Truth about traveller crime

Adam9213

I'm just saying that if I was a young traveller just growing up reading all these posts I would not want to be a part of this society with these opinions of me and as long as these opinions are the norm then I don't think travelers will ever integrate into society and I don't blame them for wanting to to be honest.

pablo128

Adam9213 wrote: »

And anyways correct if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure ronanstown is the middle class part of clondalkin?

Far from it in the 80s and 90s.

shaveAbullock

end of the road wrote: »

i don't know what they believe would prevent this from happening, ultimately that is a question they will only be able to answer.

I know for settled people who refuse to school their children TUSLA would get involved.
This is not the case for traveller children however.
Are TUSLA failing the traveller community? Should they have a more active role in ensuring travellers adhere to the same laws as settled people?

Adam9213

pablo128 wrote: »

Mate you're doing nothing but making excuses for them. What they need is some tough love. We have tried the carrot and stick approach and it didn't work.

If they feel they can't get a job, there are grants out there and courses on how to start and run a business. For anyone, including travellers. They have no excuse.

Yeah I'm just thinking from a psychological point of view, if I was a young traveler kid and seen all this hatred against me when I had done nothing wrong at all I would tell you to shove your courses up your hole and rob your houses for a living and I'd do it with a passion.

I'd hate society and want no part of it if I was a traveler, I can see where they are coming from.

Sean.3516

end of the road wrote: »

actually, it is the fault of those who socially ostracise them all on the basis of the actions of some, something which the same individual wouldn't dare try with other groups as they wouldn't get away with it, that travelers who actually do try and live within society face the bigotry and all else they face.

Well first, let's distinguish between discrimination based on bigotry and discrimination based on a generalised view of how people in a group behave. Of course people who hate travellers for being travellers are wrong. But if someone makes a judgement about somebody based on minimal information about the person (which we all do all the time) and the only information available is that they're a traveller, then that will carry with it a stigma on account of the reputation of that group for being rife with criminal activity. In some cases this may be the rational thing to do. Like if it's night time and your walking down the road and you see a group of people who look like travellers. You might walk to the other side of the road to avoid them. I'm not saying that we shouldn't seek to know more about individuals before making judgments but in many areas of life this is unavoidable and it will inevitably have consequences for travellers. This is NOT the fault of the people who make those judgements. It's simply a matter of fact a disproportionate amount of travellers are criminals. If this wasn't the case, we would not have this perception of them.

What are those "other groups" you mention that I would never treat the same as travellers? Blacks? Poles? Arabs? You're right. I wouldn't treat them the way I treat travellers because they commit nowhere near the same amount of crime and they participate in society and are economically productive.

The fact that you actually felt the need to distinguish these groups tells me you understand this.

end of the road wrote: »

and i will give you the we can't just erase a group of people's culture, because ultimately we can't, and people committing crime is not culture.

Of course crime can be major part of a culture. And of course we can erase a culture. We can change incentive structures by enforcing the law and removing state subsidies for the people participating in that culture.

end of the road wrote: »

while the gardai as a matter of course should be cracking down more on criminal activity and the relevant funding and resources should be given to allow it, if someone is determined not to become part of society, then they will not do so no matter what, hence we will always have a cohort of criminals within society from all sorts of backgrounds unfortunately.

They will join society if the alternative is starving. By that I mean if they aren't receiving state aid and their criminal activities have been shut down then they will literally have no choice but to join society.

Sean.3516

shaveAbullock wrote: »

I think the biggest issue is travellers not obtaining a secondary level education. What is pavee point's stance on this? How could it be addressed?

Stay in one place long enough to complete secondary school.

Deebles McBeebles

shaveAbullock wrote: »

I know for settled people who refuse to school their children TUSLA would get involved.
This is not the case for traveller children however.
Are TUSLA failing the traveller community? Should they have a more active role in ensuring travellers adhere to the same laws as settled people?

Yes but we all know why it doesn't happen. Whether we can admit it or not.

shaveAbullock

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Stay in one place long enough to complete secondary school.

Most of them do I believe. They are not nomadic like they once were.

shaveAbullock

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Yes but we all know why it doesn't happen. Whether we can admit it or not.

Why not, are you saying that you believe that there are different laws for travellers?
Surely that would only increase the issue and feeling of segregation.

Sean.3516

end of the road wrote: »

i would expect the only way to address it in an actual effective manner, is to have people go out and bring them in to school, but lets be honest it would be hugely resource intensive and i can't imagine many would be willing to pay for it.

Wow, the "soft bigotry of low expectations" on full display here.

Oh but it's just not in the nature of travellers to have the wherewithal to take advantage of a state-provided education unless we force them to. As I've said, this is a cultural issue. We can change culture if we change the incentives. Halt state aid and enforce the law.

It seems that I have more respect for travellers than you do since I view them as freely willed humans with the agency to make decisions for the better if they want to.

Sean.3516

Adam9213 wrote: »

Now if I was a young traveler I would hate society and would rob and steal from you no problems whatsoever, I would have the same attitude as young black people in the US in the 80s who had the same stereotypes put onto them.

Although that might be the natural response, that doesn't make it right or excusable.

One could always help disprove the stereotype by being the exception to it?

Adam9213

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Although that might be the natural response, that doesn't make it right or excusable.

One could always help disprove the stereotype by being the exception to it?

Not everyone is going to set out to be the Martin Luther King of the traveller community, as a young traveler knowing the opinions society holds on me and my family I would not want to be any part of that society.

shaveAbullock

Adam9213 wrote: »

as a young traveler knowing the opinions society holds on me and my family I would not want to be any part of that society.

Would include rejecting the social welfare system?

Don't Chute!

Adam9213 wrote: »

Not everyone is going to set out to be the Martin Luther King of the traveller community, as a young traveler knowing the opinions society holds on me and my family I would not want to be any part of that society.

You don’t seem to understand that it’s because of their behavior that people have those opinions on them. Or, you do understand and are being deliberately obtuse?

Sean.3516

Adam9213 wrote: »

This thread seems quite snobby, truth is these kids have it 50 times harder to succeed in life for dozens of reasons not just the ones you said.

In your life it would probably have been 50 times harder for you to fail in life than it would be to succeed, but if succeeding means being a stuck up snob I'm sure a lot of people would actually rather fail.

All of us start life in a different place under different circumstances. Some of us will have it harder than others. Obviously people born into anti-social communities will have it hard.

None of this means that we should compromise on the basic ethical standards that our society is based on. I think the new snobbiness is anti-snobbiness. Turning up your nose at societies standards as being too constrained or illiberal.

Turns out our society is actually pretty damn good. There's lots of nice things there for people who are willing to participate in a moral and reciprocal manner.

Adam9213

Don't Chute! wrote: »

You don’t seem to understand that it’s because of their behavior that people have those opinions on them. Or, you do understand and are being deliberately obtuse?

The same could be said for black people in the 80s and 90s don't you agree?

As I said if I was a 12 year old traveller kid who's done nothing wrong do you think I would deserve those opinions of me?

Don't Chute!

Adam9213 wrote: »

The same could be said for black people in the 80s and 90s don't you agree?

As I said if I was a 12 year old traveller kid who's done nothing wrong do you think I would deserve those opinions of me?

Nice moving of the goalposts there

Sean.3516

Adam9213 wrote: »

I'm not generalising, that's fact if you done any of them things to travelers or to anyone at all with a set of balls you would have your head smashed in, how is that giving them a bad name?

Are you condoning getting "you head smashed in" as an appropriate response to throwing eggs at a caravan?

I regard myself as having a set of balls. I don't take a baseball bat to the heads of the youngsters across the road when they throw eggs at my house on halloween.

Adam9213

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Are you condoning getting "you head smashed in" as an appropriate response to throwing eggs at a caravan?

I regard myself as having a set of balls. I don't take a baseball bat to the heads of the youngsters across the road when they throw eggs at my house on halloween.

Throwing an egg at your house on Halloween would be different to throwing eggs at your house on a normal day because you were part of the traveler/Jewish/Muslim community is different don't you think?

Sean.3516

Adam9213 wrote: »

Not everyone is going to set out to be the Martin Luther King of the traveller community, as a young traveler knowing the opinions society holds on me and my family I would not want to be any part of that society.

Or as a young traveller, you could recognise some cold hard truths.

(1.) That you aren't systemically oppressed by society.
(2.) That a large amount of people in your community are criminals.
(3.) That being a criminal is wrong because it's an affront to your fellow man.

And then don't be a criminal.

I'm not calling on young travellers to be Martin Luther Kings. First of all, the comparison is ridiculous. The Irish State has not implemented Jim Crow against the travelling communities. I'm just asking them to behave in a civilised manner. If they all did that then we wouldn't have any problems would we?

Sean.3516

Adam9213 wrote: »

Throwing an egg at your house on Halloween would be different to throwing eggs at your house on a normal day because you were part of the traveler/Jewish/Muslim community is different don't you think?

Okay, I'll concede you that.

Again I ask the question, if someone for racially bigoted reasons throws eggs at your house/dwelling, is it an appropriate response to go out and beat them up?

Fair enough if you are being physical attacked for being an ethnic minority, I'm all for people being able to use deadly force to defend themselves but we have to keep a sense of proportion here.

I mean was there ever a time in which the settled people would ride into a traveller camp and ransack the place and lynch the inhabitants?

Sean.3516

The comparison of black people to travellers really doesn't take the history of blacks in the US into account.

Since blacks were released from slavery all the way through the 1950s, their conditions improved astronomically in spite of segregation. They weren't hindered by problems of their own culture the way travellers are.

Then in the mid 60s after they got civil rights, the focus then became on flinging welfare at them and their progress stagnated. Crime rose, mainly because the illegitimacy rates spiked from 20% to 70% since welfare disincentivized people from marrying.

With blacks, the cultural problems came as a result of government intervention. With travellers, the cultural problems pre-existed government intervention and are being compounded by it.

The work of economist Thomas Sowell is a good source on this.

end of the road

shaveAbullock wrote: »

I know for settled people who refuse to school their children TUSLA would get involved.
This is not the case for traveller children however.
Are TUSLA failing the traveller community? Should they have a more active role in ensuring travellers adhere to the same laws as settled people?

certainly they have an obligation to enforce the rules equally and if they are not doing that then that needs to change.
i accept in saying that it will be harder for them to deal with the nomadic element of the traveling community due to their ability to move quickly but certainly i expect they can do more.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well first, let's distinguish between discrimination based on bigotry and discrimination based on a generalised view of how people in a group behave. Of course people who hate travellers for being travellers are wrong. But if someone makes a judgement about somebody based on minimal information about the person (which we all do all the time) and the only information available is that they're a traveller, then that will carry with it a stigma on account of the reputation of that group for being rife with criminal activity. In some cases this may be the rational thing to do. Like if it's night time and your walking down the road and you see a group of people who look like travellers. You might walk to the other side of the road to avoid them. I'm not saying that we shouldn't seek to know more about individuals before making judgments but in many areas of life this is unavoidable and it will inevitably have consequences for travellers. This is NOT the fault of the people who make those judgements. It's simply a matter of fact a disproportionate amount of travellers are criminals. If this wasn't the case, we would not have this perception of them.

What are those "other groups" you mention that I would never treat the same as travellers? Blacks? Poles? Arabs? You're right. I wouldn't treat them the way I treat travellers because they commit nowhere near the same amount of crime and they participate in society and are economically productive.

The fact that you actually felt the need to distinguish these groups tells me you understand this.


Of course crime can be major part of a culture. And of course we can erase a culture. We can change incentive structures by enforcing the law and removing state subsidies for the people participating in that culture.


They will join society if the alternative is starving. By that I mean if they aren't receiving state aid and their criminal activities have been shut down then they will literally have no choice but to join society.

i'm afraid this is more likely wishful thinking then reality, as if it was the case that they would all join society if the above was done, then it would have successfully been done by now.
it has not, because anyone determined not to join society will not do so realistically.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Wow, the "soft bigotry of low expectations" on full display here.

Oh but it's just not in the nature of travellers to have the wherewithal to take advantage of a state-provided education unless we force them to. As I've said, this is a cultural issue. We can change culture if we change the incentives. Halt state aid and enforce the law.

It seems that I have more respect for travellers than you do since I view them as freely willed humans with the agency to make decisions for the better if they want to.

sure you do alright.
you see i know that people can be and are mostly free willed, however i also know there will be an element who will not comply with rules, that exists all across society. so when someone does not comply with the rules and laws as set by the government, then enforcement is needed by the authorities.
haulting state aid isn't going to make a difference to anything, the criminal element will just continue business as usual and others in the community will be negatively effected dispite it not being specifically designed for them.

end of the road

Don't Chute! wrote: »

You don’t seem to understand that it’s because of their behavior that people have those opinions on them. Or, you do understand and are being deliberately obtuse?

actually, the behaviour of those who do badly behave is more an excuse used as justification by some people to have those opinions of all of the community, rather then what it should be used for, the opinion that we must do better in terms of dealing with the criminal element.

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Nice moving of the goalposts there

no shifting of the goalposts, but simply posting a comparison that in some ways has validity, which is inconvenient because it exposes certain views for what they ultimately are.

Sean.3516

Adam9213 wrote: »

No that's fair enough but that's what most people would consider racism, what I'm saying is that stereotyping a whole group of people and calling them all sorts of names because so many of them act in a certain way does not do any favours to the future of those communities (the children) it only helps reassure that they follow the same path.

Nope, sorry that's not what racism is.

Holding an opinion about a community of people that is based on an accurate view of how people in that group behave is not racism. The fact that the group is defined by race is irrelevant.

Racism is when you hold negative views of someone BECAUSE of their race. That's why it's called racism as opposed to culturalism.

You can call me a culturalist but you can't call me a racist.

Sandor Clegane

Adam9213 wrote: »

The thread title here is a bit misleading it should just be called "the traveller hate thread"

People have every right to be critical, the majority of travelers live off our dime and work ethic.

What well adjusted person would be happy to help sustain the way these people live?

scudzilla

Just ask yourself this hypothetical question

If Covid19 wiped out every traveller in Ireland would the country be a better place for it?

I know what my answer is, didn't even have to think

Don't Chute!

end of the road wrote: »

actually, the behaviour of those who do badly behave is more an excuse used as justification by some people to have those opinions of all of the community, rather then what it should be used for, the opinion that we must do better in terms of dealing with the criminal element.




no shifting of the goalposts, but simply posting a comparison that in some ways has validity, which is inconvenient because it exposes certain views for what they ultimately are.

He started with “if I were a traveller.....”
He changed it to “if I were a traveller, who had done nothing wrong.....”

Deebles McBeebles

shaveAbullock wrote: »

Why not, are you saying that you believe that there are different laws for travellers?
Surely that would only increase the issue and feeling of segregation.

Precisely.

Working class heroes wrote: »

Yep. That’s all these threads are. As soon as one is closed another one pops up and around we go again.

The same can be said about all topics on Boards. The guy you quoted is a troll by the way. I'm not sure why people are responding.

Adam9213

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Nope, sorry that's not what racism is.

Holding an opinion about a community of people that is based on an accurate view of how people in that group behave is not racism. The fact that the group is defined by race is irrelevant.

Racism is when you hold negative views of someone BECAUSE of their race. That's why it's called racism as opposed to culturalism.

You can call me a culturalist but you can't call me a racist.

I asked about having the same views on travelers as blacks in the 90s here is a quote from you

"But if someone makes a judgement about somebody based on minimal information about the person (which we all do all the time) and the only information available is that they're a traveller, then that will carry with it a stigma on account of the reputation of that group for being rife with criminal activity"

Definition of racism also according to you "racism is when you hold negative views of someone because of their race"

Barely anyone in the last 50 years in the US hates people just because they're black, when people talk about stopping racism they are talking about stopping exactly what you explained.

If racism was the way you think of it then racism would be virtually non existent, stereotypes are very much seen as racism, not that I myself consider it racism but that's the way racism is thought as in US society.

If you did hold them same views on blacks as you did on travelers like you said then that by your definition would make you a racist.