Judge Calls Travellers "Neanderthals" - Update: Phil Hogan and Billy Ireland Seem to Agree

[Seán Ryan]

I'm sure plenty of local authorities have housed plenty of paedophiles near plenty of schools. Strangely enough, I've never heard of one being sued for doing so. Duty of care would be hard to establish I suppose, considering our glorious gardaí have no such duty. To me, housing doesn't really contribute to the factors that inspire rape. Generally speaking that is, there's all sorts of f*cked up out there.

Most folks on the housing lists are families. Families don't have criminal convictions. Indeed the constitution (in one of its more lucid moments) sees the family as being the fundamental unit of society, whose rights are unassailable. Guilt by association, collective punishment, particularly from racial hatred, are to be despised and no amount of flowery language will change that.

[MPB]

I'm sure plenty of local authorities have housed plenty of paedophiles near plenty of schools. Strangely enough, I've never heard of one being sued for doing so. Duty of care would be hard to establish I suppose, considering our glorious gardaí have no such duty. To me, housing doesn't really contribute to the factors that inspire rape. Generally speaking that is, there's all sorts of f*cked up out there.

Most folks on the housing lists are families. Families don't have criminal convictions. Indeed the constitution (in one of its more lucid moments) sees the family as being the fundamental unit of society, whose rights are unassailable. Guilt by association, collective punishment, particularly from racial hatred, are to be despised and no amount of flowery language will change that.

Racial hatred is one thing. Objecting to a paedophile, a murderer or a convicted criminal living in your neighbourhood when you have a family, is upholding the constitution. Or are you in favour of discriminating against families with no criminal elements?

Hogan was wrong to discriminate against a family for being travellers and even more wrong for accusing them of being anti social because they are travellers.

But he would not be wrong, if they had been guilty of anti social behaviour.

[C. Flower]

imho a landlord is quite entitled to check if a prospective tenant has criminal convictions.

There is provision for this in the Housing Acts in the case of LA lettings

The issue was not criminal convictions but some amorphous category of behaviour assembled under the woolly title "anti-social behaviour." When you look at what is deemed anti-social behaviour some of it is contrary to the law - vandalism for example - and other aspects are more needing social worker support than punishment (say, kids being allowed to play out very liate on school nights).

But I disagree with excluding people with convictions from housing. The implication is that people are not accepted to have served their time, and that their families should be punished eternally along with them.

Should they also be excluded from employment ?

Stopped from using public transport ?

There is much about the way the social housing tenants are treated that is toxic.

The whole system of raising the rent when person gets a job is also imo damaging and wrong.

[MPB]

The issue was not criminal convictions but some amorphous category of behaviour assembled under the woolly title "anti-social behaviour." When you look at what is deemed anti-social behaviour some of it is contrary to the law - vandalism for example - and other aspects are more needing social worker support than punishment (say, kids being allowed to play out very liate on school nights).

But I disagree with excluding people with convictions from housing. The implication is that people are not accepted to have served their time, and that their families should be punished eternally along with them.

Should they also be excluded from employment ?

Stopped from using public transport ?

There is much about the way the social housing tenants are treated that is toxic.

The whole system of raising the rent when person gets a job is also imo damaging and wrong.

All convictions?

Do you have children?

[C. Flower]

All convictions?

Do you have children?

Do you think it would help having people with convictions for paedophilia living in hedges ?

[MPB]

Do you think it would help having people with convictions for paedophilia living in hedges ?

What a stupid question.

[fluffybiscuits]

Do you think it would help having people with convictions for paedophilia living in hedges ?

Brilliant

[fluffybiscuits]

Racial hatred is one thing. Objecting to a paedophile, a murderer or a convicted criminal living in your neighbourhood when you have a family, is upholding the constitution. Or are you in favour of discriminating against families with no criminal elements?

Hogan was wrong to discriminate against a family for being travellers and even more wrong for accusing them of being anti social because they are travellers.

But he would not be wrong, if they had been guilty of anti social behaviour.

There was one issue though which is the crux of this. Why did they feel the need to mention travellers at all in the first place? Surely with all the fortunes they spend on PR they could have had some bored lackey in Dept of Tax Everyone for breating oxygen for a few minutes to read over the letter and see how silly a letter it was. The family was not going to remain docile when the letter was sent, in fact I hope a complaint is made by them or by Paveen point and Hogan squirms in his ivory tower...

[C. Flower]

There is nothing romantic about dirt, ignorance, poverty, and asocial culture.

If that is all you think there is to it, I don't think that you can have known many Travellers. My attitude changed when I did, and not for the worse. And in any case, it is not a question of "romance" to be aware of positives as well as negatives in either individual Travellers or they way they live as a group.

[Seán Ryan]

Racial hatred is one thing. Objecting to a paedophile, a murderer or a convicted criminal living in your neighbourhood when you have a family, is upholding the constitution. Or are you in favour of discriminating against families with no criminal elements?

Hogan was wrong to discriminate against a family for being travellers and even more wrong for accusing them of being anti social because they are travellers.

But he would not be wrong, if they had been guilty of anti social behaviour.

How is objecting to a criminal living in your neighbourhood upholding the constitution? One may be exercising one's rights. But the constitution does not confer rights, it merely recognises them. I'm not in favour of discriminating against any family, whether or not they have criminal elements and in that, the constitution and I are in agreement.

Your two final paragraphs I am going to treat as being the one. A classic "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle" argument. Hogan had no business discriminating regardless as to the legal status of family members. Hogan was motivated by one of two things, either racism or vote winning. I'd guess that vote buying was the more likely of the two. He'd no business making representations to the housing authority regardless as to which strain of dirtbag he is. Corruption is the currency of Irish politics. To me, there's no difference between making representations to a prison governor for the early release of some scumbag on behalf of a voter and accepting a brown envelope to represent some other vested interest. It is the same, to be pandering to racist notions for personal gain.

This soul selling crap is the butterfly blowing up a storm that has devastated this country both economically and morally.

[DCon]

Big Phil

Frank Fitzgibbon ‏@FrankSunTimes

Hogan watchers:SunTimes reports that Big Phil personally contacted Kilkenny county manager over that housing matter...

[MPB]

How is objecting to a criminal living in your neighbourhood upholding the constitution? One may be exercising one's rights. But the constitution does not confer rights, it merely recognises them. I'm not in favour of discriminating against any family, whether or not they have criminal elements and in that, the constitution and I are in agreement.

Your two final paragraphs I am going to treat as being the one. A classic "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle" argument. Hogan had no business discriminating regardless as to the legal status of family members. Hogan was motivated by one of two things, either racism or vote winning. I'd guess that vote buying was the more likely of the two. He'd no business making representations to the housing authority regardless as to which strain of dirtbag he is. Corruption is the currency of Irish politics. To me, there's no difference between making representations to a prison governor for the early release of some scumbag on behalf of a voter and accepting a brown envelope to represent some other vested interest. It is the same, to be pandering to racist notions for personal gain.

This soul selling crap is the butterfly blowing up a storm that has devastated this country both economically and morally.

Our constitution protects families.

Preventing a criminal from living among you, is protecting your family.

[Holly]

Our constitution protects families.

... and everyone else, including those with a criminal record.

Preventing a criminal from living among you, is protecting your family.

It would be against Irish and international law to banish citizens to Van Diemen's Land upon release from custody.

[Seán Ryan]

Our constitution protects families.

Preventing a criminal from living among you, is protecting your family.

That's what's known as a logical fallacy. And even if it wasn't, it doesn't even begin to get what the constitution has to say about the matter.

Firstly, your only recourse to address crimes committed against you, is through the courts, both in criminal and in civil actions. Secondly, crimes against you and your family, must have happened, in the past tense, before you can take legal action. Your fear of your neighbour, no matter how terrified you are, is not sufficient evidence, to bring either a criminal action or a civil action. The constitution recognises both your family and the family with the embedded past offender as equal and has having rights beyond the jurisdiction of any court to set at naught.

You should protect your family and you should do it in the face of any threat, that's a given. You must assess the threat, that's your business. On the other hand, the fallout from your assessment and its consequences are society's business. My opinion is that the standard you claim is upholding the constitution, is logically flawed and it doesn't even warrant a constitutionality argument.

[MPB]

That's what's known as a logical fallacy. And even if it wasn't, it doesn't even begin to get what the constitution has to say about the matter.

Firstly, your only recourse to address crimes committed against you, is through the courts, both in criminal and in civil actions. Secondly, crimes against you and your family, must have happened, in the past tense, before you can take legal action. Your fear of your neighbour, no matter how terrified you are, is not sufficient evidence, to bring either a criminal action or a civil action. The constitution recognises both your family and the family with the embedded past offender as equal and has having rights beyond the jurisdiction of any court to set at naught.

You should protect your family and you should do it in the face of any threat, that's a given. You must assess the threat, that's your business. On the other hand, the fallout from your assessment and its consequences are society's business. My opinion is that the standard you claim is upholding the constitution, is logically flawed and it doesn't even warrant a constitutionality argument.

So you agree that trying to protect your family from a known criminal is not being racist?