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

FrancieBrady

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

So it wasn't in a derogatory or racist manner, which imo is exactly the angle the indo were trying to imply with their catchy penned - low level headline?

Well, as is getting usual with Peter, I am not quite sure what he meant or was alluding to.

I wouldn't be taking my opinion on it from the Indo though!

puppieperson1

Leo is an indian and the travellers are cowboys ..... cowboys and indians are back in ireland, what happens next oh yes call in the military !!

PikeyPoint

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Peter seems to have a penchant for saying what he thinks, whether it is true or not.

But this is true.

Hitman3000

FrancieBrady wrote:

Any reports I have read has said they are happy for the houses to go to others as they are no good to them.

You believe that's genuine on the part of the McCarthy family. Fair play if you believe them I don't think many others would be that naive. Just my opinion though.

Ordinary man

joe40 wrote: »

Casey is a joke at this stage especially if he talked about Varadkers Indian background. I don't know the context but can't think of any way it could be relevant.There are two things here. Traveller ethnic minority status, and traveller behaviour and lifestyle. They are distinct from each other.

The ethnic minority status was granted by the government, and was not opposed by any elected representatives. He had no reason to challenge that, nor was he qualified to do so.In terms of behaviour and culture there are undoubtedly serious issues, but they will only be solved by better law enforcement and also the state dealing with genuine issues. But critically there needs to be better leadership from within the traveller community.They need to face up to the problems, one concrete improvement would be to ensure children stay in school.

I think Casey's point about varadker is how his family managed to come to our country and in one generation they raised a son who acted and was accepted as an ordinary irishman. His family accepted our laws and customs and didn't look for special treatment or special status.

Travellers refuse to blend in. They hide behind the excuse of customs to continue illegal practices like sulky racing, feuding and bare knuckle boxing. They expect to be allowed to produce big families even though they can't afford to have them.

Imo Casey's point was that there should not be any special groups receiving or asking for special treatment. The same standards should be expected for all living here no matter what ethnic group they are part of.

tom1ie

Suckit wrote: »

You're very selective in your replies..

Anyway, it could be argued, how much would the stables have cost them?

And integrating them into society (which is obviously what they were/are trying to do after classifying them differently last year)?

Would the cost outweigh the benefits (as the government see it)?

Do you mean the council? As in the council pay for the stables? :eek:
You realize the councils are funded by tax.
You realize tax is generated off the back of people working hard and making sacrifices right?

Nah you couldn’t be suggesting the council pay for the stables.........

FrancieBrady

PikeyPoint wrote: »

But this is true.

What is 'true'?

paw patrol

I see casey is in to 66/1 with paddy power - this is in from 500/1 last week and 100/1 yesterday morning.

12/1 betting without Higgins which is in from 16/1 yesterday morning.


momentum, methinks.

dav3

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Any response to all the questions asking you for your evidence that Casey is racist?

Throw up any quotes I haven't answered already and I'll get round to them eventually.

Are you this needy in real life?

goat2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He said travellers are not ethnically different, wrong: the Irish state (you and me technically) recognise their ethnic status.
He said they camp on land that doesn't belong to them: wrong - 83% of travellers are in permanent housing. So only 'some' camp on land that doesn't belong to them.

He basically generalised about a community and incited the hate speech you see here and elsewhere.
He then backed away from his comments and may withdraw from the election completely.

I do not recognise anyone born in this country as ethnic, they are Irish, I am Irish, no difference,

Hitman3000

dav3 wrote:

Throw up any quotes I haven't answered already and I'll get round to them eventually.

You didn't any questions where you were asked why you called Casey a racist. To use another posters term ' you ran away'. So would you like to explain why you called Casey a racist?

joe40

paw patrol wrote: »

I see casey is in to 66/1 with paddy power - this is in from 500/1 last week and 100/1 yesterday morning.

12/1 betting without Higgins which is in form 16/1 yesterday morning.


momentum, methinks.

Casey at 66/1.
For anyone who doesn't understand how betting works that means if you put 10euro on Casey you lose 10 euro

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Peter seems to have a penchant for saying what he thinks, whether it is true or not.

So in him saying "we should all be treated the same", its not true?
You're saying we shouldnt be treated the same?
That we must treat people differently, give them special treatment and privilige...

The difficulty certain people are having is he has uttered a clear truth about a group, that is media /establishment heresy to criticize. So they've to resort to screaming "racist".

Was at a match this morning. A lot of people seem to agree with him. Some might not like him personally, but agree with his sentiments and refusal to back down. The inlaws called over for lunch. Ditto.

ThunbergsAreGo

tayto lover wrote: »

Christ Francie if they take the same route as the Cash woman will there be a big enough waiting room in any Tipperary Garda Station to hold them all?

Maybe she can move in with the Tipperary families

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That exists all across society. Where have you been?

They are not getting the 'stables and land' they allegedly demanded. No special treatment there then.

Should they have gotten the land/stables?

FrancieBrady

paw patrol wrote: »

I see casey is in to 66/1 with paddy power - this is in from 500/1 last week and 100/1 yesterday morning.

12/1 betting without Higgins which is in form 16/1 yesterday morning.


momentum, methinks.

He was 66/1 all day yesterday too.

mvl

just realizing there is a dedicated thread on "Politics Cafe 2.0" with the subject Peter Casey tells it like it is

wonder what is the difference between this and that

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057920845

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So in him saying "we should all be treated the same", its not true?
You're saying we shouldnt be treated the same?
That we must treat people differently, give them special treatment and privilige...

The difficulty certain people are having is he has uttered a clear truth about a group, that is media /establishment heresy to criticize. So they've to resort to screaming "racist".

Was at a match this morning. A lot of people seem to agree with him. Some might not like him personally, but agree with his sentiments and refusal to back down. The inlaws called over for lunch. Ditto.

We are not all treated the same. That is wrong.

If I go into a hospital on a medical card I am treated differently to somebody with private health insurance.
Many other examples across this state.

He made a blanket generalised statement about travellers and that is wrong and I would expect and demand that public reps call him out for it. If he had said it about any other group I would demand the same.

joe40

Ordinary man wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Casey is a joke at this stage especially if he talked about Varadkers Indian background. I don't know the context but can't think of any way it could be relevant.There are two things here. Traveller ethnic minority status, and traveller behaviour and lifestyle. They are distinct from each other.

The ethnic minority status was granted by the government, and was not opposed by any elected representatives. He had no reason to challenge that, nor was he qualified to do so.In terms of behaviour and culture there are undoubtedly serious issues, but they will only be solved by better law enforcement and also the state dealing with genuine issues. But critically there needs to be better leadership from within the traveller community.They need to face up to the problems, one concrete improvement would be to ensure children stay in school.

I think Casey's point about varadker is how his family managed to come to our country and in one generation they raised a son who acted and was accepted as an ordinary irishman. His family accepted our laws and customs and didn't look for special treatment or special status.

Travellers refuse to blend in. They hide behind the excuse of customs to continue illegal practices like sulky racing, feuding and bare knuckle boxing. They expect to be allowed to produce big families even though they can't afford to have them.

Imo Casey's point was that there should not be any special groups receiving or asking for special treatment. The same standards should be expected for all living here no matter what ethnic group they are part of.

Indians are an ethnic group. Having ethnic minority status does not automatically confer any privileges

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Should they have gotten the land/stables?

If the council agreed to it, yes they should.

If the council didn't agree to it, no they shouldn't.

paw patrol

joe40 wrote: »

Casey at 66/1.
For anyone who doesn't understand how betting works that means if you put 10euro on Casey you lose 10 euro

I think you missed my point. But fire away.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He was 66/1 all day yesterday too.

he was 100/1 around 6:00am - must changed later.
I guess those of us are up early in the morning in order to earn taxes to pay for others - benefit from longer odds. :pac:

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We are not all treated the same. That is wrong.

If I go into a hospital on a medical card I am treated differently to somebody with private health insurance.
Many other examples across this state.

He made a blanket generalised statement about travellers and that is wrong and I would expect and demand that public reps call him out for it. If he had said it about any other group I would demand the same.

I agree we are not all treated the same. That is wrong.


He said "we should be treated the same"
Is that wrong? Do you agree with that sentiment?

Should the travellers have gotten the free land/stables?

TerrorFirmer

Ordinary man wrote: »

I think Casey's point about varadker is how his family managed to come to our country and in one generation they raised a son who acted and was accepted as an ordinary irishman. His family accepted our laws and customs and didn't look for special treatment or special status.

Travellers refuse to blend in. They hide behind the excuse of customs to continue illegal practices like sulky racing, feuding and bare knuckle boxing. They expect to be allowed to produce big families even though they can't afford to have them.

Imo Casey's point was that there should not be any special groups receiving or asking for special treatment. The same standards should be expected for all living here no matter what ethnic group they are part of.

That was exactly his point, in fact while making that point he was talking about a conversation with a Pakistani taxi driver who was saying how his children are as Irish as they come and wouldn't wanted to be treated as anything different.

The Indo has a disgracefully, deliberately dishonest headline on social media - "Casey tells 'Indian' Varadkar to 'shut his trap'".

Hitman3000

FrancieBrady wrote:

If the council agreed to it, yes they should.

So we can't build homes for the 1000's that are homeless but you'd be happy to see taxpayers money used to build stables. Wow.

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the council agreed to it, yes they should.

If the council didn't agree to it, no they shouldn't.

Nicely ducked.

If the Council agreed/disagreed its irrelevant, we're not privy to any discussions.


So in your opinion, do you think the travellers should have gotten the land?

goat2

I believe everyone deserves a place to call home, and be safe in that home,
But I don't believe anyone deserves a stable , land on the tax of others.
there are too many without homes,
they need taking care of,

joe40

paw patrol wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Casey at 66/1.
For anyone who doesn't understand how betting works that means if you put 10euro on Casey you lose 10 euro

I think you missed my point. But fire away.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He was 66/1 all day yesterday too.

he was 100/1 around 6:00am - must changed later.
I guess those of us are up early in the morning in order to earn taxes to pay for others - benefit from longer odds. :pac:

I get your point it was just a joke.

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I agree we are not all treated the same. That is wrong.


He said "we should be treated the same"
Is that wrong? Do you agree with that sentiment?

Should the travellers have gotten the free land/stables?

Well I do believe that society needs to treat different groups differently at times.

If a group is marginalised or an area deprived then yes, in the humane caring society that I want to live in, yes sometimes you need to treat people unequally.

And again, I fully understand and agree that some use this to their advantage, right across society. Travellers abuse it, settled people abuse it, wealthy developers will abuse special area designations etc.

Hope that point of view is understandable.

vonlars

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What penalty would you like for people found guilty of incitement to hatred?

I know you think Casey is eligible for sainthood but generally, what do you think the penalty should be?

To be honest, if Kissane got away with making a Facebook page called ‘Promote the use of knacker babies as shark bait’, I wouldn’t hold out hope of Casey being done for pointing out the truth.

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Nicely ducked.

If the Council agreed/disagreed its irrelevant, we're not privy to any discussions.


So in your opinion, do you think the travellers should have gotten the land?

Sorry, can you further explain how I ducked anything?