So Michael D IS running again!

Eric Cartman

Rhineshark wrote: »

So...despite that you know Casey misrepresented it, that there was an agreement understood (or misunderstood), that horses blatantly need grazing land and tat the stables thig was a red herring (they built their own stables on the land they were living on for the past 40 years) you want their horses seized and them to be told to go f*ck themselves...just on general principles?

Why?

Well considering the amount if mistreated horses, it may not be the worst idea, that and what other people getting free houses get land for horses ?

Spanish Eyes

We just need Galway city/county council to plan for a halting site near MDH house in Galway.

Will fly through the planning process no doubt.

They are all a bunch of lilting hypocrites.

FrancieBrady

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We just need Galway city/county council to plan for a halting site near MDH house in Galway.

Will fly through the planning process no doubt.

They are all a bunch of lilting hypocrites.

Did he not say on the debate that he lived near one? The man has engaged with travellers all his life, there is nothing to suggest to me that he would object.

Rhineshark

blanch152 wrote: »

Here is his article from the Sunday Indpendent:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election-2018/dont-quit-amazing-support-has-helped-me-to-stay-in-race-37441896.html


I don't expect everyone to agree with his views, but I struggle to find anything in his words that he needs to apologise for. Fair enough that you don't want to vote for him, but why are some posters going off on some stupid notion that he should apologise for what he said?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election-2018/casey-sparks-outrage-with-his-racist-remarks-on-travellers-37429086.html

Again, his views in this second article could be considered extreme, rude or even a little crude, but where in anything he has said, was it criminal, discriminatory, unfair or untrue?

I am struggling to find it.

I don't fully agree with him, I think his way of approaching issues is too outspoken and controversial, but he is entitled to his views and entitled to put them forward. Those on here who are calling for him to apologise to the Irish people are full of bluster and hyperbole and nonsense.

Okay, so there is no link to the "Indian" comments, therefore I have to go by the quotes I have.

When being pissed off at being called out for being rude about an ethnic group, making a point of saying the person calling them out is an ethnic minority and "an Indian" (he's not, his *father* is Indian), does not exactly help his case that he wasn't being a pillock for the sake of it.

Secondly, when calling into question someone's ethnicity, it is wise to ensure you are aware of the ethnicity of the example you are using. "Romany" is not a place. So yes, he is 100% accurate that Travellers are "not from Romany". Nor is anyone else. He could apologise for making a holy show of our education system but I suppose that isn't his fault. Pity he couldn't bother himself getting just a bit informed before shooting his mouth off though.

Thirdly, he is in fact incorrect on whether Travellers are an ethnicity. They are, and I went into it in detail a few pages back. To you, I think. And then I went into detail on the examples you have in return. Not sure if you got back to me on that.

If he has a problem with the definition of ethnicity, well, that's too bad. But that isn't the fault of Travellers. Or anyone else.

So, he publically, from a point of view of running for president, lies about (stables thing) and denigrates an ethnic group, his excuse for it being that he doesn't think they are (which he may not, but it does not reflect reality, therefore he is wrong), makes a point of calling the Taoiseach an Indian when called out on it - and then denies he said anything untoward and complains about how unfair it is that people disapprove of his really obvious bullcrap. Diddums.

If he'd been arrested, censored or thrown out of the race, he might have reason to cry. He got disapproval for being a grade A ass. I realise there are those that see public disapproval as dreadful oppression but they can live with it.

Yes, I think at best he should apologise. And given the man can barely make two coherent sentences together, shouldn't be running for a role where he represents *all* Irish people (not just the ones he likes), and foreign heads of state would have to listen to his ill-informed bibble.

So, if Trump said (out of left field and with no prior context) that Native Americans aren't really an ethnicity while running for President and going for the outrage vote, would you agree that this was a totally reasonable comment he shouldn't apologise?

ThunbergsAreGo

Rhineshark wrote: »

So...despite that you know Casey misrepresented it, that there was an agreement understood (or misunderstood), that horses blatantly need grazing land and tat the stables thig was a red herring (they built their own stables on the land they were living on for the past 40 years) you want their horses seized and them to be told to go f*ck themselves...just on general principles?

Why?

Why are heads in the council not rolling due to this?

The travellers family owned their own land which they were living on in their own bought caravans and from reading on here caused no trouble in the area. They also owned and area for their horses building stables on the land they owned.

Can anyone explain why they were having houses built for them??

James Brown

Also he could apologise for attempting to bring the office of President into disrepute. His manner and views are not befitting of the office. Not to forget how poor a President he would be already showing he has issue with people he would represent, (travelers). He is playing with issues, the housing crisis and peoples lives to gain votes and notoriety, also why he's running in the first place IMO. Therefore he should apologise for lowering the bar and attempting to denigrate the office and drop out, IMO.

FrancieBrady

naughtb4 wrote: »

Why are heads in the council not rolling due to this?

The travellers family owned their own land which they were living on in their own bought caravans and from reading on here caused no trouble in the area. They also owned and area for their horses building stables on the land they owned.

Can anyone explain why they were having houses built for them??

Far as I can gather, the family don't own the land but it is privately owned. I haven't been able to find any complaints from the owner about them being there.
The council want the land for another use and so came to them with the offer.

I could be wrong about that, but I read it in the IT, the family solicitor, was being quoted.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He's entitled to a view and I don't like it and am of the opinion he should drop out.
Well that would be wrong. Disagreeing requires a degree of interest.
I disagree and do not like him for the office. Any problem you have with my having an opinion and you calling it into question seems like odd behaviour to me.

When the communists didn't like the view of a candidate, they made them drop out. It worked so well that for years, there was only one candidate for election, who usually got around 99% of the vote.

ThunbergsAreGo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Far as I can gather, the family don't own the land but it is privately owned. I haven't been able to find any complaints from the owner about them being there.
The council want the land for another use and so came to them with the offer.

I could be wrong about that, but I read it in the IT, the family solicitor, was being quoted.

Thanks, so and sorry for being dim, they are renting it from a private owners but the council want to buy it and put it to another use?

Surely like as would happen to private renters they could just be given notice that they have to vacate?

It's not exactly a cost efficient solution by the council, they don't own the land and have no claim for compensation or rights to it. It seems like a stupendously one sided offer

FrancieBrady

naughtb4 wrote: »

Thanks, so and sorry for being dim, they are renting it from a private owners but the council want to buy it and put it to another use?

Surely like as would happen to private renters they could just be given notice that they have to vacate?

It's not exactly a cost efficient solution by the council, they don't own the land and have no claim for compensation or rights to it

Well, the family have said that they are happy to see the houses go to others, so I am not quite sure what the problem is. The family say they are happy were they are.

blanch152

Rhineshark wrote: »

What, DNA-testing?

They are not "my tests", I'm not a DNA analyst, geneticist or researcher. But applying the standard against which genetic differences in and between populations are measured, the Travellers appear to be distinct, descended but seperate from a diverging point with the rest of the population.


The Unionists descended from the Plantations absolutely fit the definition, and are.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots_people


Aran Islanders seem highly likely to meet the same isolated population basis that can lead to a distinct group. The only real difference is that it's a more traditional region-based isolation, a defined territory. However, there's then the culture, history etc parts of it. Which, given their experience has been fairly dissimilar to "mainland" Ireland, even the coast, and various other seperate traits, such as the continuation of Irish and the longer survival of traditions that have faded out of mainland Irish society, may qualify. From a friend who grew up on one, there's a strong sense of islanders and mainlanders and its difficult to settle in without family roots on the island.

Ultimately, it is similar to nationality as a question of identity, and to some extent it has to be sought or chosen by a large enough group. Nationality is based in identifying with a territory, ethnicity in ancestry and tradition/culture, with enough people. So if the Aran Islanders recognised themselves as and wanted others to recognise them as an ethnic group, there is probably a legit argument for it.


Dubs and South Kerry I'm not convinced by, where are you coming from with those? Dublin, being the capital, has always had a regular flow of people, which should have made insularism or partitioning a genetic pool difficult.

Regarding differences, I would assume less than Ulster Scots, similar to Aran Islanders but that's just a guess.

I think people are putting too much importance into this tbh. It is what it is, we're all covered by nationality.

And crime in the Traveller communities is easier to deal with when there is any trust at all. Unsurprisingly, rabble rousing for attention on the basis of attacking their identity (settled or not) and slandering the whole lot doesn't help with either trust or dealing with criminal activity. Especially for such a blatant, cynical political boost by a guy that thinks Romany is a country. It was cheap as hell.

That does not answer the issue as to what distinguishes an ethnicity.

Cockneys and Scousers would have claims of similar validity to the Travelling Community. To suggest that if a group "recognised themselves as and wanted others to recognise them as an ethnic group, there is probably a legit argument for it" just isn't sufficient. Neither is an isolationist culture, which is what the Travelling Community have, an active refusal to get with their neighbours, a sufficient criterion.

I haven't seen Casey slandering the whole lot of Travellers either, rather than make such unfounded allegations, maybe you could link to where he did. He also didn't attack their identity, he made clear that they should be treated equally to all others.

As I said, I don't like the way he said things, but I find the politically correct outrage against Casey to be distasteful, sinister and the censorious nature of it is particularly surprising coming from people who claim to be left-wing in nature.

dense

As I said earlier, I like the cut of his jib.


It's a pity he's not a more polished speaker, his speech tends to be disjointed and clipped and he doesn't display the confidence he should have.


He wouldn't be the best motivational speaker but I prefer it to all style and no substance, which is what the other candidates are deep on.

ThunbergsAreGo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, the family have said that they are happy to see the houses go to others, so I am not quite sure what the problem is. The family say they are happy were they are.

Maybe that isn't an option?

Either way the councils approach makes no sense.

If the family the person they are renting off are happy for them continue to live there why build a house?

If the person who owns the land wants to sell, let the family look for alternate locations

Building them a 1.7m estate in nonsense!!! Something doesn't add up. The land itself isn't worth it.

Anyways I digress, just surprised more questions aren't being asked of the council on this.

FrancieBrady

naughtb4 wrote: »

Maybe that isn't an option?

Either way the councils approach makes no sense.

If the family the person they are renting off are happy for them continue to live there why build a house?

If the person who owns the land wants to sell, let the family look for alternate locations

Building them a 1.7m estate in nonsense!!! Something doesn't add up. The land itself isn't worth it.

Anyways I digress, just surprised more questions aren't being asked of the council on this.

The unfortunate/confusing thing here is that we the public seem to have entered this story while there is a bit of brinkmanship going on on both sides and no doubt fault on both sides.

MrMusician18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, the family have said that they are happy to see the houses go to others, so I am not quite sure what the problem is. The family say they are happy were they are.

Clearly the council want them to move so there's less pollution from their current site. At present they are in a section of road that was abandoned 40 years ago when the road was realigned.

I can't imagine the council want anything with that land other than to clean it up.

ThunbergsAreGo

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Clearly the council want them to move so there's less pollution from their current site. At present they are in a section of load that was abandoned 40 years ago when the road was realigned.

I can't imagine the council want anything with that land other than to clean it up.

A cost of 1.7m seems a steep price to pay

Why has the question not been asked of the council if the family are happy to stay, why did they build it, why were they entitled to an estate ? It's bizarre

Rhineshark

blanch152 wrote: »

That does not answer the issue as to what distinguishes an ethnicity.

Eh, sorry but if a definition and going through each point of the definition for three different groups as examples doesn't cover it, I'm not sure how to help you.

But it is a combination of ancestry and cultural markers, as well as a large enough group strongly udentifying with that culture over a long enough time for it to become traditional (as ultimately, you have to be born into it). All of the above apply to Travellers.

If you have a problem with the definition of ethnicity, that is fair enough but we don't have a better working one.

Cockneys and Scousers would have claims of similar validity to the Travelling Community. To suggest that if a group "recognised themselves as and wanted others to recognise them as an ethnic group, there is probably a legit argument for it" just isn't sufficient. Neither is an isolationist culture, which is what the Travelling Community have, an active refusal to get with their neighbours, a sufficient criterion.

Traditional cockneys don't exist any more so they'd have a time of it. You would need to link me some actual evidence regarding Scousers please.

Bolded bit - Interesting misquoting on what I said, by the way. You managed to leave out all the previous and included one line of summation as if that was the whole argument so you could dismiss it. Charming. I have paid you the respect of answering your posts in full.


Also, merely being isolationist isn't enough. Being isolationist long enough to show distinct genetic divergence, language divergence and cultural divergence starts to become so. How exactly to you think different races come to be eventually if diverging bloodlines and cultures plays no part?

I haven't seen Casey slandering the whole lot of Travellers either, rather than make such unfounded allegations, maybe you could link to where he did. He also didn't attack their identity, he made clear that they should be treated equally to all others.

Did you really not? You know how he said "Travellers", as a whole, shouldn't be considered an ethnic group and "are just people living on someone else's land"? What about that gave you the impression he was just speaking about one group of them? Because everything else he said was blanket bar the lying about the Cork- sorry, Tipp group. Settled Travellers are also still Travellers (that culture and ethnicity thing again), and it was pretty ****ty of him to just lump them in with his blanket idea.

As I said, I don't like the way he said things, but I find the politically correct outrage against Casey to be distasteful, sinister and the censorious nature of it is particularly surprising coming from people who claim to be left-wing in nature.

Each to their own. I find attacking a minority to try get his name more recognised than at least Duffy's with poor factual basis, downright lying and insulting behaviour distasteful. There was no reason he had to bring it up. He just wanted to.

Oh, and I find telling lies to the country about a specific small identifiable group of people (the group in Tipp) to make them look bad is a morally repugnant thing to do.

As I said, each to their own. There are those who find calling him out on his crap as signs of a PC leftist echo chamber coming for their free speech.

If he had kept it to a more reasonable criticism of Traveller culture and the difficulties their mode of travelling life causes both for them and for other portions of the population (oh, and not directly lied about the Tipp group), and the big issues with criminality, women's rights, children's rights, suicide etc amongst parts of the community and if he had just called out Varadkar as someone who (correctly or not) shouldn't have a civic voice when it comes to elections, people's mileages would have varied but there wouldn't have been nearly so much talk about it.

But incorrectly calling them out regarding their ethnicity, part of their identity and making a point of calling Varadkar an Indian as if it was relevent got the all-important outrage vote.
Which was all it was intended to do, get attention and get the right-on crowd.

I thought him a buffoon before the comments (and I'll back it up with some of his earlier comments from before he became the darling of the PC-obsessed crowd), now I think he's a cynical buffoon who doesn't give a damn about what damage he causes if it will get him another 1% of the vote. And that is a man who should not be President.

Choochtown

Casey is indeed a buffoon.
Some direct quotes from his performance on Newstalk this morning:


When asked about Varadkar

"It's not his perogative to get involved in the process of the presidency a duly elected nominated by 4 counties and a candidate and he tells people not to vote for the person who has been nominated by Kerry, Clare, Limerick and Tipperary"

And when asked about his comments on a welfare state...

"Do you know if you give a person a fish you feed him for a day you know people are if you teach we should the middle Ireland are the ones that are being squeezed"

What is he on about?
Seriously how could anyone vote for that man to represent us on the international stage?

Sycamore Tree

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

We just need Galway city/county council to plan for a halting site near MDH house in Galway.

Will fly through the planning process no doubt.

They are all a bunch of lilting hypocrites.

Did he not say on the debate that he lived near one? The man has engaged with travellers all his life, there is nothing to suggest to me that he would object.

He does live very close to a halting site.

James Brown

Choochtown wrote: »

Casey is indeed a buffoon.
Some direct quotes from his performance on Newstalk this morning:


When asked about Varadkar

"It's not his perogative to get involved in the process of the presidency a duly elected nominated by 4 counties and a candidate and he tells people not to vote for the person who has been nominated by Kerry, Clare, Limerick and Tipperary"

And when asked about his comments on a welfare state...

"Do you know if you give a person a fish you feed him for a day you know people are if you teach we should the middle Ireland are the ones that are being squeezed"

What is he on about?
Seriously how could anyone vote for that man to represent us on the international stage?

This kind of ignorance has no place in public life let alone the office of President.
It's gutter level populism designed to infer that people are merely receiving handouts due to lack of effort or knowledge on their own part. Neglecting the fact that the sick and elderly do not choose to be so and anyway receiving state aid is likely on a low income unable to pay rent or deemed by the state/LA's to be in genuine need. It's right wing divisive codology.
If you find yourself in the squeezed middle and your income is too low to make ends meet, would that count as you being part of the problem?

Sycamore Tree

Choochtown wrote: »

Casey is indeed a buffoon.
Some direct quotes from his performance on Newstalk this morning:

When asked about Varadkar

"It's not his perogative to get involved in the process of the presidency a duly elected nominated by 4 counties and a candidate and he tells people not to vote for the person who has been nominated by Kerry, Clare, Limerick and Tipperary"

And when asked about his comments on a welfare state...

"Do you know if you give a person a fish you feed him for a day you know people are if you teach we should the middle Ireland are the ones that are being squeezed"

What is he on about?
Seriously how could anyone vote for that man to represent us on the international stage?

I am fond of coarse fishing. Bream and the like. He's got my vote!

FrancieBrady

I listened to the tape where he talked about Varadkar being Indian, and his diction and delivery was a mess. Had it been a debate I am positive sure he would have said something under pressure that would be deeply embarrassing.
It will be some 7 yrs if this guy makes the Aras.

expectationlost

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I listened to the tape where he talked about Varadkar being Indian

which station was it?

FrancieBrady

expectationlost wrote: »

which station was it?

Good question!
Far as I recall they played it on the News at one on Saturday RTE radio.
We discussed it as it happened on one of the threads, I will try and find a time.

expectationlost

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Good question!
Far as I recall they played it on the News at one on Saturday RTE radio.
We discussed it as it happened on one of the threads, I will try and find a time.

they played it on the saturday show originally from galway bay fm https://galwaybayfm.ie/wed17-2-2/ at about 45 minutes (indo obscured where he said it)

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradiowebpage.html#!rii=b9%5F10951955%5F26960%5F20%2D10%2D2018%5F

peter casey has two very similar taximan stories one pakistani and one nigerian thought on ethnic groups http://www.redfm.ie/on-air/podcasts/neil-prendeville-on-redfm/episode/18th-october-20181/?autoplay=1 at 1hr 50 they both said a similar thing but its possible it was just sumerising or ...

An Ciarraioch

Based on the current odds, the race for second place is wide open:

MDH 1/50 (unchanged)
Gallagher 20/1 (ditto)
Ní Ríada 33/1 (was 30/1 yesterday)
Casey 40/1 (was 80/1)
Freeman 100/1 (was 80/1)
Duffy 100/1 (unchanged)

expectationlost

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Based on the current odds, the race for second place is wide open:

MDH 1/50 (unchanged)
Gallagher 20/1 (ditto)
Na 33/1 (was 30/1 yesterday)
Casey 40/1 (was 80/1)
Freeman 100/1 (was 80/1)
Duffy 100/1 (unchanged)

gallagher the ff votes is on the rise

blanch152

Rhineshark wrote: »

Eh, sorry but if a definition and going through each point of the definition for three different groups as examples doesn't cover it, I'm not sure how to help you.

But it is a combination of ancestry and cultural markers, as well as a large enough group strongly udentifying with that culture over a long enough time for it to become traditional (as ultimately, you have to be born into it). All of the above apply to Travellers.

If you have a problem with the definition of ethnicity, that is fair enough but we don't have a better working one.

The problem I have with the definition of ethnicity as put forward (not just by you but in making decisions) is that there is both an element of self-selection and an element of subjectivity to it.

How many ancestral markers? How many cultural? What element of genetic drift? Do you exclude consanguinity from the genetic consideration?

None of that is written down anywhere, making any decision on ethnicity a subjective one, and therefore can be challenged by anyone, including Casey.

An Ciarraioch

http://twitter.com/davemcginn_ie/status/1054265181872775168

Tell me how

blanch152 wrote: »

The problem I have with the definition of ethnicity as put forward (not just by you but in making decisions) is that there is both an element of self-selection and an element of subjectivity to it.

How many ancestral markers? How many cultural? What element of genetic drift? Do you exclude consanguinity from the genetic consideration?

None of that is written down anywhere, making any decision on ethnicity a subjective one, and therefore can be challenged by anyone, including Casey.

That's as may be the case, but in this instance, could you not see that the travelling community is inherently identifiable as a unique collection of people? Mention to anyone about a collection or grouping or indeed an individual traveller and they will know what you are referring to.

The viewpoint was, that they were (and are) identifiable in this way and as a consequence share part of Ireland's cultural heritage which is worth supporting and maintaining. I think that was the logic and wasn't solely limited to ethnicity as measured through DNA.