Strong garda presence at Galway Airport amid illegal Traveller encampment

end of the road wrote: »

are the general public bigoted toards the average wellfare recipient? after all, some would say they "take take take"...

Maybe you would. The vast majority of social welfare recipients are fine people who find themselves temporarily short of a few shillings. In many a long day's road however I can count on one finger the number of travellers I'd trust as far as I could throw.

Banned

Omackeral wrote: »

Are Travellers an ethnic group? Serious question here. I know they're on the Census as a separate entity but ethnic group? Maybe it's a special category by themselves rather than a different ''race'', for want of a better word.

Yes, my girlfriend is 'sinti' and there is a group called 'roma' but here in Ireland they just refer to both groups as travellers.

I personally have a few negative experiences with travellers but also a few good ones with those I went to school with, at the end of the day I don't hold them responsible for many of the issues in their community.

The state provides the mechanisms for a number of the traveller issues to exist.
Large families exist because it pays for them to exist.
Leaving school early and getting married early ensures that the next generation will start having large families too. Again continuing the cycle.
Leaving school earlier tends to prevent them taking up high skilled jobs.
Being very young with children in this country actually is a disincentive to get off the dole when you factor in all the benefits associated with it. (And this is seen probably more so in the settled community). Child care costs are extortionate in this country.

With the larger families they need more homes. Like in the settled community social housing needs to be provided in these situations.

As a middle income earner who gets around half of my wages taken in tax each month it infuriates me seeing my taxes going to all young people who could be working. But then I think that if they did work they'd be less well off and not "entitled" to housing etc...I'm trying to save for a mortgage and it's killing me.

The easiest thing to do with all communities in society is that everyone should be brought into the taxation system. If you are a traveller worker or settled person working, even if you are on welfare, every penny you get from the state or earn needs to be brought through revenue. I've heard crazy stories about unemployed families on more than 50k social welfare because of large families and also getting their housing for free. I'd need to be earning nearly 85k to get 50k take home after tax and I'd still need to pay my rent.

Anyway that's my thoughts but having said all that I still think the "entitlement culture" that's present in our society needs to end and I think bringing everyone into the tax system might help that.

The traveller community do need to accept though that they can't just decide to set up shop on private land and expect to stay there. If any member of the settled community did the same thing they'd be promptly and rightly moved on too.

Society doesn't exist to support Travellers needs , it exists to support all communities. So there's a queue of people needing assistance already and travellers need to join the queue like everyone else. They are no more or less deserving than anyone else.


ooops sorry that escalated quickly

Deleted User wrote: »

I would rather not see laws designed to address Japanese traffic congestion used to kill off any nomadic lifestyle in this part of the world (as in Europe), whether that be Romani, Travellers, Yenish, whatever.

I agree that Japanese rule is extreme and rather unnecessary, but at the same time laws and rules which are enacted for the good order of society should not contain exemptions and get-out clauses for culture.

There are plenty of people who live nomadic lifestyles in a self-sufficient manner without coming into conflict with the state or indeed other people. But then there are others who not only come into conflict with the state, but they make demands of the state to accommodate their personal choices.

We have this bizarre scenario where people fight for traveller equality on one hand, while on the other hand are demanding that travellers get special treatment in terms of where and how they want to live.

That's not equality. That's very far from equality.

If you cannot live a self-sufficient nomadic lifestyle, then you have to give it up. Don't expect the society to prop up your lifestyle choice with special treatment.

end of the road wrote: »

are the general public bigoted toards the average wellfare recipient? after all, some would say they "take take take"



course they would. always the excuses.

we are comparing 95% of travellers draining the country for what they can to 10% of the rest of the population in this country

how come they have plenty of money for weddings, funerals and cars???

these are facts that's speak for themselves

thadg wrote: »

we are comparing 95% of travellers draining the country for what they can to 10% of the rest of the population in this country

ah, always in the 90s with the statistics toards the particular disliked group. anyway, that isn't what i asked. what i asked is, are people majorly bigoted toards the average wellfare recipient? and if so, would they be more or less toards them then they would be toards travelers?

end of the road wrote: »

ah, always in the 90s with the statistics toards the particular disliked group. anyway, that isn't what i asked. what i asked is, are people majorly bigoted toards the average wellfare recipient? and if so, would they be more or less toards them then they would be toards travelers?

well if anyone is drawing after 3 years the welfare should be halfed unless they are unable to work.

I think the uk has something like that

I googled it, but couldn't find an answer, so some one here might know..
What infrastructures in place throughout the EU for the Travelling community?
Are there halting sites or Traveller specific accommodation in Holland, Spain or Germany for example?
Also posted in the Galway forum in case you think you've seen this post before

Why can't they be means tested and let the ones with money buy their own land and houses like the rest of us.

I have to pay a mortgage and live on 21 k a year and I get nothing from the state, I'm damn well sure a fair few travellers who get council houses and pay no tax are a lot better off than me.

And the ones who want to go around the place in caravans should fund that lifestyle out of their own pockets.

Graces7 wrote: »

Many other countries do as well..Makes sense BUT we need here the same provision if eg food banks they have in every town in the UK and in the US and Canada. No one should be forced to literally go hungry and there is no need for that.

don't think anyone has died of the hunger here since the famine and if they did it was probably because of lack of financial awareness rather than lack of money

Neyite wrote: »

They would argue that buying a home would restrict their nomadic culture.

But what about this:

Hand over all halting sites to Pavee Point to run, then set up a co-operative system where all travellers pay monthly fees into a fund from which the upkeep and maintenance and potential expansion of all halting sites gets paid from, ran by their own council.

This incentivises the occupants to address a lot of anti-social elements within their own communities. But this way, as they have membership of all sites in the co-op, they can move to any halting site in keeping with their nomadic heritage that they like, within guidelines (such as giving notice etc) set down by their own people.

And anyone who has had such anti-social behaviour to the extent that they are evicted from a community site by their own, then they should be put at the very bottom of the County Council's housing list. (Actually that should apply to anyone who destroys a dwelling, private or council rental)

That's a really well thought out and practical idea. I'd actually vote for a political party that came up with that solution.
Looks like I won't be voting so.

Neyite wrote: »

Hand over all halting sites to Pavee Point to run, then set up a co-operative system where all travellers pay monthly fees into a fund from which the upkeep and maintenance and potential expansion of all halting sites gets paid from, ran by their own council.

This incentivises the occupants to address a lot of anti-social elements within their own communities. But this way, as they have membership of all sites in the co-op, they can move to any halting site in keeping with their nomadic heritage that they like, within guidelines (such as giving notice etc) set down by their own people.

And anyone who has had such anti-social behaviour to the extent that they are evicted from a community site by their own, then they should be put at the very bottom of the County Council's housing list. (Actually that should apply to anyone who destroys a dwelling, private or council rental)

This is not really aimed at you Neyite, because reading that, it seems like a decent proposition. However I think you have to factor in that most if not all the travelling community (not so much the settled travellers perhaps) are more than bloody aware among their group of who is at what.

They are already self governing. And I would wager my salary that Pavee Point know it too, yet I doubt they will be turning in any of their own any time soon.

All that would happen is that it would give them a solid base from which they can fund their lifestyles in one area, before moving onto the next. The only difference is that because Pavee Point will now be over it, they would be even more untouchable than they were before.

On another note, seperate to this post. I had to laugh this week at the Dublin gangster being buried and the outrage at the €15,000 coffin he was buried in. Well we all know where that money came from. Yet when a traveller receives a grave from the Tutankhamun selection that cost the same if not more, theres barely a word said from their supporters. They may not murder for it like our Dublin Scarface wanna-be, but you can be damn sure they didn't fund it from a 40 hour week in Supervalue.