Residents attempt to blockade temporarily housing of survivors of Glenamuck

eviltwin

whatismyname wrote: »

It was a relevant question.

You were comparing what would happen in such a situation to a settled family.

'If this happened a settled family would probably be in a B & B' comparing it to a traveller family being given land free of charge.

So your point is that they are being given special treatment that another family in the same situation wouldn't.

So you believe that in a situation where a settled family's house went on fire and several members of their family burned, that the authorities wouldn't put them up in accommodation free of charge?

If you are instead referencing what would happen further down the line and whether they need to pay for their land generally, you're just not comparing like with like.

Put them in a bed and breakfast, they would probably be better off than living on the side of the road

whatismyname

eviltwin wrote: »

No they would be put in a bed and breakfast and would be told to claim off their insurance and if they didn't have it would be on the housing list. Meanwhile a traveller family gets access to land and services no settled person can. Who is being treated unfairly?

And while on the housing list, where would they be living...?

whatismyname

eviltwin wrote: »

Put them in a bed and breakfast, they would probably be better off than living on the side of the road

You seem keen to have other conversations, and to make big assumptions that show very little understanding of the situation, so I'm going to leave it be.

whatismyname

melekalikimaka wrote: »

Why would they ever want to return to the original site. I can't see them leaving and a promise on paper isn't going to move them as been proven time and time before

The article didn't mention returning to the original site. It mentioned the 'construction and refurbishment of a permanent site'. It didn't indicate that it was the original site, and I highly doubt they would be sent back there.

Jamsiek

end of the road wrote: »

its not a fact that its a majority or most. making up things doesn't make them fact. would be very easy to insure the pubs don't shut for business when travelers are in town by having an automatic revoking of licences for any pub that does, along with finding any licencee unfit to hold such licences again. clamp down hard upon them for depriving money to the economy and they will soon shut up whining and serve as they are supposed to do

You can't force a business to open against the wishes of the proprietor.
It's not a communist country where the government controls business :rolleyes:

end of the road

VinLieger wrote: »

The previous site was also "temporary" so that argument is garbage.

Also whatever about the worry that any trouble would be caused by them the simple fact is their presence that close to the current houses will severely affect the house prices of those in that cul de sac which brings us back to the "temporary" argument in that once these sites are created it takes a long time for them to be vacated excepting extraordinary circumstance like the tragedy over the weekend so the house prices would be pretty much permanently damaged for the foreseeable future.

thats just life. the council have decided the site is suitable, so house prices come second

discus wrote: »

Do you own any property? Do you think the council can come up with plans made up in 3 or 4 days, with no public consultation, and change the area that people have paid 200k/300k for?

its only in the proposal stage, consultation takes time. paying 200/300k which you chose to pay only entitles you to own that building once you pay in full, nothing more.

whatismyname

Jamsiek wrote: »

You can't force a business to open against the wishes of the proprietor.
It's not a communist country where the government controls business :rolleyes:

I agree with that.

I also think the poster you were responding to was referring to the enforcement of anti discrimination legislation. I don't think the way they were suggestion it is the right way to enforce that legislation, but imagine there's a midway point.

tricky D

RayM wrote: »

Everything I've heard about the travellers who lived on Glenamuck Road suggests that they're perfectly normal, decent people. I've driven past the site hundreds of times and it always looked really tidy and well-kept. You only have to look at it on Google Street View to see that.

Talking on Saturday evening to a former resident of Glenamuck Road who has known them for decades and is still very friendly with the Connors who said they were the some of the nicest, kindest and generous people he knows, fantastic neighbours and the kids would all play together zero problems. Nothing like the cheap stereotype some people on this thread are applying.

JustTheOne

end of the road wrote: »

tough. the council have decided its a suitable site, so the site should be used. those blocking access should be removed by force

In the words of your heroes of Irish water protestors.

Peaceful protest!!!

Or are they only allowed block workers and government ministers?

Galwayguy35

end of the road wrote: »

tough. the council have decided its a suitable site, so the site should be used. those blocking access should be removed by force

Yeah it's "tough" for people who gave a couple of hundred grand for a house, sure what right have they to be concerned about anything. :rolleyes:

end of the road

freshpopcorn wrote: »

In generally what I find angers people is when they see travellers driving big/new cars/weddings/funerals/headstones

that would be it. simple old begrudgery. couldn't be the case a traveler simply has done well for themselves. we aren't known as the land of begrudgers for no reason. any law breaking within the traveling community has the same systems to deal with it as ourselves. however with an underfunded understaffed garda force, a number of people will slip through the net unfortunately

JustTheOne

end of the road wrote: »

that would be it. simple old begrudgery. couldn't be the case a traveler simply has done well for themselves. we aren't known as the land of begrudgers for no reason. any law breaking within the traveling community has the same systems to deal with it as ourselves. however with an underfunded understaffed garda force, a number of people will slip through the net unfortunately

Awh man that's priceless it really is, thanks!

end of the road

Willfarman wrote: »

It's time for travellers to assess how they conduct themselves and add to society.

its time for society to assess how it treats travelers first. when travelers are treated properly, those not integrating might consider it worth their time to integrate.

Spanish Eyes

At the end of the day, it's very easy for onlookers to criticize the residents who are objecting here.

It is fear. Fear of losing their tranquil cul de sac, maybe vans and caravans going in day and night. Fear of the unknown (or maybe the known!).

All very well to say the residents of the site of the tragedy are wonderful people, but they have visitors who may not just be so nice.

Anyway, lots of people are moaning day and night about the homeless here. B and B, hotels, terrible Joe.

But magically, the surviving residents are being housed immediately, in a halting site that suits their lifestyle, fortwith.

I think we need to stand back and have equality for ALL.

If I were a resident in that cul de sac, I would be asking about consultation and suitability.

If I am mortgaged up to the hilt and paying towards the provision of this site, surely I should be consulted.

A hotel won't take them though. Or maybe they will.

But that doesn't fit in with their lifestyle.

Now you can be all teary eyed about their bereavement and of course that is terrible, but at the end of the day, a cold clean eye needs to be put out at this action.

But I am sure Shane Ross will come out and vilify the residents here. He is a resident there too.

There is no easy answer to all this. But fairness has to come in to it.

Barry Badrinath

end of the road wrote: »

its time for society to assess how it treats travelers first. when travelers are treated properly, those not integrating might consider it worth their time to integrate.

I would argue that it would be more efficient for the minority to adopt the policies of the majority.

Wealth decleration and payment of taxes would be a starting point.......maybe thats already in place, im open to correction but im not the knowledge base expert in this matter.

Any ideas yourself?

colm_mcm

9 o clock news says the survivors have been moved to B&Bs and hotels, but it's not ideal as they have nothing to do - nowhere to go during the day.

Spanish Eyes

colm_mcm wrote: »

9 o clock news says the survivors have been moved to B&Bs and hotels.

You must be clairvoyant. It's not nine o'clock yet!

colm_mcm

My laptop says it's 9.33 on the 15th of October

I think she had the news recorded or something!

The Backwards Man

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

You must be clairvoyant. It's not nine o'clock yet!

It's nine o'clock somewhere.

selous

CatFromHue wrote: »

If you look at where they want to build the halting site it's not really a great location I have to say.

400m down the end of a narrow cul de sac

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2437208,-6.1815677,3a,75y,348.64h,73.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq0QHGjxnlgPuW5DKNmxbRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

It is very narrow, built in the 20's I think, cars park both sides of the road 1/2 on the footpath so a car barely goes up the centre,never mind a caravan/mobilehome. if you see the earthmover that they were getting up there took ages. and the residents weren't consulted about it. sometimes its good to talk, not spring it on people.

Strumms

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Now you can be all teary eyed about their bereavement and of course that is terrible, but at the end of the day, a cold clean eye needs to be put out at this action.

There is no easy answer to all this. But fairness has to come in to it.

a cold clean eye ? how about a compassionate warm heart instead ?

Fairness ? yes its so fair that people who have been left homeless and had their families wiped out have to put up with ***** blocking their way to some sort of roof over their head.

Spanish Eyes

colm_mcm wrote: »

My laptop says it's 9.33 on the 15th of October

Give us the lotto numbers for tomorrow so

Spanish Eyes

Strumms wrote: »

a cold clean eye ? how about a compassionate warm heart instead ?

Fairness ? yes its so fair that people who have been left homeless and had their families wiped out have to put up with ***** blocking their way to some sort of roof over their head.

Look here, I reckon you don't live anywhere like a small cul de sac up the side of the mountains in Co. Dublin. Narrow road, families have lived there for yonks in peace and tranquility. Mortgaged to the hilt for the privilege aswell I'd say.

There are plenty of ordinary folk who are homeless in Dublin and they are not Travellers. They are put up in hotels and B and Bs with their children. Do you think that is right?

Fair play is good sport.

Equality for all.

eviltwin

Strumms wrote: »

a cold clean eye ? how about a compassionate warm heart instead ?

Fairness ? yes its so fair that people who have been left homeless and had their families wiped out have to put up with ***** blocking their way to some sort of roof over their head.

Just shoving people onto land isn't in their best interest either, they can't go back to the original site and may never want to which is understandable. The new site will more than likely be their long term home, it needs better planning than this

whatismyname

eviltwin wrote: »

Just shoving people onto land isn't in their best interest either, they can't go back to the original site and may never want to which is understandable. The new site will more than likely be their long term home, it needs better planning than this

It's so interesting that you decide that the new site will probably be their temporary home, when the letters sent to the neighbouring protesters states:

The council has appointed a contractor to commence construction / refurbishment works on a permanent site for the families, which will take approximately 8 months to complete.

Out of interest, why do you think they have bothered to do this since 'the new site will more than likely be their long term home'? Or do you think the Council are lying in the letter? Or is it that you have some insider information or something?

Spanish Eyes

eviltwin wrote: »

Just shoving people onto land isn't in their best interest either, they can't go back to the original site and may never want to which is understandable. The new site will more than likely be their long term home, it needs better planning than this

You are right, they will never go back to the original site. But to put them at the end of a peaceful cul de sac without any consultation is not right either.

I don't blame the residents at all. They are right to complain about a lack of communication here.

Those who have bleeding hearts have cold hearts when it comes to the reality of this scenario, that many of them will never have to experience.

The amount of objections to planning applications gives you an idea as to how people want to keep their place intact and all the rest of it. It is a normal thing IMV.

And Travellers themselves have a lot to do with the FEAR FACTOR. That is also a reality, notwithstanding that the residents of the fire scene appear to have been great people.

Dr.Internet

colm_mcm wrote: »

9 o clock news says the survivors have been moved to B&Bs and hotels, but it's not ideal as they have nothing to do - nowhere to go during the day.

Did they lose their jobs as well? Perhaps I have missed something?

Strumms

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Look here, I reckon you don't live anywhere like a small cul de sac up the side of the mountains in Co. Dublin. Narrow road, families have lived there for yonks in peace and tranquility. Mortgaged to the hilt for the privilege aswell I'd say.

There are plenty of ordinary folk who are homeless in Dublin and they are not Travellers. They are put up in hotels and B and Bs with their children. Do you think that is right?

Fair play is good sport.

Equality for all.

more nonsence.

So tell me where I live and next to who... because I sure don't know you and visa versa.

So the people there have lived in peace and tranquility. Fantastic, there is no tangible evidence to suggest that will change.

They were mortgaged up to the hilt ? Well I don't remember having a mortgage giving anyone the right to illegally block roads or determine what is done with council land or decide who lives near you.

Ordinary people homeless ? sure ! These are also ordinary people as you put it who also now happen to be homeless on the back of a tragedy and the council is doing their best for them yet the community... I completely advocate that we need better facilities for homeless people in Dublin city and further afield.

Fair play is good sport... this isnt sport this is real life, it is serious and what those residents are doing is beyond contempt.

end of the road

whatismyname wrote: »

Of course not, the market value of one's house is more important, right?

obviously nobody told people that taking a certain amount of a mortgage out to buy a house doesn't entitle the mortgage holder to have the house remain at the same value for as long as they decide to live there, that the value of a house can go down as well as up

Cienciano

whatismyname wrote: »

Feel free to twist my words, but I'd really rather that you didn't.

I made sure to comment only on the specific situation that is being discussed.

I stated that in this situation I would absolutely not be bothered by travellers being accommodated beside me, but as you'll have seen nowhere in that did I state that only travellers who have lost people in a tragedy are welcome.

In fact, I didn't make any comment whatsoever on whether travellers who have not lost people in a tragedy would be welcomed by me, as it's not relevant.

Although I didn't give the question of whether I'd welcome travellers who'd not lost people in a tragedy any thought, since it's not what's being discussed, in hindsight, I'm not sure how what I'd said on me not pre-judging people I'd not met would allow you to reach that conclusion.

But again, yep, feel free to twist my words to say that I said something about a situation that I didn't even consider or comment on .

Your refusal to answer tells me all I need to know.

end of the road

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The ERU?

Seriously man talk about a ridiculous post.

its not ridiculous at all, its deadly serious. these people need dealing with using the full apparatus of the state

whatismyname

Minister Alan Kelly on protest against new 'temporary' halting site for Carrickmines blaze survivors: 'It says an awful lot about Irish society and in a very disturbing way'

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/minister-alan-kelly-on-protest-against-new-temporary-halting-site-for-carrickmines-blaze-survivors-it-says-an-awful-lot-about-irish-society-and-in-a-very-disturbing-way-31607191.html

Local residents of a south Dublin estate today delayed the initial construction stages of a temporary halting site earmarked to house the 15 adults and children left homeless as a result of the tragic Glenamuck fire.

The Minister said this evening: "I think it says an awful lot about Irish society and in a very disturbing way."

"The nation is heartbroken about what happened last weekend, We have responsibility for communities, we have responsibility for traveller housing I have responsibility for fire services and we are very much across this issue.

Minister Kelly said that the site was a "temporary site" and he would like "the people behaving that way to reflect on that.".

"To get the news that this site is being blockaded and we’re trying to get this delivered for Thursday and I gave the families my word it would be delivered and the local authority would move heaven and earth to ensure these families will be accommodated, to find out that this has happened was extremely disappointing and I’m being polite in saying that.

"We have identified another site which we are working on, and the fact that we have to do that, I think it says an awful lot about Irish society and in a very disturbing way.

"Collectively our hearts go out to this family. I visited a young boy whose family has been taken away from him and to think that people have blocked the entry to this [alternative] site given what that family has gone through is very disturbing and shameful."

whatismyname

Cienciano wrote: »

Your refusal to answer tells me all I need to know.

Ok then. You are very welcome to make incorrect assumptions about something that is irrelevant and has not been discussed. Not a problem.

Barry Badrinath

end of the road wrote: »

its not ridiculous at all, its deadly serious. these people need dealing with using the full apparatus of the state

You need to proof read before you post.

There are far more serious things happening in the State that would warrant ERU action.

A blocade of a handful of cul de sac residents is not one of them.

You are definately being ridiculous now.

Spanish Eyes

Strumms wrote: »

more nonsence.

So tell me where I live and next to who... because I sure don't know you and visa versa.

So the people there have lived in peace and tranquility. Fantastic, there is no tangible evidence to suggest that will change.

They were mortgaged up to the hilt ? Well I don't remember having a mortgage giving anyone the right to illegally block roads or determine what is done with council land or decide who lives near you.

Ordinary people homeless ? sure ! These are also ordinary people as you put it who also now happen to be homeless on the back of a tragedy and the council is doing their best for them yet the community... I completely advocate that we need better facilities for homeless people in Dublin city and further afield.

Fair play is good sport... this isnt sport this is real life, it is serious and what those residents are doing is beyond contempt.

Ah go on out of that.

Bleeding heart liberals have everything to say to everyone else as to how they should welcome everyone into their community no matter what.

But I often wonder if these liberal types would be so keen if a Traveller Camp was set up at the end of THEIR cul de sac in SCD?

You see, when it doesn't affect you, you can be oh so la di dah PC and open armed, but when it's in your own back garden or at the top of YOUR cul de sac, views might just be very different.

I call out hypocrisy. At least I am honest about it.

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

How about travellers try taking responsibility for themselves for once? If this had happened to a settled family they would probably be in a bed and breakfast, not given land to live on free of charge.

how about people stop causing trouble for a family who have had 10 of their members wiped out, and others stop making excuses for such nonsense because of their "views" . so what if they get a bit of land. many travelers are still nomadic, and until nomadic traditions die out then we can at least do what little bit we can to insure such people have the basics they need. if you don't like that, well i'd suggest you get over it because your not going to see whatever amount of money taken from your taxes that is spent on such people anyway, its gone

Strumms

the ERU thing is a bit OTT in fairness but I wouldn't hesitate to use Garda resources to get people shifted. They are quick enough to get stuck into Irish Water protesters for blocking small sections of pavement never mind roads I would think that tack would be more appropriately applied to these people in this situation.

the_syco

temporary halting site

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Have you ever seen the amount of Gardai it takes to enter a halting site?

Little CuChulainn

This is quite possibly the most moronic thread I have read on Boards.ie to date. Both sides of the argument are talking absolute nonsense. It'd be entertaining if it wasn't off the back of such a tragedy.

end of the road

VinLieger wrote: »

Protect your investments? Yeah awful things to be teaching them.

the value of investments can go down as well as up. its life i'm afraid

sdanseo

end of the road wrote: »

a suitable site was found, some criminals are blocking access to it and need to be removed by force

Sadly I have to agree.

Unfortunately, no matter how much we cover the facts in cushions and feathers, halting sites are filthy, unsightly places and just as unfortunately, a minority of their occupants tend to be criminals who give everyone a bad name. It's one of those generalisations which while politically incorrect and socially unpalatable are true.

However, the local authority have the right to make use of the site, and the people blocking access to it are committing a crime. They may be right, they may have the moral high ground - but we can't all go taking the law into our own hands.

freshpopcorn

end of the road wrote: »

that would be it. simple old begrudgery. couldn't be the case a traveler simply has done well for themselves. we aren't known as the land of begrudgers for no reason. any law breaking within the traveling community has the same systems to deal with it as ourselves. however with an underfunded understaffed garda force, a number of people will slip through the net unfortunately

Well when people who have done courses gone to college/tried the best and end up claiming social welfare and scrapping by and doing their best to find work.
When these people have to attend meetings with welfare officers and they meet travellers claiming more money them they have whilst they drive away in new cars.

VinLieger

end of the road wrote: »

its not ridiculous at all, its deadly serious. these people need dealing with using the full apparatus of the state

And you would say the same about the people who illegally blockaded joan burtons car? Or is it one rule for some and another for those i agree with?

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

how about people stop causing trouble for a family who have had 10 of their members wiped out, and others stop making excuses for such nonsense because of their "views" . so what if they get a bit of land. many travelers are still nomadic, and until nomadic traditions die out then we can at least do what little bit we can to insure such people have the basics they need. if you don't like that, well i'd suggest you get over it because your not going to see whatever amount of money taken from your taxes that is spent on such people anyway, its gone

So what if they get a bit of land? Are you for real?? Why should anyone be given land free of charge when the rest of society have to pay for it? Even people on the dole pay something for social housing, travellers pay nothing for their halting sites.

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

No they would be put in a bed and breakfast and would be told to claim off their insurance and if they didn't have it would be on the housing list. Meanwhile a traveller family gets access to land and services no settled person can. Who is being treated unfairly?

could you name all the services a traveler in this situation would have access to that a settled person in the same situation wouldn't have access to?

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

could you name all the services a traveler in this situation would have access to that a settled person in the same situation wouldn't have access to?

Travellers specific housing...There are people on the housing list years in Dublin, everyone should be treated the same

VinLieger

end of the road wrote: »

the value of investments can go down as well as up. its life i'm afraid

Yes however when permanent structures are to be placed there is generally quite a long consultation period as well as a phase where those who will be affected by it can object to it and have their objections heard. Has that happened here?

Not sure what the legal routes are but can the council decide to erect a permanent structure, which it was called in the letter sent to the residents, without planning permission?

Strumms

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Ah go on out of that.

Bleeding heart liberals have everything to say to everyone else as to how they should welcome everyone into their community no matter what.

But I often wonder if these liberal types would be so keen if a Traveller Camp was set up at the end of THEIR cul de sac in SCD?

You see, when it doesn't affect you, you can be oh so la di dah PC and open armed, but when it's in your own back garden or at the top of YOUR cul de sac, views might just be very different.

I call out hypocrisy. At least I am honest about it.

Yes, I am pro the idea of helping people and showing compassion in the aftermath of a tragedy I'm a bleeding heart liberal ? Please keep the well thought out discussion coming wont you.

I live in a Cul De Sac but their are no travelers there. My cousin however lives in not a Cul De Sac but on the same road as a small residential piece of land where travelers live. 15 years there and although she was apprehensive at first never a minutes trouble and is in fact on first name terms with them all...

You call out Hypocrisy ? I see no examples of it apart from your own posts which are full of it, 'full of it' in every sense.

sdanseo

VinLieger wrote: »

And you would say the same about the people who illegally blockaded joan burtons car? Or is it one rule for some and another for those i agree with?

The people who blockaded her car didn't just blockade property, they blockaded her and her staff which is Kidnapping. They may disagree with a decision the government made, they may be absolutely right in their disagreement - but it's still kidnapping.

They also didn't bother to think of the disruption they caused to the students at the college who were meant to be graduating in nice surroundings that day; and of course they didn't even bother to think that maybe the vast majority of politicians start out in that work because they want to make a difference - through due process - around issues that might not be too far departed from the one at hand.

end of the road

Jamsiek wrote: »

You can't force a business to open against the wishes of the proprietor.
It's not a communist country where the government controls business

you can put into the discrimination laws that should travelers come to town and all pubs shut that it will be classed as closing for discriminatory purposes. i'm sure other methods exist. i would love to see it happen all though i wouldn't hold my breath