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

Loafing Oaf

P_1 wrote: »

Hmm wonder if he will be thick enough to take them up on it.

Well you say that but think about the alternative of launching a new party himself from scratch: would he have the patience or the know-how for that? At least Renua has some sort of network for him to build on, and apparently Leahy would give him latitude to rebrand and reposition the party as he sees fit.

keane2097

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well you say that but think about the alternative of launching a new party himself from scratch: would he have the patience or the know-how for that? At least Renua has some sort of network for him to build on, and apparently Leahy would give him latitude to rebrand and reposition the party as he sees fit.

Shows the strength of that fella's principles.

Loafing Oaf

keane2097 wrote: »

Shows the strength of that fella's principles.

well there is genuinely a lot of common ground between them (if we grant that Casey is sincere about the stuff he's been saying in his presidential campaign, but sin sceal eile). Plus Renua are going nowhere as things stand, they need to do something drastic.

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

I understood it to broadly mean Ireland still isn't really liberal, we haven't changed that much, elites are only using travellers to distract from their shenanigans/failures which is wrong as travellers shouldn't be discussed as a political topic.

I think that's the gist, maybe Matt will clarify.

That sums it up pretty much. We seem to look for those worse off and minorities to give out about when things are tough or with Casey and Varadkar, are given groups to vent towards.
The gay/traveler things were mentioned as examples of Liberal moves. No need to try turn it into a rabbit hole of comparisons between the two, (nice dig with the homophobic line though).
We are not more liberal socio-economically. The world is becoming far removed from socialism.

Braelyn Itchy Globe wrote: »

Rather than be outraged should the political parties take some responsibility, at least privately, for Casey getting a sizable vote?

With so little difference between the parties maybe Casey is what is needed to drive some robust discussion on how we manage and spend tax payers money.

I for one am very disappointed that Varadkar fooled many of us by saying he represented those that get up early in the morning i.e tax payers.

That was the intent. He was doing the exact same thing as Casey. It wasn't about looking out for the working tax payer, it was about squeezing him and laying blame on the poorer working tax payer, sick and elderly on welfare by inferring welfare fraud was were we should be focused, IMO.
How about instead of looking for a party or politician to play up on these gimmicks we get a party or politician with different policies? Travelers don't make policies as far as I know. If you have a problem with how Travelers are treated, change your politicians, but it is mostly for distractionary purposes, while tackling 'the traveler problem' you won't be any better off yourself.

Tell me how

Matt Barrett wrote: »

(nice dig with the homophobic line though).

WTF? Where?

Pussyhands

Ah lads, how can you say Travellers are an ethnicity?

That's like saying Skangers and dole scroungers are an ethnicity?

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

WTF? Where?

The post you quoted. Seriously, did you not read it?

An Ciarraioch

Pussyhands wrote: »

Ah lads, how can you say Travellers are an ethnicity?

That's like saying Skangers and dole scroungers are an ethnicity?

There is legislation in place, TBF.

The Bishop Basher

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

There is legislation in place, TBF.

That doesn't make it right though..

Stoner

Matt Barrett wrote:

Travelers have been an issue for a long time. In the winter we talk about the homeless, in the summer the Travelers. The idea that people suffering in this time of economic growth, housing, health, homeless crises are concerning themselves with Travelers, is very sad.

I don't think it's very sad at all. Why should people ignore unbalanced allocation of public money when there are the issues you've mentioned.

We have elements from many sections of our society who think resources are due with nothing to give in return.

We have serious drug issues in Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick etc.
There is certainly a need to prioritise our efforts, rather than focus on one.

Most businesses need to motivate their staff. Some methods are more creative or even surreptitious than others. They are all designed to get staff to contribute more.

I think countries have a similar responsibility. It almost goes against human nature to work of you don't have to. Many large organisations like public services struggle with similar issues.

I've a job for live, I've a pension for life, you can't sack me. It's resonates with demanding a free field for your horse.

People do it because they can. It might be in our nature regardless of any other factors.

What is sad for me personally is that sometimes I think that some of the people complaining are more jealous than outraged. However I ultimately have faith in humanity and our country.

In my opinion the government needs to be firm but fair and promote the need to contribute, similar to what we'd ask or tolerate from an employer. Make it necessary to contribute. Otherwise it's completely unsustainable given the country's age profile.

Rhineshark

Pussyhands wrote: »

Ah lads, how can you say Travellers are an ethnicity?

That's like saying Skangers and dole scroungers are an ethnicity?

Not remotely.

I had a long back and forth some pages back where I laid out the precise grounds for ethnicity, so I'd prefer not to do so again but it is there.

Thing is, I accept both that in my view, ethnicity is too broad a term and also that the nearly unique situation of the Travellers was probably never intended to be covered by it (a subset of an ethnic group who become culturally and genetically isolated from the rest of the population but not due to geography). But they do actually fit the current rather broad definition under several different indicators.

I believe the definition is as broad as it is because it's a rather case-by-case basis, including whether the group in question strongly enough identify with that group to exclude other groups; a "recognition factor" so to speak, which is why some groups that could technically qualify don't - because they've never forced the question or wanted to be identified as such.

Identity is woolly like that. See Northern Ireland for example where yes, Ulster Unionists are actually a recognised ethnic group as well.

However, given ethnic recognition doesn't particularly mean much (including under the law bar not being allowed to be a dick to people specifically on the grounds of being born a Traveller) and given removing it would a) make sod-all difference to the actual problems, b) isolate the group further and c) only really benefit a few settled people to be allowed to deliberately discriminate against (mostly) settled Travellers I really don't know why it's so important to settled people vs the actual problems, which mostly stems from that a self-sustained Travelling way of life, while possible up to only about two generations ago, isn't really sustainable today.

James Brown

Stoner wrote: »

I don't think it's very sad at all. Why should people ignore unbalanced allocation of public money when there are the issues you've mentioned.

We have elements from many sections of our society who think resources are due with nothing to give in return.

They shouldn't. Maybe they should lobby their local halting site or hang outside the bookies to lodge a complaint and seek change?
If you're not happy with provisions made by the state for any group, including your own, talk to the horse not vilify the cart. It's fair enough that people have issues I just feel we are being served up scapegoats.

Stoner wrote: »

We have serious drug issues in Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick etc.
There is certainly a need to prioritise our efforts, rather than focus on one.

Most businesses need to motivate their staff. Some methods are more creative or even surreptitious than others. They are all designed to get staff to contribute more.

For what? Is lazy workers an issue that relates to what?

Stoner wrote: »

I think countries have a similar responsibility. It almost goes against human nature to work of you don't have to. Many large organisations like public services struggle with similar issues.

I've a job for live, I've a pension for life, you can't sack me. It's resonates with demanding a free field for your horse.

People do it because they can. It might be in our nature regardless of any other factors.

Few would work if they didn't have to. The idea that we could all refuse to work and receive welfare and live comfortably with a free house is nonsense, but if you believe that type of thing, why look to the legally entitled recipients? Surely policy needs changing?

Stoner wrote: »

What is sad for me personally is that sometimes I think that some of the people complaining are more jealous than outraged. However I ultimately have faith in humanity and our country.

The likes of Casey are profiting off that IMO.
Me too.

Stoner wrote: »

In my opinion the government needs to be firm but fair and promote the need to contribute, similar to what we'd ask or tolerate from an employer. Make it necessary to contribute. Otherwise it's completely unsustainable given the country's age profile.

I don't believe it's a choice for the vast majority. There are good tax paying workers receiving state aid, the idea that it's mainly people just needing the will or a push not to avail of it isn't believable. I don't think government is that incompetent.
I do not accept that travelers or those smart enough to defraud the state and illegally collect welfare are the problem here but they make good distraction.

I think Travelers should get no special treatment. However I don't need back that up with lies like Casey or anecdotes. And I don't believe the plight of the Traveling community will change my lot.

RandomName2

Rhineshark wrote: »

Not remotely.

I had a long back and forth some pages back where I laid out the precise grounds for ethnicity, so I'd prefer not to do so again but it is there.

However, given ethnic recognition doesn't particularly mean much (including under the law bar not being allowed to be a dick to people specifically on the grounds of being born a Traveller) and given removing it would a) make sod-all difference to the actual problems, b) isolate the group further and c) only really benefit a few settled people to be allowed to deliberately discriminate against (mostly) settled Travellers I really don't know why it's so important to settled people vs the actual problems, which mostly stems from that a self-sustained Travelling way of life, while possible up to only about two generations ago, isn't really sustainable today.

Well the term ethnicity is imprecise enough that it's insubstantial. You could say that farmers, Protestants, Dubliners are all distinct ethnicities in Ireland, and you'd be pretty much correct.

I mean, who cares, right? Well it matters when it is given weight, for instance when being anti-Traveler is deemed racist. I have seen people tacitly accept that Travelers are a race, which is so ludicrous that it barely merits poking holes in it (proponents, like hill16bhoy never bother defending the assertion, but weakly strawman instead).

Not only does this defy sense (going along with the myth that Travelers are more closely related to Roma in eastern Europe than Irish), I can't see how it can possibly be healthy.

Integration of Travelers is something that should be happening. The boundaries that divide Traveler and settled communities should be removed, not strengthened. The differences between Travelers and settled communities should not be artificially exacerbated.

When people perceive Travelers as acting outside the law and against the best interests of the state, it is important to see them being brought into the fold, and treated like all other Irish people. Likewise for Travelers, not only should they accept their responsibilities as Irish citizens, but their members should be free to experience the same benefits and opportunities as anybody else.

For too long the government has swept Travelers under the carpet and instead of dealing with a part of Irish society, merely sidestep the 'Traveler problem'. For too long have individuals within the Traveler community made a profit from professional victimhood, the John Conners and Pavee Point leaders of this world. For too long has Irish society looked away, both at the disadvantage and criminality of the Traveler community.

jace_da_face

I don’t see how integration would work. Any long term solution would ultimately require assimilation.

Tell me how

Brendan O'Connor Cutting edge show Wednesday night at 22:15 is discussing if votes for Peter Casey were a vote against the travelling community.

RTE 1

Rhineshark

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well the term ethnicity is imprecise enough that it's insubstantial. You could say that farmers, Protestants, Dubliners are all distinct ethnicities in Ireland, and you'd be pretty much correct.

It's woolly but it's not that woolly. Can you show me your working for how "farmers" fits under the definition of ethnicity? Farming is an occupation. Let's not utterly take the mick here.

I mean, who cares, right? Well it matters when it is given weight, for instance when being anti-Traveler is deemed racist. I have seen people tacitly accept that Travelers are a race, which is so ludicrous that it barely merits poking holes in it (proponents, like hill16bhoy never bother defending the assertion, but weakly strawman instead).

A race, no, that is a seperate thing. I think that's coming from the careless use of "racist". Inconveniently, we don't particularly have a word for "bigoted against someone specifically due to ethnicity" (or culture), bar the cover-all "bigot". But really, if someone has a clear tendancy to disparage a person who was born a part of X group simply for being born part of X group, regardless of whether or not they themselves have done anything wrong, y'know, I don't exactly feel sorry for them if they're offended at being called a racist for it. But they probably should be called bigots, if only to reduce the complaining!

Not only does this defy sense (going along with the myth that Travelers are more closely related to Roma in eastern Europe than Irish), I can't see how it can possibly be healthy.

No, there is no connection to Roma, they are Irish by descent and their genetics show a a clear Irish ancestry. The Roma thing was a red herring (as was the Famine hypothesis) They appear to show a divergence starting approximately 900-1000 years ago, which fits with the descent of the surviving bits of Shelta (note, not Cant), itself also clearly derived from Irish but approximately 13thC and forward. Their own lack of written records doesn't help.

Integration of Travelers is something that should be happening. The boundaries that divide Traveler and settled communities should be removed, not strengthened. The differences between Travelers and settled communities should not be artificially exacerbated.

Well, what is the suggestion though? Ignore almost a thousand years semi-separation, pretend it never happened, dismiss any cultural differences, bury the remains of the language and force them to fit in regardless? It won't go well. Any more than doing the same to Roma would. It takes more than one or two generations to overcome centuries. In general, yes, I do think that the Travelling population will need to integrate but they need to be assisted to, not forced to while being disparaged wholesale. Many have and do settle (often for the kids education). But despite integrating, they still consider themselves Travellers and it's those people that get the worst of the abuse when there's a flare up of tensions, not neccessarily the ones causing the problems. The settled ones can't just up sticks and leave after all.

When people perceive Travelers as acting outside the law and against the best interests of the state, it is important to see them being brought into the fold, and treated like all other Irish people.

Like perhaps not being blamed wholesale for the actions of others? Is it not remotely important that Travellers should not feel that they will just be blamed due to the reputation amongst other Irish, whether or not they themselves have done anything other than be born a Traveler? That's the problem with the debate starting with the likes of Casey's remarks and it going for ethnicity does.

Yes, it is important that the rest of the population should see Travelers who commit crimes be treated the same as settled people who commit crimes. But settled people at the same time should not take it upon themselves to treat any Traveler as a criminal regardless if they want Travelers to integrate and feel themselves part of Irish society. It goes both ways.

Likewise for Travelers, not only should they accept their responsibilities as Irish citizens, but their members should be free to experience the same benefits and opportunities as anybody else.

Agreed, and further, the Traveling life isn't conducive to that and is actively detrimental to their ability to. That is a problem.

For too long the government has swept Travelers under the carpet and instead of dealing with a part of Irish society, merely sidestep the 'Traveler problem'. For too long have individuals within the Traveler community made a profit from professional victimhood, the John Conners and Pavee Point leaders of this world. For too long has Irish society looked away, both at the disadvantage and criminality of the Traveler community.

Quite likely, apparently including Margaret Cash, who isn't exactly helping at the moment. But again, it will not be solved just by dismissing any differences and pretending they don't exist. This will take a couple of generations to solve, especially the severe education disadvantage, which is rarely solved in a single generation, even in a settled population. Maybe it's not been done well so far and a new approach is needed, but I'm not convinced that contempt will do it. And there's a lot of contempt out there. Deserved for those that act criminally. Not deserved for those that just want to get on with their own lives peaceably.

Stoner

Matt Barrett wrote:

If you're not happy with provisions made by the state for any group, including your own, talk to the horse.

I'm talking about it here, like you.

Matt Barrett wrote:

For what? Is lazy workers an issue that relates to what?

Tax payers are the nation's workforce. There are theories on same, volumes of books written about motivating workers to care more, be better, develop etc.

Matt Barrett wrote:

Few would work if they didn't have to. The idea that we could all refuse to work and receive welfare and live comfortably with a free house is nonsense, but if you believe that type of thing, why look to the legally entitled recipients? Surely policy needs changing?

The idea that we would all refuse to work is indeed nonsense. Thousands go to work voluntarily every week as evidence of same.
Not wanting and refusing are different positions.
Worse again, thinking it would be possible for everyone in a society to do it is farcical.
I don't know why you'd offer it as a position a sensible person would hold to be honest.

I mentioned the burden on the next generation and how it is not sustainable.

Within many working environments, supervision exists. It exists for reasons. Not that people won't work, but that direction is required for various reasons.

We all want more for less. Laziness and not contributing are different.

I'm sure Bono works very hard.

Again many people go out of their way to pay as little tax as possible. I'd suggest again that most would do the same if the opportunity arose.

The above statement does not mean I think people would refuse to pay tax.

I'm sure if the government delivered a Pay What you Want or Pay What You Wish tax system that we'd be in a similar situation to Greece.

I do think sections of people receiving payments needs to be targeted. Again priorities are important. I also think those working but not contributing are part of that larger group.
I don't know what the most costly section is, or who's in it, but it would be logical to target it first if possible.

I agree that there is scapegoating at play, including Bono!!

James Brown

Stoner wrote: »

I'm talking about it here, like you.

Not singling you out, speaking broadly.

Stoner wrote: »

Tax payers are the nation's workforce. There are theories on same, volumes of books written about motivating workers to care more, be better, develop etc.

To what end? I'm not sure what the problem is we seem to be talking about solving here.

Stoner wrote: »

The idea that we would all refuse to work is indeed nonsense. Thousands go to work voluntarily every week as evidence of same.
Not wanting and refusing are different positions.
Worse again, thinking it would be possible for everyone in a society to do it is farcical.
I don't know why you'd offer it as a position a sensible person would hold to be honest.

The idea seems to be people on welfare, lifers, dem dat want something for nothing are their by choice, (I'm sure a few are) and for some reason the state/LA's are fine with that. That's what we are suggesting when we hear stirrers like casey and Varadkar talk about 'entitlement culture' and 'people who like to get up early', as if people are choosing not to en masse.
If we've issue with the rates and criteria by which eligibility is measured that's another discussion and one should be taken up with policy makers not Travelers or the poor.

Stoner wrote: »

I mentioned the burden on the next generation and how it is not sustainable.

Within many working environments, supervision exists. It exists for reasons. Not that people won't work, but that direction is required for various reasons.

We all want more for less. Laziness and not contributing are different.

I'm sure Bono works very hard.

Again many people go out of their way to pay as little tax as possible. I'd suggest again that most would do the same if the opportunity arose.

The above statement does not mean I think people would refuse to pay tax.

I'm sure if the government delivered a Pay What you Want or Pay What You Wish tax system that we'd be in a similar situation to Greece.

I do think sections of people receiving payments needs to be targeted. Again priorities are important. I also think those working but not contributing are part of that larger group.
I don't know what the most costly section is, or who's in it, but it would be logical to target it first if possible.

I agree that there is scapegoating at play, including Bono!!

You seem to be inferring that we could all do better if we were motivated in the right manner. I think fear of being one of the reviled working poor or joining the ranks of the homeless is motivation enough. I'd suggest most people work hard for a living already, if that living is found wanting, we need look at disposable income, quality of life, accommodation etc.
I'd suggest if taxpayers saw value for money they might feel a little better about paying it and we wouldn't need scapegoats.

Travelers are an easy target by virtue of their lifestyle. It's unfortunate we seem quicker to look at the recipients of policies we don't like than the policy makers.

Eric Cartman

Talking to some people at the count in my own constituency (Kildare North) and a lot of votes for MDH had Casey as second.

We all know the guy was a bad candidate who was propelled from rank last to second on the back of one issue. Voting for Casey was more 'We know you can't win, but its about time somebody said that' than a usual protest vote.

Hopefully the next time local / general elections roll round, it will give politicians who have a multitude of good policies and the political experience to achieve them the confidence to speak out against the problems caused by the traveling community.

Seeing how rialled up John Connors is getting about it proves to me that it was the right result.

James Brown

How would that work out?

All Travelers are work shy criminals and should be treated as such? No decent person would support such bigotry and politicians with something to lose, unlike Casey, would be wise not to follow such a path.
The only option is to ensure Travelers get no more and no less leeway than you or I. It's important for all of us that people aren't discriminated against because of perceptions about an entire group without giving the individual a fair go.

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How would that work out?

All Travelers are work shy criminals and should be treated as such? No decent person would support such bigotry and politicians with something to lose, unlike Casey, would be wise not to follow such a path.
The only option is to ensure Travelers get no more and no less leeway than you or I. It's important for all of us that people aren't discriminated against because of perceptions about an entire group without giving the individual a fair go.

Thats what people are saying , at the moment theres one set of rules for travellers and one set for the rest of us, a huge push to enforce existing laws plus stricter penalties for things like forcing children to go to school are needed, the problem os that traveller culture is incompatible with our modern society and the elements of it that prevent new generations of travellers integrating and spur rampant criminality need to be wiped out through garda intervention

Sam Russell

It is interesting to note that those we care most about (young children and old, infirm people) are looked after by very hard-working people who are paid minimum wages. That is something to think about.

Then think about travellers, and the treatment of them by officialdom.

Travellers, like those refusing to move into utter luxurious 4 bed homes, (I jest) are currently living in bad conditions in a halting site. The group are reported as refusing to move until an agreed condition is fulfilled.

Travellers have been provided with substandard housing on halting sites for the last 60 years, and the locals have objected at every hands turn to such provision. Local councils have had to listen to local objections and thus not been able to meet their legal obligations towards travellers.

Travellers have failed to send their children to schools, despite the legal requirement to do so. They have escaped the sanctions for not doing so.

For many years, the hi-ace van was the vehicle of choice - no tax, no insurance.

Travellers have a well earned reputation for anti-social behaviour - littering, theft, destruction of property, impossible behaviour in hotels and pubs during weddings and funerals, faction fights, etc.

I think it is time for positive action by officialdom, and by Pavee Point to tackle these problems.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thats what people are saying , at the moment theres one set of rules for travellers and one set for the rest of us, a huge push to enforce existing laws plus stricter penalties for things like forcing children to go to school are needed, the problem os that traveller culture is incompatible with our modern society and the elements of it that prevent new generations of travellers integrating and spur rampant criminality need to be wiped out through garda intervention

I agree with you on much of that, but talk like Casey's isn't the way to go IMO.
Personally, if Travelers want to avail of anything the state has to offer they need be held to the same criteria as the rest of us. If your differences aren't compatible with those the greater society called for and follow, that's on you. We have the society we have, people shouldn't be allowed cherry pick which parts pertain to them and which don't.

Chips Lovell

tretorn wrote: »

I had a conversation with a pensioner yesterday, she has a couple of traveller families living in her estate and they cause no trouble. She thinks this is because there are so many other people living there the travellers know they wont get away with any anti social carry on. There is a small green in the estate and the residents are on permanent alert in case travellers move in and destroy it.

Sorry, but this kind of thing is the very definition of prejudice. Has she ever considered that they don't cause trouble because they're decent people, like everyone else living on the estate?

It's quite ironic too that the people who suggest that travellers differ from settled people because they possess some sort of innate criminality are often the same people who'd scoff at the notion that they should be recognised as a separate ethnic group.

Sam Russell

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The problem is that traveller culture is incompatible with our modern society and the elements of it that prevent new generations of travellers integrating and spur rampant criminality need to be wiped out through garda intervention

There is no problem with 'culture'. The Gaeltacht is a special culture that gets substantial support from officialdom. The love of horses and other aspects of traveller culture is compatible with their culture, and living a modern way of life.

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I agree with you on much of that, but talk like Casey's isn't the way to go IMO.
Personally, if Travelers want to avail of anything the state has to offer they need be held to the same criteria as the rest of us. If your differences aren't compatible with those the greater society called for and follow, that's on you. We have the society we have, people shouldn't be allowed cherry pick which parts pertain to them and which don't.

People only want to talk about travellers rights, never their responsibilities, thats the issue. Nobody is going to put Peter Casey in charge of them but by voting for him people are saying they'd like the issue raised in an office where it can be dealt with.

That said if I have to vote for 'all travellers are good' or 'all travellers are bad' , at this point the situation is so desperate that i'd be more inclined to agree with somebody who said they were all bad, nothing good can come out of the usual politicians ignoring the current reality.

Pussyhands

I don't think we should be accepting of lifestyles that are based on leeching off society and engaging in criminal activity.

If they want to live off the grid without welfare, let them off.

All my ancestors were farmers who spent their whole lives at it and made their living that way. That's the culture of my family. Now I'm 3 hours from home working in an office, like many others from rural Ireland. Why don't I demand the government pay for my "culture"?

CrabRevolution

Not a comment on the merits of any candidate, but the idea that voting MDH as no. 1 and Casey as no. 2 sends a message is a bit misguided.

The only way the second preferences of MDH voters could be looked at would be if he got the least or 2nd least first preference votes. If anyone thought that had the remotest chance of happening, they need their head examined....

All those 2nd preference Casey votes went to the shredder without ever being noted.

RandomName2

Rhineshark wrote: »

It's woolly but it's not that woolly. Can you show me your working for how "farmers" fits under the definition of ethnicity? Farming is an occupation. Let's not utterly take the mick here.

Ah no, I chose that specifically. Farming isn't just an occupation, people are born into farming, they live and die on their farms, farming is multi-generational, and here'd even be a tenuous link to farming culture. Farming is a section of society. It would be laughable to call someone a racist, or even a bigot for criticizing farmers though.

Rhineshark wrote: »

But really, if someone has a clear tendancy to disparage a person who was born a part of X group simply for being born part of X group, regardless of whether or not they themselves have done anything wrong, y'know, I don't exactly feel sorry for them if they're offended at being called a racist for it. But they probably should be called bigots, if only to reduce the complaining!

I get what you mean, but it's a bit more significant than that. The 'race card' is called such for a reason, or the tendency to call one's opponents fascists. It's basically to say that their position is baseless, reprehensible, and should be opposed by all decent people.

To be honest it's only marginally better to say that everyone who voted for Casey was a bigot, instead of a racist.

Rhineshark wrote: »

No, there is no connection to Roma, they are Irish by descent and their genetics show a a clear Irish ancestry. The Roma thing was a red herring (as was the Famine hypothesis)

Yeah but it's a myth that's been perpetuated with political motive.

Rhineshark wrote: »

They appear to show a divergence starting approximately 900-1000 years ago, which fits with the descent of the surviving bits of Shelta (note, not Cant), itself also clearly derived from Irish but approximately 13thC and forward. Their own lack of written records doesn't help.

That's interesting and all, but one could say as much about the different Irish dialects, or Scots-Gaelic. The Munster dialect doesn't make people from Munster separate from everyone else in Ireland.

Rhineshark wrote: »

Well, what is the suggestion though? Ignore almost a thousand years semi-separation, pretend it never happened, dismiss any cultural differences, bury the remains of the language and force them to fit in regardless?

I don't think we fundamentally disagree. I'm not really convinced about the 1000 years of separation, but that's neither here nor there really. I think there is a greater likelihood of politicians shrugging their shoulders and saying 'my successor can handle that', which has been pretty unfruitful for the last 50 or so years. The need for the state to tackle disadvanged areas was something that has had some success. People are less inclined to say that Ballymun is a town of skangers these days, because it has been subject to a large degree of regeneration. But Ballymun wasn't tied down by a Ballymun ethnicity that would deem any attempts to regenerate it as racist!

Social housing is key for travelers. They aren't 'travelers' these days. There is no real difference between a settled traveler and.. anyone else really. If people want to learn cant or whatever language we want to pretend exists (but really doesn't) then they should be free to do so. If they want to own horses, they are free to purchase them like anyone else in the country.

What do they need the horses for, pulling 4*4s? Horses were a pretty typical sight in Ballymun at one time, too.

An Ciarraioch

So, Casey will be on the Late Late tomorrow - will Tubridy raise his comments about NATO or the EU?