Multiple Fatalities from Dublin Halting Site Fire


The cynic in me thinks those green thumbs are more in support of DFB than travellers, the rest of the comments followed the trend of Coles’ post on the red thumb front.


It makes you wonder what the Council were thinking if they thought they could push this through without any issues from the residents? Did they confuse the reaction to the tragedy with some kind of new-found love and appreciation of halting sites and their occupants, among the local population? Anyway, it looks like they’ve backed off very quickly, probably fearing that this could become a big, international story with inevitable uncomfortable truths emerging… … s-protest/
The residents said they are concerned about the lack of consultation and the suitability of the site, which is a small field located in the centre of a cul-de-sac. They said they first heard of the decision this morning when a digger arrived on the road and a representative from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council handed out letters detailing the plan. The residents, who did not want to identify themselves, told RTÉ News that while they had sympathy with those affected by the tragedy at Glenamuck there was “no goodwill” towards Traveller families in the area and that they want them to be rehoused elsewhere. … mmodation/
The rate of destruction of Traveller accommodation provided by Dublin City Council has led to calls for the policy to be re-examined. A total of 282 houses and halting bays have been built, but 79 have been closed due to vandalism since 2005, 28% of the total. The destruction is often the result of feuds…some of the incidents had caused damages running into millions of euro.


Here’s the actual site the Council was going to use for this new “temporary” halting site…right at the end of a very narrow cul-de-sac…backing onto that new development at Cairnbrook…,- … 312!8i6656


If you lived in close proximity to a halting site, would you expect to be burgled :

A) More than average

B) Less than average

C) About average




I would actually guess B or C when it comes to burglaries especially if you live very close by. Just a guess though.


Alternative question, if you become suddenly infamous via mainstream media, social media and word of mouth as “that estate that blocked the bereaved travellers” are you looking at A, B or C?



Hopefully they’ll never experience the horror that this family has been through. And if they do, hopefully they find compassion in their time of need.


This approach would really work out well for all concerned. Way to go, Pavee Point…your copy of How To Win Friends And Influence People is on the way. … -1.2390662
Martin Collins, director Pavee Point, described the actions of the residents as “vile” and urged the council to proceed with the planned site, by means of a court injunction against the residents if necessary.


Is this anti-Traveller stuff now the most socially acceptable form of bigotry in ROI?

The prods, the foreigners, the blacks, the gays, the English even have been grudgingly allowed some level of tolerance, but Travellers, who’ve been around longer than a lot of the other minority groups, are still targets of outright discrimination and sweeping generalizations.


All they really need to do to make this work is find a way to guarantee this temporary halting site is closed in 8 months and a playground is constructed in its absence. If that can be guaranteed i imagine there might be agreement.

Rocking up with a jcb and a letter to residents on the same day was only going to cause alarm and defensive reactions. I would have been in thete with the residents.

It doesn’t matter that most travellers are decent law abiding people when anyone with a bit of life experience knows that halting sites are very often centres of local crime and anti social behaviour.


It does matter, very much. You’re perfectly describing discrimination.

What about…

…to justify not employing women in their late twenties. But that’s still illegal.

The point of anti-discrimination as a social policy enforced by law is that we must treat people as individuals regardless of the perceived or actual statistical properties of the groups they belong to.


Eh? when did that happen?


I would think twice as a small business owner before employing a woman in her late 20’s in a key role where a lot of training would be provided. I mean you’d be mad not to. You can correct your morality when the business is bigger and able to be a fully participating member of society.

Same with accepting a halting site close by. You’d be mad to not discriminate, except in this case it’s not even illegal to.


Imho, prejudice against Travellers is a major reason why builders try to make a payment in satisfaction of their obligations in respect of social housing. People simply will not buy a house if they think they might end up living next to Travellers. People are scared of Travellers and do not believe that the law or the Gardai can protect them from antisocial behaviour on the part of Travellers.

Having grown up near Travellers and having had positive and negative interactions with them over the years, I regret to say that I think people are totally justified in their fear of Travellers. The biggest witnesses to this are the many Travellers suffering at the hands of other Travellers.

We all have to make compromises to live in the modern world and we all have to give up parts of life that our parents enjoyed. Many travellers have settled over the years and have successfully integrated with the rest of society. I think that this should be supported through the provision of social housing but it won’t be easy. Special rules need to be brought in for people in social housing who behave antisocially and special laws need to be brought in to deal with feuding and property damage so that people living beside Travellers can know that antisocial behaviour will be dealt with by the local authority without the neighbour having to get involved in a feud.

I am not convinced that the state should be providing halting sites as semi permanent accommodation for travellers. I do not agree that the travelling lifestyle should be supported by the tax payer in circumstances where it is economically unfeasible and is not in the interests of children. I would only be worried that some or many of those in halting sites might be decent people who have been run out of houses by feuds.

In short, I don’t see the value in preserving Traveller Culture as an ersatz artifact of times gone by. It is not economically viable and the children and future generations of travellers don’t have a chance being brought up into such an unsustainable way of living with inadequate protection from the state in respect of health and education. Good for them if they make their millions and can afford to travel around for half the year. However, we should not be funding their children being condemned to such a bleak future out of a misplaced sense of guilt.


In other words, everybody should live like you?


It’s very easy from afar to be moralistic about this. But if you had lived in a quiet cul-de-sac all your life and thats now about to get a halting site, from an existing site you already had problems with further up the road…and you were given a couple of hours notice!!! I can fully understand the residents fears/objections.

But given the exceptional circumstances involved, if a legally binding agreement was presented with specific timeframes etc clearly laid out on the life of this halting site, it would be hard to not be compassionate on this and agree to it


Everyone finds a way to justify breaking the laws or social contracts they choose to break.

Motorist: fucking red-light-jumping cyclists, they should obey the law like I do.
Cyclist: so you always drive below the speed limit?
Motorist: oh, that law. Nobody obeys that law.


Yes you’re right. I would feel guilty about any discrimination and i’d know i was in the wrong in terms of the greater good, but in the case of a halting site my selfishness / fear would just outweigh my desire to avoid guilt. I won’t pretend i’m in the right morally speaking.


Yeah, pretty much agree with all that.