'Travellers have a right to a home that is culturally appropriate'

MilesMorales1

IT’S HARD TO visit children living on a dump. But that’s what I have to do when I visit friends of mine at Carrowbrowne site, just outside Galway City.
I have to remind myself that I’m not in some slum in Africa or Asia – places that we sometimes see on the telly and think it’s awful that people have to live like that. I have to remind myself that this is Ireland – one of the world’s wealthiest countries (we were ranked 7th globally this year by Global Finance Magazine).
This is Galway, where I live. This is 2017 – more than 20 years after the Traveller Taskforce report was published with all its wonderful and hope-filled recommendations

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/carrowbrowne-of-all-the-land-the-council-had-they-gave-us-the-place-beside-the-dump-3710147-Nov2017/


Not really sure what I think about that. How do you define whats culturally appropriate? On the other hand its not on that their sites are so awful, who's responsible for that though?

Dr Crayfish

They seem to like to live in their own sh*t. Just drive past any halting site. I couldn't care less about them tbh.

mloc123

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/carrowbrowne-of-all-the-land-the-council-had-they-gave-us-the-place-beside-the-dump-3710147-Nov2017/


Not really sure what I think about that. How do you define whats culturally appropriate? On the other hand its not on that their sites are so awful, who's responsible for that though?

When the sites were built they were finished to a decent level.

If you buy a house and after 5-10 years it is run down, dirty, surrounded by waste etc.. who is to blame? The owner of the house right? So why would this be any different?

PeterParker957

mloc123 wrote: »

When the sites were built they were finished to a decent level.

If you buy a house and after 5-10 years it is run down, dirty, surrounded by waste etc.. who is to blame? The owner of the house right? So why would this be any different?

"But but we're a protected ethnic minority...."

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Zebra3

Rights come with responsibilities.

Borderfox

'Travellers have a right to a home that is culturally appropriate'

They also have the right to pay for it too, same as the rest of us

The_Valeyard

Zebra3 wrote: »

Rights come with responsibilities.

Certain people only like the start of that sentence and ignore the end.

SEPT 23 1989

8 Bedroom House
Stables
Scrapyard
Metal Smelting Facilities
Slave Accommodation
Green Space for Bare Knuckle Boxing
Garages for Jeeps & Touring Caravans

whisky_galore

When people are transient, they have no pride in an area and they don't seem to care about things like cleaning up after themselves.

That's for the council or some other mug to clean up.

kylith

I used to live near a site in Co. Dublin. Lovely wee houses were built there. It wasn't long before the pipes were ripped out and sold, along with any lead on the roofs, while the people the houses had been built for continued to live in caravans next to the house. You can't help some people.

Dr Crayfish

What's the point in even talking about these people any more. The Government and Garda are scared sh*tless of them. Let's just keep giving them even more money and facilities and allow them to continue living as outlaws. Life is too short to think about these things, things that will never change.

seamus

There is no right to a home that is culturally appropriate. That's fantasy nonsense.

I'll defend the right of everyone to a home - that is, a roof over your head with heat, light & water.

But a home that conforms to your cultural traditions? That's your problem, not society's.

c_man

There's some seriously nice, brand new vehicles in that site whenever I drive by. I'd never be able to afford them of course.

Like a slum in Africa? Give me a break.

rebel456

Right up to the highest levels of local and national government, those with a duty to recognise, protect and promote our human rights have failed to honour Travellers’ basic right to a home that is culturally appropriate.

Has the thought ever occurred to Traveller communities to band together and buy a site? I understand there are higher levels of poverty among travellers but since most seem to stay in the same halting site raising their kids... why not chip in to where you live. If they want to move off then so be it. I move too, I give up my lease or sell my house. They can sell their share or plot.

While it is also abhorrent to see dead rodents in a shed, when my local council estate has litter on the green or dead animals on the footpath one of the locals clears it away, it's their estate after all.

MilesMorales1

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

On the other hand its not on that their sites are so awful, who's responsible for that though?

I know the good people of AH have decided that, unlike other ethnic groups, it's in the DNA of travellers to be bad so they deserve the squalor. However those who do not ascribe to theories that would have been laughed at as being outdated in Victorian times will point to the decision that was already made in that regard by the Council of Europe.

However, while there is an obligation to provide accommodation, and responsibility rests with us...it does not extend to providing one that is "culturally appropriate".

mloc123

mloc123 wrote: »

When the sites were built they were finished to a decent level...

Again, no they weren't.

And again, that was decided by the Council of Europe, who described some of the 50 or so sites (out of the 1,000 that was to be built) as being in breach of basic human rights. The arguments are over. The decision was made. In the fraction of housing that was made available (is it 5% of the total needed) they found open sewers.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

I know the good people of AH have decided that, unlike other ethnic groups, it's in the DNA of travellers to be bad so they deserve the squalor.

Of course they don't deserve squalor. No one deserves squalor, but when they manufacture the squalor themselves what can you do? It's not the settled community going to halting sites and throwing shíte around the place.

Dr Crayfish

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, no they weren't.

And again, that was decided by the Council of Europe, who described some of the 50 or so sites (out of the 1,000 that was to be built) as being in breach of basic human rights. The arguments are over. The decision was made. In the fraction of housing that was made available (is it 5% of the total needed) they found open sewers.

Why are they getting any type of accommodation for free anyway?

MilesMorales1

Deleted User wrote: »

I know the good people of AH have decided that, unlike other ethnic groups, it's in the DNA of travellers to be bad so they deserve the squalor. However those who do not ascribe to theories that would have been laughed at as being outdated in Victorian times will point to the decision that was already made in that regard by the Council of Europe.

However, while there is an obligation to provide accommodation, and responsibility rests with us...it does not extend to providing one that is "culturally appropriate".

I was unaware of that. So they're not entitled to it then.

_Kaiser_

Absolute nonsense... if the place looks like a dirty slum that's down to the occupants. Given all this stuff is provided to them by the taxpayer anyway, they have some neck complaining after they've destroyed the place.

Living in a caravan is a lifestyle choice - this "culture" stuff is nonsense. They're more than welcome/able to buy a house themselves if they want seeing as there appears to be no shortage of high-end new vehicles (ie: money) in most sites.

I'm really tired of this notion that the majority of society must bend over backwards to accommodate the whims of minorities making claims they have no entitlement to be making - see also refugees economic migrants

tomwaterford

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Why are they getting any type of accommodation for free anyway?

In fairness....it's not unreasonable to give em a place to park vs on the side of busy roads and young kids with em?

Dr Crayfish

tomwaterford wrote: »

In fairness....it's not unreasonable to give em a place to park vs on the side of busy roads and young kids with em?

As long as it's in England

Grayson

Zebra3 wrote: »

Rights come with responsibilities.

No they don't. That's the point of a right, you have it anyway.

arctictree

rebel456 wrote: »

Has the thought ever occurred to Traveller communities to band together and buy a site?

Happened near us. A site with an agri shed came up for sale beside the motorway. Owner had tried for years to get planning for a house but was constantly refused by the planners. Travellers then bought it for dirt cheap (circa 25K) and moved a few mobile homes into it. They don't give a **** about planning. Its actually kept very well.

gctest50

And what about the eco migrants ?

We need to build a Fota Island for each one in case they miss the tigers n elephants

amcalester

Grayson wrote: »

No they don't. That's the point of a right, you have it anyway.

Not all rights are absolute.

Sky King

I guess it's important to distinguish between a right and an entitlement.

I think we all have a right to a culturally appropriate home.

Most people expect to have to attain this for themselves though.

Your Face

What does culturally appropriate mean?

My ancestry apparently incorporates minor European nobility.

Therefore, I think the state should built me a replica of the Royal Palace of Caserta.

Its only fair.

whisky_galore

Your Face wrote: »

What does culturally appropriate mean?

Stables, for cultural household pets?

Annasopra

kylith wrote: »

Of course they don't deserve squalor. No one deserves squalor, but when they manufacture the squalor themselves what can you do? It's not the settled community going to halting sites and throwing sh around the place.

It often is the settled community dumping crap at sites by the way

Annasopra

tomwaterford wrote: »

In fairness....it's not unreasonable to give em a place to park vs on the side of busy roads and young kids with em?

Of course it is. That is putting the young children at risk of being killed by cars.

VinLieger

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It often is the settled community dumping crap there by the way

Bullsh1t, if there was any solid evidence of this pavee point would be throwing it at people from the rooftops

gctest50

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course it is. That is putting the young children at risk of being killed by cars.

Cars toppling on them from the stack of scrapped ones in the halting site ?

Right next to the invisible grease and oil trap ?

tomwaterford

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course it is. That is putting the young children at risk of being killed by cars.

OK. ...this is what I was saying??

Hitman3000

MilesMorales1 wrote:

Not really sure what I think about that. How do you define whats culturally appropriate? On the other hand its not on that their sites are so awful, who's responsible for that though?

Thought the caravan was culturally appropriate?

PeterParker957

Perhaps that **** John Connors (Connor ??) might get a new series of whiny documentaries out of it ???

JohnMc1

I pass by a traveler halting site daily. Its maddening to see beautiful homes destroyed. Those were lovely houses before they moved in. Now there's boarded up windows and part of the wall into the estate has been broken off. They should be ashamed of themselves for destroying a once beautiful estate.

SEPT 23 1989

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It often is the settled community dumping crap at sites by the way

you think a "settled" person would drive into a halting site and start dumping?

frozenfrozen

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It often is the settled community dumping crap at sites by the way

can you back that up?

c_man

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It often is the settled community dumping crap at sites by the way

Yeah, you always see loads of "settled" people hanging around halting sites :pac: Nothing unusual there, no siree

baylah17

Travellers like anybody else have a responsibility to themselves and society.
There should not be one rule for one and a different rule for everybody else.
That said I dont buy into tarring all of this group with the same brush.

tomwaterford

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Perhaps that **** John Connors (Connor ??) might get a new series of whiny documentaries out of it ???

Noone forces yous to watch these?


I think another perspective is interesting though :

seamus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It often is the settled community dumping crap at sites by the way

Perhaps only in the most roundabout way - that is, travellers accept payment to "take care" of rubbish and then dump it in and around their halting sites.

Otherwise you're really going to have to provide some evidence that most dumping is not being carried out by the travellers who live there.

There was a halting site across from where I grew up. When it was initially built, there was a little trouble, but then the troublemakers were ousted and it became pretty quiet. Not sparkling clean, but didn't have rubbish dumped everywhere.
Then a pile of travellers from the UK arrived over and set up camp on the GAA pitches next to the halting site. And within the week there was rubbish piled high.

Are you really claiming that it was the local settled people who suddenly decided to start throwing all their stuff around the camp?

I found a rubbish bag in the bushes across from our house at that time, it was burst open and a bit of paper was sticking out of it. It had my name on it. These travellers had actually stolen the rubbish bags from our bins (dunno, to look for stuff?) and when there was nothing in them, threw them in the bushes.

mloc123

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

you think a "settled" person would drive into a halting site and start dumping?

They might drive in... I don't think they would be driving out tho

minikin

'Travellers have a right to a home that is culturally appropriate'

Relax, its a joke.

Dr Crayfish

baylah17 wrote: »

Travellers like anybody else have a responsibility to themselves and society.
There should not be one rule for one and a different rule for everybody else.
That said I dont buy into tarring all of this group with the same brush.

They are not part of our society and do not abide by our laws yet they still get lots of stuff for free from us, and then they bite the hand that feeds them.

You have to admire them for how much they absolutely thoroughly take the p*ss out of our Government.

PeterParker957

tomwaterford wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Perhaps that **** John Connors (Connor ??) might get a new series of whiny documentaries out of it ???

Noone forces yous to watch these?


I think another perspective is interesting though :

No but I'm forced to pay the licence fee so he can go swanning off to the USA to whine to black people how his lot had it just as bad.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

baylah17

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

They are not part of our society .

Well actually they are part of society, and many of them need to recognise the duties and responsibilities that brings

Help!!!!

2 traveller sites each end of town, the one beside the cemetery the kids usually chuck rocks over the walls at cars or run around the graves wrecking the flowers or whatever. Then their horses are brought down to the ring road & straight across in front of cars over to fields they dont own. Over summer a young lad on a sulky decided to race it along the footpath down towards the ring road at 11.30pm Friday night luckily the horse ran into a post & the young lad with head over tit unto the ground. Gang of travellers, kids & parents ran down to see if the young lad was alright. Dragged the horse around the corner to a field because it had broken its leg. Gardai & vet had to go there next day to put the poor animal down. Not the first to be put down or the last. They even left a horse by the side of the road that died during a sulky race.
The other one is supposed to be worse
I left Ireland in 1995 & growing up Travellers were never really a problem since I got back they seem to be causing nothing but problems, what changed?

Dr Crayfish

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Why are they getting any type of accommodation for free anyway?

Are you being obtuse?

Or do you genuinely not know that their are Constitutional and statutory obligations in the area?

If you do not know the basics, are you just here to say "travellers are scum"?