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

tabby aspreme

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?

I would think it was decided at a council meeting and probably went like this, all the councillors were asked, who wouldn't mind a halting site near them, the SF, PBP, AAA, Solidarity, and other left leaning councillors all said yes , and as very few of these people come from the leafy suburbs, except for Rich Boy and Paul Murphy, there are no halting site's in the leafy suburbs, I may be totally wrong with this notion, so maybe you should ask the SF Mayor and Deputy Mayor .

Calhoun

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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.

You should ask the elderly posting in this thread lol.

jace_da_face

Fann Linn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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.

Ah no. There was plenty offered. Initially. In fact I recall them lining up on da Lavelahn offering beds and houses.

And then reality hit home, and all those offers dried up.

Fann Linn

elperello wrote: »

They are not great choices.

Self inflicted. There are jobs out there.

The high horse brigade

jace_da_face wrote: »

[IMG]hxdps://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=464450&stc=1&d=1540319440[/IMG]

Wow. We've never seen that before!!

tretorn

A family I know took in a refugee, I nearly fainted at the idea. There is no way I would bring unvetted males into my family home and no one knows anything about undocumented refugees.

He started off grand and then became obnoxious to the female members of the household. He stopped going to school, he was supposed to be seventeen and he then started bringing friends back to the house in the early hours and cooked food for them. He was asked not to do this because there were exam students in the house and he just ignored the person who owned the house.

The last I heard was the family were going to ask him to leave.

MrMusician18

EdgeCase wrote: »

The president does not really have any scope to simply refuse to sign legislation on a whim. It's only possible where it's unconstitutional and they have to refer it, after discussion with the Council of State, to the Supreme Court.

They can't use the power to block legislation they don't like, only have it constitutionally tested.

However, that's also a right that *all* people in Ireland have to some extent through the courts. If you identify that a piece of legislation is possibly unconstitutional, particularly during a court case where it's being used, you can pursue that and we have had quite a few cases where pieces of legislation were 'struck down' as unconstitutional by the courts. This is also one of the weird scenarios where the law can act somewhat retrospectively too.

So, basically the president's power is only a fairly limited check and balance in the system. It's nothing at all like the US president.

I would assume if a president were to deliberately block legislation by flatly refusing to sign it, that it could easily end up in a constitutional crisis and their impeachment. They were never intended to have that kind of total veto. To date, that has never arisen as a problem.

I mean, as a hypothetical example, if a president were to take issue with say the abortion legislation, they can only refer it to the Supreme Court. If it's deemed to be constitutional legislation, then they must sign it. If they refused point blank, then it would be a case of them acting ultra vires (beyond their legal powers) and they would be open to impeachment or their resignation on a matter of personal beliefs.

This is why I don't really see the point in the debates discussing things like "would you sign x, y or z.." If it's constitutional, they have to sign it.

The debates need to be focused on what these candidates are actually proposing to do in the office. It's a non-political, ceremonial role and it should really be about representing, interpreting and uniting the country and providing a very different type of leadership to the Taoiseach or any other political figure.

There's actually been a move, I believe starting with McAleese where it's felt that it's better if the president never refers a bill to the supreme Court as then the bill cannot be challenged by a private citizen on constitutional grounds. When an issue is presented in the context of a real life case, it can make all the difference.

Franz Von Peppercorn

tabby aspreme wrote: »

I would think it was decided at a council meeting and probably went like this, all the councillors were asked, who wouldn't mind a halting site near them, the SF, PBP, AAA, Solidarity, and other left leaning councillors all said yes , and as very few of these people come from the leafy suburbs, except for Rich Boy and Paul Murphy, there are no halting site's in the leafy suburbs, I may be totally wrong with this notion, so maybe you should ask the SF Mayor and Deputy Mayor .

You’d think people in the leafy suburbs would be campaigning for housing sites, given the problems in traveller culture aren’t in fact caused internally but externally. They could be the cure.

Must be missing something.

MrMusician18

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You’d think people in the leafy suburbs would be campaigning for housing sites, given the problems in traveller culture aren’t in fact caused internally but externally. They could be the cure.

Must be missing something.

I don't think anyone would want a halting site near their home.

Fann Linn

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I don't think anyone would want a halting site near their home.

Except for 5 Presidential candidates.

Calhoun

Wasn't there a case recently of a TD objecting to a halting site near them as the area wouldn't suit?

Conservative

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.

I spend about 40% of my time in the north and the fact that he wasn't mentally corrupted by the absolute nutters on either side here is a major positive in my view.

The best people I encounter are those that have completely discarded it.

Fann Linn

Calhoun wrote: »

Wasn't there a case recently of a TD objecting to a halting site near them as the area wouldn't suit?

Yep. A FG TD near where the halting site fire took place.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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.

Not only have I said it from the get go I have said repeatedly, I see no one better than MDH for the role of president.
I never said once that the council was being dishonest. I simply don't (nor do you) have access t what went on or what was promised in the negotiations.

Omackeral wrote: »

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.

His comment incited hate and were intended to do so. That people have translated this to some sort of cogent policy speaks volumes to be honest. It seems to me to be a cohort that hasn't figured out thow to effect change or it's a cohort that isn't really that bothered about change (or they would have done something about it) it's just 'good to spout generalised hate about a community.' There really is not much more being said.

tretorn wrote: »

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.

The family have said that they are happy where they are, not everyone's lifestyle is the same. What can I or anyone do about that?

LiamoSail wrote: »

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.

Unless youchange the government, there is no way to affect that. We cannot individually decide who benefits from welfare, that is just reactionary silliness tbh. Casey can do nothing about it either, only point to a problem that we all have known exists for yonks. Lobbying your TD is a much more effective way.

tretorn

The Local Authorities sit down and draw up plans for traveller housing and the Department of Housing and Environment will throw any amount of money at any Local Authority that actually gets plans off the drawing board.

The council officials who decide where sites go will have to take all their rellies homes into consideration before sites are chosen. no Proposed site will be located anywhere near officials houses. The officials will spend the day reassuring members of the public, that, no, of course your houses wont be devalued when the entourage of Mc Donaghs arrive, you might even be told that travellers dont dirty their own nest, ie they will housebreak in other areas. The problem is even accepting a halting site wont protect you from the Mc Donaghs because why they mightnt rob you their cousins from the next county will.

The council officials spend happy hours with drawing boards and nice maps showing where the sites are to go. Sometims they even have doctored pictures of existing halting sites complete with freckled children playing and nicely planted flowers etc. There wont be a horse or a vicious badly treated unlicenced dog anywhere, the Halting Site pics will resemble some upmarket holiday park owned by milliionaires in Brittas Bay.

The Officials will then go to the councillors with the maps and plans and the councillors will all think halting sites are a great idea but not in their area, they will have got hundreds of texts and emails from local residents association so they know to support halting sites is political suicide. The powerful and wealthy are much better able to mobilise opposition to halting sites and they will go to any lengths and spend any amount of money required to avoid having traveller children in their local school, these same people will call everyone else a racist and they will all be for uncontrolled immigration too. They will block accommodation of immigrants just as effectively as they will block traveller accommodation, they are so hypocritical.

FrancieBrady

Conservative wrote: »

I spend about 40% of my time in the north and the fact that he wasn't mentally corrupted by the absolute nutters on either side here is a major positive in my view.

The best people I encounter are those that have completely discarded it.

What??

LiamoSail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Unless youchange the government, there is no way to affect that. We cannot individually decide who benefits from welfare, that is just reactionary silliness tbh. Casey can do nothing about it either, only point to a problem that we all have known exists for yonks. Lobbying your TD is a much more effective way.

You're avoiding the question because you can't justify it.

Your attempt to equate an OAP or person in receipt of disability with an individual who simply has no desire to work is pathetic. The person choosing not to work is robbing every tax payer in this country, as well as depriving those in genuine need.

One final time. Why should the tax payer fund the lifestyle of a person who chooses not to work?

goat2

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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.

I have just become an empty nester, and no I would not take responsibility for anyone, I have reared and taken responsibility for the children I have, gave it my all, gave up a lot for them,
Now that I have gotten used to having time for me, money is now mine, time is now mine, no more watching clock for others, I am loving it,
House to myself, remote control to myself, car to myself, nobody emptying the tank of car for me, shopping smaller, cheaper,
what is not great about that.
It is all about, me me me now

goat2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not only have I said it from the get go I have said repeatedly, I see no one better than MDH for the role of president.
I never said once that the council was being dishonest. I simply don't (nor do you) have access t what went on or what was promised in the negotiations.

His comment incited hate and were intended to do so. That people have translated this to some sort of cogent policy speaks volumes to be honest. It seems to me to be a cohort that hasn't figured out thow to effect change or it's a cohort that isn't really that bothered about change (or they would have done something about it) it's just 'good to spout generalised hate about a community.' There really is not much more being said.

The family have said that they are happy where they are, not everyone's lifestyle is the same. What can I or anyone do about that?

Unless youchange the government, there is no way to affect that. We cannot individually decide who benefits from welfare, that is just reactionary silliness tbh. Casey can do nothing about it either, only point to a problem that we all have known exists for yonks. Lobbying your TD is a much more effective way.

The Proclamation states, we should treat the children of this Nation equally,

FrancieBrady

goat2 wrote: »

The Proclamation states, we should treat the children of this Nation equally,

Honestly this is getting boring now.
A traveller has not got one single right more than you have.

An entitlement is not the same as a right. The person next door entitled to a medical card while I am not, is still my equal and I his/hers.

elperello

Fann Linn wrote: »

Self inflicted. There are jobs out there.

Missing the point.
We are all in danger of falling into traps.

FrancieBrady

LiamoSail wrote: »

You're avoiding the question because you can't justify it.

Your attempt to equate an OAP or person in receipt of disability with an individual who simply has no desire to work is pathetic. The person choosing not to work is robbing every tax payer in this country, as well as depriving those in genuine need.

One final time. Why should the tax payer fund the lifestyle of a person who chooses not to work?

I am not justifying anything. If the government choose to fund the lifestyle of someone who chooses not to work, who do you blame most?

I blame the government first and then the people who keep electing them. I don't target an already marginalised community to incite what is basically a mob KNOWING that they will give me a protest vote to win a position I know I can do nothing governmental in.

Fecking hell.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not only have I said it from the get go I have said repeatedly, I see no one better than MDH for the role of president.
I never said once that the council was being dishonest. I simply don't (nor do you) have access t what went on or what was promised in the negotiations.

His comment incited hate and were intended to do so. That people have translated this to some sort of cogent policy speaks volumes to be honest. It seems to me to be a cohort that hasn't figured out thow to effect change or it's a cohort that isn't really that bothered about change (or they would have done something about it) it's just 'good to spout generalised hate about a community.' There really is not much more being said.

The family have said that they are happy where they are, not everyone's lifestyle is the same. What can I or anyone do about that?

Unless youchange the government, there is no way to affect that. We cannot individually decide who benefits from welfare, that is just reactionary silliness tbh. Casey can do nothing about it either, only point to a problem that we all have known exists for yonks. Lobbying your TD is a much more effective way.

The council have said that the agreement was that houses would be provided and the illegal traveler encampment would be cleaned up. Never was horse grazing or accommodation part of the agreement yet you don’t believe the council and choose to believe the travelers because you think it undermythr credibility of your favourite candidates main rival.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

The council have said that the agreement was that houses would be provided and the illegal traveler encampment would be cleaned up. Never was horse grazing or accommodation part of the agreement yet you don’t believe the council and choose to believe the travelers because you think it undermythr credibility of your favourite candidates main rival.

I said I don't believe either because I have nothing to go on, only what people 'said'.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said I don't believe either because I have nothing to go on, only what people 'said'.

Yet you believe what Michael D says. Hypocrisy no?

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yet you believe what Michael D says. Hypocrisy no?

About what?

weldoninhio

goat2 wrote: »

I have just become an empty nester, and no I would not take responsibility for anyone, I have reared and taken responsibility for the children I have, gave it my all, gave up a lot for them,
Now that I have gotten used to having time for me, money is now mine, time is now mine, no more watching clock for others, I am loving it,
House to myself, remote control to myself, car to myself, nobody emptying the tank of car for me, shopping smaller, cheaper,
what is not great about that.
It is all about, me me me now

What a racist, bigoted viewpoint. You’d have to be heartless not taking in someone who has less than you if you have space.











Is what the idiots in this thread would claim of Peter Casey if he’d made the above statement.

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am not justifying anything. If the government choose to fund the lifestyle of someone who chooses not to work, who do you blame most?

I blame the government first and then the people who keep electing them. I don't target an already marginalised community to incite what is basically a mob KNOWING that they will give me a protest vote to win a position I know I can do nothing governmental in.

Fecking hell.

Ah here Francie, who are you calling a mob?
There are people voicing their opinion, not going up the road with pitchforks and hedge knives.
There are no crowds out there wanting to be militarised to batter anybody.
Get a grip!

MrMusician18

Was it Michael D that kept the new official cars garaged for a year so he wouldn't be seen in a car on the latest plates?