16% of travellers in employment

johnnyskeleton

moe_sizlak wrote: »

a superbly well articulated piece if i may say so

the only thing that matters to theese clowns is that travellers are SACRED COWS , so inconsistency in there points in bound to be evident throughout

Inconsistencies in my points...like for example the way I only made one comment? Or the way I expressed no opinion one way or another about travellers?

FTA69

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Accent - what is the traveller accent? I guess it depends on where they've been. Very few people can tell where I'm from just from my accent,

Nonsense. There is a very distinguishable Traveller accent, espeically when they talk to each other. The best way I can describe it is like a thick rural accent ("Jaysis", "boss", "how's himself", "divil") spoken very quickly.

in fact the only accents that are really obvious are the ones that sound unique (e.g. Donegal, Dublin City Centre, West Cork, etc).

Not at all, outside of Leinster accents differ hugely. Even in Waterford you have a multitude of accents, every county that then borders Waterford for example have completely different accents within them.

Physical appearance - what do you mean by this? How do travellers look different to other people? Are you honestly saying that you recon you could walk into a random workplace and say "oh, look over there on the forklift, that's a traveller?

I'm actually laughing now as the same thing happened to me when I came to England. Another Irish fella told me a Traveller worked in the yard, when a large driver wearing an open-necked shirt, ill fitting pants, a pierced ear and a large crucifix spun into the yard it wasn't hard to guess his ethnicity.

Small group of common surnames - which are also common among the settled population - ward, murphy, mcdonagh. Do you go into every workplace and ask people their surnames to check if they're travellers?

So if you met a woman with massive gold earrings, speaking a different dialect going by the name Bridie Connors you wouldn't for a second think of her as a Pavee? That's simply crap to be honest. Travellers are a distinct people within our society. Being able to recognise a Traveller is no more discriminatory than recognising a group of Eastern Europeans.

moe_sizlak

when your a sacred cow like travellers are , it is encouraged that you recognise them as a seperate ethnic group but frowned upon if you point out what clearly makes them seperate and identifiable

go figure

FTA69

Travellers aren't a "sacred cow" at all, such to the point where councillors can call for them to be rounded up and half the country agree with them.

Jack Sheehan

This is a bit of a tricky issue as, joking aside, people simply do not want to employ travellers, I'm not being predudiced I'm simply stating a fact. People view them as untrustworthy.

Incidentally near where I live, In Sandyford Industrial Estate, some small offices have a condition of lease that you must employ a traveller. This has caused a great deal of anger amoung a lot of people and I was wondering if similar conditions of lease/sale exist anywhere else.

Edit: I don't trust the Indo, It's a total rag in my opinion.

Tha Gopher

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1-Accent - what is the traveller accent? I guess it depends on where they've been. Very few people can tell where I'm from just from my accent, in fact the only accents that are really obvious are the ones that sound unique (e.g. Donegal, Dublin City Centre, West Cork, etc).

2- Physical appearance - what do you mean by this? How do travellers look different to other people? Are you honestly saying that you recon you could walk into a random workplace and say "oh, look over there on the forklift, that's a traveller?

3- Small group of common surnames - which are also common among the settled population - ward, murphy, mcdonagh. Do you go into every workplace and ask people their surnames to check if they're travellers?

4- Far from it, because you are only assuming things. While in many instances you might be right, in others you will be mistaken. How can you then categorically state that you've never seen a traveller in a workplace?

5- Well it's because no-one is asking you to see them as a race, they want you to see them as a recognised minority social group. It's not prejudiced to recognise a traveller when you see one, but it is to assume that they all look alike and are clearly distinguishable from other people, and to such an extent that you base your opinions on them as a class on your prejudice.

6- I'm not implying that to do so is racist, I'm implying that it is very difficult, if not impossible to look at a random person and know exactly who they are and where they are from all the time. Have you ever assumed someone was Czech only to find that they are Slovakian? Australian/New Zealand? Kenyian/Ethiopian? To distinguish travellers from non travellers so that they would be easily identified you would have to mark them out.

7- It's not really a thread for realistic intelligent points, if it was it would be over when Seamus said:

8- If I was to say that I have never worked with a homosexual person (apart from the difficulty of sustaining this point on the basis that I have never worked with someone who looked and sounded like the stereotypical gay and who was called Julian) that does not sustain an argument about the general homosexual population.



I guess I'm the only one foolish enough to feed the troll.

Well first off at least fair play in countering my points, unlike a few of those who have reared their heads here.

1- I have always found a traveller born and raised for 20 years in Dunsink (or wherever in Dublin) will have the same as one born and reared in a halt in Belfast, or Tralee, or Offaly. The younger kids may have a tinge of the local accent from school but generally it is distinctive and different. Same in England- many travellers born and reared there have the same accent as those here.

2- If I was to answer the physical appearance question i.e. why they have a distinctive one, Id be banned from this forum. You know why, I know why, but I feel it would be bannable to actually say without demands for statistics and whatnot.

3- If I met a girl with a D4 accent called Elize McDonagh-Richardson, no, I might not assume she was of traveller descent. Yes, there are people in the settled community with the names. But there are larger amounts of Wards and McDonaghs travellers than alot of other surnames. Combined with the fact you have relatively small amounts of old style christian names and it becomes quite clear. Grow up.

4- I cant categorically 100% state it. I also cant categorically 100% state the meal Im about to eat isnt going to result in my death, but Ill take a chance. What I can state is that I have never worked with a person with a typical traveller surname who displayed typical traveller accent and physical traits. Take it like you want tbh.


5- I cant even be arsed

6- Czechs and Slovaks are generally of the same physical general make up (although more Czech women are blonde and more Slovak black and slightly more tanned, on account of the Hungarian and Turkish settlement centuries before). White Aussies and NZ`rs are nearly all descended from the same ethnic groups (English, Scots, Welsh, Irish). Maoris are generally lighter skinned and bulkier built than Aboriginies. Therefore, yes, I can spot a Maori a mile away as there were a few NZ contracters who were all Maori in my old work. Kenyan and Ethiopian? Ethiopians, like most from Sudan and Somalia too, generally have a bone structure more similiar to Arabs/Europeans than the rest of Africa. Noticing these difference is called an education in real life- I can tell Lithuanians from Poles, Somalis from Nigerians and, generally, travellers from settled folk. Obviously there are exceptions. As we know some Irish people inexplicably look Mediterranean, and Im sure there is the odd one from Latvia who does as well. But generally it doesnt happen. If you cant distinguish these traits, that is your problem and not mine.

7- It is. However, apart from you many of those who made comments earlier are not prepared to bother agruing with an opposing view that they know is corrct.

8- I doubt you have never worked with an outwardly gay person unless you only work the likes of construction/factory type work. Point is irrelevant

And finally, how am I trolling? By opposing the common view here? I wonder did Saddam Hussein use the net often. He probably complained about the Kurdish human rights trolls, or the Shia trolls, or sympathised with the lads in Burma for being stuck with Suu Kyi Queen of the Trolls.

This is the second time Ive been accused in this thread and tbh it is a frankly pathetic way to dismiss a view that does not conform to your own.

And lastly, nobody has yet been able to argue against...

a- The indo appears to not have misepresented the stats in the report. And I personally wouldnt wipe my arse with the indo, it generally can be tripe. So there goes any reader bias out the door.

b- Is poor previous school education really at fault when adult litreacy courses are available to everyone?

c- Exactly what is wrong with stopping benefits to those not working? As said they will either be forced to get a job or be forced to move to the UK and live off their welfare. For the billiontth time- NOBODY WILL STARVE TO DEATH.

Really, if people want to contribute a view, well enough. Please be big enough to either defend it or admit that it is flawed.

johnnyskeleton

FTA69 wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Nonsense. There is a very distinguishable Traveller accent, espeically when they talk to each other. The best way I can describe it is like a thick rural accent ("Jaysis", "boss", "how's himself", "divil") spoken very quickly.

Jaysis - first thing that comes to mind is the rebel liberties.
how's himself - a cork phrase if there ever was one.
divil - don't kerry people say divil?

But by describing it as a thick rural accent is basically saying it's a thick accent from outside of dublin, cork, limerick, galway and belfast (sorry waterford, wexford, sligo and the other one) - i.e. most of Ireland.

FTA69 wrote:

Not at all, outside of Leinster accents differ hugely. Even in Waterford you have a multitude of accents, every county that then borders Waterford for example have completely different accents within them.

Well I'll put it like this, if someone is from Cork, Dublin or Donegal I'd know straight away where they are from, with others I'd be pretty sure but many's the Cavan man is from Monaghan, many's the Westmeath from Laois, etc. While you can guess at where a person is from from their accent, that's all it is, a guess (educated at best).

FTA69 wrote:

I'm actually laughing now as the same thing happened to me when I came to England. Another Irish fella told me a Traveller worked in the yard, when a large driver wearing an open-necked shirt, ill fitting pants, a pierced ear and a large crucifix spun into the yard it wasn't hard to guess his ethnicity.

I'm not saying that there isn't a traveller stereotype or that some of them don't live up to it, but I don't accept that all travellers have a unique physical appearance.

FTA69 wrote:

So if you met a woman with massive gold earrings, speaking a different dialect going by the name Bridie Connors you wouldn't for a second think of her as a Pavee? That's simply crap to be honest. Travellers are a distinct people within our society. Being able to recognise a Traveller is no more discriminatory than recognising a group of Eastern Europeans.

Well my post was in the context of not always knowing the names of people in random workplaces, but that aside, if it was on Moore St and she was trying to sell me a bunch of bananas and lighters 5 for a pound I'd assume she was a dublin girl true and true.

johnnyskeleton

moe_sizlak wrote: »

when your a sacred cow like travellers are , it is encouraged that you recognise them as a seperate ethnic group but frowned upon if you point out what clearly makes them seperate and identifiable

go figure

Does that mean that you feel entitled that, once you have recognised a certain ethnic class or group, that you can use any sort of negative description - true or otherwise?

What makes travellers separate from other irish people is that they either travel around or that they come from such a background. Which is why I have some difficulty with the term settled traveller as it implies that, although generations of the same family have lived just like any other person, they are liable to get up and go at a moments notice.

But they are not separate because of their physical description, accent or name. Otherwise the short cork murphys or the skinny dublin doyles would be ethnic groups.

johnnyskeleton

Tha Gopher wrote: »

6- Czechs and Slovaks are generally of the same physical general make up (although more Czech women are blonde and more Slovak black and slightly more tanned, on account of the Hungarian and Turkish settlement centuries before). White Aussies and NZ`rs are nearly all descended from the same ethnic groups (English, Scots, Welsh, Irish). Maoris are generally lighter skinned and bulkier built than Aboriginies. Therefore, yes, I can spot a Maori a mile away as there were a few NZ contracters who were all Maori in my old work. Kenyan and Ethiopian? Ethiopians, like most from Sudan and Somalia too, generally have a bone structure more similiar to Arabs/Europeans than the rest of Africa. Noticing these difference is called an education in real life- I can tell Lithuanians from Poles, Somalis from Nigerians and, generally, travellers from settled folk. Obviously there are exceptions. As we know some Irish people inexplicably look Mediterranean, and Im sure there is the odd one from Latvia who does as well. But generally it doesnt happen. If you cant distinguish these traits, that is your problem and not mine.

While it is fine to form general working assumptions as to where someone is from (which can prove to be correct or incorrect), to base an opinion on whether you have / have not seen such a person in a particular area is unfounded

Tha Gopher wrote: »

8- I doubt you have never worked with an outwardly gay person unless you only work the likes of construction/factory type work. Point is irrelevant

The point I'm making is that it's wrong to make assumptions based on physical appearance.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

And finally, how am I trolling?

For expressing an opinion intended to be controversial rather than to further the argument. For saying that travellers should get a job or go to england. For alluding to a stereotype of travellers as being true of them all.

And lastly, nobody has yet been able to argue against...

Tha Gopher wrote: »

a- The indo appears to not have misepresented the stats in the report. And I personally wouldnt wipe my arse with the indo, it generally can be tripe. So there goes any reader bias out the door.

While my only gripe was with your comment about never having seen a traveller in any workplace, I'll try to summarise what has already been said. While the figure posted by the indo might be correct about the percentage of travellers who are employed, it is no comparison to the live register unemployement figure because the figure for travellers does not take into account children of school going age which probably accounts for a large part of the population. Another thing (although I could be wrong in this) is that a stay at home housewife who is not on the dole (e.g. because her husband is rich) will not be added to the live register but the figures for the travelling community may well include such housewives. Add to that also that many travellers may be self employed (legitimately or therwise) means that the statistic, while true if you divide the total population by the number of workers is misleading. If you were to divide the total Irish population by the number of paye workers, you would get an equally misleading statistic. Given then the anti-traveller bias in this country(I take it we are agreed on that) then you see that the difference isn't that stark at all. But the Indo uses it to great effect.

Tha Gopher wrote: »

b- Is poor previous school education really at fault when adult litreacy courses are available to everyone?

Yes, because adult literacy is no substitute for a full education about maths, science, arts etc, and in any event, I can't imagine employers would consider an adult literacy course to be the equivalent of a proper full education (and by this I mean no disrespect to adult literarcy courses, but they are what they are).

Tha Gopher wrote: »

c- Exactly what is wrong with stopping benefits to those not working? As said they will either be forced to get a job or be forced to move to the UK and live off their welfare. For the billiontth time- NOBODY WILL STARVE TO DEATH.

They're not good options. For a start they might find it very difficult to get a job, and if they have kids to feed even in the short term this would be a major problem. And as for moving to England, they are also able to also cut off social welfare payments just like we do.

So if we were to cut social welfare payments you would be offering people 3 choices:
1) be forced into work, probably in very bad if not exploitative conditions (for example, the workhouses during the famine)
2) migrate (for example the mass migration of starving Irish people, during the famine)
3) starve to death (like...can you guess what I'm going to say next?)

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Really, if people want to contribute a view, well enough. Please be big enough to either defend it or admit that it is flawed.

I just hope there isn't some clever american phrase ("starving paddys law" or the like) which you can use to dismiss my criticms, because I honestly believe that if you do cut social welfare payments, you are opening up a massive population (not just travellers) to exploitation. It's hard not to take the prosperity we have now for granted, and it's even harder not to see the props that support this prosperity as a waste of money on layabouts, but cutting social welfare payments would be a political, economic and humanitarian disaster. Great for big business though.

Tha Gopher

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1- While it is fine to form general working assumptions as to where someone is from (which can prove to be correct or incorrect), to base an opinion on whether you have / have not seen such a person in a particular area is unfounded


2- The point I'm making is that it's wrong to make assumptions based on physical appearance.

3- For expressing an opinion intended to be controversial rather than to further the argument. For saying that travellers should get a job or go to england. For alluding to a stereotype of travellers as being true of them all.

4- While the figure posted by the indo might be correct about the percentage of travellers who are employed, it is no comparison to the live register unemployement figure because the figure for travellers does not take into account children of school going age which probably accounts for a large part of the population. Another thing (although I could be wrong in this) is that a stay at home housewife who is not on the dole (e.g. because her husband is rich) will not be added to the live register but the figures for the travelling community may well include such housewives. Add to that also that many travellers may be self employed (legitimately or therwise) means that the statistic, while true if you divide the total population by the number of workers is misleading. If you were to divide the total Irish population by the number of paye workers, you would get an equally misleading statistic. Given then the anti-traveller bias in this country(I take it we are agreed on that) then you see that the difference isn't that stark at all. But the Indo uses it to great effect.



Yes, because adult literacy is no substitute for a full education about maths, science, arts etc, and in any event, I can't imagine employers would consider an adult literacy course to be the equivalent of a proper full education (and by this I mean no disrespect to adult literarcy courses, but they are what they are).



They're not good options. For a start they might find it very difficult to get a job, and if they have kids to feed even in the short term this would be a major problem. And as for moving to England, they are also able to also cut off social welfare payments just like we do.

So if we were to cut social welfare payments you would be offering people 3 choices:
1) be forced into work, probably in very bad if not exploitative conditions (for example, the workhouses during the famine)
2) migrate (for example the mass migration of starving Irish people, during the famine)
3) starve to death (like...can you guess what I'm going to say next?)



I just hope there isn't some clever american phrase ("starving paddys law" or the like) which you can use to dismiss my criticms, because I honestly believe that if you do cut social welfare payments, you are opening up a massive population (not just travellers) to exploitation. It's hard not to take the prosperity we have now for granted, and it's even harder not to see the props that support this prosperity as a waste of money on layabouts, but cutting social welfare payments would be a political, economic and humanitarian disaster. Great for big business though.

1- I have not worked with a traveller. I would bet my house on it. Next point please.

2- Really. Eh....what? It is wrong to make assumptions on country/community of origin based on physical appearance or clothing? Is it wrong for a bouncer at an upmarket bar to assume the guy walking to the door wearing sovereigns, gold chain and wearing a Celtic jersey and burberry cap may be coming to the place to take alot of coke and get into a fight?

3- Saying people who dont work dont deserve a free ride is trolling? Alluding to a stereotype? Most people would stereotype travellers as being work shy. A recent study has found that 84% of travellers living in one of the most prosperous economies in Europe are unemployed (and that is 84% of travellers of WORKING AGE. Not including children. Not including the elderly. In fact, not even including people above their mid 40s for some bizarre reason. Only including young to middle aged people.) Keep digging Johnny.

Actually, seeing as troll is a much bandied about word here, could it possibly be added as being covered by the personal abuse rule? tbh Id sooner he called me a prick than a troll. A prick I can be fine with, its an opinion. If he called me a prick i wouldnt even want him banned. A troll implies posting nonsense to get a rise out of people, rather than a legitimate arguement against an opposing opinion. I take offence to it.

EDIT- Actually, from the oul rulebook

"Allegations of trollery will not be accepted in-thread - they will be viewed as simply another form of personal attack, and dealt with accordingly. If you believe someone is trolling, and object, then report them as per "Reporting & Moderating" above."

Wow. Ive now been personally attacked twice. And on one occasion received an infraction for questioning it. What I dont see is a rule against misrepresenting the contents of a link to further ones own arguement. Should it be added? (see below)


4- It is a study of adult travellers. Let me quote the study again

"Some 87pc of men and 70pc of women aged 25-44 are in employment, but this falls to just 15.8pc among Travellers of this age group, the Equality in Ireland 2007 report by the Central Statistics Office shows"


Note the words "THIS AGE GROUP". It is NOT including children, despite what Hobbes has tried to indicate (and has as of yet either failed to retract or offered to justify). It is NOT including pensioners in the travelling community. At best he misread the article, at worst misrepresented the facts from it. It is not the first time I have seen this from Hobbes in regards to linked articles on this forum (if I really must, I can search and provide linkage upon request, although Id sooner you acted like a grown up and just took my word for it). Either way, a response would be nice. Along with

5- Most of the jobs that hire immigrants in menial work would be willing to hire Irish people with some education i.e. travellers who have completed adult litreacy courses.

6- Fcuking workhouses? Famine? Are you for real? Your comments are an insult to people who actually did die either in our famine or as a result of a dire economic situation anywhere else in the world, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for comparing the suffering of an entire people under repressive colonial rule in an agriculturally dependent economy where the main source of survival was destroyed, with 85% of a community living in arguably the most prosperous economy in Europe not having a job.

Apology? I wouldnt hold my breath. As said, fair play for having the balls to respond, but as for the content, disgusting.

johnnyskeleton

I'm very sorry for calling you a troll. I mistook you for one of the mindless traveller-haters, but I can see this is an issue you've thought about a lot.

So what I'll say is, these statistics are from the CSO in the 2002 census (the most recent I could find). While it's hard to make sense of it, this is the excerpt psi was referring to:

CSO wrote:

Labour Force
The results of the Quarterly National Household Survey (QNHS) provide the basis for the official series of
quarterly labour force estimates. The labour force and its constituent figures shown in this report are directly
based on the census. Users should be aware that information derived from identical questions in the census
and QNHS for the relevant quarter of the same year may show appreciable differences. The main categories
affected are the constituents of the question on principal economic status, the International Labour Organisation
(ILO) definition of employment and the employment estimates classified by industry and occupation.
The main reasons for the differences are:
• the census form is completed by a responsible adult in each household throughout the State in respect of
everyone present in the household on census night while the QNHS is by face to face interview
• the census relates to all persons present in the State (including visitors from abroad) at the time of the
census while the QNHS covers persons usually resident in Ireland
• the census is a complete enumeration while the QNHS is a sample survey
• the QNHS has a much wider range of questions on the labour force which may have a bearing on the
responses received to individual questions.
64
Appendix 2 (contd.)
Principal Economic Status (PES) Classification
The PES classification is based on a single question (question 24) in which respondents are asked how they
would describe their present principal status and given the following response categories:
• Working for payment or profit
• Looking for first regular job
• Unemployed
• Student or pupil
• Looking after home/family
• Retired from employment
• Unable to work due to permanent sickness or disability
• Other, write in
ILO Labour Force Classification
The ILO Labour Force classification distinguishes the following main subgroups of the population aged 15 years
and over:
In Employment: Persons who worked in the week before Census Day for one hour or more for payment or
profit, including work on the family farm or business and all persons who had a job but were not at work
because of illness, holidays, etc. in the week.
Unemployed: Persons who, in the week before Census Day, were without work and available for work within
the next two weeks, and had taken specific steps, in the preceding four weeks, to find work.
Inactive Population (not in labour force): All other persons.
The labour force comprises persons employed plus unemployed.
Labour Force Participation Rate
The Labour Force Participation Rate is the number of persons in the labour force expressed as a percentage of
the total population aged 15 years and over.
Unemployment Rate
The Unemployment Rate is the number unemployed expressed as a percentage of the total labour force.
Occupation
The Occupation classification (set out in Appendix 3) used in the census, is based on the UK Standard
Occupational Classification4, with modifications to reflect Irish labour market conditions. The classification was
first used in the 1996 Census. This classification adheres to the international occupation classification ISCO
Com (88) and provides a link to ISCO Com (88). The hierarchical structure provided within this classification is
suited to accurate automatic coding.
The code to which a person’s occupation is classified is determined by the kind of work he or she performs in
earning a living, irrespective of the place in which, or the purpose for which, it is performed. The nature of the
industry, business or service in which the person is working has no bearing upon the classification of the
occupation. For example, the occupation “clerk” covers clerks employed in manufacturing industries, commerce,
banking, insurance, public administration, professions and other services, etc.
The broad level of occupational groups is given in Appendix 4 while the most detailed level of occupations for
which information from the 2002 Census is published is given in Appendix 3.
4 Standard Occupational Classification, Second edition, HMSO, London, 1995.
65
Appendix 2 (contd.)
Industry
The 2002 Census is the first Census in which industry has been coded using NACE - the General Industrial
Classification of Economic Activities within the European Communities. NACE Rev.1 is a 4-digit activity
classification that was drawn up in 1990 and is a revision of the version originally published by Eurostat in 1970.
This legislation imposes the use of the new classification uniformly within all the Member States.
NACE is a hierarchical classification, with 60 2-digit codes, 222 codes at 3-digit level and 503 at 4-digit level.
The most detailed level of industry distinguished in the present report is given in Appendix 5 while the broad
level of industrial groups is given in Appendix 6.
The industry in which a person is engaged is determined (whatever the occupation) by the main economic
activity carried out in the local unit in which he or she works. If, however, the local unit provides an ancillary
service to another unit in the business (e.g. administration, storage, etc.) then the persons in the ancillary unit
are classified to the industry of the unit it services. Thus, while the occupational classification is concerned only
with the particular work performed by an individual regardless of the activity carried on at the local unit, the
industrial classification is concerned only with the ultimate purpose of the unit or end product regardless of the
precise nature of the work performed by each individual.
A manufacturing or commercial unit may employ persons with many different occupations for the purpose of
making a particular product or for giving a particular service. Conversely, there are cases in which particular
occupations are largely confined to a single industry. For example, the majority of persons with agricultural
occupations are in the agriculture industry and most miners are in the mining industry.
The term industry used for Census of Population purposes is not confined to manufacturing industry. It is
synonymous with the term “sector of economic activity”. The basis of the industrial classification is, in the case
of employees, the business or profession of their employer and in the case of self-employed persons, the nature
of their own business or profession.

Table 9 (labour force participation) shows the labour force participation rate for males as 71.8% and females as 37.5%. Table 12 (ILO)shows the labour force participation rate at 37.3 employed to 45.1 unemployed males, and 24.0employed to 30.5 unemployed females. The short answer is that while the statistics can be shown to say that a very small percentage of the adult population were down as gainfully employed, it all depends on how you classify as an occupation.

But statistics can be twisted in all kinds of forms. Suffice it to say that while there is probably a lower percentage of travellers in employment (for a variety of reasons), it is nowhere near what the indo are making it out to be. I just don't think it's true, from a statistical point of view or from experience, to suggest that only about 16% of travellers work and the rest are just layabouts on the dole.

FTA69

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Jaysis - first thing that comes to mind is the rebel liberties.
how's himself - a cork phrase if there ever was one.
divil - don't kerry people say divil?

But by describing it as a thick rural accent is basically saying it's a thick accent from outside of dublin, cork, limerick, galway and belfast (sorry waterford, wexford, sligo and the other one) - i.e. most of Ireland.

I said that was one way of describing it, its quite hard to give an impression through text over the internet. The fact remains there is a distinct Traveller accent, did you ever hear two Travellers talking to each other? Pointing out the above fact is not discriminatory. As I said above, Pavees are a distinct people; there is no point in trying to portray them as exactly the same as the rest of us.

I'm not saying that there isn't a traveller stereotype or that some of them don't live up to it, but I don't accept that all travellers have a unique physical appearance.

Not physically, but the way they dress, talk and the jewellery they wear usually indicates the fact they are Pavee.

Well my post was in the context of not always knowing the names of people in random workplaces, but that aside, if it was on Moore St and she was trying to sell me a bunch of bananas and lighters 5 for a pound I'd assume she was a dublin girl true and true.

If you confuse working class Dubs with Travellers then that would indicate to me you have little experience of either.

moe_sizlak

FTA69 wrote: »

Travellers aren't a "sacred cow" at all, such to the point where councillors can call for them to be rounded up and half the country agree with them.

my point is there a sacred cow to the left

you can be a sacred cow to the right either

travellers like all minoritys sacred cows to the left

johnnyskeleton

FTA69 wrote: »

I said that was one way of describing it, its quite hard to give an impression through text over the internet. The fact remains there is a distinct Traveller accent, did you ever hear two Travellers talking to each other? Pointing out the above fact is not discriminatory. As I said above, Pavees are a distinct people; there is no point in trying to portray them as exactly the same as the rest of us.

Not physically, but the way they dress, talk and the jewellery they wear usually indicates the fact they are Pavee.

If you confuse working class Dubs with Travellers then that would indicate to me you have little experience of either.

My point would be that, while you can often assume that certain people are travellers, you will often be mistaken, and you're more likely to be mistaken than, for example, saying "that person is probably french because they speak french", that person is Asian because they look Chinese, etc.

And as for your last comment, a lot of the women who work on Moore Street have gold hoop earings and say jaysis. If one of those ladies told me her name was Bridie McDonagh (or whatever), I wouldn't assume that she was a traveller. And it's quite common for young non-traveller girls in some parts of the city to wear those hoops too.

johnnyskeleton

moe_sizlak wrote: »

my point is there a sacred cow to the left

you can be a sacred cow to the right either

travellers like all minoritys sacred cows to the left

You keep going on about travellers being a sacred cow, but this is just a way of ignoring the points being made. I don't think anyone on this thread has said anything good about travellers, nor would it be relevant to do so. The point being made is that the indo's criticism of travellers are inaccurate, misleading, and designed to be controversial, as is the anecdotal evidence used to support the idea that travellers don't work, are dole cheats etc.

So, you can talk about farmyard animals all you like, but the reality is the sacred cow in this thread is not the travelling community, but accurate reporting in the media and defending outrageously (and unfoundedly) derisive attacks on other people.

But since you're so keen on these soundbits, why don't I suggest that the travelling community is the Sacrificial Lamb of the ultra-right wing (I say ultra-right because most of the mainstream right doesn't feel the need to deride travellers)?

moe_sizlak

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You keep going on about travellers being a sacred cow, but this is just a way of ignoring the points being made. I don't think anyone on this thread has said anything good about travellers, nor would it be relevant to do so. The point being made is that the indo's criticism of travellers are inaccurate, misleading, and designed to be controversial, as is the anecdotal evidence used to support the idea that travellers don't work, are dole cheats etc.

So, you can talk about farmyard animals all you like, but the reality is the sacred cow in this thread is not the travelling community, but accurate reporting in the media and defending outrageously (and unfoundedly) derisive attacks on other people.

But since you're so keen on these soundbits, why don't I suggest that the travelling community is the Sacrificial Lamb of the ultra-right wing (I say ultra-right because most of the mainstream right doesn't feel the need to deride travellers)?

hating on the sindo is another part of the lefts creed just like clamping down on any form of criticism of travellers , muslims or any other minority
its all phoney of course

btw , you say that its the ultra right wing who deride travellers
most irish people are not ultra right wing yet the truth is most irish people have no time for travellers

GuanYin

moe_sizlak wrote: »

most irish people are not ultra right wing yet the truth is most irish people have no time for travellers

I've had it up to here with your anecdotal claims.

Can I have a source for that please? or are you stating your opinion?

FTA69

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

My point would be that, while you can often assume that certain people are travellers, you will often be mistaken, and you're more likely to be mistaken than, for example, saying "that person is probably french because they speak french", that person is Asian because they look Chinese, etc.

I wouldn't say so to be honest. Some people may be, but I have known Pavees my whole life and I can usually tell by looking, if not I'll know within a few minutes of talking to them. That having been said I have met people who turned out to be Travellers and I hadn't a clue. Whether you deny it or not johnny, the fact remains that there are plenty of distinguishing features amongst Travellers, namely dress, names and accents etc. Of course most of these features are found within the wider community, but the accent usually gives it away. If you can't comprehend the fact that there is indeed a distinct Traveller accent (not held by all Travellers) then you need to actually talk to a few Travellers. Likewise if you meet an individual who exhibits all of these features then often it is fair to assume they are Pavee.

And as for your last comment, a lot of the women who work on Moore Street have gold hoop earings and say jaysis. If one of those ladies told me her name was Bridie McDonagh (or whatever), I wouldn't assume that she was a traveller. And it's quite common for young non-traveller girls in some parts of the city to wear those hoops too.

Probably. But then the women in Moore St have thick working-class Dublin accents, they don't speak like Travellers. The earrings worn by Travellers are usually of a different style to the ones worn by girls in estates. Out of curiosity do you come across Pavees often?

FTA69

psi wrote: »

I've had it up to here with your anecdotal claims.

Can I have a source for that please? or are you stating your opinion?

I'd agree with him, most Irish people exhibit some forms of prejudice toward Travellers.

Tha Gopher

psi wrote: »

I've had it up to here with your anecdotal claims.

Can I have a source for that please? or are you stating your opinion?

He is stating an opinion I would think, although Im sure there is a survey somewhere to back it up. If I say I think travellers are more prone to getting involved in criminal activity and are more work shy, that is an opinion. However, official government statistics back up that opinion, which basically confirms that my observations were correct. In the same way a foreigner can deduce from town on Saturday night that the average Irish person drinks more on a night out than your average Spaniard or Italian. Stuides and research will back up this opinion, but who needs them? Foreigner thinks to himself "fcuk, the stereotypes are right, the Irish can drink like crazy", who the hell is going to argue with him? The Irish are stereotyped as a pile of drunks. Young Irish people largely are a pile of drunks. Go figure.

The sky is blue. The moon is white. Most Irish people are wary of travellers.

Do you need a link to prove the above three statements? Trying to bog down an arguement with petty sniping is....eh, petty. A few weeks ago I was in McDonalds with a friend. A traveller came up to our table, he handed me his mobile and asked me to delete the last number he had called from the Dialled Numbers list. I did it for him, he thanked me, went on his way. Now, he may be a 100% decent guy. However, his approach was somewhat unusual, and as a reuslt I immediately checked the pockets of my coat that was hanging on the chair. Would you have done the same? Of course you would have, anyone with common sense would. As said, nothing was taken, and he may be an upstanding guy, but due to life experience most Irish people will give them a wide berth. It is not racism- it is the fault of anti social travellers blackening those who contribute to society.

psi- I am asking you on a poster to poster level here (as opposed to poster to mod, which resulted in an infraction I dont agree with but I can live with), but I asked you to clarify what you were saying re Hobbes statement in regards to my response to your post. Can you do so?

Thanks (not trolling, however I do think it is justified to ask). I am (probably) disagreeing with the view of a person who happens to be a mod, as opposed to disagreeing with the modding, so as you know.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I just don't think it's true, from a statistical point of view or from experience, to suggest that only about 16% of travellers work and the rest are just layabouts on the dole.

Oh ffs. I never said all of those 84% were on the dole. But they are not contributing tax either. Nobody knows how many are on the dole. It might be 90% of the unemloyed travellers, it might be half. It is not the point.

Having said that fair play for responding/apologising for the troll remark.

Mr.Micro

To be fair if any stranger approaches one these days it is with caution and a certain amount of cynicism that one reacts, as we expect to be sold a sob story or some con, so one would check ones wallet etc. Nobody takes others at face value any more.

johnnyskeleton

moe_sizlak wrote: »

hating on the sindo is another part of the lefts creed

That's like saying drinking orange juice is part of the lefts creed:

First of all there is no lefts creed, secondly, hating the indo is the right of all literate people, and I'm sure there are many people who are left wing politically but who read the indo. Apart from anything else, it's free on the internet.

moe_sizlak wrote:

just like clamping down on any form of criticism of travellers , muslims or any other minority
its all phoney of course

This really seems to be a sticking point with you. Can you give up tarring people as one thing or another, or making general claims about large and disparate groups of persons and contribute to the thread. I mean this thread is not about making generalised sideswipes at diverse groups of people it's about....ok, carry on.

moe_sizlak wrote:

btw , you say that its the ultra right wing who deride travellers
most irish people are not ultra right wing yet the truth is most irish people have no time for travellers

Do you not understand the difference between deriding someone and having no time for them?

johnnyskeleton

FTA69 wrote: »

That having been said I have met people who turned out to be Travellers and I hadn't a clue.

Thankyou. My work here is done.

johnnyskeleton

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Oh ffs. I never said all of those 84% were on the dole. But they are not contributing tax either.

Way to completely ignore my point. I should have know after seeing all the other posters ignoring you, but if you going to be like this I'll say no more.

moe_sizlak

psi wrote: »

I've had it up to here with your anecdotal claims.

Can I have a source for that please? or are you stating your opinion?

il fetch you one along with the source that shows most irish people have no time for george w bush and if you like another source that shows most irish people perfer sunshine to rain

GuanYin

moe_sizlak wrote: »

il fetch you one along with the source that shows most irish people have no time for george w bush and if you like another source that shows most irish people perfer sunshine to rain

OK, point taken, but in the case of Bush, there have at least been minor protests at a countrywide level on the US policies, I'm not sure if they are a slur on Bush the man himself.

I think while travellers may be a source of worry for many Irish people, I don't know how many have enough dealings to openly dislike them. Of course, the few that DO have a vendetta, do all the damage to the image of travellers in any case.

Tha Gopher

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Way to completely ignore my point. I should have know after seeing all the other posters ignoring you, but if you going to be like this I'll say no more.

LOL

Your point is what exactly? I took it to be that not every traveller who classed themselves in the census as unemployed is claiming dole. I agreed. However, neither are they contributing to the economy. Dont you think they should be? Given how successful our economy currently is? If you made another point, please state it, as i cannot see it.

psi wrote: »

OK, point taken, but in the case of Bush, there have at least been minor protests at a countrywide level on the US policies, I'm not sure if they are a slur on Bush the man himself.
.

Actually I think it was. The Irish have never liked Bush, ever. Why? He aint Clinton, basically. The Irish loved Clinton. There were no mass protests over questionable descisions re bombing Sudan, or the brief occasional bombing Clinton ordered when the Iraqis threw out the weapons inspectors. Or the frequent air raids in the no fly zones. Or the decline in the general health and well being of Iraqis by Clinton enforced sanctions. Nobody here cared when Madeline Albright casually dismissed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from a lack of medical services caused by sanctions. Alot of civillians were hit by US fire in Somalia. Clinton somehow managed to fight wars for the good of the people in Kosovo while keeping up the Americans traditional support of Israel. Clinton argued Kosovo was a humanitarian war to protect innocent people. Bush argued Iraq was too. Both wars were at best semi legal. Both wars killed innocent people. Only one of them resulted in massive street protests. No, in short, the Irish just do not like George Bush, and never have.

Johnny, quite simply other posters are ignoring me because

a- They dont want to admit that cutting off benefit will not lead to anyone dying of starvation. Why? Because they feel that morally it is not right to do so.

b- Hobbes is refusing to admit he was either wrong re how he represented the link, nor has offered further explanation of why the report is incorrect, or whether he simply deliberately misrepresented the facts. I have called him out for doing this in at least one previous thread, so needless to say he does not particularly like me (personally Ive disliked him ever since he suggested that any young Irish person pushed out of the job market by migrant labour should emigrate to Poland, but that is a different story).

It is a discussion forum. Some people dont like the fact others will have a different opinion. Give an opinion if you want, but dont go sulking if someone shows it to be wrong. Either stand by your opinion and justify it or admit it is flawed. And do not attempt to justify an opinion with flawed stats, made up stories, deliberate attempts to muddy the waters or plain lies. If anyone can give me a reason why cutting their benefits is something negative, I will either concur with the post or argue against it. Anyone else contributing to the debate should be willing to do likewise.

Again, there is a difference between trolling and just not liking someones opinion. Please bear this in mind. Along with the fact I have said nothing charter violating.

Zombrex

moe_sizlak wrote: »

hating on the sindo is another part of the lefts creed just like clamping down on any form of criticism of travellers , muslims or any other minority
its all phoney of course

And ranting that the left is some how "clamping down" on all forms of discussion that disagree with their agenda is another part of the rights creed.

And it is equally phoney.

Complaining that some force is stopping you from supporting a point is (on Boards.ie) normally a sign that someone doesn't have support for their point in the first place. See the vast number of immigration threads with anti-immigration posters ranting that they can't say anything lest they be banned. They do seem to still manage to say that one point over and over again, normally right after someone asks them to back up their statements. Amazingly.

Tha Gopher

Wicknight wrote: »

And ranting that the left is some how "clamping down" on all forms of discussion that disagree with their agenda is another part of the rights creed.

And it is equally phoney.

Complaining that some force is stopping you from supporting a point is (on Boards.ie) normally a sign that someone doesn't have support for their point in the first place. See the vast number of immigration threads with anti-immigration posters ranting that they can't say anything lest they be banned. They do seem to still manage to say that one point over and over again, normally right after someone asks them to back up their statements. Amazingly.

:rolleyes:

So wait, the rule on boards basically is agree with a core group of posters and everything is hunky dory? I must admit I have not looked at many immigration threads (alot of them seem to be set up by people with 3 posts which might indicate an agenda/Stormfront crowd) but that is basically what it sounds like.

Reminds me of those elections Saddam used to run where he was the only candidate (or didnt he have one or two lackeys run who everyone knew was not to be voted for under pain of death), to show the outside world everyone in Iraq apparently agreed with him.

Zombrex

Tha Gopher wrote: »

:rolleyes:

So wait, the rule on boards basically is agree with a core group of posters and everything is hunky dory?

No, the rule on Boards.ie (at least the Politics forum) is say what ever you want so long as you back up your statements or make it very clear that your statements are not backed up and are just personal opinion.

A lot of people have issue with that because they can't actually back up their "gut feelings" about things such as immigration or travelers etc yet still want to be able to put these forward as some how statements of fact.

Such as

most irish people are not ultra right wing yet the truth is most irish people have no time for travellers

that is not an opinion. That is a statement the author exacts to be accepted by others, a statement that the poster should at the very least attempt to back up in some meaningful way. Or state that he cannot back it up, in which case it should probably be withdrawn or rephrased.

But I imagine he either can't nor does he want to withdraw, preferring instead to rant about how unfair it all is that everyone doesn't take that statement on face value and how this is some how oppressing debate.