...It is important to state that it is not communities that commit crimes but individuals. Those convicted are squarely Henry Long, Albert Bowers and Jessie Cole, not thousands of innocent people who share their heritage. Tarring all Travellers with the brush of these men’s callousness is as unfair as tarring all Catholics for paedophile priests or all eskimos for daft militant wog attacks.
Yet to completely ignore the cultural context of this crime is wrong. Henry Long, the ringleader, was removed from school at the age of 12; he followed his father and grandfather into the thieving “trade”. Albert Bowers left school at 11 and before the trial had already picked up three youth convictions. These young men could not read or write. For years they had not known school or structure. Their education was in petty crime.
Such problems do not solely beset Travellers but they are far more prevalent among Traveller communities. If we want to be a country where all are treated the same, where all live by the same rules and where the state does its best to furnish each with a decent chance in life, we have to end the squeamishness that prevents open talk about Travellers. This squeamishness is down to two fears. First, the fear of retribution. After the verdict on PC Harper’s death it emerged that the judge, Mr Justice Edis, brought the first trial to a temporary halt over an alleged potential plot to intimidate jurors. Extra security measures were brought in. Jurors were referred to by number not name. One juror was dismissed for acting oddly in court, mouthing pleasantries at the defendants. Whether she was motivated by misplaced friendliness or fear of someone up in that public gallery we do not know, but most will not be shocked by revelations of intimidation.
The fear of the bullet, the knife, the burnt-out car; this helps the lawless elements of Traveller culture maintain a certain power, and gives the law-abiding majority of Travellers a terrible name.
The second fear is that of being labelled racist. Since the Equality Act 2010 recognised Gypsy, Roma and Travellers as ethnic minorities, race has been used to shield this culture from due scrutiny. Sensible questions about why those within these groups are more likely to be in prison, more likely to be illiterate or more likely to suffer domestic violence prompt cries of racism. In April a Channel 4 Dispatches programme titled The Truth About Traveller Crime was dubbed “dehumanising” by activists and investigated by Ofcom. Desperate not to offend, the authorities turn a culturally sensitive blind eye.
The fears hush most into silence, and the silence means the stand-off between Travellers and the rest of society continues uneasily. Many feel disquieted to see the mobile homes rolling on to a local beauty spot, a portent too often of littering, mess, anti-social behaviour. Meanwhile those in Traveller communities are hardly “living their best lives”. Travellers die about ten years earlier than the rest of us. They have higher rates of chronic illness. Their suicide rates are six times higher.
You might argue that they choose to live like this, but the babies born into that life don’t. Many are destined to repeat the same pattern: leave school in your early teens, drift into a life of odd jobs and petty crime, never move beyond the circles you were raised in. As long as the culturally sensitive force-field exists around Travellers, these children are abandoned to a fate that should not be tolerated in 21st-century Britain.
It is a scandal that some Gypsy and Traveller children are taken out of school at primary age; that some start work as young as ten; that about 65 per cent of Traveller children are persistently absent from school; that they have the lowest attainment of all ethnic groups throughout their school years and are far more likely to be excluded. Are we to be surprised when they choose crime?
>>36845 >but in this day and age that's not good enough and you have to go along with all kinds of mental gymnastic tripe to justify a fucking joke
A half thought: The other side of this is that people want to have it both ways. (Whether it applies to Carr is a separate question.) We're half-in-half on a society that thinks saying something edgy makes you a dick, and nowadays that's something most people know or ought to know. But people want to keep saying edgy things without being thought of as a dick, and even if saying edgy things doesn't inherently make you a dick, even if that's arbitrary, saying edgy things knowing it's considered a dick thing to do still makes you a bit of a dick.
The transgressive element isn't the only appeal of edgy humour, but it definitely adds to it. And it's not like being a dick is the worst thing in the world - you can say "Yeah, I acted like a dick in order to make people laugh" easily enough. Yet there are a lot of times where you get the impression someone wants to be a daredevil without putting themselves in harm's way. They want the credit for jumping the bike over all the burning schoolbuses but they've got absolutely no interest in the fact that sometimes you fall off the bike and cut your arm or land a bit hard and feel like you've had a kick in the balls.
I agree with this, yeah. If you're going to make callous jokes then you're going to have to expect backlash.
I also think the comedian's "character" matters a lot, and a big part of the problem for Carr is that his character is a bit ambiguous. "It's just a joke" isn't as convincing when it's being voiced by a slick, put-together stand-up persona.
Contrast that with Jerry Sadowitz, an ageing magician weirdo who is equally as vicious towards himself as any other target. You don't take what he says as seriously when you realise that he's speaking through a character. Same for Are Stew, whether you like him or not, he is at pains to totally undermine himself (and his stereotypical audience) in many of his standup acts, starting out smug and clever then working up to a self-loathing mental breakdown.
It probably doesn't help that Carr takes many of his jokes from writers, i.e. a writer might think this is a brilliant one-liner without considering how it might come across in context. We understand that when someone like Chris Morris says,
>Luckily, the amount of heroin I use is harmless. I inject about once a month on a purely recreational basis. Fine. But what about other people less stable, less educated, less middle-class than me? Builders or blacks for example.
he's being absurd for the sake of satirising elitist news media. When Sadowitz makes a joke about the Holocaust, we mostly twig on from the vulgarity and outright self-deprecation that he's speaking through a character, and that it's not about the actual target as much as the taboo.
For Carr, though? He's not an "outsider" figure and there doesn't seem to have any deeper satirical motivation or meaning in his work. I think people are mostly willing to accept dark or even outright nasty humour, if they understand and agree with where it's coming from and why. Yeah, maybe it's true that some people don't care whether these jokes come from a joke jukebox like Carr or a more carefully crafted act, but I certainly don't think people are wrong to react skeptically towards him, because a comedian has to earn the trust of the audience.
The other side of this coin is that when you go see a comedian like Carr, who you've seen on the telly making some pretty edgy jokes for Countdown, of all things, you likely know this is the sort of thing you're in for.
Or to use a more extreme example, Frankie Boyle. I never liked him myself, but the man's whole shtick was just being a cunt, so you can hardly complain when you go to see him and end up hearing something a cunt might say.
To go back to Are Stew even. He was near exiled for his role in the Jerry Springer Opera, which seriously offended a lot of Christians. He was effectively cancelled before cancel culture was a thing, and had to rebuild from scratch. That series of events have profoundly shaped who he is as a modern comedian, but his personal thoughts on comedy still very much lean towards the freedom of artistic expression. I'd recommend giving his books a read, he talks very candidly about his comic persona.
At the end of the day what it comes down to is that nobody is making you watch a certain comic. Nobody is making you watch a certain TV show. You can safely ignore it and pay attention to something else. Twenty years ago I'm pretty confident you'd all agree with that line of reasoning if it was Christians trying to shut down a heavy metal band, or moralist conservatives trying to ban a movie or videogame.
The strange development of the social media age is that we largely seem to have conceded that ground in recent years, and perversely, people claiming to be of liberal/leftist leanings have discovered the power of a good moral outrage. But it's still the same thing, and it's still bollocks.
It's just the shamelessness of the press in finding stories that don't require them to leave their desk.
Watch some edgy comedians, pick out a joke that someone might be offended by, ring up some professionally offended people and ask "are you offended by this offensive joke" and bingo, you've got a splash. Play your cards right and it can run for a week with reaction and counter-reaction. It's the most literal sort of manufactured outrage.
It's just the Lenny Bruce situation all over again, but with journalists in the audience taking notes.
>>36857 I saw Jimmy Carr about 10 years ago. The only joke I remember from his routine was this:
When I was a kid I was afraid of the dentist.
He was a paedophile.I won't tell you how many fillings he gave me.
I doubt his routine has changed much from that. It was never much of an act, he just stood there and fired off one bad taste joke after another. He may have even used the statistics show that 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape line as well, thinking about it.
From what I can tell, his show was released on Netflix in December and barely anyone watched it so they decided to publicise some of the more offensive material to get attention and it worked. I think they did the same for Dave Chappelle and his trans jokes.
>Horrified families claim their stay at a "luxury" theme park resort was ruined when "out of control" travellers reportedly trashed the campsite, left a tot with a black eye and pooed in the showers.
Gypsies set up camp on university land, and like clockwork the Co-Op opposite has a security guard. They only ever need security guards when gypsies turn up. Is that an act of racism on Co-Op's part by responding to nearby gypsy incursion with beefed up security?
>>38777 You should spread flyers informing the student body of this racism and watch the chaos unfold.
I don't envy that security guard. It sounds like a great way to get your car torched and to be utterly powerless to actually do anything beyond provoke a fuck-ton of aggro over a sandwich or a gypsy returning an empty bottle of cider because it was wet.
>>38777 I assume the gypsies don't know the security guard is only there when they are. As far as they're concerned, he could be outside Co-Op all the time.
Police van at Co-Op. Copper inside talking to staff, security guard is manually opening and closing the sliding door, one in one out. These travelling folks sound cheeky.
>>38787 Was this in Nottingham? I was there about a month ago and saw a bunch of caravans in a field and a security guard manning the door at a nearby Co-op.
The survey also revealed shocking health disparities between Roma, Gypsy and Traveller people and the rest of the population. Gypsy or Traveller men were 12.4 times as likely to suffer from two or more physical health conditions than white British men, while Roma men were five times as likely – both were higher figures than for any other ethnicity.
Access to health and social care services was found to be a larger issue for Roma people than any other ethnic group, who were 2.5 times more at risk of not having access than the white British population.
The survey also found that people from Roma, Gypsy and Traveller ethnic groups experienced the highest levels of socioeconomic deprivation. About 51% of Gypsy Travellers and 55% of Roma had no educational qualifications. They were also less likely to be in the highest occupational positions, and also had high rates of financial difficulties and benefit receipts.
Roma, Gypsy and Traveller people were also among the least likely of ethnic groups to be in employment, and when they did have jobs during the Covid-19 pandemic they were the most likely to be in precarious employment. After adjusting for age, 85% of Gypsy or Traveller men and 65% of Roma men were in precarious employment, compared with 19% of white British men.
>>40107 They could just not tell people they're a gypsy? It's not like they'll turn up for the job interview in a horse and cart before offering to tarmac over the carpark.
>>40106 It's a cultural thing. It's going to be hard to get a proper job when everyone you know will shun you as a sellout for doing so, and even harder once they all pack up their caravans and move away and you have to quit the job and go too. Never mind the hardships that come when your parents were culturally opposed to you learning to read.
The Guardian are committed to anti-racism, which means believing that anyone who doesn't tick "White British" on the census is a helpless victim of oppression except the Jews, because Jews don't count, except for when someone we don't like is saying that Jews don't count, in which case they do count. Rudyard Kipling was a racist for believing that, but asking why the same belief can be both racist and anti-racist is racist.
An 11-year-old boy was found behind the wheel when police pulled over a BMW X5 towing a suspected stolen caravan on the M1. North Yorkshire Police arrested the boy on suspicion of theft, burglary and motoring offences including dangerous driving.
Officers received a call at about 15:30 GMT on Thursday that a caravan had been stolen from a holiday site near Thirsk. They tracked a BMW they said was using cloned plates heading south on the A1.
The force said that 45 minutes after the caravan was reported stolen "we stopped the vehicle on the M1 after it left the A1 at Hook Moor Interchange near Garforth".
>>41477 >Because of Charlie’s young age, hundreds of relatives arranged a whip-round to fund the headstone which is thought to have cost north of €150,000.
>Martin and Kathleen, mourning heavily, have worn black every day since their son died in March 2023. A shrine to Charlie takes up a sizable section of the kitchen in their Donegal town home, while a larger-than-life image of the lad dominates their living room. Even his bedroom has been closed off, the door locked and room untouched since he died.
>Martin said he would “do anything in the world” to have his son back and stressed that, in line with his culture, it had been important to create something out-of-the-ordinary for Charlie’s resting place.
I've read about parents doing that elsewhere, when one of their kid's dies they leave their room immaculate and try to create a mythical perception of them. I guess the difference is they have a significant tribe to draw money from whereas if I died my mum would just quietly more mental.
>>41477 It's clearly mental, it's fucking hideous, and I do think they need to lose the flags because it's a place of mourning, not a sodding embassy. However, I don't entirely get why people are having a teary about it. Yeah, it looks like Daedric shrine, but tough shit.
If I'm to be a little less devil-may-care about all of this, I'd say it is disrespectful to those graves it opposes. However, that should be a rule the church laid down in the first instance, so blame the priest.
It really is like they want to be disliked by anyone who isn't them. As is a significant portion of their culture is based on intentionally being fucking intolerable.
If I could be mummiefied and burried inside my own pyramid I would.
Whats the differance between this and the Taj Mahal beyond that someone wasted a lot more money and space on the Taj Mahal? and that they had better personal taste.
>>42746 Pyramids, and mausolea(?), are recognisable resting places for the dead. This is more like wanting to be buried in a scale model of a Burger King.
I mean for a start, the pyramids weren't built with the express intention of simply pissing off the other people who wanted to bury their kings in the Nile valley. I've never been a fan of the Taj Mahal and don't really know its history so maybe that one actually was built just to antagonise some other cunt who had his dead wife's memorial across the road. But I doubt it.
Either way, if you want to argue based onthe principle then first you'll have to accept my premise that everything about these "memorials" is, like much of pikey culture, deliberately antagonistic. Which is why they as a group sit outside the realm of protected demographic.
>>42747 >Pyramids, and mausolea(?), are recognisable resting places for the dead
And a church graveyard isn't?
Pull your head out of your arse. There’s understandable resentment for antisocial behaviour then there’s this bigoted shit.
Being uncomfortable the whole community turning up to plant flowers on the house where a burglar was shot breaking into, is one thing. Judging people for being too gaudy in their burial rites is another, You’ve crossed the line into unreasonable disrespect.
>>42748 >Either way, if you want to argue based on the principle then first you'll have to accept my premise that everything about these "memorials" is, like much of pikey culture, deliberately antagonistic. Which is why they as a group sit outside the realm of protected demographic.
I don't have to accept that premise at all, I think the deliberately antagonistic in this context exists purely within your head, and if the paper didn't report it you would not know or care.
I imagine that the Taj Mahal was a massive waste of the Empires wealth, that benefited merely the trades men who built it (pikes??) and fuck all else, and was an insult to everyone in the empire who that money could have been spent for the good of. Maybe in 100 years people will visit gypsy burial sites and talk about their rituals, and be in awe of them.
>if the paper didn't report it you would not know or care.
You are right, but I am not talking about me. I don't care. It's not the graveyard where my sister is buried. It's not right next to her grave pushing up inappropriately against it like a giant sex shop that exploited a planning application loophole to open up right next to a kiddy's playground. Those are the people it's there to antagonise. Every person who has a relative in the graveyard with a normal headstone. It's there so that when other people turn up, they look at it and go "... What the fuck?" and the pikeys have their smug satisfaction of "what are you going to do about it?"
It would be completely and totally fine and fair enough if they bought up the little patch of land they'd camped on that year and built it there. In fact that would be respectable. Then your line of comparison to the Taj Mahal would actually be valid. But that isn't what they've done. What they have done is, in a poetically similar way to how they just turn up in your neighbourhood and shit everything up for two weeks, they've turned up in this graveyard, and shit the place up.
