Peter Casey believes Travellers should not be recognised as an ethnic minority

FrancieBrady

LiamoSail wrote: »

Why should we fund the travellers chosen lifestyle? If they choose to lead that life, best of luck to them. But I shouldn't have to pay for it

Well I don't want to pay for old people then.

See where this facile argument gets you? You live in a state that has a welfare system. You don't get to cherrypick who gets that welfare sadly, can you imagine the chaos if I could direct where my taxes where spent?

There are laws and rules about welfare fraud and if they are not being enforced then that is not the fault of travellers as a community (because not all travellers engage in welfare fraud, that is a society wide issue) that is the fault of TD's and the government.

FrancieBrady

tayto lover wrote: »

Well thank Casey for that.

Jesus, what?
The myths about him are growing anyhow, whatever about the vote.

jace_da_face

Fann Linn wrote: »

Sad really. He's beginning to appear like a little Louis XIV.

Ouch! At least wait until the law on blasphemy is abolished. :rolleyes:

Franz Von Peppercorn

Heres a question I have. I looked up halting sites in Dublin and the list seems to be the most deprived areas. Isn’t this unfair on both groups? If travellers are discriminated against and deprived, but can live anywhere in the city where a site is made available, why aren’t the halting sites built in rich areas? This would eliminate a lot of deprivation at least outside the halting site itself. Also the rich and upper middle classes have money and time to spend - and could volunteer to help with some issues the travellers face (in lieu perhaps of that trip to Africa in 4th year to build houses).

Anybody understand this? Is it an oversight? A mistake?

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He DIDN'T speak the truth. We are all equal, if we aren't tell us what extra RIGHTS travellers have.

Yes, travellers have entitlements some others don't have, but then older people have extra entitlements that I don't have, special needs people have entitlements I don't have as do disabled people, as do people with medical cards etc etc etc.

Jesus, would some of you people look at the difference between a right and an entitlement.

Can you give me an example of a member of the settled community refusing to occupy specially built accommodation because they want grazing land and stables to be provided for their animals? I know lots of small farmers living with their families on houses built by the council on their own land. If any of them refused to occupy the houses provided for free by the council because they further demanded the council built a slatted shed for their cows they would be rightly lambasted. But because everywhere in the country travelers are treated “specially” their unreasonable demands are often met.

Now Francie in 340 posts you still haven’t answered who you are supporting in the presidential race?

weldoninhio

smokingman wrote: »

er...no.
You kind of need to have an understanding of constitutional law. If not, you may as well make the atorny general the President

Er, no

To qualify, candidates must:

be a citizen of Ireland,

be at least 35 years of age, and

be nominated by:
at least twenty of the 218 serving members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, or
at least four of the 31 county or city Councils,

or him- or herself, in the case of an incumbent or former president who has served one term.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can you give me an example of a member of the settled community refusing to occupy specially built accommodation because they want grazing land and stables to be provided for their animals? I know lots of small farmers living with their families on houses built by the council on their own land. If any of them refused to occupy the houses provided for free by the council because they further demanded the council built a slatted shed for their cows they would be rightly lambasted. But because everywhere in the country travelers are treated “specially” their unreasonable demands are often met.

Now Francie in 340 posts you still haven’t answered who you are supporting in the presidential race?

I have said who I am supporting from the get go, go check.

The travellers are turning down the housing because they claim that they had been assured land for their horses when the council came to them. They didn't 'demand' land and stables after the houses were built.

There is no land being provided so the houses are no good to them.

Who is right about that and who is wrong, I have no idea.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have said who I am supporting from the get go, go check.

The travellers are turning down the housing because they claim that they had been assured land for their horses when the council came to them. They didn't 'demand' land and stables after the houses were built.

There is no land being provided so the houses are no good to them.

Who is right about that and who is wrong, I have no idea.

I understand if you are too embarrassed to restate who you are supporting. For someone who has “no idea” whether the travelers or the council are right in the Tipperary case you appear to have made up your mind that the council are being dishonest.

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We have had too much of this on this island and Casey, as a northern Catholic should be aware of that, which leads me to believe it was a premeditated incitement to hatred.

Well that's you putting two and two together and getting five. Meanwhile, his comments seem to have resonated with a lot of people on a real level. No politically correct ''I'd love them on my lawn'' soundbites, just an honest opinion he holds and expressed. You might not like it, others seemingly have.

elperello

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I thought the first lady’s sex life was not allowed to be discussed during the presidential race. Even Google have amended the suggested search terms, with affairs no longer appearing allegedly.

That's innuendo.

KevRossi

gmisk wrote: »

Yeah nothing there really, really scrapping the barrel to find dirt on Michael D.

That does not look good IMO. It's the little things that trip you up, as Albert Reynolds infamously said.

Brian Lenihan lost the assured election in 1990 on something like this, but there isn't enough time left for this to gain traction.

I think The Sun is a rag, but if this is true, then some answers need to eb given. A "we don't comment on staff issues" is a slap in the face to a direct question on what is potentially abuse of taxpayers money.

The Aras is not above scrutiny, on the contrary it should be setting an example to the rest of Government, and MDH as a proclaimed socialist should not be hiding behind his press office.

This needs answers before Friday.

tretorn

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have said who I am supporting from the get go, go check.

The travellers are turning down the housing because they claim that they had been assured land for their horses when the council came to them. They didn't 'demand' land and stables after the houses were built.

There is no land being provided so the houses are no good to them.

Who is right about that and who is wrong, I have no idea.

How can any sane person have any difficulty in establishing who is right when houses costing 1.7 million have been built for families living at the side of the road.

BY not taking these houses travellers are putting horses above the welfare of their children, we are coming into the winter again now and children would be much warmer and comfortable inside a house with four walls than stuck in a caravan.

There must be land in the vicinity that the travellers can rent for their horses. If they wont take the houses without bringing their horses then there is no committment from them to making the move to houses a successful one. There will be a lot of changes that come with owning or renting a house, ie responsibility for all the finance that comes with renting a house and I think myself that this is one of the reasons housing travellers is so difficult.

LiamoSail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well I don't want to pay for old people then.

See where this facile argument gets you? You live in a state that has a welfare system. You don't get to cherrypick who gets that welfare sadly, can you imagine the chaos if I could direct where my taxes where spent?

There are laws and rules about welfare fraud and if they are not being enforced then that is not the fault of travellers as a community (because not all travellers engage in welfare fraud, that is a society wide issue) that is the fault of TD's and the government.

You're deliberately avoiding the question. 80% of travellers are unemployed. Why should I contribute to their choice of lifestyle? That money could be spent on hospitals, education, disability, pensions, foreign aid etc, but is instead used to fund a lifestyle choice of someone who just doesn't fancy working. Why should I foot this bill?

Welfare is supposed to help a person in need, not supplement their bone idle lifestyle.

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Claimed vociferously that he didn't want to be elected on the basis of what he said (how fooking inane and cowardly is that?) but that he still believed what he said.

He believed what he said. Refreshing. Also, it wasn't him who brought Travellers into this thing, he was asked about them in an interview and gave an answer he stands over, anything but cowardy. The rest of them, in my opinion, lied through their teeth with their various tales of having afternoon tea with Travellers in their gaffs.

tretorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Heres a question I have. I looked up halting sites in Dublin and the list seems to be the most deprived areas. Isn’t this unfair on both groups? If travellers are discriminated against and deprived, but can live anywhere in the city where a site is made available, why aren’t the halting sites built in rich areas? This would eliminate a lot of deprivation at least outside the halting site itself. Also the rich and upper middle classes have money and time to spend - and could volunteer to help with some issues the travellers face (in lieu perhaps of that trip to Africa in 4th year to build houses).

Anybody understand this? Is it an oversight? A mistake?

The wealthy areas will refuse to take travellers and they have the influence to stop the council imposing travellers. The powerful and influential and their relatives mostly live in nice parts of Dublin and halting sites are generally built in disadvantaged areas. Land is cheaper in less popular areas so local authorities can build halting sites cheaper. The council are now buying houses for travellers too but the budget for this is probably approximately three hundred thousand euros per house and you would only buy houses at this price in poor areas.

ThunbergsAreGo

Forget about travellers, he is right about low to mid wage workers getting screwed over, the last budget was a slap in the face. We need to reward those working in low paid jobs and provide an incentive to work.

He might not be able to do anything about it but at least he had the balls to say it more than that other shower

SafeSurfer

The horses that the current lily own must already be grazing and housed somewhere. But the travelers are demanding that to literally move across the road these additional facilities should be provided at the taxpayers expense. I’m not sure whether it’s pythonesque or kafkaesque.

elperello

tretorn wrote: »

The wealthy areas will refuse to take travellers and they have the influence to stop the council imposing travellers. The powerful and influential and their relatives mostly live in nice parts of Dublin and halting sites are generally built in disadvantaged areas. Land is cheaper in less popular areas so local authorities can build halting sites cheaper. The council are now buying houses for travellers too but the budget for this is probably approximately three hundred thousand euros per house and you would only buy houses at this price in poor areas.

€300,000 euro for a house in a "poor area".
Take out a mortgage and spend the next 35 years paying for it.
How have we come to this?

Omackeral

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I bare no responsibility for - or interest in - who does or does not thank my posts. Your decision to respond is your own.

You sure as hell have a similar posting style :pac:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Proof?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Disliking people because they are members of a particular minority group is the very definition of being a bigot.

I agree wholeheartedly. Calling out vast swathes of a group's illegal practices isn't bigotry though, or racist, or fascism or whatever other word of the day is being used.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Most of our grandparents left school before the age of 15 - indeed a lot of them never had any secondary education at all. You must think little of them so...

Most of our grandparents weren't born in the 21st Century either.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Actually, tbh, if two grown consenting adults want to puck the crap out of each other I think that's their own business. If they did it in a cage they could earn millions and people would be mad pay-per-viewing it.

Ah yeah, sure fcuk the hospitals and medical personnel that would have to deal with them. Meanwhile, some poor old dear can wait her turn and shut her mouth.

The rest of the post started delving into fascism etc and Idon't even think that warrants a comment at this stage tbh.

Fann Linn

elperello wrote: »

€300,000 euro for a house in a "poor area".
Take out a mortgage and spend the next 35 years paying for it.
How have we come to this?

Or, sit on your arse, bang out a heap of kids and let the Council accomodate you in a similar house.

Franz Von Peppercorn

tretorn wrote: »

The wealthy areas will refuse to take travellers and they have the influence to stop the council imposing travellers. The powerful and influential and their relatives mostly live in nice parts of Dublin and halting sites are generally built in disadvantaged areas. Land is cheaper in less popular areas so local authorities can build halting sites cheaper. The council are now buying houses for travellers too but the budget for this is probably approximately three hundred thousand euros per house and you would only buy houses at this price in poor areas.

Surely it’s worth paying a bit more for halting sites in rich areas. That would end a lot of deprivation at a shot.

Can’t see why it isn’t being done. From what I read in the Irish Times and other elite papers, and from rich and upper middle class tweeters most of this people are avowedly anti racist, and believe that travellers are discriminated against. If some of the problems that travellers are having is due to the surrounding settled community being prejudiced and racist then that problem is also solved. Schools will be welcoming for instance. The local pubs and clubs won’t discriminate. Travellers will be readily invited into afternoon tea.

At least that’s what I would surmise by the way people in these areas tend to represent themselves.

I must be missing something.

KevRossi

KevRossi wrote: »

That does not look good IMO. It's the little things that trip you up, as Albert Reynolds infamously said.

Brian Lenihan lost the assured election in 1990 on something like this, but there isn't enough time left for this to gain traction.

I think The Sun is a rag, but if this is true, then some answers need to eb given. A "we don't comment on staff issues" is a slap in the face to a direct question on what is potentially abuse of taxpayers money.

The Aras is not above scrutiny, on the contrary it should be setting an example to the rest of Government, and MDH as a proclaimed socialist should not be hiding behind his press office.

This needs answers before Friday.

I’d like to know if she is an paye employee. If she is an employee, are her duties assisting Sabina and flower arranging? If her salary is for assisting only, does she take time from her annual leave entitlement to arrange the flowers and raise invoices?

If someone else is now doing the flower arranging, wouldn’t it be cost effective to use a gifted florist already in employment in the Aras?

Fann Linn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Surely it’s worth paying a bit more for halting sites in rich areas. That would end a lot of deprivation at a shot.

Can’t see why it isn’t being done. From what I read in the Irish Times and other elite papers, and from rich and upper middle class tweeters most of this people are avowedly anti racist, and believe that travellers are discriminated against. If some of the problems that travellers are having is due to the surrounding settled community being prejudiced and racist then that problem is also solved. Schools will be welcoming for instance. The local pubs and clubs won’t discriminate. At least that’s what I would surmise by the way people in these areas tend to represent themselves.

I must be missing something.

Yes. And all those Syrians were taken in by Good Samaritans also.

Omackeral

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Heres a question I have. I looked up halting sites in Dublin and the list seems to be the most deprived areas. Isn’t this unfair on both groups? If travellers are discriminated against and deprived, but can live anywhere in the city where a site is made available, why aren’t the halting sites built in rich areas? This would eliminate a lot of deprivation at least outside the halting site itself. Also the rich and upper middle classes have money and time to spend - and could volunteer to help with some issues the travellers face (in lieu perhaps of that trip to Africa in 4th year to build houses).

Anybody understand this? Is it an oversight? A mistake?

Nimby
/ˈnɪmbi/
noun (INFORMAL)

A person who objects to the siting of something perceived as unpleasant or hazardous in their own neighbourhood, especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.

pumpkin4life

elperello

Fann Linn wrote: »

Or, sit on your arse, bang out a heap of kids and let the Council accomodate you in a similar house.

They are not great choices.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Fann Linn wrote: »

Yes. And all those Syrians were taken in by Good Samaritans also.

That was surprising too. In Germany a fair amount of refugees were housed in private housing. Yet here, with the strongest anti racist middle and upper class in Europe, and plenty of empty nesters there was no large supply of housing offered.

Presumably it was an oversight.

jace_da_face

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Oh, that must be Leo's latest press release.

pumpkin4life

pumpkin4life wrote: »

He’s not the president, he’s a very naughty boy!

jace_da_face

He did lie about the shark though!