Truth about traveller crime

Sean.3516

end of the road wrote: »

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.

You can't just say that a solution won't work because if it would work it would have been done already. How do you know if something will or won't work before it's been tried?

I wasn't aware our policy makers could look into alternate futures like Doctor Strange.

Again you're making an "it's in their nature" argument. People aren't inherently determined to do one thing or another. The question is why are they determined not to rejoin society? The answer is because they don't have to. It's possible for them to stay living the way they do taking aid while the law is insufficiently enforced.

If circumstances change, then the will of the traveller community will change.

end of the road wrote: »

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.

Do you believe that this is includes all travellers or just the ones who commit crimes?

If it's just the the travellers who commit crimes fair enough but that's still a large group of people and the question is how can we minimise that group. One of the ways you can do this is by pressuring travellers to integrate into normal society. If they weren't separate, they could make their living the same as anyone else.

But you have to apply the pressure by enforcing the law and you have stop paying them not to change which is what you're doing when you give them state aid.

Sandor Clegane

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.

Hmm..I wonder why that is

Sean.3516

scudzilla wrote: »

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

Well you'd have to define what you mean by "better".

scudzilla

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well you'd have to define what you mean by "better".

Less violence, Less crime, Less mess around the countryside, Less spent on social welfare so can be used elsewhere, More social housing available, Less accidents on roads, Less vulnerable people being ripped off

Sure i may have missed a few but work away

Omackeral

scudzilla wrote: »

Less violence, Less crime, Less mess around the countryside, Less spent on social welfare so can be used elsewhere, More social housing available, Less accidents on roads, Less vulnerable people being ripped off

That’s the Amish Maori actually

deaddonkey15

The comparison between travellers and African Americans in the US is so utterly moronic it’s unbelievable. I think some people need to brush up on their history.

Sean.3516

Adam9213 wrote: »

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"

Yes, when I say "because of their race", I mean when someone thinks that someone is inherently inferior because of their ethnicity. That they are actually an inferior type of human because they're genetics dictate that they are black as opposed to white. This was the argument that actual racists made for a very long time.

Here's what I'm saying:
"The person in front of me is a traveller. I know that a large proportion of travellers are criminals. Therefore if I have to make a judgement about this person in the absence of any other information, I'll defer to the group data."

And in the case of travellers, the group data doesn't paint a pretty picture.

There's a book called "Discrimination and Disparities" by economist Thomas Sowell, (who's a black man btw) which discusses the difference between racism and discrimination.

Adam9213 wrote: »

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.

All that means is that I disagree with them on what racism is.

Adam9213 wrote: »

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.

Stereotypes are not the same as racism. A stereotype can be correct or incorrect. Racism is always incorrect.

Adam9213

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

The comparison between travellers and African Americans in the US is so utterly moronic it’s unbelievable. I think some people need to brush up on their history.

Doesn't make any difference to black people of today does it? Apart from the travellers have a far worse and socially accepted opinion of them and are far more hated than black people today are.

Is it moronic because their great great great great grandparents were slaves? That gives them an excuse?

end of the road

Don't Chute! wrote: »

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

ultimately changes nothing.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

You can't just say that a solution won't work because if it would work it would have been done already. How do you know if something will or won't work before it's been tried.

I wasn't aware our policy makers could look into alternate futures like Doctor Strange.

Again you're making an "it's in their nature" argument. People aren't inherently determined to do one thing or another. The question is why are they determined not to rejoin society? The answer is because they don't have to. It's possible for them to stay living the way they do taking aid while the law is insufficiently enforced.

If circumstances change, then the will of the traveller community will change.


Do you believe that this is includes all travellers or just the ones who commit crimes?

If it's just the the travellers who commit crimes fair enough but that's still a large group of people and the question is how can we minimise that group. One of the ways you can do this is by pressuring travellers to integrate into normal society. If they weren't separate, they could make their living the same as anyone else.

But you have to apply the pressure by enforcing the law and you have stop paying them not to change which is what you're doing when you give them state aid.

i would expect the government have already looked at such options to see how the likely hood of them working would be, + you can have a basic idea of the likely hood of something working or not before trying it by looking at various factors, + including the success of other incentives designed to bring about changes in behaviour and their success.
yeah, you well know i am not making any it's in their nature argument, i won't be playing your nonsense game i am afraid.
when you give people state aid you are paying them so they can afford to live, no more no less, you aren't paying them to change or not change.
if removing state aid was shown to bring about changes in behaviour then it would be the norm and there would be plenty of examples of it around the world with large scale success.
all it does is negatively effect people while making no difference to the individuals it is aimed at to apparently change their behaviour.

Adam9213

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes, when I say "because of their race", I mean when someone thinks that someone is inherently inferior because of their ethnicity. That they are actually an inferior type of human because they're genetics dictate that they are black as opposed to white. This was the argument that actual racists made for a very long time.

Here's what I'm saying:
"The person in front of me is a traveller. I know that a large proportion of travellers are criminals. Therefore if I have to make a judgement about this person in the absence of any other information, I'll defer to the group data."

And in the case of travellers, the group data doesn't paint a pretty picture.

There's a book called "Discrimination and Disparities" by economist Thomas Sowell, (who's a black man btw) which discusses the difference between racism and discrimination.

All that means is that I disagree with them on what racism is.


Stereotypes are not the same as racism. A stereotype can be correct or incorrect. Racism is always incorrect.

So by your logic racism doesn't exist, how many people in the US are you going to find who believe black people are inferior because of the colour of their skin almost none, when people refer to racism in America they are almost always talking about stereotypes, like why black people are more likely to get pulled over or whatever.

Sean.3516

This is a response from a few pages back. Adam9213 said that in the 80s when the crime rate among blacks was extremely high it would be worried.

Adam9213 wrote: »

if you seen a black person on the street at night it would be perfectly reasonable to be worried for your safety.

One question. Why?

Esel

Keep going Adam - only 2 more posts to hit the magic 100 on your first day (on this account).

holyhead

Number of points about traveller crime

1. The only travellers I trust are those in the cemetery.
2. They are halfway between human and animal in terms of their behaviour
3. They have zero respect for people or property.
4. The PC age we live in actually facilitates their crime spree. Nobody in officialdom has the cojones to call them out on the mayhem they cause.
5. The courts do not give out adequate sentencing for the crimes they commit. (Not traveller specific)
6. The Gardai are afraid of them.
7. They are not an ethnic minority. They are a societal menace.
8. If they were all rounded up and fecked off to Spike Island you would see a heck of a drop off in national crime rates.

Sean.3516

Adam9213 wrote: »

So by your logic racism doesn't exist, how many people in the US are you going to find who believe black people are inferior because of the colour of their skin almost none,

Yes. I am saying that the number of actual racists in the US is infinitesimally small.

Adam9213 wrote: »

when people refer to racism in America they are almost always talking about stereotypes, like why black people are more likely to get pulled over or whatever.

Yes and as I said, stereotypes can be either correct or incorrect. In the US, blacks are disproportionately more likely to be criminals. Even today. However that doesn't mean its correct for a white person to be worried every time they see a black person. The proportion of blacks committing crimes has decreased in recent decades mostly because crime as a whole in the US has decreased in recent decades mostly thanks to increased policing.

But you have to consider things like geography. Black people are more likely to be criminals in some parts of the US than others. And so there'll be variation in how non-blacks think of blacks across different areas.

Another thing to consider is who is making the assessment? In general there may not be a need for a white person to be concerned when they see a black person but if you're a police officer, your job is to detect and prevent crime. So it's obvious that you should pay more attention to blacks than whites. This isn't you being a racist. It's you doing your job to prevent and detect as much crime as possible by deferring to group statistics in cases were info about the individual isn't available.

Another note. If someone doesn't believe that blacks are genetically inferior but still acts in a bigoted way toward them and perhaps uses a stereotype (correct or incorrect) as a justification. Then that person is a racist too. I think this is what you were getting at.

end of the road

holyhead wrote: »

They are not an ethnic minority.

it seems they are, i am afraid.
it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, that's just tough on your part, it's not going to change i would expect and quite rightly so.

holyhead wrote: »

They are a societal menace.

some of them are, yes .
all of them though, no .

holyhead

end of the road wrote: »

it seems they are, i am afraid.
it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, that's just tough on your part, it's not going to change i would expect and quite rightly so.



some of them are, yes .
all of them though, no .

It's not about liking them or otherwise. If you have grounds to show they are an ethnic minority I'm all ears.

Deebles McBeebles

Omackeral wrote: »

That’s the Amish Maori actually

I heard it was settled people who dump at halting sites.

scudzilla

holyhead wrote: »

7. They are not an ethnic minority. They are a societal menace.

end of the road wrote: »

it seems they are, i am afraid.
it doesn't matter whether you like it or not, that's just tough on your part, it's not going to change i would expect and quite rightly so.



some of them are, yes .
all of them though, no .

They're Irish, that's their ethnicity, they don't need some made up ethnic status that they only use to bleat 'RACISM' every time someone pulls them up on one of their many misgivings.

Why quite rightly so? Why do they deserve their own ethnicity?

Zetor19

We are fair lucky that the English have not bet them back over here, why has that not happened btw?

end of the road

holyhead wrote: »

It's not about liking them or otherwise. If you have grounds to show they are an ethnic minority I'm all ears.

i would find it hard to believe that governments would recognise people as an ethnic minority who aren't.
so if government have accepted that travelers are an ethnic minority then they must be so, as otherwise they would not be recognised as such.

end of the road

scudzilla wrote: »

They're Irish, that's their ethnicity, they don't need some made up ethnic status that they only use to bleat 'RACISM' every time someone pulls them up on one of their many misgivings.

Why quite rightly so? Why do they deserve their own ethnicity?

perhapse you could send your findings to the government?
as for why quite rightly so, well i would imagine a serious amount of information would have been put forward to government to show that such a status is warrented, + no doubt it allows for extra protections against discrimination etc.

holyhead

end of the road wrote: »

i would find it hard to believe that governments would recognise people as an ethnic minority who aren't.
so if government have accepted that travelers are an ethnic minority then they must be so, as otherwise they would not be recognised as such.

Govt and official Ireland are afraid of them and treat them with kid gloves. This in turn makes the general public afraid of standing up to them. Padraig Nally was driven so demented by them he killed one who trespassed. Think about that.

shaveAbullock

holyhead wrote: »

Padraig Nally was driven so demented by them he killed one who trespassed. Think about that.

It was good that the case went to retrial and a jury of ordinary Irish citizens were able to have their say in the matter.

holyhead

shaveAbullock wrote: »

It was good that the case went to retrial and a jury of ordinary Irish citizens were able to have their say in the matter.

I would agree with that. It’s sad to think that he felt so threatened as to see no other option but to do as he did. He has to live with it for the rest of his life.

Tokyo

Mod: @holyhead - don't post in this thread again.

Omackeral

holyhead wrote: »

Nobody in officialdom has the cojones to call them out on the mayhem they cause.

Peter Casey did. He went from a 1% no-hoper to a podium finish. Forget the man that said it or his speaking abilities or any other factor, think of that sheer change in numbers. It was an absolute surge and you can only think it's because people supported that he had the Niagra Falls to actually say something grounded in truth that resonated with a lot of people. Was refreshing to hear to be honest compared to what the rest said.

Morgans

Omackeral wrote: »

Peter Casey did. He went from a 1% no-hoper to a podium finish. Forget the man that said it or his speaking abilities or any other factor, think of that sheer change in numbers. It was an absolute surge and you can only think it's because people supported that he had the Niagra Falls to actually say something grounded in truth that resonated with a lot of people. Was refreshing to hear to be honest compared to what the rest said.

After getting this huge profile of a truth-teller, exposing the nonsense of liberal ireland and giving voice to the 99% of people who feel the same, he did finish third in the lowest turnout in National history for a presidential election. A post in which he would never have been able to do anything to change the situation.

After galvanisig this under the surface not-at-all-racist vote, remind us again how this podium finisher got on in the subsequent general election?

Omackeral

Well done. You missed the entire point of the post. I said blatantly disregard anything else about the man. It’s what was said and the reaction to same, not who said it or how they themselves fared afterwards. Majority of people didn’t and don’t care about Casey. Most cast a protest vote.

Omackeral

Also “racist” lol.

deaddonkey15

Morgans wrote: »

After getting this huge profile of a truth-teller, exposing the nonsense of liberal ireland and giving voice to the 99% of people who feel the same, he did finish third in the lowest turnout in National history for a presidential election. A post in which he would never have been able to do anything to change the situation.

After galvanisig this under the surface not-at-all-racist vote, remind us again how this podium finisher got on in the subsequent general election?

He finished second. 1 in 3 voters gave him a first or second preference.