Newly built social homes sitting idle for over 8 months in Wexford

They want both bubblypop. They are not refusing these houses because they only want to stay at a halting site, they are reusing them because they want other ones instead or under different conditions

Source please?

No problem. https://www.independent.ie/regionals/wexford/news/brand-new-wexford-houses-remain-idle-despite-being-turned-down-by-traveller-families-41055226.html

Guff link? Because you don’t like what it is telling you, presumably.

Is this the SC case you’re referring to? I wasn’t sure because in this case it appears as though the SC has already made it’s decision -

The similarity between the case above, and the case in Wexford isn’t just that the families involved are travellers, it’s that the council claim that the traveller families are on the land illegally.

That’s why they’re now in mediation in order to try and persuade the families to move into the accommodation on a temporary basis - before the council waste more public funds bringing the case to Court.

That’s the standoff - the traveller families aren’t going anywhere until the council meet their obligations to provide suitable accommodation. It’s probably a good idea if it was sustainable too, but that might be expecting too much.

If the housing is inherently "unsuitable" for use as a house, then why should a non-traveller have to live in it? Surely it would also be morally repugnant for the Council to sell the property to some unsuspecting private buyer?

Else, what is the justification for creating a hierarchy of citizens?

In relation to the case, the travellers are indeed on the land illegally. That is the point. There was an interlocutory injunction against them for trespass. That case is one in a long line of cases. The latest SC case merely removed that injunction. That is not the same as saying that they can legally occupy the land.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the properties are unsuitable for use as houses? But in any case I wouldn’t expect people who aren’t travellers to be accommodated in properties which aren’t suitable for their needs either. I don’t think there was any mention of selling the properties either to unsuspecting private buyers?

Where are you getting all this from? Since none of those claims apply, it stands to reason that your claim of a hierarchy of citizens existing, also does not apply, not that I would agree there is any such hierarchy in any case.

I don’t think anyone claimed the SC judgement means that anyone can occupy land unlawfully, it’s obvious from reading the article exactly what the judgement means -

"The decision in Clare County Council v McDonagh finally clarifies that the protection of the dwelling under the Constitution does extend to Travellers living on unauthorised sites and that the courts must also have regard, where appropriate, to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights," she said.

"The recognition of Travellers as a vulnerable minority by the court is also hugely significant as it places a particular duty on the courts to take into account their circumstances when faced with an application to have them effectively evicted from an unauthorised site."

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that the case in Wexford is similar circumstances to the case above, which is why the council are more likely to want to talk, when they realise they’re in a bit of a pickle.

Hmm. You're using an example of one kid who presumably told his parents he is playing his playstation because he can't do his schoolwork as he wasn't sent a zoom link as justification that all travellers are denied education.

Or else what is your point?

Sure I know a fella called Paddy and the teacher put himout of the room for 5 minutes for messing - call the UN,Irish children are being denied their human rights.

Try reading the article. You’ll work it out.

Again, try reading the article.

@AndrewJRenko - a simple question - would you live beside the traveller family I describe below or do you condone this behaviour in any way? This is happening now in the village where my family member lives.

Small rural village - the traveller family were given a 4 bed semi detached house at the end of a row of houses occupied by elderly folks with families who have all grown up and left. The traveller family moved in around 5 years ago. The father was barred from all the local pubs within a 25 km radius in the first month. I saw him in action once - very nasty & violent, and the local pub owner used to feed the babies/kids that tagged along with him when he was in the pub all day. The house has been absolutely wrecked a number of times at this stage - completely unlivable and crawling with dirt/filthy/rats/maggots. The house was so bad so about a month ago they moved a huge mobile home into the driveway of the house - the mobile was so big they smashed a fence around the field beside the house to get it in. They also have 2 smaller caravans outside the house, and there are regularly up to 5 large vans parked there in front of neighbour houses and out onto the main road. The field beside them has piles of rubbish dumped, including old trampolines and a variety of sulky carts in various stages of disrepair. A few sorry looking horses are also there at the moment. The field has been allocated for elderly housing and has been cleared multiple times at this stage and how has huge barriers at the gate.

I was talking to the local councillor about this - I know him as he was in my class in school. He said the house will cost 150k to refurbish, including all new furniture and white goods. At the moment it is gutted and all copper wiring gone and everything else sold/scrapped. This is the 3rd time this has happened - total cost of refurbishing the house is approaching 500k at this point. Pavee Point have threatened legal action (CoCo have a policy not to go down this route) if the large mobile is moved, but he is hoping the smaller ones can be moved "over the next few months". The entire place is crawling with rubbish and filth - I was driving past last week and I saw a 2 year old out at 8pm in the freezing cold standing bare foot in a puddle of filthy water surrounded by filth.

The local people are quiet and have never complained (according to the councillor) but they are getting fed up with this. He said that "approximately 90%" of his time is taken up with traveller issues these days, and that Pavee Point have become very aggressive whenever they threaten to do anything. TUSLA and the Gardai have also been there multiple times.

@AndrewJRenko seriously, how can you condone this toxic, filthy, misogynistic culture? What is happening there is child abuse. All the kids past 3rd class are already out of school. They can't even get a builder to go into the house for the renovation - they have to pay a huge premium apparently. And the elderly neighbours are suffering - they can't even leave the coal outside as it'll be immediately robbed. Not to mention that this family have cost the state a huge amount of money over the past 5 years (500k in renovations, dole, child allowance, probably multiple other allowances etc) while contributing absolutely nothing back to society except terrorising the local community and wrecking everything in sight. In a few years the gang of young lads will be old enough to do some serious robbing and terrorising.

This is a toxic culture which needs to be called out. Time to stop making excuses and supporting this criminality and downright abuse.

I would have absolutely no problem with a "quiet traveller family that live quietly, minding their own business".

But I do have a huge problem with the situation I describe in my sisters village. Do you?

You’re not stupid Donald, and I know you’re well aware of things like assessments of needs and so on, and reasonable accommodation standards and all that good stuff, so the whole “single mother demanding a six bedroom mansion in Malahide” and all the rest of it is nothing more than an unreasonable caricature based upon your own prejudices.

What we really can’t afford is a system where prejudice and discrimination are built into it which allows for circumstances where housing authorities are permitted to have little regard for people’s needs, and try to persuade them that the accommodation is suitable for their needs, when it’s later determined that it isn’t, after the council have spent a considerable amount of public funding on the construction and development of accommodation which it knows is unsuitable for its intended occupants.

I mean, I’m assuming that there are some really smart people working in the local authorities, I don’t have to deal with them too often so I don’t have a vast amount of experience to draw on, but I’m assuming they all went to school and did well for themselves and all the rest of it, and yet there appears to be this constant failure to foresee the consequences of their decisions in planning and development. I’m honestly baffled by it, especially in this day and age when discrimination against anyone on the basis of their membership of the traveller community has been prohibited in Irish law for years now, so it’s not as though they could claim they weren’t aware of it?

@BattleCorp1 was able to provide a document earlier that contains three reports from various stakeholders, and I know there are many, many more reports of a similar nature outlining what is considered to be suitable and sustainable accommodation for members of the traveller community. I’m not even being paid to read them as it’s not my job, but I read them anyway. Is it really too much to expect that people who’s job involves providing accommodation to members of the traveller community would at least be aware of these reports, and wouldn’t be so oblivious or incapable of understanding their specific needs?

It really does appear as though they just don’t care, which is fine in a personal capacity, but when it’s their job, and public funding has been allocated specifically to provide accommodation for travellers, is it really too much to expect that the people with responsibility for providing accommodation for travellers would actually take their needs into consideration in planning and development long before the construction stage?

All joking around aside like, seriously? I think the local authorities have a lot to answer for when it appears they’re willing to squander public funds as they’re doing, because their incompetence is costing the State far too much already. Instead it appears you want to zero in on individuals who don’t have any influence whatsoever on social policy, they don’t even have a place they can call home, let alone any real influence on public policy!

I can understand the frustration, I just think you’re aiming your ire at the wrong targets is all.

Bit hyperbolic to use the word "rant", no? I was describing a local situation as accurately as possible, and I gave my own informed opinion.

As for the "quiet traveller family that live quietly, minding their own business" - again, I have absolutely no problem with that. But I'm not sure how that is relevant to my post? Except that the quiet family may have rejected the more toxic and damaging aspects of traveller culture. But surely that supports my points!!????