Travelers moved in...!

Sconsey

kittensoft1984 wrote: »

If they havent caused trouble then why are you trying to make some?

I don't think the OP is trying to make trouble, he's trying to live in his estate (which I assume he pays maintenace for, certainly rates and what-not) without a camp set up outside his house. I think he is entitled to that, I don't think anyone is entitled to set up a camp wherever they feel like.

To the OP: I'm not sure what you can do other than bust the councils balls, keep at them, maybe give your local councilor a ring (bust his/her balls too). I certainly sympatise with you, it's a difficult situation to be in.

Lockstep

ronnie3585 wrote: »

It seems that the people that are coming down in favour of the travellers need to have them live on their door step for a few weeks.

Have they lived outside yours?


Although regarding your uncles point I find it understandable given they were on his private land and were actively conducting antisocial behabiour there.

Oink

Caliden wrote: »

Has anyone brought arabs into this yet?

ALLAH ACKBAR!

Would you care to elaborate a little on that Caliden? I just want to be sure I understand exactly what you mean.

kittensoft1984

There is a halting site at the top of my road and I have never heard anyone complain about them!

Cole

King John V wrote: »

To paraphrase:
If 20 caravans park in front of your house it's racism, inequality and bigotry not to embrace diversity and fairness. It's a nessecity of social fairness.
If 20 caravans park in front of my house the gardai, county council and hospital are kept on speed dial just in case.

People need to realise that whether you rent or own a property it has some intrinsic worth to you. No one is saying all travellers are bad people, simply that having that having that number of caravans outside your house is far from ideal. Their right to squat never transcends the owner's right to own his property in peace, irrespective of individual traveller's personalities etc.

Spot on.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Second they do something wrong then I'd be among the first with a torch and pitchfork.

You referenced 'To Kill a Mockingbird' in an earlier post, but then you advocate this..is that ironic enough for you?

ciotog

Cole wrote: »

Fair enough. The situation is obviously relevant to those renting property also, not intentionally excluding them. I own a house, but currently rent also.

From my point of view, the 'home owner' point was not made with regards to property devaluation, as seems to have been assumed by some.

It was intended to highlight the fact that..someone who is paying a mortgage/rent/council and bills, bin charges etc and are also maybe contributing an annual sum towards the maintenance of the estate, getting the grass cut on the greens and so on...should welcome with open arms an encampment of caravans (again, travellers or not).

How can a cul de sac in a housing estate be deemed an appropriate place to set up residence?

Sorry, I was being overly sarcastic. The ones camped near Moycullen aren't harming anyone that I'm aware of. Across the road from me makes them barely visible and they don't make any noise that I can hear. There is a house closer to them and on the same side of the road but can't see that they're affected either. The outrage in the article mentioned earlier in the thread seems misplaced as far as my experience goes. It seems to be purely a NIMBY attitude among the locals. As for moving into the cul-de-sace of a housing estate; I have sympathy with that situation as it's much more enclosed and the consequences of inadequate sanitation are much more immediate. I doubt though they're anymore thuggish or threatening than the people referred to in the thread on late night activities in Tesco's car park.

Lockstep

Cole wrote: »

You referenced 'To Kill a Mockingbird' in an earlier post, but then you advocate this..is that ironic enough for you?

Sigh,the torch and pitchfork was irony. Referencing with hunts.

I mean, that if the travellers were causing trouble, then yeah, I'd certainlt be against them living near me.

Kaskade

I really cant understand this mentality of waiting until they do something to take action. That is like saying, don't bother looking after your health, there is no point, you might never get sick - some people smoke 40 a day for life and never get sick but that doesn't mean we should all do it. We know smoking kills but there are people that are exceptions to to this rule. Most people on here agree that most travellers are bad eggs but again there are exceptions to the rules. Nobody is saying that they are all bad but the chances of all of the travellers moving into your estate being all exceptions are fairly rare.

ronnie3585

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Have they lived outside yours?

No. You appear to have missed my point. Drawing from experiences of friends and family who have had travellers illegally camp on their land (both private and public housing estates) I am trying to be empathetic and portray the point of view of a person is unfortunate enough to have them camp outside their house.

I think this statement sums up the argument quiet succinctly;

Originally Posted by delly
You work hard enough to pay for your house without having the stress of knowing that members of a community with acknowledged and recognised antisocial behaviour are on your doorstep.

mikemac

If I was an aspiring County Councilor or even one already in office, I’d seize this opportunity and get what the residents want. I don't know if they have power to do this though.
I see a lot of ranting in this forum about local councilors waffling and talking nonsense in the local free newspapers
Local elections are coming up people and remind your councilor of this! If one of them plays this right there are hundreds of votes in for them.

For the record, I walked past a massive halting site in Castlepark in Galway city every morning to get to college. Housing was later provided. Never had a bit of trouble and walked that way every evening.

But I do have sympathy for the OP and I’d be raging if the same thing happened in my estate

Lockstep

Kaskade wrote: »

I really cant understand this mentality of waiting until they do something to take action.

Sure why don't we just execute them all.
That way they can be of no threat to anyone ever, otherwise they'd just move on to bother someone else.


You have to wait for someone to do something before you can take action. It's part of western law.

If the travellers are doing something wrong (on illegal land, squatting somewhere that they shouldnt be) THEN you can get rid of them.

You really cannot do something on the chance they might do something wrong.

Lockstep

ronnie3585 wrote: »

No. You appear to have missed my point. Drawing from experiences of friends and family who have had travellers illegally camp on their land (both private and public housing estates) I am trying to be empathetic and portray the point of view of a person is unfortunate enough to have them camp outside their house.

If they were living on my land then I would certainly try to get rid of them.

Tresspassing is not on.

ciotog

Kaskade wrote: »

I really cant understand this mentality of waiting until they do something to take action.

The problem with that part of your statement is that if you take 'action' to mean legal recourse through the Gardai then you break 'innocent until proven guilty'. If you mean civil action then you need to show better grounds than devaluing property and being unsightly.

ronnie3585

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If they were living on my land then I would certainly try to get rid of them.

Tresspassing is not on.

Fair enough - you state that "trespassing is not on", then why are you arguing against removing travellers from an estate? The roads and services of residential estates across the country are in the charge of the local city/county council. Therefore, the travellers are trespassing on lands which belong to the CoCo.

Your argument does not hold water.

Kaskade

ciotog wrote: »

The problem with that part of your statement is that if you take 'action' to mean legal recourse through the Gardai then you break 'innocent until proven guilty'. If you mean civil action then you need to show better grounds than devaluing property and being unsightly.

I didn't specify action since thats what the OP is trying to figure out. I am just saying that if travellers moved into my estate I would not be too happy, I would be getting an alarm and a security cameras installed and I would try to get onto the residents committee so that we are all aware if/when anything does happen so that we can take legal/civil action. I lived on the Headford road recently and a family of travellers moved into one of the houses. There were 101 houses in the estate and everybody knew this family. They caused so much trouble. The kids as much as parents. The painted peoples cars with tipex, they threw bricks at cars, there were constantly cars with broken windows outside their house, glass all over the road causing a real danger to other kids. The list goes on and on. We had no way to deal with it, everyone called the garda and they pretty much called up once a day but nothing changed. The problem was that they were never actually caught doing anything. I would suggest large floodlights and a security camera system. It would probably cause them to move away and if they dont and they do anything at least you can prove it. It will cost money but a wise investment if the residents committee agrees and everybody contributes.

kickoutthejams wrote:

Sure why don't we just execute them all.
That way they can be of no threat to anyone ever, otherwise they'd just move on to bother someone else.

You have to wait for someone to do something before you can take action. It's part of western law.

No you are interpreting action as execute. Please dont put words in my month. Also I do not agree that you have to wait for somebody to do something before you can take action. As I explained above there are many different meanings to action and there are many actions you can take as precautionary and preventative ones.

renmorescout

Ok, given that many posters feel that it is perfectly fine for anyone to set up a caravan and live on any public area. What are the minimum factuality the caravaners need to provide a safe living space. I'm sure running water and toilets would be an essential. Rubbish and waste removal, another essential. A clean and safe area for any kids to play in, on so on. All these things cost money, and are usually paid, for from peoples tax. I wonder, in this case, are the caravaners paying their share of the bill, or are they, as in so many other cases, just dumping their rubbish ect where ever they see fit. If any of the people living in the houses, put as much as a rubbish bag out with their bins, they are libel to have to pay a litter fine. So is this so called Equality really equal?

muppetkiller

kittensoft1984 wrote: »

There is a halting site at the top of my road and I have never heard anyone complain about them!

Sorry Kittensoft1984 but have you seen the state of the field beside the halting site ? a burnt out car , washing machines , cookers, buggies .. general filth..But i must admit the halting site itself is in good shape...so does the 08 Audi thats parked there.

Zzippy

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You don't have to be neighborly to them mate.

Sorry mate, but your just prejudging them purely as their travellers.

I strongly suggest that you cop yourself on and stop being so uptight.

But neither can you ex


Oh no, I'm not a homeowner. Now I'll never be allowed in the country club:(

I don't give a toss if they're travellers, Roma gypsies, French tourists or circus performers, if they set up camp in my estate they won't be welcome. This isn't about who they are, its about being able to live in a nice place you paid good money for without having people squat beside you for nothing.
And my poing about being neighbourly was in response to your suggestion that they are neighbours. No they're not, they're squatters, if they haven't bought/rented a house they're not neighbours.

As for your country club remark, its far from a club. Its ok for you if you're renting, you can move on whenever you want. People who have bought their house have invested a huge amount of money to live in as nice a place as they can afford, and can't just up sticks when that place becomes an eyesore because someone decides to park his caravan outside.

The people on this thread who suggested the OP should put up and shut up are living in cloud cuckoo land - PC bull of the highest order.

King John V

Do some people honestly believe that traveller's rights are being violated by asking them to move on? Unless they own the land they have no claim to it (unless parked for 10 years or more ). A halting site with proper wash rooms and toilet facilities is a different case altogether.

Cole

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If your turning a literary reference into an attempt to be educated and superior, then that's speaking volumes about your self esteem.
I used a literary reference (of an extremely well known book on prejudice) simply to draw a parallel. I'm not educated, but
if you're so insecure about yourself then I can imagine you'd turn it into that.

Wow, that literary reference really seemed to get to you.

Nothing dismissive about it, nothing else to say to it except sort yourself out.

You are intent on having a dig at people who disagree with you. You know nothing about my educational background, but have assumed that I'm all bitter and insecure about people more educated than me..not the case.

Its from experience of the academic world that made me make the point about these debates sometimes turning into the 'intelligent, better informed' (usually from academic reports etc.) against the 'a bit ignorant type' (who very often have more real experience of matters).

I was not saying that you were intent on doing this, but thought it might start to turn into that sort of argument.

I'm trying to make my points and disagree with you, without being critical of you personally..maybe you could give it a try. Will I now be accused of being too sensitive?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Sigh,the torch and pitchfork was irony. Referencing with hunts.

I still think you meant direct action.

Zzippy

kittensoft1984 wrote: »

There is a halting site at the top of my road and I have never heard anyone complain about them!

Kitten thats because they're in a halting site i.e. a legal encampment thats provided for them. They're not camped outside your house are they?

There is a halting site on my road too and I have no problem with them being there.
They drink in my local pub which is at the entrance to my estate and I have no problem with them being there.
If they move their caravans into my estate I would have a big problem with them being there...

funkycat83

Zzippy wrote: »

The OP paid a lot of money to buy a house in a nice area, why should he have to share it now with someone who just pulled up in their van one day and parked the caravan. If the travellers want to live there, let them buy a house too. We all know there are problems with a large number of travellers, so let's not pretend they're all nice and neighbourly.
I'm not sure you'd be so PC if they parked up outside your house and set up camp :rolleyes:

+ 1

po0k

Right.
Locked.