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

Huntergonzo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, I will not ignore lies being told about me. I don't care what you infer that to mean.

And I haven't given up. I will continue to point out lies and mis-truths being told here because that is a duty of a democrat - to shut down the loud mouths and the hate mongers.

Sorry I gave up after the first sentence ;-)

Skylinehead

Conservative wrote: »

Don't believe so. Just a bit thick.

Mod: Do not post in here again, when you return.

jimgoose

Bannasidhe wrote: »

God Given???

Nothing to do with the Iona Institute or any of these headbangers Chief, "God-given" in these contexts is analogous to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" sort of thing.

Spanish Eyes

Does anyone know what Traveller specific accommodation actually is, when compared with the accommodation allocated to those in need of social housing who are NOT Travellers?

I'm guessing room for a few mobiles and caravans and a few horses and a shed for the sulky trap or something.

Or maybe more mundanely they are all put together in the one development for the safety of everyone else!

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, I will not ignore lies being told about me. I don't care what you infer that to mean.

And I haven't given up. I will continue to point out lies and mis-truths being told here because that is a duty of a democrat - to shut down the loud mouths and the hate mongers.

Yes Francie, the “duty of a democrat” indeed. The old phrase used to be “no free speech to traitors”.

pumpkin4life

LiamoSail wrote: »

If Casey polls well it demonstrates that Varadkar is significantly out of touch with the workforce, given the tone he took against Casey.

Should Casey achieve a vote of 20%, it would largely be made up of votes from those in the workforce. That could be 40% of the country's workforce. Should that be the case, Varadkar's coat would be on a shoddy peg

I was watching a video with Gran Torino and John Waters there.

I disagree with Waters on a few things, but said something very interesting about Varadker.

He said that while most politicians are driven by power (Charlie Haughey the classic Irish example), there has been a new wave of politicians who are not really interested in power but in image and being liked. Varadker is more interested in being the cool guy with all the right and trendy opinions and getting his photo taken with Trudeau and taking a picture of the restaurant he was in and uploading it on Instagram, rather than wanting a dumptruck of money and his own island, like Charlie Haughey did.

The image politician is far more dangerous than the corrupt Haughey politician because the latter needs you to be more involved in how your country properly runs and succeeds. There is no Patrick Bateman. There is no Leo Varadker. If the image is to be right, he'll be right. If the image is to be left, he'll be left.

You attack Varadker by attacking his image: that he is not the cool guy and all his opinions are bollocks. A Casey president would meltdown Varadker, because it would be a constant reminder that maybe Varadker is not as down with the lads as he once taught.

Which is hilarious, because Casey is a massive leftie himself as well. But with this one topic on Travellers, he's clearly worse than Castro and whatever mass murdering communist dictator Higgins is a fan of combined.

Padraig Mor

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Does anyone know what Traveller specific accommodation actually is, when compared with the accommodation allocated to those in need of social housing who are NOT Travellers?

I'm guessing room for a few mobiles and caravans and a few horses and a shed for the sulky trap or something.

Or maybe more mundanely they are all put together in the one development for the safety of everyone else!

Also built to a much higher structural standard - steel reinforced concrete etc - to prevent them being wrecked (quickly anyway).

FrancieBrady

BattleCorp wrote: »

What exactly did Casey say that wasn't right? The fact that travellers are on land that they don't own?

Again. He tried to imply that SEMS gave travellers more rights - it doesn't and not one poster nor Casey has been able to demonstrate that. Casey tried to say that 'benefits' they receive prove it and got rightly lambasted for it on the TV debate.
It isn't 'right' to say that.
And it is also not 'right' to say that travellers are basically people who camp on other people's land.

That is not to go into all the other lies and mis-truths and just factually wrong stuff he has employed in his campaign.

His percentage vote will illustrate to any unscrupulous politician just how many people exist in this country that can be manipulated, through lack of awareness of the democracy they live in and how it works, and who are willing to vote on the basis of that ignorance.
Good luck to all those who wish to be headcounted in that demographic tomorrow.

Bannasidhe

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe look into the history of rights before dismissing the truth. Liberals hate to have it pointed out that the natural and inalienable rights they enjoy are largely a christian concept.

Sure they are.

No one ever had any rights before Christianity.
Ever.
Anywhere.

Not even in The Code of Ur-Nammu which was written over 2,000 years before Christianity existed and outlines some of the rights of the people of Mesopotamia.

Or under the Brehon Laws which were already in existence before Patrick was a slave.

JMNolan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And I haven't given up. I will continue to point out lies and mis-truths being told here because that is a duty of a democrat - to shut down the loud mouths and the hate mongers.

No it's not.

PlaneSpeeking

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Does anyone know what Traveller specific accommodation actually is, when compared with the accommodation allocated to those in need of social housing who are NOT Travellers?

I'm guessing room for a few mobiles and caravans and a few horses and a shed for the sulky trap or something.

Or maybe more mundanely they are all put together in the one development for the safety of everyone else!

All of the above possibly.

I keep thinking of my grandfather living in the North, having to leave home at 20 to go to that Americky for work.

7 of them in one run down old place.

Imagine they are offered a new gaff to replace the old one - turn it down as it doesn't have a Pilates studio, swimming pool and room for several ponies.

He's be disgusted with his country and rightly so.

Bannasidhe

Gravelly wrote: »

Disabled people and the elderly have needs that require modified housing. Travellers don't, they simply demand, and get "traveller-specific" housing.



The average local authority house costs €180,000 to build. The average traveller-specific house costs €400,000 to build.

You said non-Travellers don't have special entitlements when it comes to housing. I pointed out that is not factually correct.

And proof?

FrancieBrady

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

All of the above possibly.

I keep thinking of my grandfather living in the North, having to leave home at 20 to go to that Americky for work.

7 of them in one run down old place.

Imagine they are offered a new gaff to replace the old one - turn it down as it doesn't have a Pilates studio, swimming pool and room for several ponies.

He's be disgusted with his country and rightly so.

Hundreds turn down social housing every year from all strata of society. Sorry to put facts in the way of your rant again.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/20-families-reject-council-housing-offers-three-times-234294.html

jimgoose

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sure they are.

No one ever had any rights before Christianity.
Ever.
Anywhere.

Not even in The Code of Ur-Nammu...

I love that - that includes such gems as "If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.", "If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male." and my personal favourite, "If a man’s slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt.".

:pac:

Omackeral

Kivaro wrote: »

I will also not forget Leo Varadkar's and Fine Gael's attempt to silence a voice who had the audacity to stand up and speak out

This is a very important thing to reiterate. That disgusted me. Never really had an issue with Mr Varadkar before, politicians by their very nature are poloarising but this rightly turned me off him. How dare he. One of the many straws that broke the camels back.

FrancieBrady

JMNolan wrote: »

No it's not.

I consider it one. And that is enough for me.

jace_da_face

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hundreds turn down social housing every year from all strata of society. Sorry to put facts in the way of your rant again.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/20-families-reject-council-housing-offers-three-times-234294.html

And they should all go to the bottom of the queue.

PlaneSpeeking

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And it is also not 'right' to say that travellers are basically people who camp on other people's land.

It very much is accurate, correct and truthful to say that.

You may wish to update your Traveller frame of reference to less this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG1O4bZNrcU

and more this:

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/crime/irish-people-irish-travellers-netherlands-12336131

https://www.thesun.ie/news/1808472/major-organised-traveller-gang-targeted-by-criminal-assets-bureau-over-series-of-dodgy-land-deals/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rathkeale-a-small-irish-town-swollen-by-the-proceeds-of-crime-a6904141.html

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/violent-gang-arrested-after-a-series-of-brutal-rural-robberies-36063816.html

SafeSurfer

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sure they are.

No one ever had any rights before Christianity.
Ever.
Anywhere.

Not even in The Code of Ur-Nammu which was written over 2,000 years before Christianity existed and outlines some of the rights of the people of Mesopotamia.

Or under the Brehon Laws which were already in existence before Patrick was a slave.

You know it is in the context of rights as they are understood today. god with a small g rights were contextualised largely by Christian philosophers.

Gravelly

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Does anyone know what Traveller specific accommodation actually is, when compared with the accommodation allocated to those in need of social housing who are NOT Travellers?

I'm guessing room for a few mobiles and caravans and a few horses and a shed for the sulky trap or something.

Or maybe more mundanely they are all put together in the one development for the safety of everyone else!

I've had some experience of designing it through my job. There's several long and boring documents you can read online, but it basically boils down to "whatever the travellers want" - it usually means more bedrooms than a standard local authority home, a much larger outdoor area, including a storage area for scrap, stand for a caravan, and sometimes a stable. There is almost always an outbuilding, that can range from a simple shed, to a fully kitted out granny flat. Also, each development is normally specifically assigned to one extended family, to avoid feuding. The footprint of the development is always larger than standard, and the density of the housing on it always lower.

Bannasidhe

jimgoose wrote: »

I love that - that includes such gems as "If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.", "If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male." and my personal favourite, "If a man’s slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt.".

:pac:

Even funnier are some of Henry VIII's proclamations.
The one outlawing "buggery" then goes on to say Welsh people weren't allowed to live beyond Offa's Dyke.

jmayo

Technocentral wrote: »

??? Those travellers who want extra land and stables are assholes, I object to ALL travellers being tarred with the same brush, thats my problem not legitimate criticism!

If I said that over 80% of travellers are unemployed could that be used as legitimate reason to infer that as a group they are either pretty lazy or unemployable for some reasons.

What percentage does it take for one to infer that the group as a whole can be basically classed as something ?

Does it have to be 100.00 %?

BattleCorp

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again. He tried to imply that SEMS gave travellers more rights - it doesn't and not one poster nor Casey has been able to demonstrate that. Casey tried to say that 'benefits' they receive prove it and got rightly lambasted for it on the TV debate.
It isn't 'right' to say that.

If there are no extra rights to be gotten from it, why did the Travellers push so hard to be designated an ethnic minority?

And it is also not 'right' to say that travellers are basically people who camp on other people's land.

Most travellers don't have their own land. Most are either squatting on other people's land or in land owned by the County Councils.

His percentage vote will illustrate to any unscrupulous politician just how many people exist in this country that can be manipulated, through lack of awareness of the democracy they live in and how it works, and who are willing to vote on the basis of that ignorance.
Good luck to all those who wish to be headcounted in that demographic tomorrow.

So, you think if I vote for Casey it is through ignorance?

Spanish Eyes

Gravelly wrote: »

I've had some experience of designing it through my job. There's several long and boring documents you can read online, but it basically boils down to "whatever the travellers want" - it usually means more bedrooms than a standard local authority home, a much larger outdoor area, including a storage area for scrap, stand for a caravan, and sometimes a stable. There is almost always an outbuilding, that can range from a simple shed, to a fully kitted out granny flat. Also, each development is normally specifically assigned to one extended family, to avoid feuding. The footprint of the development is always larger than standard, and the density of the housing on it always lower.

Thanks for the information. I wasn't too far off the mark so

jimgoose

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You know it is in the context of rights as they are understood today. god with a small g rights were contextualised largely by Christian philosophers.

"God" in the context of rights is generally to be understood as an authority higher than humankind's. One could call it Nature, Gaia, the Multiverse, or indeed the Judaeo-Christian notion of god.

Gravelly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You said non-Travellers don't have special entitlements when it comes to housing. I pointed out that is not factually correct.

And proof?

You asked for an answer and got it, I have no interest in playing your goalpost moving game. Only a simpleton would compare the demand of travellers with the needs of the disabled.

If you want to google my figures go right ahead, otherwise search the links I already provided.

jace_da_face

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

It very much is accurate, correct and truthful to say that.

You may wish to update your Traveller frame of reference to less this:



and more this:

A little bit of rhino horn could go along way in buying up Rathkeale eh

Gravelly

BTW, in relation to the case where the families wouldn't move into the mansions built for them until they had at least two stables and a field each - this is not unusual - there is another case of a similar nature happening in Kerry at the moment (where I am told the costs for a unit for ONE family has escalated to over €1,000,000) and there is another case brewing up nicely in the midlands.

Technocentral

jmayo wrote: »

Technocentral wrote: »

??? Those travellers who want extra land and stables are assholes, I object to ALL travellers being tarred with the same brush, thats my problem not legitimate criticism!

If I said that over 80% of travellers are unemployed could that be used as legitimate reason to infer that as a group they are either pretty lazy or unemployable for some reasons.

What percentage does it take for one to infer that the group as a whole can be basically classed as something ?

Does it have to be 100.00 %?

Doubt if many employers take on travellers, they are in the position of the Irish in Britain in the 50s, prejudice eventually declines though.

gmisk

jmayo wrote: »

If I said that over 80% of travellers are unemployed could that be used as legitimate reason to infer that as a group they are either pretty lazy or unemployable for some reasons.

What percentage does it take for one to infer that the group as a whole can be basically classed as something ?

Does it have to be 100.00 %?

For me 100% yes, unless you want to qualify what you are saying.
It really isnt fair to tar everyone in a diverse and wide ranging group with the same brush.