So...Ok then...How do we talk about it? (Irish Presidential Election Result)

Eric Cartman

Midlife wrote: »

The solution to what exactly? What's the problem?

But in a nutshell, you're acknowledging they have an ancient culture?

The solution to their disproportionately high levels of crime, low levels of education and self exclusion from modern society and attitudes to life , all of which are intergenerationally self imposed.

Midlife

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The solution to their disproportionately high levels of crime, low levels of education and self exclusion from modern society and attitudes to life , all of which are intergenerationally self imposed.

But surely you're agreeing this is nothing new.

i.e. they've always been on the fringes of society. As you say yourself, it's intergenerational and cultural going quite a way back

So I get what you're saying, this is an old culture that needs to modernise if it's to play a more active and constructive role in today's Ireland.

But surely you realise that changing culture can't be done either...

a: in 10 years
b: without recognising and valuing current culture

Eric Cartman

Midlife wrote: »

But surely you're agreeing this is nothing new.

i.e. they've always been on the fringes of society. As you say yourself, it's intergenerational and cultural going quite a way back

So I get what you're saying, this is an old culture that needs to modernise if it's to play a more active and constructive role in today's Ireland.

But surely you realise that changing culture can't be done either...

a: in 10 years
b: without recognising and valuing current culture

Well either it has to change for the greater good or the discrimination and scorn from settled polite society is right to continue.

Midlife

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well either it has to change for the greater good or the discrimination and scorn from settled polite society is right to continue.

Agree, there is discrimination and scorn towards travellers from settled society.

And agree, a large part of traveller society needs to adjjust if it hopes to overcome this.

However, a significant proportion of settled society also needs to recognise travellers unique situation and culture.

As you say this is a generational problem. Logically then it'll take generations to fix simply on the travellers side. It's the children and grandchildren of young travellers in school now that may be the ones to integrate successfully.

It's about education and integration. If it was up to me I'd incentivise the **** out of education.

But it's also about having a place in society to integrate into. Why go to school if no-one will give you a decent ligit job?

Really, you have to think about what we are offering travellers to integrate. I'm pretty sure that all a majority of them have seen is a chance to be settled poor in some ****ty housing estatee rather than travellers.

Your previous solution of 'admitt that it's all travellers fault and integrate in 10 years or else' isn't exactly going to convince any of them that this is a society they'll ever be a part of.

Wanderer78

Midlife wrote:

But it's also about having a place in society to integrate into. Why go to school if no-one will give you a decent ligit job?

Could we try encourage them to create their own industries, so they could employ each other?

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Could we try encourage them to create their own industries, so they could employ each other?

how many people out of every billion create a new industry

ill wait

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

how many people out of every billion create a new industry

ill wait

they dont necessarily need to create new industries, but businesses in which they need themselves

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

how many people out of every billion create a new industry

ill wait

Not exactly the same thing, but a whole network of industry was created by the Rehab/Activation organisation that has had powerful impacts for the community it serves.
It isn't impossible.

blanch152

Midlife wrote: »

But surely you're agreeing this is nothing new.

i.e. they've always been on the fringes of society. As you say yourself, it's intergenerational and cultural going quite a way back

So I get what you're saying, this is an old culture that needs to modernise if it's to play a more active and constructive role in today's Ireland.

But surely you realise that changing culture can't be done either...

a: in 10 years
b: without recognising and valuing current culture

I am not going to value a current culture that marries young girls off at 15 or 16.

oscarBravo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You never answered my last question ?

What question?

I'm saying that their 'position' as a 'marginalised' group gets them more lenience in sentencing...

Does it? Do you have evidence for that?

...FrancieBrady argued that he wanted everyone to be treated equally infront of a judge, which I would agree with, the first step to that is removing these 'mitigations' for lack of education / membership of the travelling community / living conditions.

And what will that achieve, other than an even more disproportionate Traveller population in our prisons?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is a problem traveller culture created
This is a problem for traveller communities to solve
This is exclusively the fault of the travelling community as a whole...

So you're not remotely interested in offering any actual constructive suggestions, you just want to continue bitching about Travellers.

Are you under the impression that somehow the problem is that people haven't spent enough time bitching about them, and that if the level of bitching reaches a sufficient pitch, the Travelling Community will suddenly decide to reform itself?

markodaly

If you want to solve a problem, you have to acknowledge it exists in the first place.

https://www.rte.ie/news/leinster/2018/1113/1010575-drogheda-louth/

oscarBravo

markodaly wrote: »

If you want to solve a problem, you have to acknowledge it exists in the first place.

Who has claimed there isn't a problem?

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If what you're saying is that coming from a bad area, minority community or a lack of education are no longer mitigating circumstances in sentencing, then absolutely yes, I agree with you.

If the travelling community were held to the same standards as the middle class infront of a judge , most would never see the light of day again. You certainly wouldn't have the likes of Margaret '39 previous convictions in 10 years' Cash roaming our streets.

It's not that clear cut. We could argue, you come from a comfortable background, you don't do drugs and you've no record, so you're just an opportunist and should be sentenced as if not more harshly than a junkie trying to make enough money for a fix? Not saying that's the way it should be just an alternate argument.
by the by there was a landlord let off after keeping a number of deposits for the same property and renting to nobody. She paid them back when caught but paid no price.

I can't help but feel that Travelers are another group in a long line being placed as the whipping boys so the 'squeezed middle' can let off some steam and keep voting for the policy makers responsible for all their ills.

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I can't help but feel that Travelers are another group in a long line being placed as the whipping boys so the 'squeezed middle' can let off some steam and keep voting for the policy makers responsible for all their ills.

There is a perception that they are heavily involved in criminal activity.
There is a perception that they are receiving payments from social welfare while they have alternative income streams which should exclude them from doing so.
There is a perception that they receive allowances such as halting sites or houses provided for them which the general public do not.

To people who believe in these perceptions, what evidence have you that they are accurate?
To people who feel they are unfairly being targetted, are you saying that there is no merit in any of these perceptions?

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

There is a perception that they are heavily involved in criminal activity.
There is a perception that they are receiving payments from social welfare while they have alternative income streams which should exclude them from doing so.
There is a perception that they receive allowances such as halting sites or houses provided for them which the general public do not.

To people who believe in these perceptions, what evidence have you that they are accurate?
To people who feel they are unfairly being targetted, are you saying that there is no merit in any of these perceptions?

The section you quoted merely asks are we using Travelers as whipping boys because we are frustrated in other areas? Divisiveness; pick a section of society with perceived or real faults and point to them for your own ends. Casey for relevance due to lack of imagination for example. In fact I think Travelers was the most pathetic thing Casey could have chosen apart from 'entitlement'. It's right out of the Right wing wind bag cookbook.

Any claims against an entire group of people is unfair, putting it mildly.

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't know.
The section you quoted merely asks are we using Travelers as whipping boys because we are frustrated in other areas? Divisiveness; pick a section of society with perceived or real faults and point to them for your own ends. Casey for relevance due to lack of imagination for example. In fact I think Travelers was the most pathetic thing Casey could have chosen apart from 'entitlement'. It's right out of the Right wing wind bag cookbook.

I agree. But his vote going from 1% to 23% indicates that it is a topic which resonates with many. (Whatever their motivations).

No matter the topic of conversation, I would like to see how can we explore them objectively.

I am talking about when there is public appetite for the conversation. Not just one individual or less than .1% of a population for example who wants a national discussion on a topic. 23% I think justifies calls for a discussion. And then both listening and learning on both sides.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

There is a perception that they are heavily involved in criminal activity.
There is a perception that they are receiving payments from social welfare while they have alternative income streams which should exclude them from doing so.
There is a perception that they receive allowances such as halting sites or houses provided for them which the general public do not.

To people who believe in these perceptions, what evidence have you that they are accurate?
To people who feel they are unfairly being targetted, are you saying that there is no merit in any of these perceptions?

Well evidence to say it is happening is CSO crime stats, A physical housing estate in tipperary plus court documents relating to dunsink lane and almost every other payoff , reporting of raids on haulting sites and the research that every joirnalist worth theor salt has done on margaret cash since she came on the scene. Article after article, court report after court report, cso stats release after CSO stats release.

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

I agree. But his vote going from 1% to 23% indicates that it is a topic which resonates with many. (Whatever their motivations).

No matter the topic of conversation, I would like to see how can we explore them objectively.

I am talking about when there is public appetite for the conversation. Not just one individual or less than .1% of a population for example who wants a national discussion on a topic. 23% I think justifies calls for a discussion. And then both listening and learning on both sides.

About 10%, (23% of the 43% that voted). That's the gimmick though. He wasn't going to give out about something popular.

Here's your toppers in recent times: Tax paying poor people wanting something for nothing. People defrauding welfare. Poor people buying alcohol in supermarkets. People pretending to be homeless. Tenants giving landlords a hard time and finally Travelers.
All used for selfish motives and ones other than bringing attention to the problems they raised IMO. Casey couldn't care less about Travelers. The man is based in the states.
There is always a debate for such topics that's the beauty. Only the other day we've hospital staff taking too much time off to counter talk of the trolley scandal.

Again, 10% of the electorate, (23% of the 43% that voted). It should be also noted that the vast majority aren't interested in the age old Traveler debate. We need some perspective here.
For me Travelers should adhere to the law of the land. If this goes against their culture maybe we could have reservations like they do in the U.S. and Canada for first nations people. They are self governing but answer to federal laws. Just a thought.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well evidence to say it is happening is CSO crime stats, A physical housing estate in tipperary plus court documents relating to dunsink lane and almost every other payoff , reporting of raids on haulting sites and the research that every joirnalist worth theor salt has done on margaret cash since she came on the scene. Article after article, court report after court report, cso stats release after CSO stats release.

How about the evidence from the Irish Prison Service that says that travellers are marginalised from their early life and particularly in education which has an impact on the number of them who end up being incarcerated?

In terms of the housing in Tipperary. Yes, but there are also many many non-travellers trying to game the housing system. Some from quite reputable backgrounds?

In terms of Margaret Cash. What about white collar criminals who cost the state greater amounts and don't necessarily end up being reprimaned appropriately?

I understand (and hold to some extent) some of the perceptions on travellers. But I also think that they are on the defensive in pretty much every interaction they have with the non-traveller community and that that has to have some impact on their behaviour also.

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

About 10%, (23% of the 43% that voted). That's the gimmick though. He wasn't going to give out about something popular.

Here's your toppers in recent times: Tax paying poor people wanting something for nothing. People defrauding welfare. Poor people buying alcohol in supermarkets. People pretending to be homeless. Tenants giving landlords a hard time and finally Travelers.
All used for selfish motives and ones other than bringing attention to the problems they raised IMO. Casey couldn't care less about Travelers. The man is based in the states.
There is always a debate for such topics that's the beauty. Only the other day we've hospital staff taking too much time off to counter talk of the trolley scandal.

Again, 10% of the electorate, (23% of the 43% that voted). It should be also noted that the vast majority aren't interested in the age old Traveler debate. We need some perspective here.
For me Travelers should adhere to the law of the land. If this goes against their culture maybe we could have reservations like they do in the U.S. and Canada for first nations people. They are self governing but answer to federal laws. Just a thought.

it is common to refer to a vote value at a polling station as indicative as to societies feelings on the matter. We have no other barometer and as such it is widely accepted so i don't know if we can conclusively say only 10% were in favour of Casey's views.

Even so, 10% of a population should be enough to have a conversation on something just so it can be highlighted that there is no basis for concern or that further assessment is required.
In the UK, Westminster requires just 100,000 signatures on a petition before it has to respond. (Can't find Irish figures) But that as a percentage of the total population is much less than 10%.

demfad

We can all agree that coverage of Travellers in the media is massively negative.

Lets look at it a different way.

Ireland has a very very bad record on discriminating against minorities and those outside the pale and covering it up.
Unborn mothers, children/babies born out of wedlock, vulnerable children targetted for abuse.
Poor people in these danger categories were particularly vulnerable.

You would assume that people in these categories who were also travellers would be especially vulnerable: travellers being despised by Church and State.
We rarely hear these stories however.

That every traveller child was vulnerable to being taken by a priest flanked by a guard to industrial schools etc. Infact there was a policy for this I believe. These would be Grandparents now I guess. How do you think they fared?
What about their kids in schools completely vunerable to predatory men. Who would believe a traveller against a priest?
Lets look at social welfare. Travellers were nomadic rural folk. They were part of Irish culture for many centuries. When social welfare came in there was no consideration if you were a traveller or settled. That meant relocating to towns and cities wherever they could find and the wiping out of much of their way of life.

What other discrimination have we meted against this ancient minority?
When will we say, Sod it! you know they have a right to live as they have lived for the last 500 years. Lets just make peace with them, extend the hand of friendship and sort this out?

But no. A particularly poor excuse for a presidential candidate mouths off to get his 12.5% rebate and we nod in 20% agreement. It's weak and shameful.

Tell me how

demfad wrote: »

When will we say, Sod it! you know they have a right to live as they have lived for the last 500 years. Lets just make peace with them, extend the hand of friendship and sort this out?

What would you say that to those that have been the victims of traveller criminal activity?

What would you say to the travellers who committed such criminal activity? Here is a free pass?

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

What would you say that to those that have been the victims of traveller criminal activity?

What would you say to the travellers who committed such criminal activity? Here is a free pass?

You're coming across as being purposely obtuse.
I was never accosted by a Traveler, should I presume they are all law abiding folk? It's a silly ask TBF.
You say you want an open debate and you counter with this kind of thing?

We could pick any group and ask those questions: What would you say to someone mugged by a Cork man? What would you say to a person who's bank foreclosed?

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're coming across as being purposely obtuse.
I was never accosted by a Traveler, should I presume they are all law abiding folk? It's a silly ask TBF.
You say you want an open debate and you counter with this kind of thing?

We could pick any group and ask those questions: What would you say to someone mugged by a Cork man? What would you say to a person who's bank foreclosed?

I'm trying to counter ingrained opinions by asking for objective evidence.
And not seeing much of it. On either side.

And so I'm wondering, do we just leave it to the shouting and hollering?

oscarBravo

Tell me how wrote: »

What would you say to the travellers who committed such criminal activity? Here is a free pass?

I keep hearing the phrase "free pass" bandied about, but I've never, ever seen anyone advocate for it, or even explain what it means.

Tell me how

oscarBravo wrote: »

I keep hearing the phrase "free pass" bandied about, but I've never, ever seen anyone advocate for it, or even explain what it means.

Well how do you think some people would view this possible approach as suggested by a poster above.

What other discrimination have we meted against this ancient minority?
When will we say, Sod it! you know they have a right to live as they have lived for the last 500 years. Lets just make peace with them, extend the hand of friendship and sort this out?

Could that not be seen as absolving them of responsibility?

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm trying to counter ingrained opinions by asking for objective evidence.
And not seeing much of it. On either side.

And so I'm wondering, do we just leave it to the shouting and hollering?

You are adding to the shouting and hollering. Demfad gave his insight on the issue and instead of discussing it you retort with sub-par Devil's advocate questioning.

Tell me how wrote: »

Well how do you think some people would view this possible approach as suggested by a poster above.



Could that not be seen as absolving them of responsibility?

I believe everyone feels that they should adhere to the laws of the land. Who is absolving them of any criminality or giving them a free pass? There's an attempt to discuss how they as a people should be treated, taking into account they are to be held to the same laws as everyone else. Repeated talk of a 'free pass' and 'absolving' them has us going in circles.

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are adding to the shouting and hollering. Demfad gave his insight on the issue and instead of discussing it you retort with sub-par Devil's advocate questioning.

Look at the title of the thread. "How do we talk about it?".

I picking up that you don't like being asked to consider actions rather than just adopting a position. Or is it fair to say you don't think actions are required?

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

Look at the title of the thread. "How do we talk about it?".

I picking up that you don't like being asked to consider actions rather than just adopting a position. Or is it fair to say you don't think actions are required?

I don't address arseaboutery, no, but I'll attempt to answer a question based on something I actually said.

Do you believe we'll change each others or anyone elses opinions on Travelers here? I don't.
So rather than flirting with the are 'they all criminals' or 'they are not', why not move past that and discuss how we can address them as a group? There will never be a referendum titled, 'Travelers, all criminals or wha?'.

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't address arseaboutery, no, but I'll attempt to answer a question based on something I actually said.

Do you believe we'll change each others or anyone elses opinions on Travelers here? I don't.
So rather than flirting with the are 'they all criminals' or 'they are not', why not move past that and discuss how we can address them as a group? There will never be a referendum titled, 'Travelers, all criminals or wha?'.

I've no interest in trying to change peoples opinions on travellers on an online forum.
What I have an interest in and why I started the thread is to try to understand is it possible to get to a place where we can say we have considered all facts and therefore have reached objective opinions openly. In this instance (given the presidential election) the topic is travellers but it could just as easily be climate change or the housing crisis or whatever.

We see it time and again where advocates want to have a discussion from a fixed position. At least as far as they are concerned, they are willing to discuss as long as it takes until the other side changes their mind.

If I accused you of having a baseless position, you would disagree with me. But if I asked you to present the evidence you used to form your opinion you call it arseaboutery. That to me indicates that you are not open to presenting and defending your position with evidence. Which leads me to wonder is there any point of a debate. And it is not just you, I think this approach exists amongst some with a different opinion to you on the matter.

So, on that basis, maybe the answer to my question "How do we talk about it?" is that we can't.

Lets just allow the populist pendulum to swing first one way, then the other.