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

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

While i agree resources should follow genuine need, it should be outcome based rather than pandering.

But what you are essentially saying is they should have gotten the land?

Fair enough thats your opinion. But its interesting that you think a local authority with a limited budget should put horses above others with a housing need, because something culture.


My grandfather was a harbourmaster, we've a seafaring culture in my family, but my dad had tinnitus, got very seasick, so "settled" on land. But wheres my culturally appropriate accomadation with boathouse and moorings for my clipper? And one for my whole family..?

q85dw7osi4lebg

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, can you further explain how I ducked anything?

Don't ruin your weekend by spending it on Boards Francie. We get it, you want MDH to win.

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, can you further explain how I ducked anything?

You didnt answer the question!
(You subsequently fudged again, but i think i got your view).

suicide_circus

using state funds to supply people with stables for their horses while the state is struggling to house actual humans would be deeply immoral and anyone who would support this is an immoral person.

tretorn

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.

Of course you get different treatment if you present with a medical card, you are treated the same though as everyone else with a medical card.
I pay health insurance of six thousand euros plus so I dont have to shsre a ward with the Margaret Cashes of this world. Why the hell do I pay this if not to get better health care for me and my children.
How much further are you going with this nonsense.

dav3

Hitman3000 wrote: »

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?

I've said it before, nobody is logging on to this thread to watch you whinge and throw a tantrum because you didn't get the answer you wanted. If you've missed an answer it's tough sh*t.

People are logging on to watch Peter Casey's meltdown and what ill-informed idiotic statement he'll come out with next.

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

While i agree resources should follow genuine need, it should be outcome based rather than pandering.

But what you are essentially saying is they should have gotten the land?

Fair enough thats your opinion. But its interesting that you think a local authority with a limited budget should put horses above others with a housing need, because something culture.


My grandfather was a harbourmaster, we've a seafaring culture in my family, but my dad had tinnitus, got very seasick, so "settled" on land. But wheres my culturally appropriate accomadation with boathouse and moorings for my clipper? And one for my whole family..?

I don't know if they should have gotten land or stables or not, based on need. I can only go on what I do know.
Again: if the council agreed, then yes they should have gotten it. If the council didn't agree, then No they shouldn't.

goat2

There is plenty land for sale around the country, If one wants stable and horses, then they can buy the land and build onit , with their own hard earned earnings

Hitman3000

dav3 wrote:

I've said it before, nobody is logging on to this thread to watch you whinge and throw a tantrum because you didn't get the answer you wanted. If you've missed an answer it's tough sh*t.

Not whinging lad, you called Casey a racist myself and several others asked you back up your claim . I and others didn't get an answer at all. All you seem to what to do is get a reaction so the mods will . Earlier you were trying to get the thread shutdown.
If you don't want to respond that's fine, but leave the personal abuse out .

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know if they should have gotten land or stables or not, based on need. I can only go on what I do know.
Again: if the council agreed, then yes they should have gotten it. If the council didn't agree, then No they shouldn't.

So if you think they shouldnt have gotten land, youre effectively agreeing with casey.

Add in, you think we should all be treated equally...

Are you sure you disagree with him?

Roger Hassenforder

goat2 wrote: »

There is plenty land for sale around the country, If one wants stable and horses, then they can buy the land and build onit , with their own hard earned earnings

Lolz

Roger Hassenforder

dav3 wrote: »

I've said it before, nobody is logging on to this thread to watch you whinge and throw a tantrum because you didn't get the answer you wanted. If you've missed an answer it's tough sh*t.

People are logging on to watch Peter Casey's meltdown and what ill-informed idiotic statement he'll come out with next. and I'll say it again. I've absolutely no credibility, because i cant back up any of my assertions

FYP there dav

NasserShammaz

goat2 wrote: »

There is plenty land for sale around the country, If one wants stable and horses, then they can buy the land and build onit , with their own hard earned earnings

Comedy Gold :D:D

FrancieBrady

tretorn wrote: »

Of course you get different treatment if you present with a medical card, you are treated the same though as everyone else with a medical card.
I pay health insurance of six thousand euros plus so I dont have to shsre a ward with the Margaret Cashes of this world. Why the hell do I pay this if not to get better health care for me and my children.
How much further are you going with this nonsense.

Here is a line from the HSE charter which outlines what you can expect when using the service.

Care that is appropriate, timely and based on
need, not the ability to pay

You just perfectly and adequately showed that in reality, this isn't the case. You can pay for better.

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So if you think they shouldnt have gotten land, youre effectively agreeing with casey.

Add in, you think we should all be treated equally...

Are you sure you disagree with him?

I just explained that I don't think we can or should be treated equally at all times. It isn't how the world functions really, unless you live in a utopia where everyone is living to the same standards as everyone else.

Hitman3000

Roger Hassenforder wrote:

Are you sure you disagree with him?

In regards the stables vrs homes for genuine homeless, a line from Orwell's Animal Farm springs to mind " Four legs good, two legs bad. Nearly 3500 kids classed as homeless but some want under pressure council finance's spent on stables.

dav3

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Not whinging lad, you called Casey a racist myself and several others asked you back up your claim . I and others didn't get an answer at all. All you seem to what to do is get a reaction so the mods will . Earlier you were trying to get the thread shutdown.
If you don't want to respond that's fine, but leave the personal abuse out .

Again with the erroneous claims.

I'll keep saying it. Post up anything you want me to answer that I haven't already answered.

You've got to stop being so thin-skinned. This thread isn't about you. It's about Peter Casey and watching him put another nail in his coffin every day.

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here is a line from the HSE charter which outlines what you can expect when using the service.

You just perfectly and adequately showed that in reality, this isn't the case. You can pay for better.

What it means is the HSE will provide public healthcare irrespective of whether you can pay for it or not.

If you want "better" healthcare than what the HSE is offering, the market will provide it. Not the HSE.

Both statements arent mutually exclusive.

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What it means is the HSE will provide public healthcare irrespective of whether you can pay for it or not.

If you want "better" healthcare than what the HSE is offering, the market will provide it. Not the HSE.

Both statements arent mutually exclusive.

So proof positive that we are not all treated equally. If you have money you can receive better treatment to the guy beside you, who has none.

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I just explained that I don't think we can or should be treated equally at all times. It isn't how the world functions really, unless you live in a utopia where everyone is living to the same standards as everyone else.

Living standards are a function of means. Not all means are equal.

I dont have a problem with you thinking they're entitled to their stables, paddocks, tack rooms etc. Thats your opinion. Its good we have different views. I just find it interesting that you think their saddlery and grazing needs are greater than a family of 5 in a B&B in Thurles. That it's a more pressing entitlement.
Some might say that its fcuking obscene.

Some are more equal than others all right.
Good old socialists. Great idea when someone else is paying for it.

Hitman3000

dav3 wrote:

Again with the erroneous claims.

Nothing erroneous unless you wish to make a liar out of your self again.

dav3 wrote:

I'll keep saying it. Post up anything you want me to answer that I haven't already answered.

You didn't answer what asked if you so no point engaging in this nonsense

dav3 wrote:

You've got to stop being so thin-skinned. This thread isn't about you. It's about Peter Casey and watching him put another nail in his coffin every day.

Not at all thin skinned or I would have been banned for responding to your baiting either from yesterday or today.
Casey has raised his profile enormously in the last few days and has sparked a conversation that should have been had a long time ago.
The opinion polls should make interesting reading tomorrow. I don't think Casey will get in but he will certainly obtain double digit support in the vote.

Hitman3000

Roger Hassenforder wrote:

Some are more equal than others all right. Good old socialists. Great idea when someone else is paying for it.

'Trouble with socialism is you run out of other people's money' M Thatcher, terrible person great quote .

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Living standards are a function of means. Not all means are equal.

I dont have a problem with you thinking they're entitled to their stables, paddocks, tack rooms etc. Thats your opinion. Its good we have different views. I just find it interesting that you think their saddlery and grazing needs are greater than a family of 5 in a B&B in Thurles. That it's a more pressing entitlement.
Some might say that its fcuking obscene.

Some are more equal than others all right.
Good old socialists. Great idea when someone else is paying for it.

Roger, I didn't say they were 'entitled' to anything. Please stop misquoting me.

NasserShammaz

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So proof positive that we are not all treated equally. If you have money you can receive better treatment to the guy beside you, who has none.

Well its travellers we are talking about and it would appear that if they just say they have no money they will get better treatment and be exempt from paying for anything while the rest of us ETHNIC MAJORITY just suck it up

Elmo Murphy

I had no interest in this election but I think now I;m going to vote for Peter Casey.

Not necessarily because of what he said (because as president he can't change how travellers behave) but because of the pathetic criticisms of him from the media and the Taoiseach and current president.

What Casey said is what 95% of the country's population believe and he said nothing innacurate or inflammatory just the basic truth of the situation.

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So proof positive that we are not all treated equally. If you have money you can receive better treatment to the guy beside you, who has none.

Proof that the HSE treats everyone equally.
Charges a function of your means.
If you need medical care and cant pay, it will be provided.
You wont be left die on the street
(You're welcome to die on a trolley)

Proof positive if you want better care, you need to provide it for yourself.

tayto lover

dav3 wrote: »

Well at least you're coming round to the fact he actually said it.



Wonderful stuff from Casey. If the presidential race doesn't work out for him, I'm sure he'd have a very bright future in the DUP.

Or maybe SF.
He could do a Kingsmill 50/50.

AllForIt

I still can't get over what Martin Collins of Pavee point said on Prime Time which could only be described as an out and out attack on the people of Ireland and the state. In a nutshell he said that all the traveller issues are directly attributable to individual and state racism they have suffered for centuries and poor stats in relation to very high drop out rates especially for girls from school, high suicide rates etc are the result of this racism. He frames the situation as such and infers that high crime rates are a natural consequence of this and also infers high imprisonment rates are partly racially motivated in that they get harsher sentences.

Ok, so lets say this is true and we'll try to sort it out. Education is a barrier to work so lets make it illegal for anyone to drop out of school until leaving cert level. Lets have equality for travellers and anyone able-bodied on long term welfare be required to participate on TUS courses just like settled folk do or have their social welfare payments cut, just like settled folk do. If the TUS schemes don't meet the needs of travellers then let the government design schemes that do. Same for educational courses, courses designed specially for travellers if need be. If travellers were seen to engage in all of this instead of hanging around street corners I think this would have a positive effect on traveller-community relations. Just some random ideas off the top of my head.

On second thoughts I'm not sure it would catch on. I don't get the impression they are particularity dissatisfied with their lot. The primary compliant is the prejudice they say they suffer from the people who support their lifestyle and not getting quite enough off them either. And if they were to reach employment levels comparable to ours wouldn't they just over time meld into our society and become indistinguishable from everyone else and what would become of their culture then? Maybe they would consider my idea as a kind of social engineering trick to wipe them out through dilution slowly over time.

I would like to ask Mr Collins how he envisions a satisfactory solution to the problems. Imagine the racism is gone, the state gives them all they ask for...what then? Where will they live...what will they do all day long...what kind of accommodation is preferred. Or is it just time to face the truth which is your demographic is actually a sub culture of ours, not a separate sustainable distinct independent one, and that fact is hard to swallow since you regard culture so highly. That fact as I see it is the fundamental reason why the traveller issue is such a hard nut to crack and I frankly don't ever see a solution to it unless travellers themselves change.

On this particular controversy I think yes it prolly wasn't right for a presidential candidate to bring up any minority that could in any way be construed as an attack on them. However I feel that something like this was bound to happen because I sense a deepening disquiet re traveller issues over the last couple of years or so and that's what happens when one is not allowed in public discourse to say anything at all about travellers without being labelled a racist.

Gen.Zhukov

I listened to the RTE 1 o'clock news. I think there was genuine surprise at the avalanche of texts in favour of P. Casey. Kinda shows just how little these people know about the real world.

Secondly, a question. If Casey does pull out but still gets a massive amount of votes, is there any danger that those votes will be lumped in with the spoiled votes and we will never know the figure ? Technically speaking they could be called spoiled votes as the candidate was not running.

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Roger, I didn't say they were 'entitled' to anything. Please stop misquoting me.

Apologies if ive misquoted you directly.
Its just I've surmised, based on your obfuscation on simple questions, that the Tipp travellers in question should have been given the land.

Please correct me:
Which is it*:
They should not have been given the land etc.
They should have been given the land etc.

Casey opinioned the former and is being decried as a racist

*Irrespective of any agrrement, which is a "they said-we said". Its a simple issue of entitlement.