Residents object to temporary halting site

Azalea wrote: »

I don't know, was just giving my opinion of what "sensible liberal values" means.

I don't think politicians and the media are standing up for criminals, to be fair. Nobody's gonna call anyone a racist or bigot for criticising criminals. DSP recipients - presume you just mean the sponging ones.

Yes, sorry I do mean the sponging ones. Which is criminal!

I was talking about the fact that there doesn't seem to be any political entity out there that supports people who need a voice. You know, those who are called racist and bigot for trying to preserve their homes and families from potential criminality and worse, that can be foisted on them whether they like it or not.

Seems the power is with the minorities and their quangoes, and the politicians are afraid to open their mouths to support those who object.

That is not right in a democracy. Anyway.... onwards and upward.

Wibbs wrote: »

I agree HP, however why is it so normalised? It didn't spring from nowhere and in my lifetime it's gotten much much worse.

Yes, you are right.

So many other formerly minority groups are now mainstream and accepted.

But Travellers? Not a chance with non traveller people anyway (and many settled travellers too who are afraid to say a word.). All they see from them is mayhem.

And to think of all the millions poured into Pavee Point. For what?

But then again if the Traveller issue was sorted, there would be no more need for Traveller quangoes. Go figure.

Bebopclown wrote: »

It only feels like a matter of time until someone is pushed too far and it totally fed up by the Garda not doing anything. They'll take matters into their own hands and it will not be pretty. Mark my words, this is coming.

You can only push people so far and I felt this come through in mucksavages posts(I'm not saying you are going to do anything by the way muck savage do don't worry) but that sense of total exasperation and sadness came through.

People should not be expected to like this just so others can feel all is equal with the world.

no one wants a re occurrence of what happened last time.

I also would have reservations. Temporary often becomes the Permanent.

Bebopclown wrote: »

Well I knew about the anti social behaviour from personal experience, that's why I was justifying the objections.

And can I ask you bebop clown, do you intend to make your reservations known? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

Im going to write to the politicians involved for the way this has been handled.

I think the behaviour is more of a concern for residents.

From the indo

.....a spokeswoman for the Traveller group refused to comment on claims that residents in the area made about matters of anti-social behaviour.

If there was no behaviour issues, surely they would clarify this fairly quickly?

gandalf wrote: »

No its because of the baggage that these travellers bring with them. The residents have already stated that the site is known for anti-social behaviour.

no its because they are travelers. there has been no anti-social behaviour on that site

gandalf wrote: »

And again no they can't because the council are by passing the normal planning mechanism. You seem to be unable to grasp this concept?

yes they can, they are choosing not to. the council aren't by-passing anything, they are using legal powers to do something. all above board

gandalf wrote: »

And given the councils record on "temporary" halting sites we already know they can't be trusted either.

they can over a bunch of nimbys.

gandalf wrote: »

They are perfectly entitled to protest this unjust decision on the grounds of public order and that the site has unsuitable access for the purpose.

they are not entitled to block a road, stop the council from gaining access to one of their sites, block emergency services from being able to get down should they be required.

gandalf wrote: »

No a lot of people do not feel comfortable with the Travelling community because their are quite demonstrable levels of criminality within it and that community is not willing to tackle it and to demonstrate to society in general that they are capable of being good citizens.

no they just use those excuses to continue spouting yet wouldn't dare to do it toards any other group. its up to those people to change and then the travelers might be willing to come in from the cold. whatever the travelers are up to others are at the same things

gandalf wrote: »

Yes they do, they get multiple millions of euro pumped into their organisations by the state and have traveller specific accommodation and special staff within all the councils dealing with them.

thats due to their nomadic nature. its not special treatment, its simply necessary.

gandalf wrote: »

You are totally wrong. It does matter and it should matter going forward. If Travellers want to continue their traditional lifestyle then the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to fund it any longer.

i am totally right. it doesn't matter and nor should it, until such time as those in the settled community doing exactly the same thing get the same outrage. its our duty to provide basic facilities for those still taking part in nomadic traditions

gandalf wrote: »

Yes it is. It is cheating an awful lot of other services that could benefit the whole community of revenue. As stated if all the revenue wasted on Travellers was diverted to the Gardai then the current crime wave in Rural Ireland could be dealt with.

its not. we have the money to deal with both issues. its not an either or.

gandalf wrote: »

Despite them sponging off the wider communities taxes. Charming.

they aren't doing any more then sections of the settled community are doing.

gandalf wrote: »

Yes by providing halting sites we are promoting this way of life. This has to really stop. The one positive out of DLR's action against the residents of Rockville Drive is that it has made us all examine the waste of resource that is being ploughed into so called Traveller organisations and specific accomodation.

it is not promoting anything. provision of basic facilities for nomads should only stop when this tradition no longer exists. it is not a waste to give money to organizations dealing with the issues faced by travelers, nor is it a waste of money to provide basic facilities for those who take part in nomadic traditions

end of the road wrote: »

no its because they are travelers. there has been no anti-social behaviour on that site

What's your source for this?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

What's your source for this?

As far as i understand you do not have to respond to any comment in boards.ie - I think you will find something along those lines in the FAQ. And that's fair enough. Thems the rules.

Just draw your own conclusions when a poster does not engage.
My conclusion is that some posters are just plain bull****ter s. Mark, I did not say end of the road is a bull****te.r.

Bebopclown wrote: »

Well I knew about the anti social behaviour from personal experience, that's why I was justifying the objections.

That's not the same thing. I have no issue with "this group has a bad track record so I wouldn't want to live near them", I have an issue with "travellers in general have a bad track record so I wouldn't want travellers living next to me just in case they turn out to be bad ones".

That's an ideology many in this thread are justifying in an extremely thinly veiled manner. It's called profiling.

Apparently the council have previously stated that piece of land is unsuitable to be built on, so why is it ok for a bunch of travellers to live on it?

end of the road wrote: »

no its because they are travelers. there has been no anti-social behaviour on that site

The residents of that area say there has. I believe their word over the word of Mr. Anonymous on an internet forum.

yes they can, they are choosing not to. the council aren't by-passing anything, they are using legal powers to do something. all above board

No it's not they are bypassing the normal planning function and denying the residents a say in what happens in their community.

You talk about using normal channels to protest this. They can't those channels have been removed. You do understand this don't you?

they can over a bunch of nimbys.

No they are people quite commendably trying to preserve their local community. They are trying to preserve their culture

they are not entitled to block a road, stop the council from gaining access to one of their sites, block emergency services from being able to get down should they be required.

They are entitled to protect their community. And as for the tosh about blocking the emergancy services. You are aware that the location they are blocking is at the end of a cul-de-sac. There is no one there to be rescued :rolleyes:

no they just use those excuses to continue spouting yet wouldn't dare to do it toards any other group. its up to those people to change and then the travelers might be willing to come in from the cold. whatever the travelers are up to others are at the same things

Tell that to the old people in rural Ireland who are petrified of the travelling community.

Tell that to the people whose lives are being made a misery by anti-social behaviour from their traveller "neighbours".

Tell that to the people whose environments are being soiled by the serial littering and dumping around these halting sites.

thats due to their nomadic nature. its not special treatment, its simply necessary.

So it is outside the norm, which is special treatment.

i am totally right. it doesn't matter and nor should it, until such time as those in the settled community doing exactly the same thing get the same outrage. its our duty to provide basic facilities for those still taking part in nomadic traditions

No at this stage the Travelling community have to concede that the world has moved on and they need to join the 21st century and if they can't do it themselves then general society need to direct them in this direction.

its not. we have the money to deal with both issues. its not an either or.

What alternative planet are you on. Did you not see the cutbacks over the last 10 years. The monies wasted on this shame of traveller organisations and traveller accommodation can be used far more productively in a myriad of other more worthy areas.

they aren't doing any more then sections of the settled community are doing.

You know you are right but again as has been stated by many the traveller community seem to unwilling to work with the authorities to weed out the bad eggs. Until they do their reputation is going to be marred by the criminal elements.

it is not promoting anything. provision of basic facilities for nomads should only stop when this tradition no longer exists. it is not a waste to give money to organizations dealing with the issues faced by travelers, nor is it a waste of money to provide basic facilities for those who take part in nomadic traditions

It is a waste of money. It is obvious to me that the nomadic lifestyle is one that equals less education, less employment opportunities, higher possibility of criminal activity and lower lifespans. There is absolutely no way that society should be financing and encouraging this.

Add the fact that you and no one else who has been championing the traveller cause here has been unable or unwilling to show us the positives that Traveller Culture actually delivers it is quite obvious to me that financing this world only equals more anti-social, more criminality and more environmental damage for society as a whole.

end of the road wrote: »

they are not entitled to block a road, stop the council from gaining access to one of their sites, block emergency services from being able to get down should they be required

My but you have changed your tune a lot on people breaking the law. You used to be all for it when it was illegal turf cutting. How come you get to choose what laws are OK to ignore but no one else can?

The council work for the people, you seem to be forgetting that.

end of the road wrote: »

none of that is unique to travelers



are you setting it up? i'm betting on pavee point debunking all the generalizations such a group would come out with very easily

sorry end of the road, you have made a statement that there has been no anti social behaviour at this site.

Please clarify.