The Issue of Travellers.

Zombrex

I think the problem is the only time most settled people and travellers have proper contact with each other is when the travellers are doing something against the settled person. Thats when you notice and remember they are travellers. I personally can only remember times when travellers were either begging for money off me, or stealling stuff from the shop I worked in or from my front garden.

But thing to remember is if the only contact settled people have with travellers is negative a negative view of the entire community is going to emerge that doesn't necessarily reflect reality. The same thing happens with people living in afluent areas and "skangers," ... if the only contact you notice in the first place is negative it shapes your entire picture.

I have no idea if petty crime is as wide spread in the travelling community as my experiences would lead me to believe, and I doubt most people here do either.

super_furry

The fact is, if a settled person brought up children in a manner that many of the travelling community choose to, that child would be taken off them and put into care. Living in hovels by the side of the road and denying the children a right to a decent education, should not be tollerated - they can choose their own 'lifestyle' if they want, but shouldn't be allowed inflict it on their children.

bonkey

ferdi wrote:

if the travellers choose to live a seperate and independent lifestyle from that of the rest of the population how can they demand benifits?

At a guess, its because our law doesn't make those benefits dependant on your choice of lifestyle, and so they have every right to demand them.

bonkey

super_furry wrote:

The fact is,.

No, thats an assumption. There's a distinction, and the rules of this forum ask that you make an effort to distinguish the two.

if a settled person brought up children in a manner that many of the travelling community choose to, that child would be taken off them and put into care.

I know non-travellers who raise their kids in a comparable manner. Guess what? They weren't taken off them and put into care.

jc

Boggle

You admit you can't provide stats for cleanliness amongst travelling communities. The implication would seem to be that you can provide stats for the level of cleanliess below which children are removed from the care of their parents in non-travelling communities. Can you?

Tell me - have you ever visited a halting site that you would consider a satisfactory environment in which to raise children?

Education is an easier point to argue...
From:http://www.youthreach.ie/aatopmenu/Library/TravellersSubmission.htm

Only a minority of Traveller children transfer from primary to second level schooling, and it is estimated that 80% of those aged between 12 and 15 years of age did not attend any school. The majority of those who attend second level school leave within the first two years.

Your parents would have had social services onto them had you not turned up in secondary school - so why do traveller children not get this protection?


Oh, and by the way - I pointed out that my opinion was based on personal experience in the same post thus never claiming it as fact. Why don't you argue for or against the point mentioned instead of just building up your post count with pointless posts??

Zombrex

Boggle wrote:

Your parents would have had social services onto them had you not turned up in secondary school - so why do traveller children not get this protection?

I would imagine cause none of the local social services could be arse trying to take the kids away from their parents, or are even aware the kids exist, or where to find them, in the first place.

I thought kids in Ireland could be home schooled if the parents agreed? Maybe I am wrong about that.

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

Tell me - have you ever visited a halting site that you would consider a satisfactory environment in which to raise children?

That doesn't answer the question I asked in the slightest.

I asked about the conditions of non-travellers, and at what point the law intervenes. Without this information, your assertion to the effect that "if we raised our kids like them, they'd taken off us" is utterly baseless.

Its not question as to whether or not the conditions are acceptable. Its a question as to whether or not travellers and non-travellers are treated similarly. If they wouldn't be taken off us, but would be off them, then the cries of discrimination are entirely justified on their part.

So stop dodging the issue. Show that they would be taken off us.

That you won't even address that point, but try and turn it back to "do you think the travellers conditions are acceptable" is supporting the notion that you *are* discriminating against them. You claim there is an inequality of treatment that should be rectified...but you can't (or won't) show that this inequality exists.

If there is no such inequality then you are, in fact, suggesting we create one.

Education is an easier point to argue...

You've levelled one accusation against them, and now seem to be backing off and saying "well, maybe thats not true, but this other one is....". Throw any and every accusation you can, and not worry about whether or not you can actually make teh case stick? And you're doing all this to show how you're not biased against them?

Your parents would have had social services onto them had you not turned up in secondary school

Can you show me that this is no less an assumption than the "if you were raised in those conditions" claim?

Oh, and by the way - I pointed out that my opinion was based on personal experience in the same post thus never claiming it as fact.

Nowhere have you clarified that your understanding of what would happen to a child of a settled family is opinion. You have stated it as a fact. No "I believe...", no "I think", no conditionality at all.

The only thing you admitted to being based on personal experience was your judgement of the standards of travellers sites etc. You'll notice that I haven't questioned that side of things at all.

What I am questioning is your assertions about the type of treatment non-travellers receive. These have only been presented as definitives, and I'm asking you to show me that your statements are true because in my experience they are not and so I believe you're entirely mistaken about the baseline you are comparing the travelling community to.

jc

gurramok

Zaph0d wrote:

I've had regular dealings with travellers for the past 15 years and never had any trouble from them.

People have a tendency to fear and hate those who are different from them. My neighbours go into KKK mode whenever the subject of travellers comes up.

This attitude is common around the world where there is a small national ethnic group that is treated as subhuman by the majority culture. A lot of Europeans are shocked the first time they hear white australians discussing aborigines.

As for the endless myths about travellers, ever heard that asylum seekers get free cars from the state? that black people don't use toilets?

People like to believe stories that make them feel more comfortable with their hateful views.

Try living beside a halting site. I invite you to pop up to the huge halting sites at Dunsink Lane and Cappagh Road, Dublin in your spare time and cherish those myths, day or night.
If a traveller halting site was designated to beside your house, would you welcome them in open arms ?

Zaph0d

There was a traveller site a couple of hundred yards from my house for years. I didn't know of any problems.The neighbours organised a posse to drive them out. When I asked why all the anger against travellers, they told me stories about other peoples' houses being broken into. I think their real motivation was to improve their property prices.

Sherlock

This thread seems typical of a lot of threads. Poster gives an opinion and is then asked to give chapter and verse of unobtainable statistics to back up this opinion. We all know the unofficial sites where travellers live are filthy and unsuitable places for rearing kids but like the other posters I have no stats for this. All you have to do is look at them or listen to the travellers themselves.

I have no stats on crime rates viz a viz the travelling and settled communities but given that there are far less travellers in Ireland than settled people there do seem to be proportionately far more travellers involved in crime. Look at the record of Frog Ward, he'd never worked a day in his life and was involved in crime since 15.
Why do pubs close up on days of traveller funerals, is just because all the publicians are bigots?. Is it possible that its because there has been such a history of violence between traveller families, look at the regular fights between the Wards and McDonaghs. Why would publicans turn away paying customers.
Most peoples opinion of travellers is formed by what they see. The last traveller I spoke to was coming out of my drive on a dark Sunday evening. When challenged he asked "are you looking for coal?"....yeah right, obviously he was seeing if anyone was home. Later that night the deserted house two doors away was robbed.
I live near Rathfarnham where 3 years ago about 100 caravans camped at the Dodder and turned into a tiphead, throwing rubbish everywhere for months.
These were driving some very expensive caravans and cars, many English regs. The crime rate in the area shot up (sorry no statistics), petty theft from shops and gardens and went down again when they decided to leave after the summer. If my English relations decided to holiday in their caravans and park on my local green I guarantee the guards would move them on sharpish.

Boggle

What I am questioning is your assertions about the type of treatment non-travellers receive. These have only been presented as definitives, and I'm asking you to show me that your statements are true because in my experience they are not and so I believe you're entirely mistaken about the baseline you are comparing the travelling community to.

Thats more like an argument - and an entirely fair one... apologies if I mistook your previous post as "insert boards.ie phrase here".

The following article raises these concerns:
http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=4496

Can I show that any parent choosing to live in such an environment would be allowed keep their children? Not from the web with the limited time I have on my hands but I find it hard to believe that it would be ignored to the same extent. (I remember my parents telling me about teachers who reported parents to social services as they were fearful for their living conditions but as you may expect - there is no hard and fast rule of what constitutes intolerable living conditions...)

You've levelled one accusation against them, and now seem to be backing off and saying "well, maybe thats not true, but this other one is....". Throw any and every accusation you can, and not worry about whether or not you can actually make teh case stick? And you're doing all this to show how you're not biased against them?

Firstly, I don't see a seperation between being deprived a clean safe environment and being deprived an education... and indeed I mentioned it in the initial point to emphasise this so this point is mute. Secondly, your allegation that I am saying this out of contempt for their culture, whether it is true or not is balls... Did you read the link or even the quote?

Can you show me that this is no less an assumption than the "if you were raised in those conditions" claim?

(referring to the enforcement of school attendances)
See the "Education Welfare Act in the Year 2000"
Maybe they write these things for fun...

You accuse me of bias but I believe you are equally guilty of bias and unwilling to see what is right before your eyes unless someone can provide you with pages of stats... I dunno - maybe the travellers you know are alot different to the ones I (and pretty much everyone I know) see...

So tell : Would you allow your kids be raised in such a condition??

billy the squid

patzer117 wrote:

Hmm. I don't think that's fair. For a start I think most people don't like crime - and as a result we should be cracking down on... wait for it... criminals. Who gives if they are poor or not? Why does that make any difference at all? I think that if a group of people, rich or poor, native or foreign, settled or travellers, are causing trouble then it's our duty to combat the problem. If they are criminals then we shouldn't have any problems labelling them as that, otherwise you are treating them differently which is prejudice.

If you are suggesting that we don't mind Nigerian criminals that much then i'm suggesting that you mentioned Nigerians and therefore must feel that there are negative conotations attached to them which you recognise, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. Why would someone mention travellers like the Op if they haven't had a bad experience with them? And if they have had a problem, then what's the matter with complaining about it?

Lastly I'd like to point out the hearsay incidence of crime associated with travellers - is not the fact that so many people here have had a bad experience with travellers (they robbed my bike for one), an indication of the wider problem? Surely if statistics aren't available then the fact that travellers have angered so many people on this thread alone? Well i reckon if you asked people here just how many times they have been robbed, the amount of times it has been by travellers and then worked out the percentage - then it would represent a WHOLE LOT more than their relatively minor percentage in the community.

Patzer

I think it is perfectly fair, there are countless threads on this site which were locked because people came on posting about nasty foreigners and associating all foreigners with 419 scams and ATM scams,

I do agree that it is the criminal that should be targeted, not the ethnic group to which he belongs, but in the real world that does not seem to be happenning.

I dodnt say that "we dont mind nigerian criminals," I said that people jump up and down and shout "biggot" when people make generalisations about all nigerians because of a small number of nigerian criminals, yet they won't think twice about makeing the same generalisations themselves when it comes to travellers. The reason I am mentioning it is that it is evidence of the hypocracy demonstrated by Irish society. The fact that the word "knacker" has been used to refer to travellers twice by the same person in this thread has gone unanswered by anyone is evidence of this. how many times would a post be reported if a thread referring to a foreign group by their reletive derogetory nickname was used in a thread about them.

As for the number of angry people posting in this thread to which you are referring to, why dont you toddle off to after hours or even here on politics and count the number of angry people posting about being victims of "skanger" attacks. also you might want to count the number of people in this thread who have not had bad experiences with travellers.

Zaph0d

Boggle wrote:

Can I show that any parent choosing to live in such an environment would be allowed keep their children? Not from the web with the limited time I have on my hands but I find it hard to believe that it would be ignored to the same extent.

Pass by any methadone clinic and you'll see plenty of prams in the queue, so it appears that being a heroin addict doesn't make you an unfit parent in the eyes of the state. I would guess that having heroin addicts for parents is more dangerous to the health of a child than living in a caravan without rubbish collection or showers.

The idea that travellers are better treated by the state than settled people helps ease the jealousy and inadequacy people feel when they see a traveller driving a new car.

bonkey

Boggle wrote:

(I remember my parents telling me about teachers who reported parents to social services as they were fearful for their living conditions but as you may expect - there is no hard and fast rule of what constitutes intolerable living conditions...)

Its also worth noting that this situation is where social services have been called because a child who is enrolled to attend a school is presenting problems and is reported by someone to Social Services.

If you have a child enrolled in a school and not attending, I would suggest they will receive the same treatment regardless of their background. If you have them reported for concerns about their upbringing, they will receive the same treatment regardless fo their background. If they are not reported, it is because the general public are applynig different standards to travellers and non-travellers. That would be discrimination by the public, not by the law.

Firstly, I don't see a seperation between being deprived a clean safe environment and being deprived an education... and indeed I mentioned it in the initial point to emphasise this so this point is mute.

Secondly, your allegation that I am saying this out of contempt for their culture, whether it is true or not is balls...

Not out of contempt. I'm saying that you're holding them to a standard that you're simply assuming applies to others. In short, you are being discriminatory by assuming firstly the standard exists and is applied to others, and then by assuming it isn't applied to them. Without fact, all you have is two differing sets of assumptions about how laws are and aren't applied.

In short, you appear to be assuming a discrimination exists to argue that there is discrimination! (Dependant, of course, on me being correct that these are assumptions, which is why I asked you to show otherwise).

Did you read the link or even the quote?

I did indeed read the article. I read with interest comments like the following, which indicate that its far from the open-and-shut condemnation you seem to be suggesting...

While integration is still favoured, there is now an understanding of the complex cultural and familial factors involved, as is clear from the report of the Task Force on the Travelling Community (1995).

It is also the case that many aspects of Traveller culture and society are beneficial to children’s wellbeing

However, the strong emphasis in Traveller culture on work, trading and money is also a factor in early school leaving. Pragmatism is strongly in evidence amongst young Travellers in YOUTHREACH settings, and their families. Parents and young people evaluate the benefits and losses likely to accrue from continued participation in school and make consequent rational choices.

Shall I continue?

Maybe they write these things for fun...

I'm sure they don't, just as they don't write the bits I've selected for fun either.

I believe you are equally guilty of bias and unwilling to see what is right before your eyes unless someone can provide you with pages of stats...

Your belief is entirely yours. It doesn't change reality. I suggested you were making an assumption stated as fact. So far you've failed to show that it was anything but an assumption stated as fact. I've tried to why this assumption/fact is central to your argument being balanced.

Not once have I commented on my opinion of how travellers live....so please...where is my bias? I admit to being biased against people who present assumption as fact, but other than that...please....who am I biased against here?

I dunno - maybe the travellers you know are alot different to the ones I (and pretty much everyone I know) see...

Again, you'll note that I haven't been commenting on travellers. I've been commenting on the baseline that you are holding them up against.

So tell : Would you allow your kids be raised in such a condition??

Irrelevant to the point I'm making and tangential to anything I've seen on this thread to date, so you'll forgive me if don't go down that particular blind alleyway.

What would be a relevant question is are settled people allowed rear their kids in a similar way. That, of course, would be exactly what I've ben driving at...you have assumed that they wouldn't be, in order to conclude there is a difference. I have experience that they are allowed to do so, hence my questioning.

jc

mcgarnicle

Zaph0d wrote:

Pass by any methadone clinic and you'll see plenty of prams in the queue, so it appears that being a heroin addict doesn't make you an unfit parent in the eyes of the state. I would guess that having heroin addicts for parents is more dangerous to the health of a child than living in a caravan without rubbish collection or showers.

The idea that travellers are better treated by the state than settled people helps ease the jealousy and inadequacy people feel when they see a traveller driving a new car.

Saying travellers' kids are ok because heroin addicts are worse parents is a pretty riduculous point. Surely the conditions in both circumstances are bad enough to warrent the children being taken away.

billy the squid

mcgarnicle wrote:

Saying travellers' kids are ok because heroin addicts are worse parents is a pretty riduculous point. Surely the conditions in both circumstances are bad enough to warrent the children being taken away.

but they are not taken away though, are they? I think a traveler parent would put their child higher on their list of priorities than a heroine addict, whose main aim is to get their next fix.

bonkey

mcgarnicle wrote:

Surely the conditions in both circumstances are bad enough to warrent the children being taken away.

Arguably, yes. The point is, however, that they aren't. In both. So both are being treated in the same way, yes?

However, it also suggests that the allegations that travellers get special treatment may be suspect. Unless someone can show that there is a group who gets treated differently, then there is no special treatment.

Its entirely possible that everyone is being held to what we believe is the wrong standard, but as long as everyone is being held to it, then the cries of discrimination which started us talking about this issue are bogus, and potentially indicative of discrimination themselves.

jc

Zaph0d

mcgarnicle wrote:

Saying travellers' kids are ok because heroin addicts are worse parents is a pretty riduculous point.

I didn't say that. I was arguing against the position that the state allows travellers to rear children in worse conditions than it would permit for setlled children.

mcgarnicle

bonkey wrote:

Arguably, yes. The point is, however, that they aren't. In both. So both are being treated in the same way, yes?

However, it also suggests that the allegations that travellers get special treatment may be suspect. Unless someone can show that there is a group who gets treated differently, then there is no special treatment.

Its entirely possible that everyone is being held to what we believe is the wrong standard, but as long as everyone is being held to it, then the cries of discrimination which started us talking about this issue are bogus, and potentially indicative of discrimination themselves.

jc

Well you won't find many people pleading the case of the poor misunderstood heroin addicts raising their kids in squalar and filth for the sake of their lifestyle choice. Travellers on the other hand will claim that their own lifestyle choice justifies leaving their kids out of school and letting them live in filth. Travellers have jumped on the idea that they are a race and therefore criticising a traveller's way of life makes you a racist, that is bull ****. I don't think travellers deserve any more rights to mess their kids up than any settled person. This is the reverse descrimination that the OP was referring to (IMO). It is not institutional but it is clearly being used by travellers and their supporters.

billy the squid

mcgarnicle wrote:

Well you won't find many people pleading the case of the poor misunderstood heroin addicts raising their kids in squalar and filth for the sake of their lifestyle choice. Travellers on the other hand will claim that their own lifestyle choice justifies leaving their kids out of school and letting them live in filth. Travellers have jumped on the idea that they are a race and therefore criticising a traveller's way of life makes you a racist, that is bull ****. I don't think travellers deserve any more rights to mess their kids up than any settled person. This is the reverse descrimination that the OP was referring to (IMO). It is not institutional but it is clearly being used by travellers and their supporters.

but they both are being treated the same way by the state, both travellers, (whom who are accused of being cruel to their children here) and heroin addicts (whom (who are being accused of being cruel to their children here) are allowed to keep their children. So where is the discrimination between travellers and settled people then. If the heroin addicts were loosing their kids to the state and the travellers were not, then it would be discrimination, but they are not, hence discrimination here does not exist.

isn't heroin consumption a lifestyle choice?

The Clown Man

All I can say is that people who defend travellers and are so intent on their rights etc. either live in a suburb with little or no contact with members of the travelling community or have not experienced them in the normal walk of life. People with a romantic view of the travelling community must be blind to the reality of the trouble that surrounds them. Anyone who comes in contact with them at all knows the reality.

The vast majority of travellers have no respect whatsoever for anyone elses rights nevermind the law in general.

As for the comment earlier about travellers not getting anything, do you realise that that man would have been recieving around €2000 per week from the taxpayer in fully legitamate benefits. HE HAD 11 CHILDREN. And with his record and clear disrespect for the law and everyone else I'm sure he was doing his best to try and scam a second or third benefit cheque. I noted last night that although he "lived" in Galway his crime record seemed to be all in Dundalk. He was living in two places for a very good reason.

Anyway. This type of character is nothing new. These guys are the same the country over. And anyone in contact with them knows this.

llatsni

I try very very hard to remain open and unprejudiced toward the travelling community... but the bad minority make that a very very difficult task. I give you 3 stories that I assure you happened to friends of the family - but the exact locations and names will be left anonymous as in 1 case I'm sure the legal dealings have still not been finalised:

1 - A person we know lived in a house in the lucan area, a few years ago "she" decided to sell the house but unfortunately ran into a spot of bother with a group of aggressive travellers. They started harrasing her to begin with, and shortly after moved into her back garden. They continued to threaten and intimidate her, illegally trespassing and squating on her property. She was forced out of the house after she involved the police; who's attitude was far from helpful or forceful. The house is now in a state of partial ruin, the travellers are still there and she has been unable to retrieve compensation or bring any formal prosectution brought against these criminals. And obviously has not been able to sell the house.

2 - A land owner in the leixlip area had "her" field broken into by travellers who squatted there for about 4 months while the police sat back and watched. They caused in the region of 50 thousand euros worth of damage through the expense of cleaning, clearing and securing the field.

3 - A number of years ago a handshake deal was struck with an old man that he may have use a small house on a section of land in wicklow that was vacant. After his death squatters (who turned out to be 'travelling' relations of the man) had settled in his house. They refused to leave, and were let stay by the inaction of the police for so long that they now have "rights" to the property! This situation had to be "settled" out of court.

Sherlock

As regards children not being taken from either travellers or heroin addicts I think you'll find that lots of junkies have lost their kids due to being unable to look after them. Many a granny has to look after the kids of a junkie daughter and I'm sure social services have taken them too.

mcgarnicle

billy the squid wrote:

but they both are being treated the same way by the state, both travellers, (whom who are accused of being cruel to their children here) and heroin addicts (whom (who are being accused of being cruel to their children here) are allowed to keep their children. So where is the discrimination between travellers and settled people then. If the heroin addicts were loosing their kids to the state and the travellers were not, then it would be discrimination, but they are not, hence discrimination here does not exist.

isn't heroin consumption a lifestyle choice?

Well my point (and the point made by the OP) was that the state has problems dealing with travellers for fear of being accused of discrimination. It is not a traveller's right to let their kids live in filth, yet they will claim it is. Heroin addicts won't form pressure groups saying that anyone who opposes them using heroin around their kids is a racist and that they have a right to do this, but traveller's will form their own groups demanding respect for their lifestyle choice, one aspect of which is allowing children to live in filth and go without a proper education. You can say what you like but I have seen representatives of these groups accuse dissenters of being racist for raising such issues. As I (and the OP) have already said the discrimination is in the way people are accused of being racist if they attempt to address problems with travellers.

Is heroin consumption a lifesyle choice? Yes it is, my point is that so is being a traveller. Living in a caravan is not a valid reason to be considered a unique race.

billy the squid

mcgarnicle wrote:

Well my point (and the point made by the OP) was that the state has problems dealing with travellers for fear of being accused of discrimination. It is not a traveller's right to let their kids live in filth yet they will claim it is.,

yet when a local council draws up plans for the construction of a halting site with propper facilities, the locals piss and moan about it. I don't think anyone chooses to "live in filth"

Heroin addicts won't form pressure groups saying that anyone who opposes them using heroin around their kids is a racist and that they have a right to do this, but traveller's will form their own groups demanding respect for their lifestyle choice, one aspect of which is allowing children to live in filth and go without a proper education.

To say that travellers demand a right to live in filth is somewhat stereotypical. the conditions lived by travellers are not all their own doing.

Travellers are subjected to racism, discrimination and exclusion everywhere in Ireland. This racism takes many forms, ranging from the most obvious refusal to serve them in pubs and all places of entertainment to institutionalised discrimination in all of the state services. Travellers are required to sign for their dole at a different time to the settled population and are only allowed to sign in certain exchanges. They must all use one separate clinic in Dublin for welfare claims, their children are frequently segregated in schools and subjected to second class education. In the Dublin area a separate Catholic parish performs all their marriages, funerals etc., and the sites that are provided for them are invariably situated beside canals, prisons, train tracks, dumps; and are located miles from shops and other services behind high walls and banks so that the settled population cannot see them. The results of this racism are clearly demonstrated in the health, education and accommodation statistics of their population. The Travellers Health Status Study published by the Health Research Board in 1987 revealed the following:

full text availible below
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ppapers/travellers.html

You can say what you like but I have seen representatives of these groups accuse dissenters of being racist for raising such issues. As I (and the OP) have already said this is that the discrimination is in the way people are accused of being racist if they attempt to address problems with travellers.

The OP claimed that travellers were receiveing special treatment from government and judiciary, i would assert that the opposite is true.

Is heroin consumption a lifesyle choice? Yes it is, my point is that so is being a traveller. Living in a caravan is not a valid reason to be considered a unique
race.

What does then, language, travellers have their own language, common history, travellers have a common history, religion, most travellers are catholic, Is race defined by skin colour, in that case then we could be all english for all you know.

dawballz

billy the squid wrote:

oh yeah, i forgot, settled people don't congregate in large groups and your statement that the risk of incidents amongst travellers is higher is your opinion.



So you do agree that you are more likely to be attacked on the street by a member of the settled community. yet if one traveller walks into a bar he is more likely to not be served than a settled person.

My parents used to own a pub(owned it for 5 years).
They, and I have witnessed about 10 mass brawls which started inside and spilled out onto the street. 2 of those were because of travellers.

In the early years the travellers were allowed in.
One day they came in after a funeral(i think) and by the end of the night there was about 2 borken windows, 1 sink pulled off the wall in the toilets, pool cues broken and others, amongst the fighting.

Another day they came in (different group of travellers, obviously).
They were ok until about 10pm, then the fighting started.
By 12am there was about 14 of them outside fighting on the street.

So out of the two times we let in a large group of travellers there was 2 large fights. That's a 100% crime(?) rate.
So lets take the other 8 or so large fights that occured.
5 years x 363 days(closed Xmas and good friday) = 1815 days, minus the two days that the travellers were in = 1813.
So in 1813 days there was 8 large fights, that's a crime rate of 0.44%, if I've worked it out correctly.

The Clown Man

BTW 11 children = €1878.90 in child benefit alone.

That's before the multitude of other benefits he would have been entitled to.

billy the squid

The Clown Man wrote:

BTW 11 children = €1878.90 in child benefit alone.

That's before the multitude of other benefits he would have been entitled to.

everyone is entitled to child benefit though, and when you have biggoted employers refusing to give you a start, what other choice is there but social welfare. the situation is the same for some who live in council estates.

billy the squid

dawballz wrote:

My parents used to own a pub(owned it for 5 years).
They, and I have witnessed about 10 mass brawls which started inside and spilled out onto the street. 2 of those were because of travellers.

In the early years the travellers were allowed in.
One day they came in after a funeral(i think) and by the end of the night there was about 2 borken windows, 1 sink pulled off the wall in the toilets, pool cues broken and others, amongst the fighting.

Another day they came in (different group of travellers, obviously).
They were ok until about 10pm, then the fighting started.
By 12am there was about 14 of them outside fighting on the street.

So out of the two times we let in a large group of travellers there was 2 large fights. That's a 100% crime(?) rate.
So lets take the other 8 or so large fights that occured.
5 years x 363 days(closed Xmas and good friday) = 1815 days, minus the two days that the travellers were in = 1813.
So in 1813 days there was 8 large fights, that's a crime rate of 0.44%, if I've worked it out correctly.

what happened to the people who started the other 8 brawls.

you should have included a blow-by-blow description of the other eight fights too so as we can get an idea as to how settled people behave.

did ye ban people from the same area of town as the people who started the eight other fights, i doubt it.

The Clown Man

ROFL and that is €97,702.80 per year. on Child benefit.

TAX FREE!!!

If a single person wanted to earn that he would have to be on the books as earning OVER €150,000.00 per year!*

Oh My God. Who said travellers don't get anything?



*According to tax calculator at http://www.esatclear.ie/~grabe/TaxCalc/TaxCalc.html