Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why is Traveller disadvantage not a mainstream concern?
Options
Comments
-
But I'm not arguing that black people are a culture. And I was under the impression that you thought travellers did not have a "culture" either.
Again, I am curious as to why you apply this accusation of "outrageous levels of violent disorder and thievery" to travellers based on their incarceration statistics, but not to blacks in the US?
This seems like a very straightforward question.
Probably because blacks in the US aren't one big homogenous, isolationist group the same way travellers are?0 -
I have already gone into the proportional demographics. Obviously when blacks in the USA are 25 times more represented than travellers in Ireland, increased heterogeneity will be observed amongst the former relative to the latter.
That still doesn't get around the fact that 40% of male prisoners in the US are black, and 40% of black children <18 years in the US are in poverty, and the other statistics cited with sources earlier.0 -
I have already gone into the proportional demographics. Obviously when blacks in the USA are 25 times more represented than travellers in Ireland, increased heterogeneity will be observed amongst the former relative to the latter.
That still doesn't get around the fact that 40% of male prisoners in the US are black, and 40% of black children <18 years in the US are in poverty, and the other statistics cited with sources earlier.
Has this gone completely off topic or is it just me.
Although I am sure you will respond that it is all related but in reality going back to your original post I fail to see the real link0 -
Fair enough. I was trying to respond to the specific point about travellers' violence and thievery because I feel it needs to be challenged.
To rebalance, I guess there are three specific questions here
(I) Are travellers disadvantaged relative to the rest of the population?
(II) Does society have a role in addressing their disadvantage?
(III) What specific methods might be employed in addressing this disadvantage, ideally based on evidence from what has worked elsewhere?0 -
Fair enough. I was trying to respond to the specific point about travellers' violence and thievery because I feel it needs to be challenged.
To rebalance, I guess there are three specific questions here
(I) Are travellers disadvantaged relative to the rest of the population?
(II) Does society have a role in addressing their disadvantage?
(III) What specific methods might be employed in addressing this disadvantage, ideally based on evidence from what has worked elsewhere?
Rebalance???? not much balance in the above questions
You pose 3 questions but you have answered the first question with your 2nd and 3rd question. Surely this is not debate. Very leading questions.
(I) To answer your question I think they are disadvantaged to a certain extent, however it would be my belief that the majority of this disadvantage is down to choices made by the travellers themselves, their parents, or their parents parents.
There is a huge amount of money put towards travellers to help them, maybe not enough in some peoples eyes but there must be a willingness to accept the help for it to work. A certain percentage will not accept this help, a certain percentage will accept it and do well in their lives.
(II) I think society already plays a role in addressing this disadvantage, however I believe it is the current financial situation of the country that is leading to the backlash against this of late.
IF you go onto numerous threads here about the Public Service pay etc, the often quoted line is "the country is broke and can't afford to pay your wages". I think this is where the arguments are coming from in relation to travellers currently. People see money being given towards resources for travellers (and others I might add) and feel that they may be the ones getting screwed for every penny they have, but are then financing other sections of society that do not contribute as much as they think they do.
(III) I do not know the answer to this question. I believe personally that travellers possibly need to be more accepting of the settled way of life for the settled community to be more accepting of them.
I have come into contact with some fantastic travellers in my job but have also had to deal with travellers that just felt I was out to get them no matter what I said, where the particular issue i was dealing with was their child's ability to follow school rules. I was being racist towards them, where as in reality nothing could be further from the truth. i was the one trying to help their son more than anyone else.
If we travel to certain countries in the world we must respect their culture and follow some of their local customs and traditions. For Irish people to respect the traveller way of life, travellers must respect the settled way of life.
Travellers are given huge resources to address the disadvantage you refer to, however it is like money given to any group unless it is used correctly and people are on board it will go to waste0 -
Advertisement
-
Challenge away. But be careful to avoid any questions that are put to you, as this may reveal your position as a load of horsefeathers.Fair enough. I was trying to respond to the specific point about travellers' violence and thievery because I feel it needs to be challenged.To rebalance, I guess there are three specific questions here
(I) Are travellers disadvantaged relative to the rest of the population?
(II) Does society have a role in addressing their disadvantage?
(III) What specific methods might be employed in addressing this disadvantage, ideally based on evidence from what has worked elsewhere?
I'm sure we'll get around to addressing that once you've told us what traveller culture actually is and why we should be concerned about preserving it a cost to ourselves.0 -
MOD NOTE:
This thread seems to be going in circles at this point, so unless anyone has anything new to add in regards to Travellers and social concerns about them (or lack thereof) it may be time to wrap things up.0 -
That's a completely subjective issue. Are PAYE taxpayers disadvantaged relative to the traveller population because they can't as easily escape paying taxes on their earnings, or do you believe that the 80% odd of unemployed traveller men are all looking through the Employment Offered section of the papers each evening and not out tarmacking driveways and installing gutters etc?(I) Are travellers disadvantaged relative to the rest of the population?
See above. You have asked "are they disadvantaged?" and then immediately assumed that they are, so your second question is loaded. I contend that they are not disadvantaged at all. What disadvantages them? All the extra funding their kids get to go to school? All the social welfare payments while they continue to work in the black economy? All the free houses that ultimately end up gutted for their copper pipes and wiring? All the free halting sites with FREE removal of ALL their household waste? I know a lad in SDCC who tells me they deliberately pile all their filth NEXT to the FREE builder's skip so the council has to go to the extra expense of loading the skip before it's taken off. Meanwhile contributing members of society will be expected to pay property taxes (which I have nothing against in principle) for all these services which are provided FREE to traveller sites. Disadvantaged my hole!(II) Does society have a role in addressing their disadvantage?
See ALL of the above. We've done far too much for these people already. I would eliminate all special funding for them and their non-sustainable culture and treat them equally under law like the rest of us!(III) What specific methods might be employed in addressing this disadvantage, ideally based on evidence from what has worked elsewhere?0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Monty Burnz wrote: »Fair enough. According to this study, the IPS reckons that 8.5% of male prisoners and 16.3% of female prisoners in 2008 were travellers.
This may be related to their outrageous levels of violent disorder and thievery. Perhaps aspects of traveller culture we could all do without?
Dont be silly, its not because they are more prone to violence and crime, its because they are arrested much quicker than settled people because we are "all out to get them" :P0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
imo, the main reason that the general public do not care is that there is not one person in ireland who has not been affected or knows some one who has not fallen foul of their criminality.0
-
No it's not. The Equality Authority/ ESRI report models the risk of disadvantage on grounds of: low level of education, being outside the labour market, unemployment, being of lower manual social class and with respect to access to a car. It applies this analysis to individuals of all backgrounds, and it does find that travellers are disadvantaged on these (I would say pretty comprehensive) five grounds.That's a completely subjective issue.
So you're linking travellers to poor tax compliance? Do you have anything to back that up, or is it just something you pulled from thin air? Perhaps you mean that travellers are commonly self-employed, in which case I'm not sure why your point relates to travellers vs PAYE earners and not self-employed vs PAYE earners.Are PAYE taxpayers disadvantaged relative to the traveller population because they can't as easily escape paying taxes on their earnings
Every time I have said I favour welfare reform, someone comes back with a point like the above quoting problems with welfare dependence.do you believe that the 80% odd of unemployed traveller men are all looking through the Employment Offered section of the papers each evening and not out tarmacking driveways and installing gutters etc?
Seriously. Every. single. time.
Obviously, if one didn't believe that travellers were disadvantaged they wouldn't have any need to answer questions (ii) or (iii). The reply would just stop there.See above. You have asked "are they disadvantaged?" and then immediately assumed that they are, so your second question is loaded.
I won't offer you my positive personal and second hand anecdotes of travellers if you don't offer me your negative ones. Lets stick to the objective evidence both in relation to travellers, and in relation to addressing welfare traps and social exclusion.I know a lad in SDCC...0 -
-
I have said that they socially exclude themselves and they are socially excluded by others, yes. A 2008 survey found that 75% of people would be reluctant to buy a house next door to a traveller. One in five would go so far as to deny travellers their citizenship, according to Fr. Micheal McGreill, who has written a book on prejudice in Irish society, and is the author of various reports on the travelling community.i06kgrw7h59dxn wrote: »Are you saying that travellers are socially excluded?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0708/1224274268508.html0 -
I wonder why people would be reluctant to buy a house next door to a traveller?I have said that they socially exclude themselves and they are socially excluded by others, yes. A 2008 survey found that 75% of people would be reluctant to buy a house next door to a traveller. One in five would go so far as to deny travellers their citizenship, according to Fr. Micheal McGreill, who has written a book on prejudice in Irish society, and is the author of various reports on the travelling community.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0708/1224274268508.html
I mean the caravan and Hiace in the front garden just brings a sense of class to the neighbourhood.
And late night drunkeness and rowdy behaviour is just being neighbourly - shure they would even give you a swig out of their last naggin.
Great for helping out with the plumbing too - sort out all that excess copper that you don't need!
Yep, I guess we're not all lucky enough to have one as a next door neighbour:rolleyes:0 -
You asked me if travellers are socially excluded. I gave you an answer. I'm not sure what the point of going off on a rant is. Nobody is here trying to beatify travellers; there is clearly a problem that must be addressed.
To address the issue of reform, I'm not William Easterly's biggest fan, but he does make some interesting points in his book White Man's Burden where he discusses the wisdom or otherwise of handouts. He writes about things like the very poor using toilets which were donated to them by aid agencies, as flower pots. Other examples were condoms being used as children's balloons. He suggests the reason for this is that handouts are not valued, and that those who receive state aid should not be handed it for free. Easterly says the poor should be expected to contribute something toward their aid.
I wonder if part of the answer with travellers is to make them stakeholders in society. We could start by giving them a financial incentive to attend school: for example, ask them to pay a deposit which can accrue interest and be returned to them at the end of each term, should their child be attending enough classes. This is something that could be applied across the board, not just to travellers.
I guess the principle is that we should give the poor something to contribute by giving them something to lose. Or at least that's how it might work if you believe Easterly's approach that handouts are not ultimately productive.0 -
I am saying that most middle class families would be outraged if a member stopped sending their kids to school.
But perhaps travellers have been socially conditioned to disengage with society, or feel discouraged, or lack confidence in relation to scholarly pursuits.
...
In order to reach a similar level of achievement as the middle class settled community, travellers have to repeatedly go against what is 'the done thing' in their community. Decisions are not made for them in the same way.
Therefore, we perhaps have to see how we may effectively apply our norms to travellers.
I have heard and seen travellers who said it was not part of their 'culture' to send children to school after PS. Also traveller children are expected by their parents to take up whatever family occupation as soon as this basic level of education is achieved that they are occupied with including tarmac, horses etc.
Outside Society influences / social conditioning appear on the face of it to have little or nothing to do with Traveller children not continuing with school. It is an elected choice for many traveller families that has a significant knockon effect to many different aspects of their lives including outside employment, marriage, access to services, third level education etc etc.
Without many travellers wishing to change their mindset on selecting to keep their children in education there is very little that can be done to enforce such change. Travellers need to make their own 'decissions' and not have unrealistic expectations or cry out when those who do select to send their children to education reap the benefits of doing so.0 -
Again, I have no vehement interest in defending nor criticising whatever traveller culture is. I don't think anyone's culture ought to be considered inflexible or unmovable if it gets in the way of an adequate education and the potential to participate in society. This applies to travellers as much as anybody else. That's for the first point you raise.I have heard and seen travellers who said it was not part of their 'culture' to send children to school after PS. Also traveller children are expected by their parents to take up whatever family occupation as soon as this basic level of education is achieved that they are occupied with including tarmac, horses etc.
As for the second point you raise, ask anyone from a certain vocational background if there is an expectation of continuing the family business. This applies widely across society, from newsagents to politicians to farmers to builders to horse-people, and amongst them, travellers.0 -
I resent your accusation that I went on a rant!You asked me if travellers are socially excluded. I gave you an answer. I'm not sure what the point of going off on a rant is. Nobody is here trying to beatify travellers; there is clearly a problem that must be addressed.
To address the issue of reform, I'm not William Easterly's biggest fan, but he does make some interesting points in his book White Man's Burden where he discusses the wisdom or otherwise of handouts. He writes about things like the very poor using toilets which were donated to them by aid agencies, as flower pots. Other examples were condoms being used as children's balloons. He suggests the reason for this is that handouts are not valued, and that those who receive state aid should not be handed it for free. Easterly says the poor should be expected to contribute something toward their aid.
I wonder if part of the answer with travellers is to make them stakeholders in society. We could start by giving them a financial incentive to attend school: for example, ask them to pay a deposit which can accrue interest and be returned to them at the end of each term, should their child be attending enough classes. This is something that could be applied across the board, not just to travellers.
I guess the principle is that we should give the poor something to contribute by giving them something to lose. Or at least that's how it might work if you believe Easterly's approach that handouts are not ultimately productive.
As for the idea of asking travellers for a deposit to send their kids to school - thats just a poorly thought out and unworkable suggestion which could lead to further non-participation not less. Who would fund the deposit? - you do realise that grants are given for the books and uniforms so what makes you think the CWO wouldn't end up providing the deposit as well?
Its complete rubbish anyways - they need to see value in EDUCATION to be motivated to send their kids to school not some hair-brained deposit to get back. Anyone who doesnt see an inherent value in the education provided will never be motivated to ensure adequate attendance at school0 -
Advertisement
-
Would you buy a house next to a halting site?I have said that they socially exclude themselves and they are socially excluded by others, yes. A 2008 survey found that 75% of people would be reluctant to buy a house next door to a traveller. One in five would go so far as to deny travellers their citizenship, according to Fr. Micheal McGreill, who has written a book on prejudice in Irish society, and is the author of various reports on the travelling community.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0708/1224274268508.html0 -
i06kgrw7h59dxn wrote: »I resent your accusation that I went on a rant!
As for the idea of asking travellers for a deposit to send their kids to school - thats just a poorly thought out and unworkable suggestion which could lead to further non-participation not less. Who would fund the deposit? - you do realise that grants are given for the books and uniforms so what makes you think the CWO wouldn't end up providing the deposit as well?
Its complete rubbish anyways - they need to see value in EDUCATION to be motivated to send their kids to school not some hair-brained deposit to get back. Anyone who doesnt see an inherent value in the education provided will never be motivated to ensure adequate attendance at school
It wasn't quite a policy paper though, I was offering the idea as an illustration of what might work, based on methods that have been used in the developing world, where certain behaviours are incentivised.
I don't agree with your idea that those who don't appreciate the value of an education will never be motivated to send their kids to school. They can be motivated to send their kids to school in other ways: financial or judicial penalties in the event of unco-operation, or short term incentives like the deposit I mentioned.
I think I mentioned here before that we used to have travellers camping by my parents' gateway for a few months at a time every so often.Would you buy a house next to a halting site?
That's largely where I got my initial opinions on travellers, but it's also completely irrelevant. Like I said, I'm not interested in an exchange of biased anecdotes.0 -
i06kgrw7h59dxn wrote: »I wonder why people would be reluctant to buy a house next door to a traveller?
I mean the caravan and Hiace in the front garden just brings a sense of class to the neighbourhood.
And late night drunkeness and rowdy behaviour is just being neighbourly - shure they would even give you a swig out of their last naggin.
Great for helping out with the plumbing too - sort out all that excess copper that you don't need!
Yep, I guess we're not all lucky enough to have one as a next door neighbour:rolleyes:
Add to that the dumping in the front garden, anti-social behavior, knocking on the door at midnight asking for a smoke, calling around on Sunday mornings looking for odd jobs and threatening to poison/shoot pets - oh how I miss those dreamy days :rolleyes:0 -
If you are going to debate then nail your colours to the mast. You seem to put a caveat in every post so that you can revise your position when the inevitable holes in your position become apparent.It wasn't quite a policy paper though, I was offering the idea as an illustration of what might work, based on methods that have been used in the developing world, where certain behaviours are incentivised.
I don't agree with your idea that those who don't appreciate the value of an education will never be motivated to send their kids to school. They can be motivated to send their kids to school in other ways: financial or judicial penalties in the event of unco-operation, or short term incentives like the deposit I mentioned.
You (sort of???) advocate rewarding or penalising travellers based on teh school attendance of their kids. Obviously this would be discriminatory unless applied to the whole population - and to do so is politically impossible - look what happened when €100 was sought from each household!
The legal penalties you (sort of??) alluded to already exist and prosecutions are possible within existing legislation.
The reality is that such penalties are useless when no inherent value is placed on education - it must surely be seen as a burden rather than an opportunity.
Your position has little or no substance and your contribution on the thread has been full of academic type interventionist policies that don't work in real life. When this is pointed out you retreat and challenge other posters to come up with something - maybe other posters think enough is enough!
I believe the mainstream has decided it has brought the proverbial donkey to the water but if it doesn't want to drink then so be it.0 -
No, it's called not having all the answers. I said in my second post in this thread that I am not a sociologist, that I don't claim to be an authority on social cohesion. I think you're disappointed my suggestions and questions are not claimed as facts. I don't believe in some universal lever which will solve the problems travellers experience, or if there is such a lever, we don't know what it is. All we can do are offer suggestions, ideally based on evidence.i06kgrw7h59dxn wrote: »If you are going to debate then nail your colours to the mast. You seem to put a caveat in every post so that you can revise your position when the inevitable holes in your position become apparent.
Yes, I did say it could be broadly applied. Again, it is just an illustration of the kind of projects which could work to incentivise participation in education, i.e. give the parents of absentee children something to lose in the short term.You (sort of???) advocate rewarding or penalising travellers based on teh school attendance of their kids. Obviously this would be discriminatory unless applied to the whole population
It appears they are not working, or else when the child is attending school, he is not accessing education even within the confines of the classroom.The legal penalties you (sort of??) alluded to already exist and prosecutions are possible within existing legislation.0 -
You have perpetuated a viewpoint that travellers are disadvantaged and a theme through all your posts challenges the mainstream (as you call it) to do something to improve their lot.No, it's called not having all the answers. I said in my second post in this thread that I am not a sociologist, that I don't claim to be an authority on social cohesion. I think you're disappointed my suggestions and questions are not claimed as facts. I don't believe in some universal lever which will solve the problems travellers experience, or if there is such a lever, we don't know what it is. All we can do are offer suggestions, ideally based on evidence.
The reality is that the mainstream has tried umpteen different initiatives to improve the lot of the travelling community - and spent a hell of a lot of money in doing so.
We are now in a time of austerity and we need to get bang for our buck.
We have tried interventionist policies, extra resouces and all encompassing social welfare provision of accomodation, income, healthcare and specialist education together with funding for traveller advocacy groups and included being a traveller as one of the 9 grounds for discrimination. I think its fair to say this hasn't worked.
How about withdrawal of these interventions (we clearly can't afford to spend as much as we have been on anything) and see if we get any worse results. Its worth trying in any case.
I demonstrated why it wouldn't work but you persist with this nonsensical and fanciful ideaYes, I did say it could be broadly applied. Again, it is just an illustration of the kind of projects which could work to incentivise participation in education, i.e. give the parents of absentee children something to lose in the short term.
Well if more resources hasn't worked then lets try less - it will save the exchequer cash and will hardly result in worse outcomes than presently achieved.It appears they are not working, or else when the child is attending school, he is not accessing education even within the confines of the classroom.
Its all about the money at this stage0 -
It appears they are not working, or else when the child is attending school, he is not accessing education even within the confines of the classroom.
So what makes you think he would access it any better if he was there because of a cash incentive to his parents, instead of the current threat of prosecution of his parents?
Like a lot of other posters, I think travellers already get ample state support - for example:I will quote a traveller mother I met one day in relation to her son that I was teaching. Her son repeatedly lost his locker keys, lost his school bags, "lost" his books (I have put "lost" like this as I caught him throwing them in the bin one day). She told me that you (the school) get €3000 a year to "keep my son in books and all that stuff".
We "the school" certainly do not get €3000 a year to keep the "middle class" kids in books and stuff each year.
So I would argue with you that traveller children are afforded some huge opportunities that some settled children are not given, however it is their parents that are getting in the way of some of this opportunity.
To my mind, giving a cash subsidy to that family to keep that child in school would only be throwing good money after bad and fuelling the mother's sense of entitlement.
If anything, the resources devoted to those travellers - and settled people - who have taken to long term social welfare dependency as a lifestyle choice should be scaled back to the point where they actually have some incentive to at least partially fend for themselves.0 -
Well, we don't know enough to say it hasn't worked. As bad as the statistics are, we cannot know that they would be worse if we stood back and did nothing.i06kgrw7h59dxn wrote: »We are now in a time of austerity and we need to get bang for our buck.
We have tried interventionist policies, extra resouces and all encompassing social welfare provision of accomodation, income, healthcare and specialist education together with funding for traveller advocacy groups and included being a traveller as one of the 9 grounds for discrimination. I think its fair to say this hasn't worked.
I wouldn't ask for withdrawal so much as reform: eliminate welfare traps by reducing rates and making skills a requirement of welfare provision, for example. A large part of the state's expenditure on travellers presumably arises through welfare payments, so you have to tackle welfare payments as a whole. Obviously you cannot just "withdraw" welfare as an absolute policy.How about withdrawal of these interventions (we clearly can't afford to spend as much as we have been on anything) and see if we get any worse results. Its worth trying in any case.
I think it's quite a solid idea. I don't think you have demonstrated that it would not work, but in any case I am merely highlighting that there are ways of incentivising parents of traveller children to educate their kids in a way that sees short term gains.I demonstrated why it wouldn't work but you persist with this nonsensical and fanciful idea
There is quite a body of evidence which suggests that the poor and the marginalised are often so preoccupied with the worries of today that they fail to plan long-term. This is well explored in academic literature, from the poor uptake of cheap chlorine as a way to prevent diarrhoea, to refusal to make use of free immunization programmes. The poorest people in society are often not in a position to make the best long term choices, and that's where short-term incentives come in.0 -
I didn't say it ought to be a cash subsidy, I said we should consider giving the parents something to lose, e.g. an interest accruing deposit.To my mind, giving a cash subsidy to that family to keep that child in school would only be throwing good money after bad and fuelling the mother's sense of entitlement.0 -
Advertisement
-
What's that, if it's not cash? This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement