The Issue of Travellers.

oscarBravo

pete wrote:

Every day when the Services Officer opened the gate, he'd have to jump up onto it as it swung crashing back due to the charge of people (accompanied by much pushing and shoving and some suitably charge-esque roaring) running in to try to get to the front of the queue.

In fairness, they were probably in a hurry to get back to work.

billy the squid

mcgarnicle wrote:

Ok, just for the troll accusation. Both are obviously wrong, the question is irrelevent since travellers are neither a race nor an ethnic minority,

in your opinion they are neither a race or an ethnic group. they are either one or the other, it just hasnt been clarified as of yet. nonetheless, the issue remains valid as they travellers in the instance quoted claim that they were discriminated against, so why was the terminology so important to you, why did it take three pages of asking you before I got an answer? It is my belief that if there is a claim of any dicrimination, whether it be based on race ethnicicity (sp) religion or whatever, it should be treated seriously whether it comes from a traveller or a settled person, rather than just brushed asside simply because of which minority it came from.

that is why I didn't want to dignify it with an answer. The problem is the abuse of the term racism by travellers who want to cry everytime the law is brought to bear against them. As the OP pointed out.
The issue, as far as I and apparantly the OP are concerned is that travellers are using peoples' perceptions of discrimination to make themselves look like victims.

Lets ignore all crimes then as the victims are just "playing the victim" every time they make a complaint.

billy the squid

oscarBravo wrote:

In fairness, they were probably in a hurry to get back to work.

another generalisation?

it is the dept of social welfare who decide the time, not the travellers.

mcgarnicle

billy the squid wrote:

in your opinion they are neither a race or an ethnic group.

Yes it is my opinion based on the definitions posted.

billy the squid wrote:

they are either one or the other,

In your opinion, I will stick with mine which is they are neither. They are Irish people living in caravans. They might tell each other a few stories but that doesn't make them a race or an ethnic minority.

billy the squid wrote:

the issue remains valid as they travellers in the instance quoted claim that they were discriminated against,

Yes they claimed it, that is the point. When they are legitimately confronted by the police they claim it is because of racism.

billy the squid wrote:

so why was the terminology so important to you, why did it take three pages of asking you before I got an answer?

I have already said why I didn't want to answer it. Those three pages were dealing with a few other topics too. Not just that one question. Are you now satisfied with the answers to the other points?

billy the squid wrote:

It is my belief that if there is a claim of any dicrimination, whether it be based on race ethnicicity (sp) religion or whatever, it should be treated seriously whether it comes from a traveller or a settled person, rather than just brushed asside simply because of which minority it came from.

Of course, but it is my belief that when someone commits a crime and then cynically cries racism when caught that they can piss off.

billy the squid wrote:

Lets ignore all crimes then as the victims are just "playing the victim" every time they make a complaint.

You are just ignoring the point. Near the start of the thread I acknowledged that the police victimising travellers is wrong. The point is that even when the police have a genuine reason to go after travellers they are still accused of being racist.

pete

mcgarnicle wrote:

travellers are neither a race nor an ethnic minority

pete wrote:

That's not your decision to make.

mcgarnicle wrote:

Going by the definitions that have been posted it is a reasonable conclusion. Who makes the decision?

Not you and not me. It's widely considered to be an issue of self determination, but it's somewhat irrelevant in this case anyway, since:

the Government of Ireland accepts the right of Travellers to their cultural identity, regardless of whether it may be properly described as an ethnic group, and is committed to applying all the protections afforded to ethnic minorities by the CERD equally to Travellers

That's from http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=FOH20040311.xml&Node=9#N9 & is a pretty good read.

Yes, read the newspaper and watch the news, you will see it.

Where?

Check out the OP.

Funny you should mention that - could you point it out to me in this quote? The evidence, that is:

For example the town of Ballyhaunis co. Mayo was invaded by a group of Travellers in the summer of 2004. They stole from shops dumped huge amounts of rubbish and were a general menace. As soon as the Gardai tried to prosecute them they were accused of being Racists.

Thanks.

Oh and don't forget squid's anarchist article.

Can you highlight the specific "abuse of the term racism by travellers who want to cry everytime the law is brought to bear against them" in that article? I've read it twice, but don't see it. I see plenty of claims that travellers were widely discriminated against when it was written (1994), but see no mention of the law being brought to bear against anyone. Maybe i missed it. Here's the link again for your convenience: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ppapers/travellers.html

thanks.

The traveller's information website on the wiki link posted by squid is also a good example.

which one?

if it's http://www.itmtrav.com, hen all i can find is this, which is in relation to the Equal Status Act:

Also the Act needs to include the Police and the prison service as Travellers have had a lot of negative experiences when dealing with the police and the prison service

paveepoint.ie has http://www.paveepoint.ie/press_oct_04_7.html which is in relation to the Dunsink raids, but I don't see anyone making racism claims.

Guy:Incognito

billy the squid wrote:

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".

Why is the council drawign any plans for them? If I ask them will they give me a plot of land and build me a nice house on it? Or will I have to buy my ownland and build my own house?

Why should they be given land and houses? and worse that they are given land and houses beside people who are struggling to pay €700-€1000 a month on mortgages.

billy the squid

Stekelly wrote:

Why is the council drawign any plans for them? If I ask them will they give me a plot of land and build me a nice house on it? Or will I have to buy my ownland and build my own house?

Why should they be given land and houses? and worse that they are given land and houses beside people who are struggling to pay €700-€1000 a month on mortgages.

ask yourself this then, why should the councils build lets say Car parks, why dont you just get the bus. They are not looking for houses, they are looking for somewhere where they can stop legally. rather than park illegally on the side of a road.

Guy:Incognito

billy the squid wrote:

who are you to tell people how they should live. Some do choose to move into houses, some do not, but that decision should be up to them and not you or me or anyone else..

Well I for one am one of the tax payers who are funding their lifestyles, be it through dole, child benifit, halting sites, etc. So I feel the right to say that they should be given the option to BUY a house and get a job or told to piss off and fend for themselves while livign at the side of the road or wherever els ethey decide to live, but without the free money/benifits.

pete

Stekelly wrote:

Well I for one am one of the tax payers who are funding their lifestyles, be it through dole, child benifit, halting sites, etc. So I feel the right to say that they should be given the option to BUY a house and get a job or told to piss off and fend for themselves while livign at the side of the road or wherever els ethey decide to live, but without the free money/benifits.

no entitlement to council / corporation houses?

Guy:Incognito

billy the squid wrote:

ask yourself this then, why should the councils build lets say Car parks, why dont you just get the bus. They are not looking for houses, they are looking for somewhere where they can stop legally. rather than park illegally on the side of a road.

All I'm looking for is a nice house to live in but unless I pay for it myself I'm not going to get it.


Councils build car parks to park all the cars that we PAY fot ourselves and pay tax and insurance. The large amounts of english/northern reg cars in halting sites are, I'm going to assume, so that they can try to avoind paying tax/insurance. I paid €1600 for insurance, €539 for tax for the privilage of being able to drive it into town and park if i like (which I then have to pay separately for)

Councils also charge for car parks.

Guy:Incognito

pete wrote:

no entitlement to council / corporation houses?

Will they build me one in the area I want? With the people I want to live beside? without me spending years on a waiting list? And then build me another one if I decide to move somewhere else, because I dont like it anymore? Will I also be allowed to destroy it and be let stay?

Will I get all this and still be allowed to work? Or the fact that I EARN money go against the decision?



All quiet on the western front.

mcgarnicle

pete wrote:

Not you and not me. It's widely considered to be an issue of self determination

Since when?

pete wrote:

That's from http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=FOH20040311.xml&Node=9#N9 & is a pretty good read.

Ok, so they recognise they have their own little bits of culture, but don't recognise that they are a race or an ethnic minority. I never denied they have some culture, I said they are not a race or ethnic minority, just like that link.

pete wrote:

Where?

Page 15........... What do you want me to say? I can't tell you where to find this information, everyone on here has come across stories about travellers in the media. I'm sure they are not all true, but many are.

pete wrote:

Funny you should mention that - could you point it out to me in this quote? The evidence, that is:

It is an example, show me evidence that the police were racist against these people and weren't simply doing their job. Surely the burden of proof rests with those accusing people. Or is it now guilty until proven innocent?

pete wrote:

Can you highlight the specific "abuse of the term racism by travellers who want to cry everytime the law is brought to bear against them" in that article? I've read it twice, but don't see it. I see plenty of claims that travellers were widely discriminated against when it was written (1994), but see no mention of the law being brought to bear against anyone. Maybe i missed it. Here's the link again for your convenience: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ppapers/travellers.html

. Ethnic and national origins should have no special importance except that they add to the rich cultural diversity of peoples. However Irish Travellers constitute a tiny minority within Ireland, comprising of no more than 0.5% of the total population. We accept that they constitute a separate ethnic group with their own cultural values and practices, language and beliefs.

2. 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.
thanks.

There are plenty of references to racism and enthnic minority there, it has not been shown travellers are either. Therefore it is a cynical attempt to grab attention.

pete wrote:

which one?

if it's http://www.itmtrav.com, hen all i can find is this, which is in relation to the Equal Status Act:

paveepoint.ie has http://www.paveepoint.ie/press_oct_04_7.html which is in relation to the Dunsink raids, but I don't see anyone making racism claims.

http://www.paveepoint.ie/pav_faq_a.html
Travellers are not an ethnic group.

billy the squid

why do you keep stating your opinion as fact?

discrimination is discrimination no matter what you call it. just because it is against travellers it still doesn't make it right trying to figure out whether it is racist ethnic homophobic or whateer is just semantics. the end result is the same.

pete

mcgarnicle wrote:

Since when?

From the Oireachtas debate linked previously:

My final point relates to the very first issue I raised. The Minister referred to the distinguished sociologist, Hilary Tovey, and her colleague. I was involved in sociology and social anthropology for 25 years and I am aware that self-definition is a crucial aspect. If one looks at the vast amount of literature on indigenous populations in New Zealand, Australia and similar countries, one will see that a crucial element in arriving at one’s conclusion is what one calls oneself. People do not call themselves one thing to the exclusion of anything else. If one accepts the inclusion of an ethnic definition for Travellers, one will see that they are not taking themselves out of either the obligations or responsibilities of Irish citizenship. Dr. Castellino made reference to that point at his presentation in December.

Ok, so they recognise they have their own little bits of culture, but don't recognise that they are a race or an ethnic minority. I never denied they have some culture, I said they are not a race or ethnic minority, just like that link.

Where does it say that? as quoted previously:

the Government of Ireland accepts the right of Travellers to their cultural identity, regardless of whether it may be properly described as an ethnic group, and is committed to applying all the protections afforded to ethnic minorities by the CERD equally to Travellers

In other words, the official government position is they have no position.

Page 15........... What do you want me to say? I can't tell you where to find this information, everyone on here has come across stories about travellers in the media. I'm sure they are not all true, but many are.

"Page 15" of what? Or is this "humour"? So can I take it you can't provide any examples of "abuse of the term racism by travellers who want to cry everytime the law is brought to bear against them"?

It is an example, show me evidence that the police were racist against these people and weren't simply doing their job. Surely the burden of proof rests with those accusing people.

Oh it's an example alright - an example of a claim being made with nothing to back it up.

the long departed OP wrote:

For example the town of Ballyhaunis co. Mayo was invaded by a group of Travellers in the summer of 2004. They stole from shops dumped huge amounts of rubbish and were a general menace. As soon as the Gardai tried to prosecute them they were accused of being Racists.

Where is the evidence of this?

Or is it now guilty until proven innocent?

How ironic.

There are plenty of references to racism and enthnic minority there, it has not been shown travellers are either. Therefore it is a cynical attempt to grab attention.

Fantastic. Well spotted. Unfortunately, that's not what you were asked.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record,

Can you highlight the specific "abuse of the term racism by travellers who want to cry everytime the law is brought to bear against them" in that article?

the_syco

Ballymun has been demolished and O'malley park is being depopulated.

At the time it was seen as a good idea. Hindsight is great. If you have a small amount of area, and a large amount of people, the best way is to build towers. The only thing is, though, that the towers were not made to a decent standard.

your idea of putting disadvantaged people in ****hole locations has failed before, why should it prove successful when dealing with travellers.

I didn't decide to put the travellers in caravans, they decided that themselves.

do you think city councils would build council houses which were falling down, or build unsafe houses? no they wouldnt.

They built the towers, which are unsafe now. What is a good idea now, may not be a good idea in the future.

billy the squid wrote:

As for suddenly not being a traveller anymore, could you stop being Irish? come back and tell us how long it takes. you cannot just stop being what you are.

If you apply for American citizenship, and you pass, you become an American.

the Irish who went to america still had their accents also, they didn't just develop an american one the minute they landed on ellis island.

You asked how you stop being Irish, I told you.

billy the squid wrote:

Being a traveller is more than just being on the road, it is the traditions, the language, the herritage that also comes with it. so while a traveller might choose to live in the same place for many years, they still consider themselves travellers. your belief that a traveller can suddenly change into a settled person like superman going into a phonebox when he buys a house is very simplistic.

If a traveller buys a house, and settles down, he's regarded as settled by the travelling community.

billy the squid wrote:

yeah but will he get planning permission for said halting site?

Why buy it, tho? The f*ckers just move in where they want, and stay there. They then demand that they should get water + eletricity for free, whilst trespassing.

billy the squid wrote:

"bastard travellers had my local shut down 'cos they couldnt get served there"

Oh, they're let in, alright. And we wait. For we know the family, and we know they'll cause a fight, and there'll be blood shed. If this was a settled person, they'd just be banned, after the fisrt time. But because they're travellers, they have to be allowed in. So we wait. All 20 bouncers are called in, and we wait. We serve them, and when it goes ugly, when they slash each other with knives, and blood is shed (which I usually have to mop up later).

True, there are travellers who come in, and give no trouble, but the fact remains, the ones who are known to cause trouble have to be let in, and have to be served, because they are members of the travelling community.

billy the squid wrote:

drug-filled council housing estates

And you don't like us generalising?

Richard branson

If Richard Branson was born to a different family, he may not be where he is today.

dole

You have to provide proof of residence, to ensure that your not claiming from multiple offices. If your travelling around, what would stop you from signing on at two seperate offices?

which is worse, racial dicrimination, or discrimination against an ethnic minority.

Racial discrimination is worse. Discrimination against an ethnic minority is not as bad. Oh, and you asked which I thought was worse, not which one was not bad.

mcgarnicle

billy the squid wrote:

why do you keep stating your opinion as fact?

discrimination is discrimination no matter what you call it. just because it is against travellers it still doesn't make it right trying to figure out whether it is racist ethnic homophobic or whateer is just semantics. the end result is the same.

The point of this thread was to discuss if travellers use the plea of racism as a way of avoiding police action. I know that discrimination is wrong. The point is that travellers often claim racial discrimination even when no discrimination has taken place.

pete

Stekelly wrote:

Will they build me one in the area I want?

All local authorities build houses within their own areas. What's the problem?

With the people I want to live beside?

You mean other members of the settled community? Sure.

If you mean "near your family" or where your roots are, well as far as I know consideration is given to these factors when allocating houses to people on the waiting lists. All about the social cohesiveness, innit.

without me spending years on a waiting list?

Because we all know halting sites go up immediately, right?

And then build me another one if I decide to move somewhere else, because I dont like it anymore?

Yes, transfers are facilitated within the local authority housing system.

Will I also be allowed to destroy it and be let stay?

I'm not sure what the grounds are for a local authority refusing to house someone, but i believe they have some pretty stringent obligations to meet and i'm pretty sure they don't chuck out whole streets because of anti-social behaviour by one resident.

Oh and i'd like to see the facts behind that "question", if you don't mind. Thanks.

Will I get all this and still be allowed to work? Or the fact that I EARN money go against the decision?

www.oasis.gov.ie should have all the info you want on your housing entitlements / means testing.

pete

mcgarnicle wrote:

The point of this thread was to discuss if travellers use the plea of racism as a way of avoiding police action.

*sigh*

If you read the original post, the statement actually was "Im fed up of anyone who accuses Travellers of committing any crime instantly being branded a racist."

When?

gandalf

vannistelrooy10's message has been deleted and he has been banned from politics any more comedians out there?

mcgarnicle

pete wrote:

From the Oireachtas debate linked previously:

So one sociologist's opinion is now the same as something being "widely considered to be an issue of self determination".

pete wrote:

Where does it say that? as quoted previously:
In other words, the official government position is they have no position.

So what is the relevence of it?

pete wrote:

"Page 15" of what? Or is this "humour"? So can I take it you can't provide any examples of "abuse of the term racism by travellers who want to cry everytime the law is brought to bear against them"?

You know there are stories about travellers in the press and if you ever listen to them afterwards they are cryng about racism.
I can't give you specific examples from tv and papers off the top of my head.

pete wrote:

Oh it's an example alright - an example of a claim being made with nothing to back it up.

Like every other claim in this thread.

pete wrote:

Where is the evidence of this?

Where is the evidence against this? For evidence on that specific event then I suggest you ask the OP, if you can find him. I have heard stories and read about plenty of other instences and heard plenty of travellers accusing police of racism. Unfortunately I did not tape the news when they were on or keep my newspapers when I read the stories so I can't give you evidence.

pete wrote:

How ironic.

How? If you are implying that the travellers should also be given due process then obviously I agree. The point is that they try to get around the process by immediately claiming racism.

Fantastic. Well spotted. Unfortunately, that's not what you were asked.

pete wrote:

At the risk of sounding like a broken record,

I have had to explain my reasons a few times, if you are looking for that specific quote you won't find it. My point is that by blaming all their problems on everyone elses racism this article is being a bit cynical, and I will say it again, travellers are not a race or an ethnic community. It is my opinion yes, but there are no facts to prove me wrong. Even the link to an oirechtas meeting did not resolve it.

mcgarnicle

pete wrote:

*sigh*

If you read the original post, the statement actually was "Im fed up of anyone who accuses Travellers of committing any crime instantly being branded a racist."

When?

I'm not the OP but I have heard this happening plenty of times. I don't have specific dates, sorry.

Guy:Incognito

pete wrote:

Oh and i'd like to see the facts behind that "question", if you don't mind. Thanks..

My fact behind that particular one is based on the two (official) halting sites I pass on my way to football every saturday, both of which are in absolutely disgracefull condition. None of the buildings in either of thes have any doors or windows anymore, there are piles of rubbish everywhere, and more often than not, fires being lit/lighting.

pete

mcgarnicle wrote:

So one sociologist's opinion is now the same as something being "widely considered to be an issue of self determination".

Read the quote. Seriously.

So what is the relevence of it?

The "relevance" is the fact that it completely refutes your assertation that "that link" supports your position. It. Doesn't. At. All.

You know there are stories about travellers in the press and if you ever listen to them afterwards they are cryng about racism.
I can't give you specific examples from tv and papers off the top of my head.

www.google.com

Like every other claim in this thread.

If I've made any claims you feel I should be backing up then by all means let me know.

Where is the evidence against this? For evidence on that specific event then I suggest you ask the OP, if you can find him. I have heard stories and read about plenty of other instences and heard plenty of travellers accusing police of racism. Unfortunately I did not tape the news when they were on or keep my newspapers when I read the stories so I can't give you evidence.

In case you'd forgotten, the issue was not "have travellers ever accused others of racism" but had they ever done so as a response to being accused of / charged with a crime in an attempt to avoid it.

oh and www.google.com

How? If you are implying that the travellers should also be given due process then obviously I agree. The point is that they try to get around the process by immediately claiming racism.

For the last time (really) - WHEN?

I have had to explain my reasons a few times, if you are looking for that specific quote you won't find it.

So what you're saying is that you cannot back up your claim of an "abuse of the term racism by travellers who want to cry everytime the law is brought to bear against them"?

My point is that by blaming all their problems on everyone elses racism this article is being a bit cynical,

Are you telling me that my own personal experience of institutionalised discrimination against travellers - discrimination that I personally was party to, let's not forget - never happened?

and I will say it again, travellers are not a race or an ethnic community. It is my opinion yes, but there are no facts to prove me wrong. Even the link to an oirechtas meeting did not resolve it.

Find me a definition of ethnicity that supports your position and i'll find you 10 more that refute it.

pete

Stekelly wrote:

My fact behind that particular one is based on the two (official) halting sites I pass on my way to football every saturday, both of which are in absolutely disgracefull condition. None of the buildings in either of thes have any doors or windows anymore, there are piles of rubbish everywhere, and more often than not, fires being lit/lighting.

Sounds like plenty of dublin housing estates to me.

Guy:Incognito

pete wrote:

Sounds like plenty of dublin housing estates to me.

If you buy your own hous you can do what you like with it.

pete

Stekelly wrote:

If you buy your own hous you can do what you like with it.

let's pretend i said "local authority" estates

Guy:Incognito

pete wrote:

let's pretend i said "local authority" estates

Well then the council should turf them out on their ear. Why ar eall the traveller supporters on here assuming that everyone else is anti traveller but pro settled scum?

The issue of this thread is not "what do settled people do wrong".


For the record , I dont support giving ANYONE a free ride in life, regardless of who they are. If I had my way the dole would be done away with ( for long termers. I should be given for a max of about 4 weeks in a year, everyone can find a job, it might not be as glamorous as they want but thats life.)

mcgarnicle

pete wrote:

Read the quote. Seriously.

I did.

pete wrote:

The "relevance" is the fact that it completely refutes your assertation that "that link" supports your position. It. Doesn't. At. All.

Yes it does, unless you can show me exactly where it says travellers are deffinately either a race or an ethnic minority, not what some sociologist says. I mean the conclusion of the discussion.

pete wrote:

In case you'd forgotten, the issue was not "have travellers ever accused others of racism" but had they ever done so as a response to being accused of / charged with a crime in an attempt to avoid it.

I hadn't forgotten.

pete wrote:

For the last time (really) - WHEN?

I don't really get what you're style of impatient posting is meant to impress on me, I have said a few times already that I can't quote you specific examples. I have seen them in the paper and on the news over the years. I am sure most people have seen it too.

pete wrote:

So what you're saying is that you cannot back up your claim of an "abuse of the term racism by travellers who want to cry everytime the law is brought to bear against them"?

Ok, sorry, not everytime but many times and no I don't have proof of it. Like I have said several times I saw it on the news and in the paper, not on the internet.

pete wrote:

Are you telling me that my own personal experience of institutionalised discrimination against travellers - discrimination that I personally was party to, let's not forget - never happened?

Are you telling me you wrote that article?

pete wrote:

Find me a definition of ethnicity that supports your position and i'll find you 10 more that refute it.

Then I will find 100 more.

pete

mcgarnicle wrote:

Yes it does, unless you can show me exactly where it says travellers are deffinately either a race or an ethnic minority, not what some sociologist says. I mean the conclusion of the discussion.

Then kindly stop saying it supports your position that travellers have no claim on a separate ethnicity. The official government position on the issue is that the government has no position - they consider it irrelevant because travellers are offered the very same protections as if they were deemed to officially be a separate ethnic groups... but without being deemed as such.

I don't really get what you're style of impatient posting is meant to impress on me, I have said a few times already that I can't quote you specific examples. I have seen them in the paper and on the news over the years. I am sure most people have seen it too.

Apparently not. If you can't back up the allegation then kindly stop repeating it. I believe there are rules here about that sort of thing.

Ok, sorry, not everytime but many times and no I don't have proof of it. Like I have said several times I saw it on the news and in the paper, not on the internet.

www.ireland.com www.independent.ie www.examiner.ie www.rte.ie/news

Are you telling me you wrote that article?

No, i'm telling you I posted about my own personal experience of institutionalised discrimination against the travelling community by the department of social welfare.

Then I will find 100 more.

Go for it.

mcgarnicle

pete wrote:

Then kindly stop saying it supports your position that travellers have no claim on a separate ethnicity. The official government position on the issue is that the government has no position - they consider it irrelevant because travellers are offered the very same protections as if they were deemed to officially be a separate ethnic groups... but without being deemed as such.

I can say what I like, it is my opinion. That article may say they get the same rights but it is clear if they considered them racially and ethnically unique they would have said it. Out of interest, why did you post it in the first place?

pete wrote:

Apparently not. If you can't back up the allegation then kindly stop repeating it. I believe there are rules here about that sort of thing.

Yes, but I am giving my opinion, as far as I know I only have to back it up if I present it as fact.

pete wrote:

No, i'm telling you I posted about my own personal experience of institutionalised discrimination against the travelling community by the department of social welfare.

What has that got to do with the article?

pete wrote:

Go for it.

No