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

gmisk

oceanman wrote: »

I didn't know he was anti EU...might give him my vote for that alone!

So you are up for Ireland having there own Brexit? That will work out brilliantly I'd say...

FrancieBrady

Omackeral wrote: »

Sweet Lord Baby Jaysis in the manger. He was asked about them. How is that him targetting anyone!?

So why didn't he 'generalise' about all the abuses of social welfare and all the crime committed.
He selected (targetted) one community to attack. And the reaction here alone will show you a motive for doing that.
What ever you think of the other candidates they didn't stoop that low.

oceanman

gmisk wrote: »

So you are up for Ireland having there own Brexit? That will work out brilliantly I'd say...

I was having a laugh....I wouldn't vote for the guy in a million years

wexie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you now comment on the links that show hundreds of refusals of various types of social housing for a variety of reasons including unsuitability (the travellers in Tipp point)

Have any argument been out forward as to why these houses are unsuitable? Beyond not having stables and grazing that is?

If we can all agree that the demand for stables and grazing is completely unreasonable and pretty far from any kind of economic reality...

And they haven't put forward any other reasons do to not think perhaps they need to either finance themselves or change what they consider suitable?

What if I decided only houses with a gym and a 6 car garage are suitable to my 'needs' (which I defined myself) should I now expect the state to furnish me with a house with a gym and 6 car garage?

FrancieBrady

wexie wrote: »

Have any argument been out forward as to why these houses are unsuitable? Beyond not having stables and grazing that is?

If we can all agree that the demand for stables and grazing is completely unreasonable and pretty far from any kind of economic reality...

And they haven't put forward any other reasons do to not think perhaps they need to either finance themselves or change what they consider suitable?

What if I decided only houses with a gym and a 6 car garage are suitable to my 'needs' (which I defined myself) should I now expect the state to furnish me with a house with a gym and 6 car garage?

I haven't defended their decision, if that is what you are implying.
I have simply said the ball is in the Tipp LA court. Give the houses to somebody else, as the McCarthy's have said they are unsuitable.
People refuse social housing all the time,

Plumbthedepths

Hilarious to suggest that anyone other than the McCarthy families can benefit from these homes. Of course there well be no issue with someone else occupying a house that was originally built for members of this traveller group. They will of course be great neighbours.......

FrancieBrady

By the way, just for the record again: I listened to the Floating Voter podcast again there and Casey introduced the topic of Travellers and Tipp and SEMS himself while on the subject of homelessness.

wexie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I haven't defended their decision, if that is what you are implying.

No not at all, I'm genuinely wondering have any other arguments been it forward as to why these houses are unsuitable to their particular needs.

If it really is stables and grazing then someone really needs to sit these people down regarding the realities of social housing.

If they are making an argument they are entitled to houses with stables and grazing based on being a protected ethnic minority well....

FrancieBrady

wexie wrote: »

No not at all, I'm genuinely wondering have any other arguments been it forward as to why these houses are unsuitable to their particular needs.

If it really is stables and grazing then someone really needs to sit these people down regarding the realities of social housing.

If they are making an argument they are entitled to houses with stables and grazing based on being a protected ethnic minority well....

Tipp LA approached them. They say they are happy where they are, they have lived there for 50yrs apparently.

Confusing mess of a story, I know, but them is the facts of it.

kal7

We should see if all the presidential candidates, apart from Peter Casey, would like to live in the 6 houses.

Plumbthedepths

kal7 wrote:

We should see if all the presidential candidates, apart from Peter Casey, would like to live in the 6 houses.

Even if you got an answer would you believe any of the 5 of them. I know I wouldn't.

KrustyUCC

wexie wrote: »

No not at all, I'm genuinely wondering have any other arguments been it forward as to why these houses are unsuitable to their particular needs.

If it really is stables and grazing then someone really needs to sit these people down regarding the realities of social housing.

If they are making an argument they are entitled to houses with stables and grazing based on being a protected ethnic minority well....

well these are the original arguments

“They were to be built with a half-acre behind each house, with two stables,” Philip McCarthy, one of the residents of the “unauthorised” occupation at Cabragh Bridge, said at the weekend.
“They [Tipperary County Council] changed it to a group project, like a mini-housing estate... The agreement was two stables and a half an acre for the horses, but they never came up with that.”
Mr McCarthy, who is in his 40s and has lived on the bridge all his life, said the council made the original agreement with his late father, William McCarthy, more than a decade ago.
However, the council said they have provided what they said they would provide.

“Our livestock is our culture, and a big, big part of our life,” Mr McCarthy said. “We’ll have to come to some sort of agreement, because otherwise it’s no good to us. We have paddocks here and stables and stuff, which is not across the way [in the new development]. It’s a beautiful project and we’re happy with the project, but there’s no room for the livestock.
“That’s what’s holding us up at the moment. They want us to drop our culture and throw it aside. It’s a very, very hard thing for us to do. It’s in our life, we’re going back centuries.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/families-want-stables-for-horses-before-moving-into-new-homes-1.3655385

wexie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

wexie wrote: »

No not at all, I'm genuinely wondering have any other arguments been it forward as to why these houses are unsuitable to their particular needs.

If it really is stables and grazing then someone really needs to sit these people down regarding the realities of social housing.

If they are making an argument they are entitled to houses with stables and grazing based on being a protected ethnic minority well....

Tipp LA approached them. They say they are happy where they are, they have lived there for 50yrs apparently.

Confusing mess of a story, I know, but them is the facts of it.

But.... then why did the houses get built?

Is it a case that TCC want them gone from where they are and they're digging in their heels and saying 'if you want us gone this is what it will take'?

Odd story indeed

KrustyUCC

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Tipp LA approached them. They say they are happy where they are, they have lived there for 50yrs apparently.

Confusing mess of a story, I know, but them is the facts of it.

the families have been living on an "unauthorised" site across the road for decades and are refusing to move pending the provision of horse accommodation.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/horse-has-bolted-council-will-not-provide-stables-for-1-7m-traveller-homes-in-local-standoff-37398684.html

hawkelady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By the way, just for the record again: I listened to the Floating Voter podcast again there and Casey introduced the topic of Travellers and Tipp and SEMS himself while on the subject of homelessness.

God , I can’t wait for this whole thing to be over, mainly so you can stop posting here francie. Are you being paid for the crap you spout .. it’s nauseating tbh. 98% of the guys and lassies in this thread think so .. funnily enough , the same percentage of unemployed travellers !! Go figure

buried

Get the sneaking suspicion Francie may be a bit like me, and likes the drama of the proper general elections and all that craic and is just firmly pitching up his own camp to get a bit of craic from this minor enough election, amirite Francie? Ima right aren't I? lol

FrancieBrady

wexie wrote: »

But.... then why did the houses get built?

Is it a case that TCC want them gone from where they are and they're digging in their heels and saying 'if you want us gone this is what it will take'?

Odd story indeed

I think it is well past the stage now that we should have full disclosure of what went on.

I have no problem believing that either the travellers are wrong or the LA is wrong, or that it is a mixture of both.

It still doesn't imply that all travellers would do the same thing or that all LA's would do the same thing.

Casey is entirely wrong that SEMS caused this as SEMS was only instituted last year and this has been going on since before that. A cheap shot.

FrancieBrady

buried wrote: »

Get the sneaking suspicion Francie may be a bit like me, and likes the drama of the proper general elections and all that craic and is just firmly pitching up his own camp to get a bit of craic from this minor enough election, amirite Francie? Ima right aren't I? lol

I love elections, yes.
I also love a good debate.

buried

lol I love them too, but this one is not my sort of meal. Really looking forward to the proper one.

Brendan Bendar

hawkelady wrote: »

God , I can’t wait for this whole thing to be over, mainly so you can stop posting here francie. Are you being paid for the crap you spout .. it’s nauseating tbh. 98% of the guys and lassies in this thread think so .. funnily enough , the same percentage of unemployed travellers !! Go figure

Check out the Barry mcElduff thread hawk, if you really want to go over the top.

I won’t post a link in case you ...erm... take very serious steps toward the river.

wexie

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it is well past the stage now that we should have full disclosure of what went on.

Hate to say it but I'd have to agree with you you'd think there would be notes and minutes of all these meetings there must have been over the years?!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no problem believing that either the travellers are wrong or the LA is wrong, or that it is a mixture of both.

Well they can't both be right anyways

tretorn

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/man-sentenced-to-nine-months-in-jail-after-stealing-700-from-97-year-old-1.3674102

Another day in Court for the ethnic minority.

Do all these low lifes qualify for free legal aid.

FrancieBrady

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Check out the Barry mcElduff thread hawk, if you really want to go over the top.

I won’t post a link in case you ...erm... take very serious steps toward the river.

Brendy; the man that loves an echo chamber.

I make no apology to you or anyone else for having an opinion. So you can trot on with your insinuation and attempted deflection. Contribute to the topic don't snipe from the sidelines. Pathetic.

hatrickpatrick

I'll now be giving Casey my #2. Not because I agree with his remarks, but to make a stand against the ongoing paradigm that people should have to moderate their opinions before speaking them, or be punished in some way. F*ck that.

The people should be able to vote against this guy if they don't agree with what he has to say. The attempts to hound him out of the race prematurely, thus denying people the opportunity to vote on his ideology, are undemocratic in the extreme - and ironically, someone who strongly disagrees with his opinion will now be giving him a high voting preference purely because in that voter's opinion, freedom of expression is more important than any of the actual issues around his comments.

I've said it before, and I'll say it ad nauseum - the SJW brigade run the very real risk of losing elections (and in my view have already done so to some extent, see Trump and Brexit) purely because their dirty tactics piss people off enough to vote against them out of spite. I've never done that before but I will be doing so this time - the idea that anyone should withdraw from an election because they've said something objectionable, rather than merely being allowed to say it and see if people choose to vote against them as a result, is utterly abhorrent. The tearing down and vandalism of opposition posters during the marriage and repeal referenda, as well as the even more insidious tactic of threatening boycotts of venues which host meetings and events by the opposition, are part of the same trend of harassing certain political opinions into silence. And I personally know people who voted against marriage equality because "vote yes or else you're a scumbag" style campaigning pissed them off enough to do so even though they initially supported the proposal.

Absolutely appalling in my view.

tretorn

The retired vet was very brave to go to court as a witness.

Most people wouldnt want to draw travellers onto themselves so they wouldnt report the theft.

This is probably one of the reasons why the Gardai cant get these scrotes, they never pick on strong young men, its the folk who are in their ninth decade who are singled out. Scrotes probably hang around the church and then follow the elderly home. A lot of elderly people dont go anywhere except to Mass and to the shop for a couple of bits and pieces, shame that they cant even have this luxury without being targetted by scum.

Please, please get out and vote for Peter Casey.

Brendan Bendar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Brendy; the man that loves an echo chamber.

I make no apology to you or anyone else for having an opinion. So you can trot on with your insinuation and attempted deflection. Contribute to the topic don't snipe from the sidelines. Pathetic.

And none expected Francie,none at all, you rare fighting a rearguard action here,and in fairness, if screen time was the criterium, doing a top job.

I was replying to a contributors post, Francie, and felt concerned she might stumble on the Kingsmill loaf thread and go over the top.

Now that’s the last time I will mention that, you are correct to call me out on that.




Group hug.......?

Muah. Muah muah....

Jackman25

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nope, and I never said I have.
I said (read a bit more carefully this time please) it bears all the hallmarks of a stunt to incite the kind of hatred and anti-traveller sentiment we have seen in bundles on this thread alone.
He even admitted last night that he knew it was a divisive thing to say after previously wringing his hands that he didn't mean to stoke up division, to Aine Lawlor before he took his 'break'

Casey wouldn't incite a cat down off a tree in fairness. He is a poor speaker, blundering and doddery and has a poor command of his facts.
This isn't some inspirational orator or Machiavellian character or charismatic leader brainwashing people, turning them against each other, creating hatred where none existed before.
Quite simply as Matt Cooper (tosser that he is) said, he shone a light where the establishment would rather one wasn't shone and he awoke in a lot of people feelings that they already had, but had no way of giving a voice to.
Hopefully tomorrow that voice will shout loudly. #CaseyNo1.

KevIRL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'll now be giving Casey my #2. Not because I agree with his remarks, but to make a stand against the ongoing paradigm that people should have to moderate their opinions before speaking them, or be punished in some way. F*ck that.

The people should be able to vote against this guy if they don't agree with what he has to say. The attempts to hound him out of the race prematurely, thus denying people the opportunity to vote on his ideology, are undemocratic in the extreme - and ironically, someone who strongly disagrees with his opinion will now be giving him a high voting preference purely because in that voter's opinion, freedom of expression is more important than any of the actual issues around his comments.

I've said it before, and I'll say it ad nauseum - the SJW brigade run the very real risk of losing elections (and in my view have already done so to some extent, see Trump and Brexit) purely because their dirty tactics piss people off enough to vote against them out of spite. I've never done that before but I will be doing so this time - the idea that anyone should withdraw from an election because they've said something objectionable, rather than merely being allowed to say it and see if people choose to vote against them as a result, is utterly abhorrent. The tearing down and vandalism of opposition posters during the marriage and repeal referenda, as well as the even more insidious tactic of threatening boycotts of venues which host meetings and events by the opposition, are part of the same trend of harassing certain political opinions into silence. And I personally know people who voted against marriage equality because "vote yes or else you're a scumbag" style campaigning pissed them off enough to do so even though they initially supported the proposal.

Absolutely appalling in my view.

Give him number one pls.

Brendan Bendar

Jackman25 wrote: »

Casey wouldn't incite a cat down off a tree in fairness. He is a poor speaker, blundering and doddery and has a poor command of his facts.
This isn't some inspirational orator or Machiavellian character or charismatic leader brainwashing people, turning them against each other, creating hatred where none existed before.
Quite simply as Matt Cooper (tosser that he is) said, he shone a light where the establishment would rather one wasn't shone and he awoke in a lot of people feelings that they already had, but had no way of giving a voice to.
Hopefully tomorrow that voice will shout loudly. #CaseyNo1.

Very hard to get a cat down off a tree in fairness.

Their claws are nicely shaped for getting up, good forward grip and the like, but the fcukers havent the cop on to go down tail first, like , back down.

So don’t be too hard on Casey, even if what you say is quite correct.

FrancieBrady

Jackman25 wrote: »

Casey wouldn't incite a cat down off a tree in fairness. He is a poor speaker, blundering and doddery and has a poor command of his facts.
This isn't some inspirational orator or Machiavellian character or charismatic leader brainwashing people, turning them against each other, creating hatred where none existed before.
Quite simply as Matt Cooper (tosser that he is) said, he shone a light where the establishment would rather one wasn't shone and he awoke in a lot of people feelings that they already had, but had no way of giving a voice to.
Hopefully tomorrow that voice will shout loudly. #CaseyNo1.

The man has been caught being 'constructive' with the truth several times.
Boris Johnson likes to cultivate the buffoon image and a lot of smart people (as well as ineffably stupid ones) bought that too.

Anyway, I am off out to canvass for a Yes to the Blasphemy ref vote. The bridge is yours...for a few hours