Residents object to temporary halting site

EazyD · 19-10-2015 12:03PM

irishpancake wrote: »

Abandoned halting site?

Surely you mean the site destroyed by an inferno just over a week ago?

Anti social behaviour is alleged by some residents, who are protesters, so they would allege such stuff to bolster their case.

I'm not saying there was none, I'm saying they produced no evidence, apart from their own statements. No prosecution records against named person's living, or indeed now dead, were produced.

The Council undoubtedly miscalculated the level of sympathy, which was expressed by these residents, and acted as if there would be a welcome from those sympathisers for the Temporasry solution proposed, with a definite finish date, to which they committed.

Of course, the LA are within their legal rights to invoke the Emergency powers they have, as this was and is an Emerrgency.

The residents, on the other hand, are the ones breaking the law.

Let's hope there is a resolution soon, with funerals being held tomorrow.

No one wins from this.

"No one wins from this"

Well the likes of the bleeding heart PC types like Ms.Mullaly certainly have if we are to go by the sheer volume of garbage pushed by her and her like since this happened.

irishpancake · 19-10-2015 12:06PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

While you're at it, count how many people like me have contributed - I had pretty neutral feelings about Travellers until I had dealings with them in a professional capacity. I still have a lot of
sympathy for some of the women in their community who suffer in so many ways at the hands of their men, who frequently are thugs and bullies. There are lovely gentle people among them but they are in the minority and suffer greatly at the hands of the thuggish majority. That is the unfortunate truth, as I have seen with my own eyes.

So, your opinion of Travellers as a group, is influenced by your professional interactions with individual Travellers?

You surely know what that is?

And what it would be called, if said about another race, creed or colour of people....

Your attitude is endemic in Irish Society, and we don't like it when people call it what it is.

We get highly indignant at the very suggestion, but it's there, it's widespread and casual.

Wibbs · 19-10-2015 12:06PM

street_marker wrote: »

amazing how anti democratic some liberals can be

Just like any other group really. It's only democratic when it agrees with us sorta thing. As Winston Churchill said in the future fascism will come from the left.

I do think conjecture over the cause of the fire and the tragedy that unfolded helps nobody. House fires can kick off all too easily. I've experience of that, but thankfully I caught it in time.

irishpancake wrote:

Of course, the LA are within their legal rights to invoke the Emergency powers they have, as this was and is an Emerrgency.

The residents, on the other hand, are the ones breaking the law.

I'll be watching with interest how quickly the council invoke their powah and move on the law breaking residents. It'll be interesting to compare their pace of action when compared to how quickly they move on illegal halting sites. In my local experience they dragged their heels in a big way. We're talking months as a local park was destroyed and the filth built up. Then again a far greater Garda presence is required for that sort of illegal gathering.

gandalf · 19-10-2015 12:15PM

irishpancake wrote: »

Abandoned halting site?

Surely you mean the site destroyed by an inferno just over a week ago?

Yes it has been abandoned. What is inaccurate with what I have said?

Anti social behaviour is alleged by some residents, who are protesters, so they would allege such stuff to bolster their case.

They are saying it because they believe it and have experienced it.

I'm not saying there was none, I'm saying they produced no evidence, apart from their own statements. No prosecution records against named person's living, or indeed now dead, were produced.

I'm sorry yes you are. Given the media slant at the moment even if these details were available they probably wouldn't be published. Also given the lack of willingness for the authorities to deal with anti-social behaviour coming from halting sites and travellers it is entirely possible they weren't acted upon. That doesn't make the residents concerns any less valid!

The Council undoubtedly miscalculated the level of sympathy, which was expressed by these residents, and acted as if there would be a welcome from those sympathisers for the Temporasry solution proposed, with a definite finish date, to which they committed.

No the council tried to piss all over a community and its rights to a peaceful life.

Of course, the LA are within their legal rights to invoke the Emergency powers they have, as this was and is an Emerrgency.

How is this an emergency. The survivors are being housed using the normal emergency mechanisms. They are guaranteed a permanent home in six months which is far more than the majority in the emergency housing mechanism can look forward to. Now they are getting even more preferential treatment. So much for the wish of the travelling community to be considered equal.

The residents, on the other hand, are the ones breaking the law.

Yes they have been forced to do so by the heavy handed Council reaction. And if it is forced through against their wishes the council and the establishment will find they have opened a can of worms they wish they didn't. From my perspective it has certainly concentrated my mind on the extreme waste of resources on a community that seems to offer nothing positive the wider society that it exists in.

Let's hope there is a resolution soon, with funerals being held tomorrow.

No one wins from this.

The only solution I would see working is to put all the resources they were going to into the temporary location into getting the permanent location up to speed with the existing workers who are working on it at the moment. With those kind of resources they should be able to get the family into the permanent location before Christmas which is surely a far better result than moving them into a unsuitable location where they are not wanted.

brooke 2 · 19-10-2015 12:20PM

irishpancake wrote: »

So, your opinion of Travellers as a group, is influenced by your professional interactions with individual Travellers?

You surely know what that is?

And what it would be called, if said about another race, creed or colour of people....

Your attitude is endemic in Irish Society, and we don't like it when people call it what it is.

We get highly indignant at the very suggestion, but it's there, it's widespread and casual.

..................................................

homerjay2005 · 19-10-2015 12:30PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is there anybody on this thread who wouldn't mind a halting site right next door to their house?

there is it appears and id bet those people live in places where its actually not physically possible for travelers to live so they will never be faced with that possibility.

Until traveler groups stand up and put steps in-place internally to improve the behaviour of a portion of their people, nothing will ever change. the bad rep is there for a reason, the only people who can change that are themselves.

irishpancake · 19-10-2015 12:31PM

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

The residents certainly know the site won't be there for six months. Six years will be likely if they are stupid enough to agree. Between their bedraggled pre-maturely aged women who beg from door to door to the threatening traveller man with no insurance on his van (had that experience recently), I really only want them far away. All those protestor types supporting them should ask their parents if they would accommodate them.

How do the residents know this with certainty?

The agreement with regard to the destroyed site had no time frame.

A rigid 6 month time frame is proposed for this Emergency site, with new accommodation already being prepared, and it will be ready after Christmas.

EazyD · 19-10-2015 12:33PM

irishpancake wrote: »

How do the residents know this with certainty?

The agreement with regard to the destroyed site had no time frame.

A rigid 6 month time frame is proposed for this Emergency site, with new accommodation already being prepared, and it will be ready after Christmas.

They don't but you'd be a fool to be convinced otherwise given the response of the LA thus far. Would you take their word for it if you lived in Carrickmines?

irishpancake · 19-10-2015 12:39PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

No, I don't think that they set out to burn 10 of their number to death. I don't know the cause of the fire but if the cause of fire was through some illegal activity such as stealing electricity, I don't see why we should be bending over backwards to accommodate them. I certainly don't see why a community should be forced to accept having a halting site forced on them.

The same effort isn't made when members of the settled community have housefires.

I'm not apportioning blame, I'm asking questions. And to be honest, it's my belief that due to political correctness, if the travellers caused the fire through illegal activities, then the report wouldn't be made public.

So, what should be done while we await the official reports?

Possibly a year or two from now.

Which may or may not apportion blame?

Do you think any and all help to these people, like housing them, should await the reports?

And, what if the reports do not apportion blame to the victims, which you seem anxious to do, what then?

Reports such as these are always made public, despite your paranoia.

padd b1975 · 19-10-2015 12:40PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is there anybody on this thread who wouldn't mind a halting site right next door to their house?

*tumbleweed*

Spanish Eyes · 19-10-2015 12:42PM

Why doesn't the council just refurbish the "permanent alternative" site fortwith? I can't see any advantage either financially or otherwise in diverting resources into a greenfield site, while at the same time the permanent site is slowly refurbished.

It makes no sense to me at all, but maybe I am missing something here. The bereaved are being accommodated at the moment, and are no doubt warm, dry and safe. As a poster upthread said, if the council got the finger out the permanent alternative site would be ready by Christmas.

EazyD · 19-10-2015 12:43PM

irishpancake wrote: »

So, what should be done while we await the official reports?

Possibly a year or two from now.

Which may or may not apportion blame?

Do you think any and all help to these people, like housing them, should await the reports?

And, what if the reports do not apportion blame to the victims, which you seem anxious to do, what then?

Irrespective of what's found they will get emergency accommodation with a more permanent solution down the line. More than can be said for the average Joe were it to happen to them.

whatismyname · 19-10-2015 12:44PM

EazyD wrote: »

They don't but you'd be a fool to be convinced otherwise given the response of the LA thus far. Would you take their word for it if you lived in Carrickmines?

Well since the response included work already underway at the new permanent site...

http://www.herald.ie/news/new-homes-being-built-for-traveller-families-left-homeless-by-blaze-34119922.html

They're probably just doing that for the craic of it.

foggy_lad · 19-10-2015 12:45PM

whatismyname wrote: »

Out of interest, what do you think will happen to the new permanent homes that work has already begun on?

If the Temporary site is allowed all resources will be directed to getting that open and ready and then the other houses that were left without a penny'worth of copper will be boarded up again and the Sthones moved across the entrance again as the council will claim it is not urgent and funding earmarked is required elsewhere, Local Authorities have a proven track record of pulling such stunts!

irishpancake wrote: »

Abandoned halting site?

Surely you mean the site destroyed by an inferno just over a week ago?

Anti social behaviour is alleged by some residents, who are protesters, so they would allege such stuff to bolster their case.

I'm not saying there was none, I'm saying they produced no evidence, apart from their own statements. No prosecution records against named person's living, or indeed now dead, were produced.

The Council undoubtedly miscalculated the level of sympathy, which was expressed by these residents, and acted as if there would be a welcome from those sympathisers for the Temporasry solution proposed, with a definite finish date, to which they committed.

Of course, the LA are within their legal rights to invoke the Emergency powers they have, as this was and is an Emerrgency.

The residents, on the other hand, are the ones breaking the law.

Let's hope there is a resolution soon, with funerals being held tomorrow.

No one wins from this.

The travellers are gone now and the residents feel they can speak out without the constant threat and fear of violent retribution if they had spoken out or reported to the council or Gardai when the travellers were on their doorsteps!

EazyD · 19-10-2015 12:48PM

whatismyname wrote: »

Well since the response included work already underway at the new permanent site...

http://www.herald.ie/news/new-homes-being-built-for-traveller-families-left-homeless-by-blaze-34119922.html

They're probably just doing that for the craic of it.

We are talking about the same LA that had the audacity to turn up after an hours notice with machinery to begin work. Now call me cynical but wouldn't you yourself be a tad wary given how badly it has been handled up to now.

whatismyname · 19-10-2015 12:49PM

EazyD wrote: »

We are talking about the same LA that had the audacity to turn up after an hours notice with machinery to begin work. Now call me cynical but wouldn't you yourself be a tad wary given how badly it has been handled up to now.

I may or may not be a tad wary (realistically, I would likely be at least somewhat) but that's extremely different from what you said previously.

Also, out of interest what do you think will happen to the new permanent site currently being constructed, since 'residents know the site won't be there for six months'

EazyD · 19-10-2015 12:50PM

whatismyname wrote: »

I may or may not be cynical (realistically, I would likely be at least somewhat) but that's extremely different from what you said previously.

What have I said previously that is extremely different?

irishpancake · 19-10-2015 12:51PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

An article in the Irish Times today mentioning the "casual and acute racism perpetrated against travellers...."

Is it not impossible to be racist against a traveller? Sure you can be discriminatory towards them, but when did travellers become a race of people?

Also fully support the residents, wouldn't want them living anywhere near me either, and all the wailing hearts on here giving out, would you be happy for them to set up camp next door to you? I doubt it somehow!

So, it's OK because they are not a seperate "race"?

You are saying it yourself......"them" presumably all of them

It's OK to discriminate against a whole identifiable group of human beings?

It's OK vto be a bigot, because "they're" not a race, just an identifiable group of people. ......

"them"

You take the biscuit.

BattleCorp · 19-10-2015 12:54PM

irishpancake wrote: »

So, what should be done while we await the official reports?

Possibly a year or two from now.

Which may or may not apportion blame?

Do you think any and all help to these people, like housing them, should await the reports?

And, what if the reports do not apportion blame to the victims, which you seem anxious to do, what then?

Reports such as these are always made public, despite your paranoia.

Would you like the halting site right next to your house?

EazyD · 19-10-2015 12:54PM

irishpancake wrote: »

So, it's OK because they are not a seperate "race"?

You are saying it yourself......"them" presumably all of them

It's OK to discriminate against a whole identifiable group if human beings?

It's OK vto be a bigot, because "they're" not a race, just an identifiable group of people. ......

"them"

You take the biscuit.

Don't believe he said any of that anywhere, he/she is pointing out the gross misuse of a word in the media that is in no way, shape or form applicable to the group in discussion. Last time I checked Irish travellers are just that, Irish.

Spanish Eyes · 19-10-2015 12:55PM

irishpancake wrote: »

So, it's OK because they are not a seperate "race"?

You are saying it yourself......"them" presumably all of them

It's OK to discriminate against a whole identifiable group if human beings?

It's OK vto be a bigot, because "they're" not a race, just an identifiable group of people. ......

"them"

You take the biscuit.

When someone throws the "racist" epithet around very casually, the argument is lost.

Travellers are not a separate ethnic race are they? So how can those people who disagree with, or are uncomfortable about Traveller lifestyle be called Racist? It's an impossibility.

But it's an easy riposte to any argument that one doesn't like.

foggy_lad · 19-10-2015 12:59PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Why doesn't the council just refurbish the "permanent alternative" site fortwith? I can't see any advantage either financially or otherwise in diverting resources into a greenfield site, while at the same time the permanent site is slowly refurbished.

It makes no sense to me at all, but maybe I am missing something here. The bereaved are being accommodated at the moment, and are no doubt warm, dry and safe. As a poster upthread said, if the council got the finger out the permanent alternative site would be ready by Christmas.

Here's a novel idea, The traveller family are obviously accommodated at the moment in some kind of temporary solution most likely private rented houses. Why not leave them in those houses until the new group of houses are rewired re-plumbed refurbished?

A portion of the money the LA have thrown away so far on having workers waiting to start and the negotiations and dispute management by their PR companies would easily have made the landlords amenable to allowing the travellers stay a bit longer.

PandaPoo · 19-10-2015 01:01PM

I live beside a graveyard, it's just over the garden wall.
A neighbour has been calling around the houses to tell us that 5 of the people who died in the fire will be buried there in the morning.

She told us to make sure we have our doors and windows locked and to keep our eyes on them. Thought that was really uncalled for and rude

Vizzy · 19-10-2015 01:02PM

It will be interesting to see whether the 15 travellers will actually move in to the newly refurbished site once it is finished.

whatismyname · 19-10-2015 01:04PM

PandaPoo wrote: »

I live beside a graveyard, it's just over the garden wall.
A neighbour has been calling around the houses to tell us that 5 of the people who died in the fire will be buried there in the morning.

She told us to make sure we have our doors and windows locked and to keep our eyes on them. Thought that was really uncalled for and rude

I agree. That's horrible.

Also, who was she meaning to keep an eye out for though? Was she meaning those who'd be attending the funeral?

EazyD · 19-10-2015 01:04PM

whatismyname wrote: »

I may or may not be a tad wary (realistically, I would likely be at least somewhat) but that's extremely different from what you said previously.

Also, out of interest what do you think will happen to the new permanent site currently being constructed, since 'residents know the site won't be there for six months'

Perhaps elaborate on your first point, then we can come around to the second.

Spanish Eyes · 19-10-2015 01:05PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

Here's a novel idea, The traveller family are obviously accommodated at the moment in some kind of temporary solution most likely private rented houses. Why not leave them in those houses until the new group of houses are rewired re-plumbed refurbished?

A portion of the money the LA have thrown away so far on having workers waiting to start and the negotiations and dispute management by their PR companies would easily have made the landlords amenable to allowing the travellers stay a bit longer.

The current proposals appear to me to be a huge waste of taxpayer's money.

1.The current emergency accommodation that the bereaved are in is costing money. That's fine and necessary.

2.The proposed temporary site will cost a lot to get ready for occupation

3. The permanent site will cost a lot to refurbish.

So three sets of financial outlay, where two would do.

Refurbish the permanent site double quick and continue paying for the temporary accommodation that the bereaved are currently living in.

How could it take six months to refurbish a few bungalows? That is daft, and the council should just crack the whip and get it done by contractors with a bonus for completing ahead of time. Christmas is a good target. It can be done. Where there's a will there's a way.

Money is no object anyway.

end of the road · 19-10-2015 01:06PM

anewme wrote: »

From the times
The residents claims

More pointedly, they claimed the local area had been blighted by antisocial behaviour and sporadic criminality since the temporary halting site on Glenamuck Road was set up eight years ago.
“Speeding, stolen cars, crashed cars, [car] doughnuts out the back of the halting site at night, drinking, dogs, kids on the road, fridges and TVs left on the road,” said one woman in her 30s, who moved there five years ago.
“I’ve been on to the council about this stuff happening every month because of the halting site up the road.”
Another man in his early 40s said the community was simply standing up for itself instead of being bullied by the council.
“They don’t live the same way we do,” he said. “ It’s not a slant on them. It’s just a fact. We like houses, they like mobile homes.
“We like to sleep at night so we can get to work the next day. They like to light bonfires in the middle of the night. It’s the culture – and that’s fine, but in the right place.”
Most of the claims are rejected by local Traveller groups, who say the local site was carefully maintained.
Gardaí declined to comment on the claims, though one garda – who opted not to be named – confirmed they were “acquainted” with the site.

I've said time and time again on here that the residents, the travellers, the local councillors and gardai will be able to prove and or disprove those claims better than any of us.

Is there a racetrack that's used to race cars around? If there is, there will be evidence. If people are complaining about rubbish, anti social behaviour there will be a log of it.

funny how they are making these claims just as the council plan to implement a temporary haulting site. they claim they are being "bullied" by the council when they aren't, along with all the other generalizations against travelers. yeah, i think i will stick to my stance tbh

PandaPoo · 19-10-2015 01:06PM

whatismyname wrote: »

I agree. That's horrible.

Also, who was she meaning to keep an eye out for though? Was she meaning those who'd be attending the funeral?

That's exactly what she meant. I'd say she'd be the type protesting against them living near her.

whatismyname · 19-10-2015 01:07PM

EazyD wrote: »

Perhaps elaborate on your first point, then we can come around to the second.

Seriously, I really don't care enough for your opinion on what will happen to the permanent site being constructed, to go through your posts for you and show you how two very different things were said in two different posts. Would rather give you the benefit of the doubt that you're able to go through your own posts and make comparisons.

Residents object to temporary halting site

Comments