Residents object to temporary halting site

end of the road · 19-10-2015 01:07PM

the_syco wrote: »

If they're the same as us, why should we treat them any different.

In the end of it all, if we treated the travellers the same as we would the non-travellers, we wouldn't give them halting sites. We'd tell them to cop on, and live in a house.

we wouldn't. we don't get to tell them where to live. the council does, and the council are doing their duty in providing basic facilities for those still taking part in nomadic traditions. fair play to them

Tipsy McSwagger · 19-10-2015 01:08PM

end of the road wrote: »

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

there has been no anti-social behaviour on that site

Have you provided proof of this yet?

EazyD · 19-10-2015 01:09PM

whatismyname wrote: »

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.

You don't care for my opinion but you have no problem suggesting I have no consistency in my posting. You made the assertion, I'm asking you to back it up. Please don't back-pedal when you are stuck for words, it's painfully obvious.

end of the road · 19-10-2015 01:10PM

icebergiceberg wrote: »

That seems damming stuff. The residents are the group that matters here regarding local information. If traveller groups deny this why don't they get a statement from the guards backing up their claim? That would put an end to the matter occe and for all. It is not in the interest of anybody to be traveller bashing so let Pavee Point go to the guards or local TD to get guards to issue statement saying the travellers there on that site were never any trouble etc etc. Then that's it.

how would the gards be able to give a statement that someone wasn't trouble, when they wouldn't have any contact with them if they aren't trouble. let the residents get the statements. they are making the claims, up to them to prove them. so far, they are unable to do so. its just the usual traveler generalizations

foggy_lad · 19-10-2015 01:11PM

end of the road wrote: »

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

How do you know they are not being bullied by the council?

end of the road · 19-10-2015 01:12PM

MysticalRain wrote: »

Simple: because discriminating against people based on race, religion or gender is illegal in most circumstances e.g. if someone applies for a job. Not so for other reasons, e.g. if an employer bins a CV just because a candidate happens not to have gone to a top university. You might disagree with that, and wish it were not so. But many people would see it differently.

And many people wouldn’t e.g. landlords who have had their properties destroyed by students, and are sick of hearing complaints from neighbours about parties.

And of course discriminating against ethnic groups would be wrong. Nothing to disagree with there. Now here’s a news flash for you: travellers are not the blacks of Ireland. Any more so than students. They never have been, unless you consider “people from Achill” to be their own distinct ethnic minority. Again, you might disagree with that, but there is no factual basis for that view point. All you have here is your own opinion and sense of self-righteous indignation to back it up.

travelers are a minority. discrimination against them is as bad as discrimination against blacks, gays, muslims, etc. no justification for such exists, and those who do it have no place and deserve to be shown exactly what they are

end of the road · 19-10-2015 01:15PM

mfceiling wrote: »

Pavee point debunking generalisations very easily? The same Pavee point that disappear into the woodwork when travellers commit crime and are hauled before the courts. They certainly didn't debunk much recently when those lads were found guilty of that disgraceful act of terror against that innocent family in tipperary.

and? pavee point are a group who look after traveler interests. there is no need for them to remind us that travelers condemn acts of crime. its not their job. do we have spokes people from the settled community coming out to remind us all how most of us condemn crime? no, so therefore pavee point shouldn't be expected to do so. if you need reassurence from an interest group thats your problem, but i don't.

The Corinthian · 19-10-2015 01:16PM

end of the road wrote: »

travelers are a minority. discrimination against them is as bad as discrimination against blacks, gays, muslims, etc. no justification for such exists, and those who do it have no place and deserve to be shown exactly what they are

What if it's a single-parent African lesbian who is discriminating against Travellers? Surely you can't intent do attack her you racist bigot?

Galwayguy35 · 19-10-2015 01:17PM

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.

And what do we call the fact that they discourage their sons and daughters marrying settled people or "buffers" as they call us?

I've seen this first hand, a guy was beaten up by a traveller girls father and brothers for dating her.

Often the loudest vessels in these debates are people who don't live near them at all like Una Mullally, those of us that do know differently.

whatismyname · 19-10-2015 01:17PM

EazyD wrote: »

You don't care for my opinion but you have no problem suggesting I have no consistency in my posting. You made the assertion, I'm asking you to back it up. Please don't back-pedal when you are stuck for words, it's obvious.

The irony was that the post you replied to here displayed the difference in your two posts - that's how easy I made it for you to see it.

Not derailing the thread any further though, and that's no backpedaling. You are well able to compare your own posts, understand basic english meanings and see differences. You don't need me doing that for you, and it makes little difference to the bigger picture being discussed.

Someone not wishing to derail the thread, doesn't mean they are lost for words or backpedaling, and pushing that out is only pushing them to bite backs, so just because I am not biting back, doesn't mean I'm doing anything other than trying to keep on topic.

Best wishes.

end of the road · 19-10-2015 01:18PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Why can't the travellers who are rich pay for their own halting sites and houses?

I don't see why the taxpayer has to always foot the bill, the rest of us have to pay off loans for the houses we live in.

no no . the "rest of us" don't have to "pay off" loans for the houses we live in. one "chooses" to get a loan. it makes you nothing special, and it doesn't make you above everyone else. its not 2004, that nonsense should be long gone. one can always rent. many are in long term rent.

anewme · 19-10-2015 01:20PM

end of the road wrote: »

how would the gards be able to give a statement that someone wasn't trouble, when they wouldn't have any contact with them if they aren't trouble. let the residents get the statements. they are making the claims, up to them to prove them. so far, they are unable to do so. its just the usual traveler generalizations

A garda did make the comment that they were "acquainted" with the site, so that would indicate there was contact.

anewme · 19-10-2015 01:21PM

end of the road wrote: »

no no . the "rest of us" don't have to "pay off" loans for the houses we live in. one "chooses" to get a loan. it makes you nothing special, and it doesn't make you above everyone else. its not 2004, that nonsense should be long gone. one can always rent. many are in long term rent.

Do the travellers pay rent?

EazyD · 19-10-2015 01:22PM

whatismyname wrote: »

The irony was that the post you replied to here displayed the difference in your two posts - that's how easy I made it for you to see it.

Not derailing the thread any further though, and that's no backpedaling. You are well able to compare your own posts, understand basic english meanings and see differences. You don't need me doing that for you, and it makes little difference to the bigger picture being discussed.

Someone not wishing to derail the thread, doesn't mean they are lost for words or backpedaling, and pushing that out is only pushing them to bite backs, so just because I am not biting back, doesn't mean I'm doing anything other than trying to keep on topic.

Best wishes.

So just put your fingers in your ears (after making your statement) and scream lalala. It's funny you use the excuse of not wanting to derail the thread when it's clear you can't back what you've said. Thinly veiled excuse and the lowest common denominator of argument.

VinLieger · 19-10-2015 01:22PM

end of the road wrote: »

no no . the "rest of us" don't have to "pay off" loans for the houses we live in. one "chooses" to get a loan. it makes you nothing special, and it doesn't make you above everyone else. its not 2004, that nonsense should be long gone. one can always rent. many are in long term rent.

Do the travelers pay rent to the council for the land they occupy then?

whatismyname · 19-10-2015 01:23PM

anewme wrote: »

Do the travellers pay rent?

Yes

From 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.

Spanish Eyes · 19-10-2015 01:25PM

whatismyname wrote: »

Yes

From http://itmtrav.ie/uploads/publication/Challenging_the_Myths.pdf

Be hard to evict them though if they default!

keano_afc · 19-10-2015 01:25PM

end of the road wrote: »

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

I've checked through the thread but I believe you still havent backed up your claims that allegations of anti-social behaviour levelled by the residents are untrue. Just a gentle reminder.

Galwayguy35 · 19-10-2015 01:27PM

end of the road wrote: »

no no . the "rest of us" don't have to "pay off" loans for the houses we live in. one "chooses" to get a loan. it makes you nothing special, and it doesn't make you above everyone else. its not 2004, that nonsense should be long gone. one can always rent. many are in long term rent.

How about you answer the point I made, let the rich travellers pay for their own houses, they have money no doubt about that.

end of the road · 19-10-2015 01:27PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Every time Pavee Point and apologists for the modern Traveller "culture" are wheeled out and refuse point blank to admit there are serious internal issues that need fixing from inside the prejudice becomes more and more engrained and the hate builds more and more among the majority.

dear dear. the "majority" being prejudice and hating is their fault. not pavee points. its like the idiots who say "da gubberment are makin me wasist" when its actually their fault they are racist. pavee point have often admitted issues, but i know stating that isn't what some would like to hear.

Wibbs wrote: »

That's what you're seeing here and as I said before it's gotten a helluva lot worse in my lifetime. Something is gonna give and it will ultimately be them who will suffer.

don't bank on it. the government will eventually and deal with any major trouble toards travelers and it won't be pretty.

EazyD · 19-10-2015 01:27PM

keano_afc wrote: »

I've checked through the thread but I believe you still havent backed up your claims that allegations of anti-social behaviour levelled by the residents are untrue. Just a gentle reminder.

Careful now. Asking these folks to back their claims up is akin to asking a chicken to poledance.

gandalf · 19-10-2015 01:28PM

keano_afc wrote: »

I've checked through the thread but I believe you still havent backed up your claims that allegations of anti-social behaviour levelled by the residents are untrue. Just a gentle reminder.

They tend to ignore questions that don't suit their agenda.

anewme · 19-10-2015 01:29PM

whatismyname wrote: »

Yes

From http://itmtrav.ie/uploads/publication/Challenging_the_Myths.pdf

That's actually very interesting.

Is there anywhere we can see what the income was from rent receipts from halting sites?

BattleCorp · 19-10-2015 01:29PM

I'm still waiting to be snowed under by people who wouldn't mind living right next door to a halting site.

Anyone???

Anyone???

Anyone???

end of the road · 19-10-2015 01:30PM

newport2 wrote: »

Yes, phrased as if all other areas other than South Dublin were ready to welcome halting sites on their road with open arms. I don't like seeing people turned away because of behaviour they are associated with, but I know if it was my road the council were putting them on I'd be opposed to it. Just like 99% of the population would, including those like Mullally wagging her finger at the rest of us now.

have you personally done a survey that can prove your 99% figure? i'd be interested in seeing it

whatismyname · 19-10-2015 01:30PM

anewme wrote: »

That's actually very interesting.

Is there anywhere we can see what the income was from rent receipts from halting sites?

Not sure. I doubt it's available online though.

BattleCorp · 19-10-2015 01:30PM

anewme wrote: »

That's actually very interesting.

Is there anywhere we can see what the income was from rent receipts from halting sites?

Sure then you'd have to get receipts to see how they paid for the brand new Ford Transits or Toyota Jeeps.

Ya can't be doin that now.

colm_mcm · 19-10-2015 01:30PM

anewme wrote: »

Do the travellers pay rent?

They're supposed to anyway.

Some info here, old article but gives an idea on costs and what the buildings consist of

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/councils-forking-out-500000-on-halting-bays-for-travellers-26594933.html

end of the road · 19-10-2015 01:32PM

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Isn't it great that a group of residents have come together to protect their community from a group of people who who have no respect for the law and their fellow man. I applaud the residents of Rockville for taking a stand and most of the country stands with them.

thankfully the council don't, and i hope the council will continue the fight to legally use their land. the council need to start putting pressure on them now

anewme · 19-10-2015 01:32PM

colm_mcm wrote: »

They're supposed to anyway.

Some info here

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/councils-forking-out-500000-on-halting-bays-for-travellers-26594933.html

I never knew they paid rent.

Do they actually pay it though or is it just they are supposed to pay it but no one collects it.

Is there anywhere you can see the receipts that come in?

Residents object to temporary halting site

Comments