any of us with know, other than them themselves.

05eaftqbrs9jlh · 14-10-2015 08:24PM

Spanish Eyes wrote:

It is so outrageous that it is somewhat sinister that the Council are so afraid of the PC liberals that they would ride roughshod over the residents with an hour's notice.

Hey, maybe it's not that they're PC liberals. Maybe it's that the provision of accommodation for displaced people is a necessity. Maybe you're looking at it in the entirely wrong way. I'm just saying "maybe".

My name is URL · 14-10-2015 08:33PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Homeless non Travellers are accommodated in hotels and B and B.

And what hotel or B&B is going to agree to take in a load of travellers?

Not ideal, I know, I think they should be given a house or an apartment meself, Fortwith, i.e. within a few days. That will not happen.

Right, so assuming they were offered and accepted a house in the meantime, do you think the people living next door to them would agree to it? Would the residents be justified in blocking such a provision to house the families in that situation?

You keep going on about equality and how the same emergency housing provisions should be used for all, but you know full well that the people at the center of it won't be treated in the same way as non-traveller families would be, even if authorities and the council used standard provisions.

Spanish Eyes · 14-10-2015 08:36PM

Franco Uninterested Ventilation wrote: »

Hey, maybe it's not that they're PC liberals. Maybe it's that the provision of accommodation for displaced people is a necessity. Maybe you're looking at it in the entirely wrong way. I'm just saying "maybe".

Glad you said Maybe.

I have no doubt that a settled family would be accommodated too in such circumstances, but I doubt it would be in a greenfield site with showers and hot water all laid on and caravans or modular dwellings all at the end of a neighbours road either within a week!

A hotel or apartment more like.

But then again being realistic, what hotel or Landlord is going to take them on? The council know there is no way that is going to happen, hence the action today. Says it all really.

Just saying like.

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 08:41PM

My name is URL wrote: »

And what hotel or B&B is going to agree to take in a load of travellers?

Right, so assuming they were offered and accepted a house in the meantime, do you think the people living next door to them would agree to it? Would the residents be justified in blocking such a provision to house the families in that situation?

You keep going on about equality and how the same emergency housing provisions should be used for all, but you know full well that the people at the center of it won't be treated in the same way as non-traveller families would be, even if authorities and the council used standard provisions.

a house is completely different to a halting site. Plenty of travellers are given social housing. Ive honestly never heard of objections although i'm sure there are some. Majority refuse or abuse it. But that is beside the point here

Spanish Eyes · 14-10-2015 08:47PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

a house is completely different to a halting site. Plenty of travellers are given social housing. Ive honestly never heard of objections although i'm sure there are some. Majority refuse or abuse it. But that is beside the point here

Ah here, there are no letters sent around to residents when a house is being allocated to anyone by the Council.

But it seems there is a difference when it comes to so called "temporary" halting sites. That's because the Council invoked its Emergency Powers in the circumstances. Well at least the residents of that area got a window of five minutes to object.

Not so with everyone else.

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 08:55PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Ah here, there are no letters sent around to residents when a house is being allocated to anyone by the Council.

But it seems there is a difference when it comes to so called "temporary" halting sites. That's because the Council invoked its Emergency Powers in the circumstances. Well at least the residents of that area got a window of five minutes to object.

Not so with everyone else.

they are objecting to the development of a halting site on their cul de sac, not to a family moving in to a predeveloped legitimately planned HOUSE. I dont see the correlation.

Spanish Eyes · 14-10-2015 09:06PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

they are objecting to the development of a halting site on their cul de sac, not to a family moving in to a predeveloped legitimately planned HOUSE. I dont see the correlation.

Eh, the correlation is that they have not been offerred a house! Or an hotel room, or an apartment or a hostel.

TBH I can understand why, no one would take them in, and the Council know this so well so they have backed off on that and proceeded to use their Emergency Powers to override the local community.

But hey, that is great and what the heck.

But a little community of residents has been totally blindsided with a halting site at the end of their cul de sac with five minutes notice.

gctest50 · 14-10-2015 09:13PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

they are objecting to the development of a halting site on their cul de sac, not to a family moving in to a predeveloped legitimately planned HOUSE. I dont see the correlation.

1 rockville is just sold - might be yer predeveloped yokie yet

https://www.realestatealliance.ie/residential/brochure/1-rockville-drive-carrickmines-dublin-18/1764718

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 09:18PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Eh, the correlation is that they have not been offerred a house! Or an hotel room, or an apartment or a hostel.

TBH I can understand why, no one would take them in, and the Council know this so well so they have backed off on that and proceeded to use their Emergency Powers to override the local community.

But hey, that is great and what the heck.

But a little community of residents has been totally blindsided with a halting site at the end of their cul de sac with five minutes notice.

no, they were offered such but seemingly refused as they wanted a site.

im on the residents side btw just in case our wires are crossed but my issue is not the travellers, it is the type of development, unplanned nature of it in an unsuitable location without any regard for the people who have lived there decades, pay local taxes etc

Spanish Eyes · 14-10-2015 09:20PM

gctest50 wrote: »

1 rockville is just sold - might be yer predeveloped yokie yet

https://www.realestatealliance.ie/residential/brochure/1-rockville-drive-carrickmines-dublin-18/1764718

I think it is fair to say that this house would NOT have been sold if the halting site was in the back garden.

Reality bites.

And I feel so sorry for the purchaser. Hope the halting site is re sited in Alan Kelly's back garden. Otherwise he should shut the F up.

Spanish Eyes · 14-10-2015 09:21PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

no, they were offered such but seemingly refused as they wanted a site.

im on the residents side btw just in case our wires are crossed but my issue is not the travellers, it is the type of development, unplanned nature of it in an unsuitable location without any regard for the people who have lived there decades, pay local taxes etc

Yes I think I know where you are on this. Just had to say what I said anyway.

They have a nerve all the same DEMANDING special treatment that would not be available to everyone in the circumstances.

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 09:21PM

gctest50 wrote: »

1 rockville is just sold - might be yer predeveloped yokie yet

https://www.realestatealliance.ie/residential/brochure/1-rockville-drive-carrickmines-dublin-18/1764718

????? what has this to do with what im saying, sorry?

gctest50 · 14-10-2015 09:29PM

17A would be a much better bet for the council to acquire - cpo a bit of the field behind - it'd be much safer

http://i.imgur.com/N3drnvT.jpg

http://myhome.ie/residential/brochure/17a-glenamuck-cottages-carrickmines-dublin-18/3171605

.

whatismyname · 14-10-2015 10:05PM

Carrickmines Appeal

SVP members from St Mary's Conference in Sandyford and the Rathdown Area attended a meeting today (Monday October 12) with traveller representative groups, the HSE and other agencies to discuss the most appropriate support for the families involved in this terrible tragedy.

The Society of St Vincent de Paul (SVP) has opened a special bank account to accept public donations for the families affected by the appalling fire at Carrickmines.

If you would like to make a donation online please visit www.svp.ie/get-involved/donate/single-donation.aspx and select 'Carrickmines Appeal' in the 'What prompted you to donate' field

Details are at http://www.svp.ie/CarrickminesAppeal

whatismyname · 14-10-2015 10:12PM

An online letter of condolence, apparently being sent to the families in a few days.

Near 5,000 signed so far.

https://uplift.ie/condolences/

The heart wrenching news that 10 people, including children and a small baby, lost their lives in a fire on Glenamuck Halting Site in south Dublin, has left us speechless.

When something like this happens, all we can do is rally together and express our collective sorrow to the families and communities involved. At the very least it’s an outlet for the awful sense of helplessness we all feel.

That’s why the Uplift community is coming together to speak with one voice in the wake of this tragedy.

The cause of the fire is still unknown but it’s clear that the community in Carrickmines halting site had little chance of survival once the fire took hold. This is a familiar story for many in the Traveller community, as poor living conditions leave so many at risk.

Only this week a group of mothers, living on the Spring Lane Halting Site in Cork city, spoke to me with tears in their eyes about the fear they live with because conditions are so bad there. [1]

However, today our community simply wants to send the family of the victims of this terrible tragedy in Glenamuck Halting Site our deepest condolences. The letter of condolence will be sent to the family in a few days time.

end of the road · 14-10-2015 10:18PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The PC brigade are generally centre left, well heeled, educated, possibly with a background in law, live in leafy suburbs, into politics, and ultimately nimbys themselves. The ultimate nimby is someone who goes around telling everyone to accept this or that while at the same time unwilling to accept it themselves.

There should be a rule against asking others to do what you wouldn't do yourself. So all those who want the Carrickmines residents to accommodate these travellers should be asked to accommodate some themselves, in the interests of fairness.

In any case, the Carrickmines residents have been put into a very bad spot by the council and also the media.

the pc brigade and pc liberals rabel rabel don't exist and are a myth. they were made up and are perpetuated by a well known type of person.. the media are just reporting a story the decent respectable people against this nasty act of nimbyism don't need any wake up call and we aren't going to get it thankfully

end of the road · 14-10-2015 10:27PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The Council are donkeys, with due respect to asses. They used the Emergency Provisions for accommodation, terrified of the PC Liberals and what they might say if they didn't provide Traveller specific accommodation.

Doesn't matter that a settled community would be discomoded. Ah no, feck them, have to make sure that we are right on in our approach here, otherwise we will be called Racists and Bigots. Ha.

So like I said, the biggest crime is being committed by the residents.

It is so outrageous that it is somewhat sinister that the Council are so afraid of the PC liberals that they would ride roughshod over the residents with an hour's notice.

This has to stop. Everyone should have a voice in Ireland, otherwise we are living in a dictatorship.

they used their emergency accommodation powers to temporarily rehome a traveler family who lost everything including 10 members. nothing more. the rest of your post is made up. it sounds of typical victim hard done by style nonsense to beat certain groups with. this is 2015. pc liberals don't exist apart from in the minds of some.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The council are being dictated to by "them" and you know who I mean.

You chose to ignore my point about the Council being terrified of the PC crowd. Why is that. Are you a member? lol.

The fact that Travellers have to be accommodated on THEIR terms fortwith is an indication to me that equality of esteem is not happening in this country at all.

Homeless non Travellers are accommodated in hotels and B and B.

Not ideal, I know, I think they should be given a house or an apartment meself, Fortwith, i.e. within a few days. That will not happen.

none of what you are spouting is the case. the council are simply using their emergency powers to site people who have lost everything until a permenant site can be found. they are doing it because not only is it the decent thing to do, but they are required to provide temporary accommodation to those who have no home. they aren't terrified of anyone. specially something made up like pc liberals. travelers aren't, and don't have to be accommodated on their terms.

digzy · 14-10-2015 10:36PM

I'm waiting for those people who offered rooms in their houses to the refugees after seeing that awful photo of the little boy to offer those same rooms to the travellers.....maybe they're not as cuddly...

blackbox · 14-10-2015 10:38PM

It was a dreadful thing to happen to anyone. However if the survivors had lived in a housing estate or council flats, the local authority would probably provide emergency accommodation in a hotel.

They wouldn't be looking to put them in a field. Shouldn't people be treated the same irrespective of their ethnicity?

14-10-2015 10:40PM

I remember from my childhood that travellers were supposed to have a taboo on returning to the site of a tragedy. If this holds true for the current generation, the Council will be wasting their resources constructing anything at all on the present site.

The Talking Bread · 14-10-2015 10:48PM

blackbox wrote: »

It was a dreadful thing to happen to anyone. However if the survivors had lived in a housing estate or council flats, the local authority would probably provide emergency accommodation in a hotel.

They wouldn't be looking to put them in a field. Shouldn't people be treated the same irrespective of their ethnicity?

No. They have asked for a halting site. Entirely different. The Council would be in a better situation if they took a house like is the norm in such situations.

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

Deleted User wrote: »

I remember from my childhood that travellers were supposed to have a taboo on returning to the site of a tragedy. If this holds true for the current generation, the Council will be wasting their resources constructing anything at all on the present site.

They aren't planning to relocate them back to the other site. They claim they have a "third" site that will be ready in 6 months........ Claim being the noteworthy word here.

CollyFlower · 14-10-2015 10:54PM

Don't know if this has been mentioned already but the fire site was a temporary site and has been occupied for 10 years... This new 'temp site' won't be for 6 months, it will be 6 months + **** years.

whatismyname · 14-10-2015 10:56PM

CollyFlower wrote: »

Don't know if this has been mentioned already but the fire site was a temporary site and has been occupied for 10 years... This new 'temp site' won't be for 6 months, it will be 6 months + **** years.

Yep it's been mentioned already.

It's been reported how water tight the contracts are guaranteeing that this is temporary. But we've no real no way of knowing the situations regarding the contracts etc for the previous 'temporary' site.

So it's hard, I think, to make comparisons, or to predict what will happen really.

CollyFlower · 14-10-2015 11:04PM

Do the travellers pay water, electricity and bin charges on the sites they occupy?

whatismyname · 14-10-2015 11:27PM

CollyFlower wrote: »

Do the travellers pay water, electricity and bin charges on the sites they occupy?

I really don't know, but I'm sure someone who does know will be along.

Just from googling... very little asking / answering that questions on Irish websites.

The nearest thing I could find asking as similar question on an Irish site was
this document 'Irish Travellers - Challenging the Myths' http://itmtrav.ie/uploads/publication/Challenging_the_Myths.pdf

Travellers are often labelled as cheats who do not pay taxes
and do not pay for the services they receive on halting sites.
Travellers on official halting sites pay rent to local authorities,
even when such sites and services are sub-standard. Any
Traveller in receipt of social welfare is means tested in the
same way as the general population.

In the UK, many council websites address this question

E.g. http://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/your_council/policies_and_performance/equality_and_diversity/gypsy_and_traveller_myth_bust.aspx

All Gypsies and Travellers living on a local authority or privately owned sites pay council tax, rent, gas, electricity, and all other charges measured in the same way as other houses.

Not completely relevant since it's not Ireland, but I find it unlikely that they don't 'need to pay, and thought it worth mentioning what's on the UK council websites all the same, particularly since there's less info I can find online in relation to Ireland.

CollyFlower · 14-10-2015 11:47PM

I can't help but think this is a issue they'll 'milk' for years to come.

whatismyname · 14-10-2015 11:48PM

CollyFlower wrote: »

I can't help but think this is a issue they'll 'milk' for years to come.

Out of interest, 'they' as in who... the travellers, the local residents, or both? Sorry, just not sure.

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

Comments

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