The Issue of Travellers.

pete

mcgarnicle wrote:

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?

Good grief.

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.

Are you having a laugh? I'll walk you through it, shall I?

Your allegation / statement of fact - and that of the original poster - was that members of the travelling community always (see:"everytime") cry racism as means to (successfully, i presume) avoid prosecution. I have asked for examples (or even an example) of this. You have been unable to provide same. I am now asking that you stop making said unsubstantiated allegation / statement of fact.

It's really not that complicated.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR OPINION ON THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF TRAVELLERS' CLAIMS OF A UNIQUE ETHNICITY. ok?

What has that got to do with the article?

i give up. seriously. i think i've lost the will to live.

pete

Stekelly wrote:

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".

Who said it was? You raised a variety of issues about travellers housing rights and I merely pointed out that you have the very same rights, albeit applied differently.

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.)

Such an enlightened view.


in any event i'm officially withdrawing from this thread. i find the almost complete absence of unprompted moderation of some borderline incitement to hatred stuff somewhat.... unsettling.

mcgarnicle

Here are some examples.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/03/29/story25667.asp

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/03/29/story25667.asp

http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0701/6news.html

mcgarnicle

pete wrote:

Good grief.

???? Well from what I can see you posted it to point out that the government has no position on the subject, what is the point of that?

pete wrote:

Are you having a laugh? I'll walk you through it, shall I?

Your allegation / statement of fact - and that of the original poster - was that members of the travelling community always (see:"everytime") cry racism as means to (successfully, i presume) avoid prosecution. I have asked for examples (or even an example) of this. You have been unable to provide same. I am now asking that you stop making said unsubstantiated allegation / statement of fact.

I can state my opinion if I like.

pete wrote:

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR OPINION ON THE VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF TRAVELLERS' CLAIMS OF A UNIQUE ETHNICITY. ok?

Says you, before you got so worked up there was a several page discussion on this. If you chose to tune in on Page 9 it doesn't cancel out everything else that was said.

pete wrote:

i give up. seriously. i think i've lost the will to live.

You still haven't told me what you working in some place that discriminated against travellers has to do with a statement in an anarchist newsletter.

oscarBravo

billy the squid wrote:

another generalisation?

Yes, a tongue-in-cheek generalisation - and not directed at travellers.

billy the squid

stekelly wrote:

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.)

OK big multinational closes down, do you think the IDA would be able to find a replacement employer within four weeks before all those laid off get cut off.

Its all well and good claiming that people shouldnt get the dole after four weeks but you forget that not all jobs are permanant, some are seasonal, some are just temporary. without a safety net to catch them people would sooner emigrate rather than take temporary work that gave them no notice when they were let go. Four weeks isnt a very long time. but i digress.

billy the squid

the_syco wrote:

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.

All the more reason to have halting sites to a decent standard

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

It is not about them living in caravans, it is about the condition of the halting site the caravan is in, although im sure your above answer made you giggle for a few seconds.

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

Those towers were always unsafe.

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

Lets close down every chinatown in the US so, how successful do you think you would be?

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

To those that know him he is still a traveller. or "settled traveller"

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.

Which is why there should be more propper halting sites and less tolerance of illegal parking

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.

then just bar the one family causing the fights.

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.[/quote]

not necessarily, all you have to say is "this particular person caused trouble in my establishment." it works for settled people doesnt it?

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).

Would you let a row amongst settled people simmer for that long?

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.

why is one form of discrimination worse than another in your opinion, discrimination is discrimination isnt it??

the_syco

billy the squid wrote:

then just bar the one family causing the fights.

not necessarily, all you have to say is "this particular person caused trouble in my establishment." it works for settled people doesnt it?

Nope. Not possible. If you bar them, they'll just use the "they barred us because we're travellers" excuse, and block the license renewal.

billy the squid wrote:

Would you let a row amongst settled people simmer for that long?

The bouncers get in once the row starts, but may have to give some leeway if knives are taken out.

billy the squid wrote:

why is one form of discrimination worse than another in your opinion, discrimination is discrimination isnt it??

Yup, but you asked

you are still avoiding my question. which is worse, racial dicrimination, or discrimination against an ethnic minority.

so I decided not to avoid your question. I answered it. You asked which is worse. If I said both were equal, I'd be avoiding your question, so I picked one.

billy the squid

the_syco wrote:

Nope. Not possible. If you bar them, they'll just use the "they barred us because we're travellers" excuse, and block the license renewal.

It would be your word against theirs in court. They would have to prove that they were discriminated against. the fact that well behaved travellers are allowed admitance is evidence of this, is it not?

The bouncers get in once the row starts, but may have to give some leeway if knives are taken out.

And you assume that they are going to have knives because they are travellers, right?

Yup, but you asked

That does not answer why you picked Racial discrimination over Ethnic discrimination rather than saying they were both equally obhorrant.

so I decided not to avoid your question. I answered it. You asked which is worse. If I said both were equal, I'd be avoiding your question, so I picked one.

I disagree. To say both were the same would have been an equally valid answer.

the_syco

billy the squid wrote:

It would be your word against theirs in court. They would have to prove that they were discriminated against. the fact that well behaved travellers are allowed admitance is evidence of this, is it not?

Can you explain this one, please? "the fact that well behaved travellers are allowed admitance is evidence of this" They ate admitted anyhoo's, and can't be barred, as they'll say they were barred because they are travellers. Although its true that they are travellers, its also true that they are known to cause trouble.

billy the squid wrote:

And you assume that they are going to have knives because they are travellers, right?

Nope. Because its pretty hard to miss the knife. If a fight starts, the bouncer will go in and stop it, by taking the problem (usually one person) outside. If an entire group fights, they are taken outside. If someone takes out a knife, the bouncers are hardly going to run at them, but rather take the person whom they're (the person with the knife) trying to attack outside, and grab the person with the knife when they get a chance. The pool of blood that I mopped up was caused by a cut across the stomach, by a stanley knife (the Gardai retrieved the blood soaked weapon @ the scene of the attack).

billy the squid

the_syco wrote:

Can you explain this one, please? "the fact that well behaved travellers are allowed admitance is evidence of this" They ate admitted anyhoo's, and can't be barred, as they'll say they were barred because they are travellers. Although its true that they are travellers, its also true that they are known to cause trouble.

The fact that well behaved travellers are admitted into the establishment debunks the claim of discrimination on the grounds of being a traveller. Therefore the fact that well behaved travellers are still being served proves to a court that there is no anti-traveller discrimination, should such a claim arise.