Travellers and the dole

shangri la

They should get the Leaving Cert. If the make the choice not to get the Leaving Cert and become employed the flip side of that choice should not be to end up on the dole for the majority of the rest of their life and have the taxpayer pay for them to live in a house a lot of taxpayers could not afford to buy. Fair is fair.

I went to a catholic school and had travelers in my year and they never faced any barriers to entry or discrimination. That is true for many schools they went to where I discussed this.

The attitude was simply if they don't bother me I won't bother them.

susiebubbles

They should get the LC. That's pretty obvious, however several government agencies (Ombudsman for Children & Equality Authority) have pinpointed barriers to education stemming from governmental policies or lack there of.

irishh_bob

susiebubbles wrote: »

Equality tribunal found that the school in Tipperary was in fact discriminating against travellers in their school admission policy.

http://www.pila.ie/download/pdf/equality_trib_judgement_mary_stokes_on_behalf_of_son_john.pdf

There are interesting stats on the number of traveller children in 2nd level (1988 there were fewer than 100, 1999-961, 2088-2,874)

Other studies that include traveller children and barriers to education;

http://www.ucc.ie/law/pdf/Barriers-to-Childrens-Rights-Executive-Summary.pdf

http://www.spd.dcu.ie/main/academic/special_education/documents/StPatricksCollegeSENReport2010_000.pdf

http://www.oco.ie/assets/files/Barrierstorealisationofchildren_x0027_srights.pdf

Most organisations expect that their employees have the Leaving Cert so with so few travellers getting their LC and high illiteracy levels how can they be expected to get most jobs?

The Dept of Education is not responsible for schools admission policy and are fighting tooth and nail in the courts not to be.

if the equality authority found that travellers were being discriminated against , it must be true :rolleyes:

barney4001

any moves going they know them no bank accounts we cannot read or write etc and so it gos on and on,they know the system inside out

susiebubbles

Well yes Irishbob if the Equality Authority found it discriminatory then yes it must be true!! Their findings are based on legislation and facts.

shangri la

If you look hard enough you will find incidents, no doubt about that.

The vast majority can avail of access to education if they want easily.

They choose not to.

The taxpayer pays for this choice.

The next generation of travelers have what in my opinion is a worsened state of living.

Ultimately it come down to the travelers choosing this life and bitching about discrimination which is not as widespread in education as they would have you believe.

It may be the case when it comes time to get a job they face discrimination but time and persistence is the only cure for that and the first step for travelers is to educate themselves.

susiebubbles

So is the Ombudsman for Children also incorrect and finding isolated incidents?

shangri la

Yes, in most cases they are isolated incidents imo.

The vast majority of schools will accept them.

If they want to get educated they can.

susiebubbles

Well this is the crux of it- your argument is based from your opinions (fair enough!) and you have been asked for facts to show were you have based them on and you cannot give any. I have posted some of the MANY examples of discrimination towards travellers and you disregard it. Therefore you have a baseless argument.

irishh_bob

susiebubbles wrote: »

Well yes Irishbob if the Equality Authority found it discriminatory then yes it must be true!! Their findings are based on legislation and facts.

the equality authority is a PC agenda driven goverment funded QUANGO which will inevitabley always find in favour of liberal sacred cows like travellers

shangri la

susiebubbles wrote: »

Equality tribunal found that the school in Tipperary was in fact discriminating against travellers in their school admission policy.

http://www.pila.ie/download/pdf/equality_trib_judgement_mary_stokes_on_behalf_of_son_john.pdf

i had a quick look at this.

"the number of applications greatly exceeded the number of places available"

1. The schools admission policy says it gives preference to Catholics as they school is run by priests. Understandable. Kid is Catholic so its all good.

2. Preference is given to kids who have family in the school. This is also understandable as it would be very difficult for families to send all their kids to different schools. Its unlucky that this kid is the first in his family to apply to this school.

3. Gives preferences to kids with disabilities within the catchment area of the school as it is harder for these kids to travel longer distances than necessary and may require parents to attend during school hours regularly so they need to be nearby.

4. The school allocates places to people whose parents work in the local area. They are less likely to take their kid out of the school before their studies are completed. That is a fair assumption and the parents need to get the kids to school in or around the same time they start work usually so to keep everything working smoothly I don't see a problem with this criteria.


The fact is the school didn't turn around and say to the kid they didnt want his type there. There was simply more candidates than places available and more of the candidates met the reasonable criteria set out by the school than the traveler kid did.

If you read that document the schools point of view regarding entry criteria makes economic sense.

This is not discrimination in my opinion.

susiebubbles

I did read the document and it is indirect discrimination, which is still discrimination.There were more children than places. That's a simple fact for many schools I'm not disputing that.

The Stokes boy had no older siblings so he could not have used that option, however preference is also given (if you had read the full document) to children when their Father had gone to that school. His Father never attended Secondary school therefore this puts him in a special situation (which is covered for in the schools admission policy) and it was not considered. There was a deadline and one boy got in during the lottery part even though he applied after the deadline. How is that fair and equatable?

Also your opinion is not based on legislative definitions of discrimination so it's a bit moot to continually defend your opinion when faced with facts.

shangri la

Basically Stokes is saying that because the kids father didn't go to secondary school it was discrimination against the kid on the basis that he couldn't have had family or family ties to the school so he had to wait for the more eligible candidates to take their places and do a lottery with the other candidates and late applications for the remaining places.

Too right and there were 40+ non traveler kids who also didn't fit this bill and went into the lottery along with him.

Unfortunately he will have to get his education elsewhere but he will get an education if he wants.

shangri la

susiebubbles wrote: »

I did read the document and it is indirect discrimination, which is still discrimination.There were more children than places. That's a simple fact for many schools I'm not disputing that.

The Stokes boy had no older siblings so he could not have used that option, however preference is also given (if you had read the full document) to children when their Father had gone to that school. His Father never attended Secondary school therefore this puts him in a special situation (which is covered for in the schools admission policy) and it was not considered. There was a deadline and one boy got in during the lottery part even though he applied after the deadline. How is that fair and equatable?

he applied after the deadline to be considered for first round offers. He was in time to the eligible for the second round lottery. Nothing dodgy happened.

shangri la

why should he get exempted from certain criteria because statistically his father was unlikely to have gone to school.

that would discriminate against the non traveler kids whose family could not have gone to that school for other reasons such as growing up in a different county.

you have to look at both sides!

susiebubbles

No the deadline passed and he shouldn't have been entered into the lottery. Why have a deadline if it means nothing?

And I happen to agree with you that it is unfair to children that have recently moved into the county.

bryaner

susiebubbles wrote: »

Well this is the crux of it- your argument is based from your opinions (fair enough!) and you have been asked for facts to show were you have based them on and you cannot give any. I have posted some of the MANY examples of discrimination towards travellers and you disregard it. Therefore you have a baseless argument.

Travelles discriminate against country folk every day of the week.

shangri la

susiebubbles wrote: »

No the deadline passed and he shouldn't have been entered into the lottery. Why have a deadline if it means nothing?

I see that now. It may have decreased his chances by approx 2% in the lottery. It decreased all the other non traveler lottery kids by the same amount.

The school did not strictly adhere to its deadline policy but that did not discriminate against the traveler. At that stage every lottery kid was treated the same!

susiebubbles

But the point is he shouldn't have been a lottery kid!!! He had valid reasons for gaining a place under the first round!

I don't understand this....you say traveller children should go to school then you take exception when one is fighting to get into a school!!

irishh_bob

bryaner wrote: »

Travelles discriminate against country folk every day of the week.

****ty tarmac and paint jobs are part of thier culch - ar

bryaner

irishh_bob wrote: »

****ty tarmac and paint jobs are part of thier culch - ar

Also striking fear into shopkeepers, bar staff and old folk..

shangri la

susiebubbles wrote: »

But the point is he shouldn't have been a lottery kid!!! He had valid reasons for gaining a place under the first round!

I don't understand this....you say traveller children should go to school then you take exception when one is fighting to get into a school!!

No he didn't have claims to a first round place.

He was in the same boat as the kid from a different county.

Why should the different county kids have one less place in the lottery because Stokes father decided not to go to school?

These "special considerations" are bollox.

He wasn't discriminated against.

He lost the lottery, he should apply to a different school like the other 40+ losing lottery kids.

susiebubbles

There is another court decision due soon on the Stokes case so I guess we'll find out then if it was discrimination or not.

Children from other counties are actually covered if their family located in the area due to work.

shangri la

susiebubbles wrote: »

There is another court decision due soon on the Stokes case so I guess we'll find out then if it was discrimination or not.

Are they looking for compensation or for their kid to get a place in the school?

If they lose who will pay for the legal costs?

susiebubbles wrote: »

Children from other counties are actually covered if their family located in the area due to work.

Can you see why this would be necessary if the parents are starting work at 9am and the kid is starting school around that time also?

susiebubbles

I didn't say it was a bad stipulation. It makes sense.

shangri la

susiebubbles wrote: »

I didn't say it was a bad stipulation. It makes sense.

I doubt the Stokes would agree with you.

susiebubbles

That's a bit speculative on your part. For all you know he may agree. However you chose the negative aspect again.

shangri la

susiebubbles wrote: »

That's a bit speculative on your part. For all you know he may agree. However you chose the negative aspect again.

Yes, Yes I did because I don't think they were discriminated against.

For that reason and the schools admissions policy history I doubt they are paying their legal bill themselves or they would use a lot more common sense.

Something like this could cost the taxpayer the guts of €500,000 in legal expenses and the outcome will remain the same.

susiebubbles

The Equality Authority is their legal counsel afaik and therefore they do not pay the legal fees. The school will have their own legal team and will probably pay substantial legal costs. It's a bit sad; it would probably have been cheaper to have given him a place.

I'm not sure how you made a link between not believing this is discrimination and a negative remark about the Stokes opinions on other people getting into the school.

john reilly

dont forget if you have ten children and a drink problem you might have to get your sister to look after your children at 300 euro each a week.

irishh_bob

susiebubbles wrote: »

The Equality Authority is their legal counsel afaik and therefore they do not pay the legal fees. The school will have their own legal team and will probably pay substantial legal costs. It's a bit sad; it would probably have been cheaper to have given him a place.

I'm not sure how you made a link between not believing this is discrimination and a negative remark about the Stokes opinions on other people getting into the school.

who funds the equality authority ?

susiebubbles

The Equality Authority is funded by the government and therefore the taxpayers, as I'm sure you know. Travellers pay taxes too. Do you have a problem with having an agency that advocates for people's rights?

gingerhousewife

susiebubbles wrote: »

Children from other counties are actually covered if their family located in the area due to work.

Would travellers not also be covered if their family was located in the area due to work?

susiebubbles

Yes I'd imagine they would be covered under that provision.

Zulu

susiebubbles wrote: »

Travellers pay taxes too...

...weellllll

irishh_bob

susiebubbles wrote: »

The Equality Authority is funded by the government and therefore the taxpayers, as I'm sure you know. Travellers pay taxes too. Do you have a problem with having an agency that advocates for people's rights?

1. travellers pay tax :rolleyes:

2. we already have a constitution both here and in europe which protects peoples rights and thier seems to be an all too obvious hierarchy of worthy causes worth rallying to when it comes to the equality authority , thier politics is quite visible

alphanine

susiebubbles wrote: »

The Equality Authority is funded by the government and therefore the taxpayers, as I'm sure you know. Travellers pay taxes too. Do you have a problem with having an agency that advocates for people's rights?

Travellers pay tax?? Vast majority are on social welfare and marry their cousins. Except that one guy who was commenting earlier who is going out with one I hope!

Galwayguy35

biko wrote: »

I'll try to save this thread by moving it to Humanities from AH.

I saw a programme where a traveller they interviewed claimed travellers doesn't view work as a steady income whereas welfare was viewed as a steady income.

What needs to be done I think is to favour inclusion into society and discourage exclusion. Promote schooling and working and remove the thinking that a person can get on the dole and stay there.

I had to do a double take on that post. You dont seriously believe that do you?

susiebubbles

Everyone pays tax! When you buy food, clothes, alcohol, fuel, appliances and cigarettes. I've no idea how many travellers are paying tax through their income. By this reckoning everyone in receipt of social welfare should give up their rights?

The government have been rapped on the knuckles a few times from Europe on their policies around travellers (and a few other issues!!). Policies do not change unless there is pressure to change. It is necessary to have agencies that fight for these policy changes.

What has travellers marrying their cousins got to do with them receiving social welfare?

irishh_bob

susiebubbles wrote: »

Everyone pays tax! When you buy food, clothes, alcohol, fuel, appliances and cigarettes. I've no idea how many travellers are paying tax through their income. By this reckoning everyone in receipt of social welfare should give up their rights?

The government have been rapped on the knuckles a few times from Europe on their policies around travellers (and a few other issues!!). Policies do not change unless there is pressure to change. It is necessary to have agencies that fight for these policy changes.

What has travellers marrying their cousins got to do with them receiving social welfare?

everyone pays tax ? , a student of vincent browne i see :rolleyes: , thier is no set rule which says being on social wellfare disqualifies you from being protected by constitutional rights , the two issues are unrelated

the goverment would do well to listen to the average citizen when it comes to issues like travellers than to some wooly liberal do - gooder outfit like the equality authority who see certain sacred cows as being incapable of being in the wrong

Galwayguy35

County councils bend over backwards to accomodate travellers. And in some cases the houses that they are given are wrecked. I live in galway which has a large traveller population and i see it happening. And alot of them have no desire to mix with settled people.

shangri la

The fact is the stokes kid was not discriminated against and because the stokes family are not paying their own legal bill the tax payers will have to fork out what is likely to be a E100,000 plus legal bill and the school will have less money to spend on facilities for current students, some of which are travelers.

Its bloody disgraceful.

If the stokes had to pay it themselves they would just have sent the kid to a different school like the other 40+ kids.

you could have picked a better case but since you picked this one you show how much of a financial burden traveler rights place on the entire population.

for him to qualify in the first round he would have to be treated as a special case just because he is a traveler. Thats unfair when another kid misses out on a place in that school because he is not considered disadvantaged because his family went further in their education.

i'm annoyed being a tax payer that we have to spend that much money on an appeal because the stokes are an ethnic group who are abusing the legal system risk free because their kid was 1 of 40+ kids who lost a lottery.

if his parents moved to the area to work he would be in the school now so it has nothing to do with him being a traveler. He lost a lottery system that many travlers won previously.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

shangri la

Not looking to stir anything up but now that we have the stats in the thread that previous posters were asking for that shows 3 out of 4 traveller males on welfare what are your opinions that you wouldn't share until the burden of proof was satasfied?

Do you think that in the traveller culture welfare is more or less plan A?

Do you think its fair on the taxpayer?

Why should we continue to pay fit and healthy individuals to stay on the dole most of their lives?

This imo leads to a new generation of welfare careerists and that amount of free time and culture directly leads to alcoholism and rampant weed smoking.

Each to their own but we should not be expected to continue to pay for fragrant dole abuse because they cry discrimination if we try to talk about it in the mainstream media.

shangri la

Any stats on the average school leaving age for travellers or the percentage of travellers who have completed the leaving cert?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

shangri la

Would that be in or around 50% of junior cert age people sitting that exam and dropping to a bit over 10% sitting the leaving in 2009? Very rough guess obviously from the figures.

What happens between 15 and 18 that over 75% drop out?

Are they learning a trade?

shangri la

What is a fair way to deal with someone who due to family circumstances could not complete the leaving cert and would end up working in a minimum wage job which a full time job would probably work out poorer with all the schemes after paying for tax, travel, childcare, forgoing the medical card, ect. There is no motivation for them to get a job and it doesn't take much to be classified as disabled. Even worse is the majority of travellers at 16 realise this and probably think, why bother doing the leaving cert/fas course if I'm just going to go on the dole anyway.

Time limits are required where the dole is cut repeatadly after certain periods and the welfare have a list of approved doctors who certify someone for disability.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

shangri la

There are great stats there that show there is a huge problem and a dependancy on welfare.

Where are the contrasting views that justify, for lack of a better word, the fact that there is a problem and as long as we are intimidated to talk about it as its 'discrimination' we are going to have to pay for it.