Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Residents object to temporary halting site

1…1516182021…45

Comments

  • #512
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    anewme wrote: »
    Do the travellers pay rent?

    It appears most don't.
    In its section on "Traveller-specific Accommodation", in the period 2000 to 2004, it says €130m "was expended on such accommodation (new and refurbished)".

    In the 2005 to 2008 period, "an additional €142.55m was spent on the provision of Traveller-specific accommodation".

    For the period 2008-2010 a further €98.5m was spent providing accommodation.

    It refers to a "significant increase in the number of families living in private rented accommodation", demonstrating that the private rental market has become much more open to Travellers.

    Of the 2,380 families recorded as living in private rented accommodation, 96 per cent receive assistance in meeting their accommodation costs either through the payment of rent supplement (by the Department of Social Protection) or through the Rental Accommodation Scheme.


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/state-pays-370m-over-10-years-for-traveller-housing-29194716.html


  • #513
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    EazyD wrote: »
    Careful now. Asking these folks to back their claims up is akin to asking a chicken to poledance.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj6wZMl3zhY


  • #514
    whatismyname
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,707 ✭✭✭whatismyname


    end of the road wrote: »
    and i hope the council will continue the fight to legally use their land.

    I have seen nothing to suggest that the council are 'fighting to legally use their land'.

    Rather, that they are engaging in talks with the residents to reach agreement on a solution.


  • #515
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,335 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    end of the road wrote: »
    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.
    Again I ask why are people "racist" against Travellers? Where does it spring from? Why them? Why has it become more prevalent not less(unlike many other prejudices that have dialled back over the years)? Where did Travellers get the reputation they have? Was this conjured up outa the blue? Why are they far more represented in prisons than the rest of Irish people and why are nearly nine out of ten Traveller men unemployed? I can't think of another group that comes close to those figures. Take the previously brought up Africans and those of African extraction, like in the US of A. No way are nine out of ten of them unemployed as an ethnic group. There are African American doctors, teachers, scientists, engineers, clerical workers, etc etc.
    don't bank on it. the government will eventually and deal with any major trouble toards travelers and it won't be pretty.
    Maybe in your "leftist" utopia where the government is your daddy and mammy, but if the local authority does get heavy handed with these locals there will be a shítstorm of bad publicity and even more hatred aimed at Travellers. Not exactly a win win for anyone.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #516
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,335 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    gandalf wrote: »
    It appears most don't.




    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/state-pays-370m-over-10-years-for-traveller-housing-29194716.html
    Right, so they're supposed to, but don't. Yet another thing not exactly painting a rosy picture.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Advertisement
  • #517
    whatismyname
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,707 ✭✭✭whatismyname


    gandalf wrote: »
    It appears most don't.




    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/state-pays-370m-over-10-years-for-traveller-housing-29194716.html

    If it says that the majority received social welfare support, that will be related to the majority being unemployed.

    That isn't all that different from settled people in council property being required to pay rent, and being given social welfare support to do so if eligble.

    Different from them, say, just being automatically being given free accommodation due to being travellers.


  • #518
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,713 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    end of the road wrote: »
    have you personally done a survey that can prove your 99% figure? i'd be interested in seeing it

    I think thats a bit of a ridiculous request when you refuse to back up your own claims.


  • #519
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,787 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    whatismyname wrote: »
    Glenamuck residents explain objections to halting site

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/glenamuck-residents-explain-objections-to-halting-site-1.2396691

    zoned for social housing"

    well well. funny that.

    i look forward to the commencement of building of such housing. lets say, there will be a bit of an outcry about that as well i'd bet.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #520
    whatismyname
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,707 ✭✭✭whatismyname


    keano_afc wrote: »
    I think thats a bit of a ridiculous request when you refuse to back up your own claims.

    TBH at this point, I'm wondering if End of the Road have you on their ignore list...


  • #521
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    end of the road wrote: »
    have you personally done a survey that can prove your 99% figure? i'd be interested in seeing it

    I can't say anything about the travellers from Carrickmines because I'm not from the area but I can say with my hand on my heart, from my personal experiences with travellers in my area, I've yet to see a halting site that doesn't have a sh1t load of antisocial activity and lawlessness going on.

    In my area they are stealing stuff, putting horses into farmers fields illegally, throwing rubbish around, burning cables to get the copper.

    If there is a funeral in the town, the whole place has to lock up. Every pub has to close because they wreck any pub that they are let into. Even the local clothes shop has to keep the door locked. You have to be buzzed in because of them.

    One of my local travellers got caught in Germany stealing a caravan. He drove into a caravan park, saw a nice looking unoccupied caravan, hitched it up and drove off. He got caught at the ferry in France.

    Pretty much all of them are on the dole yet they drive around in very nice jeeps and vans? I'm curious to know how that's done.

    I caught one stealing stuff from my back garden a while ago.

    My neighbour caught another one in his back garden at 2am. When he challenged them, the traveller said that they were looking for their mobile phone.

    Several of the travellers draw the dole in England and then come back to Ireland where they draw it too.

    My local cop told me about catching some of them driving around with in vans with cloned licence plates and tax discs and insurance. He said other travellers are using the same licence plates and documentation to falsify tax and insurance.

    Another local traveller put on a nice big extension on his house. No planning permission. The council were told about it the day the work started but they ignored it.

    It's not like the odd traveller is engaging in antisocial activity in my area, the majority are doing it.

    That's what forms the basis for my attitude towards travellers.

    They want all of the rights but none of the responsibilities that come with civilised society.

    You'll find that my experiences of travellers aren't all that different from other people living near them.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    EazyD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,207 ✭✭✭EazyD


    whatismyname wrote: »
    TBH at this point, I'm wondering if End of the Road have you on their ignore list...

    It's one thing you guys seem to do well here anyway, if ignorance could be considered a positive trait that is.


  • #523
    Kenny Logins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭Kenny Logins


    end of the road wrote: »
    zoned for social housing"

    well well. funny that.

    i look forward to the commencement of building of such housing. lets say, there will be a bit of an outcry about that as well i'd bet.

    Why? I'm sure many of the residents were aware of that when they purchased or built their houses.


  • #524
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,787 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    kstand wrote: »
    Which is absolutely typical of the bleeding heart liberal brigade - they love shouting "bigot" and "racist" etc when they perceive any slight at all, or ranting about human rights etc - yet they NEVER have any solution to the problems and in fact their presence in the debates actually makes things a lot worse, because all it does is to create a sense of victim-hood.
    where is this mythical non existant bleeding heart liberal brigade based? ah, its only in ones imagination. grand so
    EazyD wrote: »
    "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.
    the mythical bleeding heart pc types that only exist as wannabe derogatory terms in the little rants of certain "types" . ah i see.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #525
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Hey, end of the road, would you be happy with a halting site beside your house?

    Would you feel comfortable with a halting site beside your elderly parent's house or other elderly relatives house (if applicable)?


  • #526
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.

    And again, why shouldn't it also include demographic ethnicity?
    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.

    That isn't discrimination because it's actually relevant to the job interview.
    You might disagree with that, and wish it were not so. But many people would see it differently.

    I don't disagree at all. I disagree with discrimination based on happening to be born with a particular demographic. Is it not blindingly obvious how the comparisons you are trying to make do not work?
    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.

    That's profiling and it's unfair to those who do not behave that way but just happen to share some demographic attributes with some people who do.
    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.

    Based on the attitudes expressed in this thread, I would argue that this is exactly what they are at the moment.
    Any more so than students. They never have been, unless you consider “people from Achill” to be their own distinct ethnic minority.

    They are, but at the moment "being from Achill" is not used to justify discrimination so it isn't worth mentioning. If someone was talking sh!t about a random person from Achill because "I know / have heard stories about people from Achill and they're w@nkers" then I'd have every bit as much of a problem with it as I do with this thread.
    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.

    I've agreed with some of what you said, it doesn't change the simple, very basic fact that saying "Some X are Y, therefore it's ok to discriminate against all X because they might be Y" is wrong and I'm pretty sure also illegal.


  • #527
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    end of the road wrote: »
    where is this mythical non existant bleeding heart liberal brigade based? ah, its only in ones imagination. grand so
    Well not you, given you've already pinned your colours to the mast in that you intend to act against any single-parent African lesbians. I'm disgusted by your bigotry.


  • #528
    homerjay2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭homerjay2005


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    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???

    irish times ran a poll earlier about whether or not the protesters were right to opposed the move - 78% of the votes backed the residents. they highlighted however that when it came to commenting on it, the vast majority of people were supporting the travellers. so either people are hypocrites or else the reality is, people are afraid to comment in public about a topic, but in private dont support it.

    that means 22% of people are lairs or more to the point, part of the usual moral outrage brigade who critisice everything thats remotely controversial.


    can we add a poll here to see if people would like to live next to a halting site?


  • #529
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,787 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    gandalf wrote: »
    They are saying it because they believe it and have experienced it.

    so they claim. they have not proved it, and have contradicted themselves everytime by stating they have no issue with the families. so i'd suggest there probably was none, and they are now saying it to get sympathy for their protest.
    gandalf wrote: »
    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.

    of course they would
    gandalf wrote: »
    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.

    there is no lack of willingness to deal with anti-social behaviour by the authorities, they just haven't the resources to do it because they are under funded and under staffed.
    gandalf wrote: »
    That doesn't make the residents concerns any less valid!

    actually it does because they seem to chop and change them at will.
    gandalf wrote: »
    No the council tried to piss all over a community and its rights to a peaceful life.

    no the council did nothing of the sort. they used their legally held legal emergency powers to legally use one of their owned sites. the residents decided to illegally block access to the council site and are rightly being called out on it by the media.
    gandalf wrote: »
    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.

    no they were not forced to do anything, they decided to do it hoping they would get media attention. the media didn't bite.
    gandalf wrote: »
    which is surely a far better result than moving them into a unsuitable location where they are not wanted.

    oh i think moving them into the new proposed temporary haulting site location to send a message that the council is entitled to use its land is a better idea

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #530
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,787 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    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.
    when the settled community are not expected to take steps to change the behaviour of some of its people then the travelers shouldn't either. we have plenty of laws to deal with any anti-social behaviour and crime in all walks of life. enforcing those laws is the best option, instead of expecting groups to deal with issues while the main group doing the expecting does nothing about its issues. when those in the settled community who are bigoted stop being so and stop making excuses and finding justifications they wouldn't dare use against other groups, then more travelers might be willing to give integration a chance

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #531
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,787 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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.
    nothing badly handled about that, just the council acting in an emergency and trying to use one of its sites as its legally entitled to do

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #532
    EazyD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,207 ✭✭✭EazyD


    end of the road wrote: »
    nothing badly handled about that, just the council acting in an emergency and trying to use one of its sites as its legally entitled to do

    Lol, so turning up without prior warning (and let's be honest, 1 hour is nothing) or consent is perfectly fine?


  • #533
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Again end of the road the residents have quite rightly voiced their concerns. They have not chopped and changed what they have said. They have been quite restrained in voicing their opinion for obvious reasons. However the council have totally overstepped their remit here and by their inaction I think they realise that.

    Again if the council push this through without the agreement of the local residents they are going to open up a far bigger issue.

    The ideal solution is to push all the resources into the homes being refurbished as the new permanent home for this family and to fast track that to allow them to move in on an accelerated timescale.


  • #534
    EazyD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,207 ✭✭✭EazyD


    gandalf wrote: »
    Again end of the road the residents have quite rightly voiced their concerns. They have not chopped and changed what they have said. They have been quite restrained in voicing their opinion for obvious reasons. However the council have totally overstepped their remit here and by their inaction I think they realise that.

    Again if the council push this through without the agreement of the local residents they are going to open up a far bigger issue.

    The ideal solution is to push all the resources into the homes being refurbished as the new permanent home for this family and to fast track that to allow them to move in on an accelerated timescale.

    I don't doubt that is the ideal solution but then we would have to assume that they will willingly move and live there permanently which may turn out not to be the case when all is done.


  • #535
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,787 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    gandalf wrote: »
    Again end of the road the residents have quite rightly voiced their concerns. They have not chopped and changed what they have said. They have been quite restrained in voicing their opinion for obvious reasons. However the council have totally overstepped their remit here and by their inaction I think they realise that.

    Again if the council push this through without the agreement of the local residents they are going to open up a far bigger issue.

    The ideal solution is to push all the resources into the homes being refurbished as the new permanent home for this family and to fast track that to allow them to move in on an accelerated timescale.
    the council have done nothing wrong. the only can of worms they would be opening if they continue is sending a message that they can and will use their land. the residents have chopped and changed, if they have been restrained its probably because it will just be more of the usual traveler generalizations they will come out with so are rightly doing themselves a favour and saying little

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #536
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    EazyD wrote: »
    I don't doubt that is the ideal solution but then we would have to assume that they will willingly move and live there permanently which may turn out not to be the case when all is done.

    Well I am assuming that they have confirmed they are happy with the permanent location given the council have started to refurbish the houses.

    If they haven't agreed to a permanent location then that is an stronger reason for the residents to hold firm until their are concrete plans from the council.


  • #537
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,349 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    EazyD wrote: »
    Lol, so turning up without prior warning (and let's be honest, 1 hour is nothing) or consent is perfectly fine?

    Your asking this to someone who thinks the Garda ERU should have been used on the protestors........


  • #538
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,787 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    anewme wrote: »
    Do the travellers pay rent?

    yes
    gandalf wrote: »
    Well I am assuming that they have confirmed they are happy with the permanent location given the council have started to refurbish the houses.

    If they haven't agreed to a permanent location then that is an stronger reason for the residents to hold firm until their are concrete plans from the council.
    there is no reason for the residents to break the law and block access to a council site. the council really need to get these people moved by whatever means necessary

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #539
    whatismyname
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,707 ✭✭✭whatismyname


    end of the road wrote: »


    there is no reason for the residents to break the law

    Just wondering, what is the law you mention that they are breaking? I'd love to be better informed and understand this more.


  • #540
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    end of the road wrote: »

    there is no reason for the residents to break the law and block access to a council site. the council really need to get these people moved by whatever means necessary

    There is plenty of reason, I'm not sure if you are trolling at this stage or just ignoring the numerous valid points made on this and previous threads.

    Shame on you, not the residents


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    End of the Road, can we ignore the fact they are travelers for the moment?

    I know nothing of the group of people, nor of the area, but it is my understanding that

    1) The temporary site is currently a greenfield site, with no running water, sewage or electricity,

    2) Access to said site is through an unsuitable cul de sac,

    3) The families are currently being housed in emergency accommodation,

    and

    4) A permanent site is currently being readied.

    Why must this temporary site be used? Why move families from suitable, albeit temporary, accommodation to currently unsuitable accommodation if they are to be moved shortly to suitable permanent accommodation?

    It doesn't make sense.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement