Man injured in suspected stabbing incident following funeral in Oxford (From Oxford Mail)

I understand that this was a Traveller funeral and that that road was closed for some time.

WitneyGreen wrote:
I understand that this was a Traveller funeral and that that road was closed for some time.

If this is correct then comments will be blocked on this article soon.

GaryOxford wrote:

WitneyGreen wrote:
I understand that this was a Traveller funeral and that that road was closed for some time.

If this is correct then comments will be blocked on this article soon.

I was warned yesterday of probable traffic delays as the funeral of a matriarch of the gypsy community was being held at 10am at Greyfriars. They were expecting 2000 mourners. It's very likely that emotions were running high.

It was a travellers funeral which ended up in a serious incident. A knockout competition!!

Shame, I was looking forward to pictures of the event, bit more pizazz than when my granny was interred. Instead it'll all be about police tape and helicopters. I can see them any time.

A lot of pubs were planning to remain closed today as well...probably wise

maybe if they were left the hell alone an allowed to mourn there loved ones like every one else they might not get so peed off.
They are after all only human like the rest of us, so they life in caravans and have different ways to some folk, we have to leave the muslim community alone so why cant we do the same for them.

Wonder how many of the cars and vans parked on the whole path got tickets??? I suspect none, Bet i would have got a ticket and how much of out tax layers money was spent on the police there were loads, even as far down as the plain.

proud of who i am .....
agree with u.... they get alot of bad press... and really understanding and reasoning with them goes along way the pubs i worked in never got smashed up !!

Has a whole section of comments just been wiped out? such a shame!

proud of who i am wrote:
maybe if they were left the hell alone an allowed to mourn there loved ones like every one else they might not get so peed off.
They are after all only human like the rest of us, so they life in caravans and have different ways to some folk, we have to leave the muslim community alone so why cant we do the same for them.

Do you think that maybe the traveller community must bear some of the responsibility for the police attendance on their own behaviour and reputations? Sure, we can leave people alone all we want, but the fact of the matter is someone got stabbed. I hardly think that constitutes mourning their loved ones "like everyone else". I can't remember a funeral I've been to that has resulted in a stabbing...

The number of comments on this story seems to be going down. I wonder how long this will remain here.

Yes, my earlier comment about the smashing up of pubs has been deleted.

All the police cars & riot vans that I've just seen on my drive through Iffley Road & Oxford Road (and also the riot van that was parked near the Redbridge site) must obviously be out out for some other reason, then.

Oxfordbird wrote:
Wonder how many of the cars and vans parked on the whole path got tickets??? I suspect none, Bet i would have got a ticket and how much of out tax layers money was spent on the police there were loads, even as far down as the plain.

As opposed to the unwaged hours the police all spend on the Cowley Rd every night of the week?

Niko Bellic wrote:

proud of who i am wrote:
maybe if they were left the hell alone an allowed to mourn there loved ones like every one else they might not get so peed off.
They are after all only human like the rest of us, so they life in caravans and have different ways to some folk, we have to leave the muslim community alone so why cant we do the same for them.

Do you think that maybe the traveller community must bear some of the responsibility for the police attendance on their own behaviour and reputations? Sure, we can leave people alone all we want, but the fact of the matter is someone got stabbed. I hardly think that constitutes mourning their loved ones "like everyone else". I can't remember a funeral I've been to that has resulted in a stabbing...

The number of comments on this story seems to be going down. I wonder how long this will remain here.

Do you think the police only attended after an incident you have no first hand knowledge of?

Do you think 2000 people stabbed one person?

Do you always apply negative stereotypes to groups of people across the board based on your own prejudices?

Are you saying all those people turned up to a funeral not to mourn?

Don't beat around the bush with guesswork, innuendo, slurs, negative stereotyping and ill informed nonsense, just say what you mean.

DoctorBob,,, making a joke about lead theft is in no way racism...

You appear to only have a view of other peoples view! why is that?

Darkforbid wrote:
DoctorBob,,, making a joke about lead theft is in no way racism...

You appear to only have a view of other peoples view! why is that?

Making a joke using racial stereotypes is racism my friend despite what you think.

It should be "the extent of his injuries IS unknown".

This must mean that he ran off, hence the helicopter presumably. This would suggest that he was doing something wrong before the person with the knife retaliated.

The church would not have taken as many as 2000 people, I don't think.

What race are these travellers supposed to have been ? But it is true that the whole event, including the advance warning which I also received by email, does not seem to have been a typical funeral by any means ! Good catholics, anyway, I'm sure.

Cherwell wrote:
It should be "the extent of his injuries IS unknown".

This must mean that he ran off, hence the helicopter presumably. This would suggest that he was doing something wrong before the person with the knife retaliated.

The church would not have taken as many as 2000 people, I don't think.

What race are these travellers supposed to have been ? But it is true that the whole event, including the advance warning which I also received by email, does not seem to have been a typical funeral by any means ! Good catholics, anyway, I'm sure.

Roma, Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are now all recognised to have protection under the Race Relations Act as they have been finally recognised as minority ethnic communities in law.

Ironically, it was an incident driven by the same ignorance shown by a few on here that led to this coming about. 5 London pubs refused to serve 8 Irish Travellers and were taken to court and lost.

We all come from nomadic peoples and Travelling is a tradition that stretches back centuries in Britain.

p.s. A police spokesman has now said the injuries are superficial.

Why do you bother Dr Bob Goebbels? we all know how ugly this country has become with its socialist bigotry, ThoughtCrime, the wholesale smashing of the meaning of language. We really don't need a little Commissar like you constantly reiterating the foulness of it all in the Oxford Mail.

DoctorBob - look up the definition of race and then argue your point. I assume you also have an excuse whoever brought a knife to a funeral and stuck it in another person? Maybe you can use your same logic for the wedding at the holiday in a few years ago when, in similar circumstances, a knife was repeatedly stuck in someone until they were dead?

We are all special people to someone, but what seems to irk so many people across Oxford is the seemingly preferential treatment which the Travellers seem to get - yes? However, reality is somewhat different to 'common myth' since many of the Traveller communitities, especially those registered with local authorities, do actually pay council tax and pay income tax for declared work/jobs. Travellers are also eligible for NHS care, schooling for their children, social/affordable housing, and also covered (amongst other UK legislation) by Labour's 2004 Housing Act which makes it mandatory for local authorities to conduct Gypsy/Traveller Accomodation Assessment. According to many Police and local authorities across the UK, the common notion that Travellers cause a dissproportionate level of anti-social behaviour within the rest of the community is largely myth. Even if this may not always appear to be the case, it seems that this is no better or worse than many other minoritiy groups - such as Asian, Chinese or East European - or the nightly and weekend behaviour of many people at football matches, or simply 'our lovely grandchildren' the worse for binge-drinking. As for Travellers being 'rogues' and people who 'just try to 'rip-off communities', perhaps we should remember that many 'honest and upright' MPs and elected local authority councillors are regularly found somewhat 'wanting' in this respect - not to mention the bankers and financial service sector, which cost the honest, hard working people £billions a couple of years ago, when the previous Labour administration did a bail-out, at our expense!

Cherwell wrote:
It should be "the extent of his injuries IS unknown".

This must mean that he ran off, hence the helicopter presumably. This would suggest that he was doing something wrong before the person with the knife retaliated.

The church would not have taken as many as 2000 people, I don't think.

What race are these travellers supposed to have been ? But it is true that the whole event, including the advance warning which I also received by email, does not seem to have been a typical funeral by any means ! Good catholics, anyway, I'm sure.

think you should get all the facts i saw the man that had been stabbed as they were outside my house with the police waiting for the ambulance,the helicopter was looking for the person who did it.

Well, perhaps it is the Oxford Mail or the police which should get all the facts and tell us. If the man who was stabbed was so readily available as mumtobe says, it was misleading to announce that the extent of his injuries was unknown.

I am not very impressed by the view that Irish travellers are a different race because the law says so. They are actually ethnically Irish, which makes them the same race as other white Europeans. A way of life or occupation does not make you a different race, for example you can't describe miners as a different race because they spend a lot of their time underground with black faces. Notice that I am saying it is NOT justifiable to do that !

Surely if DoctorBob thinks out his own views logically, the pub in London was not demonstrating "ignorance" but knowledge. I might have said myself that there was no need to refuse to serve Irish travellers and that they were not a different race, but if the pub made a racist distinction, this was because they did know that they constituted a separate race, something the law has apparently backed up. If, however, the refusal was based on the known likely behaviour of a group, and similar refusals were made to (say) white rugby teams, it was not racist.

As I see it, the Irish, Irish travellers, the Welsh, the white English, East Europeans and white Americans are all the same race. Black people and Indians (or at least, some of them) are a different race, along with Australian aborigines, the Japanese, American Indians and various others. You could make a tenuous case for Romany gypsies being of a different race, but not Irish travellers.

If DoctorBob or anyone else thinks that this view of races is racist, then I give up !

There is now a much more detailed report on the Oxford Mail website. It seems that more than 100 people were actually fighting ! I still don't believe that these people make up a separate race, but distinctive group they certainly are. Can anybody think of a comparable fracas at any other funeral ? Good catholics, anyway, and no doubt the worst perpetrators will confess later and be absolved.

The police later ensured that there was an adequate police presence at the cemetery. Was this racial prejudice ? Would it be racial prejudice for people to be wary of the next big Irish Traveller funeral which comes along ?

Socialist legislation in 1998 conflated race and nationality. That is what socialists do; start by perverting language , end by killing people trying to escape from their paradises in North Korea and Cuba. Always have, always will. "Kill to keep (the socialist lie) alive" that's your motto, isn't it Dr Bob?
Here's Blair's legislation "In this section “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Catch-all isn't it? Didn't Kafka write a book about this kind of justice system?

Dr Bob, The Irish Travellers own government in Ireland accept that they are Irish and not a separate ethnic group and they should know best. Maybe we should follow suit and treat them as equals and not a special case eh.

I live on the Iffley Rd and from 10.30am I watched as cars parked illegally on both sides of the road and on the pavement. This meant that traffic could not flow smoothly and eventually was completely blocked for a considerable time. The police were on site from the outset and seemed to take a non confrontational stance to accommodate rather than inflame any potential situation. Parking control told me they had been asked to stay away. It did mean that I could not leave my house by car, emergency services could not have got to me and as buses were not running to Rose Hill, a whole section
of Oxford was cut off from public transport. At 12 noon there were hundreds
of people just standing, blocking both Iffley Rd and Jackdaw Lane. I think
the people who attended the funeral had more consideration offered than they offered others.

I sympathise with Lilychapman. They could of course have come by public transport, but didn't . Why did they use this church anyway ? There are other catholic churches in Oxfordshire with more reasonable possibilities for extensive parking which would have been more suitable. Do "travellers" have to travel in cars nowadays ? Their main famed to distinctiveness used to be horse-drawn caravans. But that didn't mean that they had to go shopping and to church in them. If this was the church they go to every Sunday, we would have noticed them before.

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Why do you bother Dr Bob Goebbels? we all know how ugly this country has become with its socialist bigotry, ThoughtCrime, the wholesale smashing of the meaning of language. We really don't need a little Commissar like you constantly reiterating the foulness of it all in the Oxford Mail.

I wonder if the strong viewed Lord would be so happy if someone who thought he may be a child abuser started a campaign in his local area naming him?

I wonder if Lord P would be defending that person's right to their thoughts and calling any objectors Nazi names and the 'thought police'?

I wonder?

Niko Bellic wrote:
DoctorBob - look up the definition of race and then argue your point. I assume you also have an excuse whoever brought a knife to a funeral and stuck it in another person? Maybe you can use your same logic for the wedding at the holiday in a few years ago when, in similar circumstances, a knife was repeatedly stuck in someone until they were dead?

No mate, I won't.

Why do you assume I have an excuse? I haven't offered any excuses so far so I am at loss as to why you are going down that track?

What I will do however is remind you that my post was based on evidential fact and that is, in British Law, certain groups within the Traveller community are protected under the race relations act.

What logic are you banging on about exactly mate?

ps. when you talk of a knife being "stuck in another person" how do you account for there only being 'superficial injuries' as described by the Emergency Services? I think you spend too much time in your own head,. you need to get out more and experience the real world.

Cherwell wrote:
Well, perhaps it is the Oxford Mail or the police which should get all the facts and tell us. If the man who was stabbed was so readily available as mumtobe says, it was misleading to announce that the extent of his injuries was unknown.

I am not very impressed by the view that Irish travellers are a different race because the law says so. They are actually ethnically Irish, which makes them the same race as other white Europeans. A way of life or occupation does not make you a different race, for example you can't describe miners as a different race because they spend a lot of their time underground with black faces. Notice that I am saying it is NOT justifiable to do that !

Surely if DoctorBob thinks out his own views logically, the pub in London was not demonstrating "ignorance" but knowledge. I might have said myself that there was no need to refuse to serve Irish travellers and that they were not a different race, but if the pub made a racist distinction, this was because they did know that they constituted a separate race, something the law has apparently backed up. If, however, the refusal was based on the known likely behaviour of a group, and similar refusals were made to (say) white rugby teams, it was not racist.

As I see it, the Irish, Irish travellers, the Welsh, the white English, East Europeans and white Americans are all the same race. Black people and Indians (or at least, some of them) are a different race, along with Australian aborigines, the Japanese, American Indians and various others. You could make a tenuous case for Romany gypsies being of a different race, but not Irish travellers.

If DoctorBob or anyone else thinks that this view of races is racist, then I give up !

You aren't impressed, lol. No doubt also that the Travellers barred from being served in London for no good reason other than who they were weren't impressed either.

The law says they are a distinct ethnic grouping. You really should read up on things before banging out your opinion.

Just one little question for you, how can something be based on "the known likely behaviour" of anything? Terrible treatment of our language.

Good to see you are 'giving up' based on lack of understanding, knowledge, analysis and fact.

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Socialist legislation in 1998 conflated race and nationality. That is what socialists do; start by perverting language , end by killing people trying to escape from their paradises in North Korea and Cuba. Always have, always will. "Kill to keep (the socialist lie) alive" that's your motto, isn't it Dr Bob?
Here's Blair's legislation "In this section “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Catch-all isn't it? Didn't Kafka write a book about this kind of justice system?

What a paranoid crack pot!

Pavinder Msvarensy wrote:
Dr Bob, The Irish Travellers own government in Ireland accept that they are Irish and not a separate ethnic group and they should know best. Maybe we should follow suit and treat them as equals and not a special case eh.

You seem to know a lot about nothing.

Lilychapman wrote:
I live on the Iffley Rd and from 10.30am I watched as cars parked illegally on both sides of the road and on the pavement. This meant that traffic could not flow smoothly and eventually was completely blocked for a considerable time. The police were on site from the outset and seemed to take a non confrontational stance to accommodate rather than inflame any potential situation. Parking control told me they had been asked to stay away. It did mean that I could not leave my house by car, emergency services could not have got to me and as buses were not running to Rose Hill, a whole section
of Oxford was cut off from public transport. At 12 noon there were hundreds
of people just standing, blocking both Iffley Rd and Jackdaw Lane. I think
the people who attended the funeral had more consideration offered than they offered others.

Same situation in St Giles on Remembrance Sunday.

Cherwell wrote:
I sympathise with Lilychapman. They could of course have come by public transport, but didn't . Why did they use this church anyway ? There are other catholic churches in Oxfordshire with more reasonable possibilities for extensive parking which would have been more suitable. Do "travellers" have to travel in cars nowadays ? Their main famed to distinctiveness used to be horse-drawn caravans. But that didn't mean that they had to go shopping and to church in them. If this was the church they go to every Sunday, we would have noticed them before.

More ignorance based nonsense. Do you know anything about Catholicism and where you are supposed to get Christened, confirmed, married and buried?

I’m sorry, but if the law decided (perhaps for convenience in phrasing laws about conservation) that bats were to be classed as birds, I still wouldn’t accept that bats were birds. You couldn’t make the inhabitants of Witney a distinct race by Act of Parliament, and neither can you Irish travellers. DoctorBob is much too impressed by lawyers and their tricks.

Weather forecasting is based on the known likely behaviour of weather systems. For many things, this is the best we can do. I don’t see why DoctorBob thinks that the phrase constitutes “terrible treatment of our language”. Trying to redefine race constitutes terrible treatment of our language, and of biological knowledge/terminolog
y.

I think wounding somebody with a knife at a funeral is exceptional enough to be considered as simply that, and whether the phrase “stuck it in” is exactly appropriate for the exact injuries which happened to ensue is a minor point. This is tending again towards the legalistic rather than to commonsense. We will be defining next exactly what depth of injury counts as “superficial” according to various acts of parliament and legal precedents, or even consulting medical and forensic textbooks on the point (all to prove that Irish travellers are not really so very very bad). OK, only one of them wielded a knife (as far as we know), but it is reported that more than a hundred were fighting, and that is rather a lot !

I don’t see where the possible naming of somebody as a child abuser comes into this at all. We are talking here about a large festive gathering of Irish travellers, a particular occupational group from a particular part of the British Isles (but of ordinary white European race), at which it was expected that there was likely to be some trouble, just as one might say that there is a 60% chance of rain tomorrow. There was trouble. Quite a few people were not particularly surprised. How often does a large number of policemen get sent to watch over a cemetery during a funeral ? How much did the policing of all this cost ?

When DoctorBob says that Irish Travellers have to be "protected", what protection did they need ? It seems to me more the local people who needed protection against them. For one Irish Traveller to stab another can't be considered "racist", can it ?

" The Irish Travellers own government in Ireland accept that they are Irish and not a separate ethnic group".

Pavinder Msvarensy is absolutely right about this. DoctorBob's mallicious comment is pointless and unwarranted.

I would say that Remembrance Sunday and indeed the St Giles Fair, or a public event in Broad Street, are of more importance to the community as a whole than a private funeral. They are better organised too, with proper advance notice and re-routing arrangements and provision made for emergency vehicles. Iffley Road is very much narrower.

"Do you know anything about Catholicism and where you are supposed to get Christened, confirmed, married and buried?"

I know quite a bit about Catholicism; I also know that any requirements it might have on these points are not mandatory on the rest of us, nor do we have to go out of our way to facilitate them for Roman Catholics.

I doubt if it is internally obligatory for them to have a funeral in their own Roman Catholic "parish", and I don't suppose the deceased lived in that parish anyway. She was not buried in the same Roman Catholic parish. Wolvercote must come under St Aloysius. The question of christening (don't they call it baptism ?), confirmation (don't they call it "First Communion" ?) and marriage doesn't really concern me. They have no right to insist on parking illegally so as to get married in a place which they consider appropriate any more than the rest of us do.

I am quite certain that there is no religious obligation on Roman Catholics to attend funerals in cars and park them illegally. I think DoctorBob is missing the point.

DoctorBob wrote:

Niko Bellic wrote:
DoctorBob - look up the definition of race and then argue your point. I assume you also have an excuse whoever brought a knife to a funeral and stuck it in another person? Maybe you can use your same logic for the wedding at the holiday in a few years ago when, in similar circumstances, a knife was repeatedly stuck in someone until they were dead?

No mate, I won't.

Why do you assume I have an excuse? I haven't offered any excuses so far so I am at loss as to why you are going down that track?

What I will do however is remind you that my post was based on evidential fact and that is, in British Law, certain groups within the Traveller community are protected under the race relations act.

What logic are you banging on about exactly mate?

ps. when you talk of a knife being "stuck in another person" how do you account for there only being 'superficial injuries' as described by the Emergency Services? I think you spend too much time in your own head,. you need to get out more and experience the real world.

Real world experience? It still takes a knife to be "stuck in someone" to cause superficial injuries...

I'd point out in my work I've dealt with travellers on a day to day basis so yeah, I've been in the "real world" as you call it. Clearly you haven't set foot in it for a long time. Ignorant and naive to the extreme

DoctorBob wrote:

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Why do you bother Dr Bob Goebbels? we all know how ugly this country has become with its socialist bigotry, ThoughtCrime, the wholesale smashing of the meaning of language. We really don't need a little Commissar like you constantly reiterating the foulness of it all in the Oxford Mail.

I wonder if the strong viewed Lord would be so happy if someone who thought he may be a child abuser started a campaign in his local area naming him?

I wonder if Lord P would be defending that person's right to their thoughts and calling any objectors Nazi names and the 'thought police'?

I wonder?

Yes, probably I would, if, like you, I came home in the early hours of the morning having had a skinfull and lost every dispute I had with my fellow saloon bar lefties, finally able to vent my intoxicated spleen over the internet.However I'm not sure that even you, as awful as you no doubt feel this morning, would condemn folk for having thoughts, but you never know....

Also, Doctorbob, the second article (where comments are blocked - who would have though eh?) says someone was stabbed in the neck. A superficial injury can quiet easily have been a fatal one. Grow up

" It still takes a knife to be 'stuck in someone' to cause superficial injuries..."

I would have thought so too, in rough and ready terms, but DoctorBob will no doubt find a sub-section of the Knife Crime Act of 1864 which defines superficial injuries as having a depth of less than 3 thirty-seconds of an inch, whereas "stuck in" can only be used for wounds deeper than 7 thirty-seconds of a inch,

If anything like this proves to be true, one snag is that under more modern legislation the hospital will not release an individual's detailed medical information to the newspapers or to DoctorBob, so it is going to be very difficult to assess exactly who is right unless the depth comes out in court. But will an Irish Traveller fighting a feud in accordance with his ancestral traditions ever be taken to court ? We shall see.

I am astonished that Dr Bob equates the illegal acts committed on Tues to Rememberance Sunday. One gathering caused the whole of an area of Oxford to be blocked off without warning, cars parking illegally were dangerous to others, carrying a knife, let alone using it on a person is illegal and the brawl was to say the least disrespectful and undignified. The other gathering was organised, legal and respectful. Take your pick.

Puts you in mind of the Ballybunion Riot in the late 19th century doesn't it? Plus ca change and all that eh ole Doc Bob. Still you're learning stuff which may help you in tomorrow night's argument with the Fellow Travellers and Useful Idiots , or should I say eejits?

The difference from Ballybunion is that then the travelling and sedentary Irish were fighting for Home Rule. Now that they have got it, all they need to do is to travel back home to enjoy it. They won't get Travelling Irish Home Rule for caravan sites in Oxfordshire, no matter how much they fight each other, or cause great inconvenience for the police, and local people, and people trying to travel along Iffley Road.

Cherwell wrote:
I’m sorry, but if the law decided (perhaps for convenience in phrasing laws about conservation) that bats were to be classed as birds, I still wouldn’t accept that bats were birds. You couldn’t make the inhabitants of Witney a distinct race by Act of Parliament, and neither can you Irish travellers. DoctorBob is much too impressed by lawyers and their tricks.

Weather forecasting is based on the known likely behaviour of weather systems. For many things, this is the best we can do. I don’t see why DoctorBob thinks that the phrase constitutes “terrible treatment of our language”. Trying to redefine race constitutes terrible treatment of our language, and of biological knowledge/terminolog

y.

I think wounding somebody with a knife at a funeral is exceptional enough to be considered as simply that, and whether the phrase “stuck it in” is exactly appropriate for the exact injuries which happened to ensue is a minor point. This is tending again towards the legalistic rather than to commonsense. We will be defining next exactly what depth of injury counts as “superficial” according to various acts of parliament and legal precedents, or even consulting medical and forensic textbooks on the point (all to prove that Irish travellers are not really so very very bad). OK, only one of them wielded a knife (as far as we know), but it is reported that more than a hundred were fighting, and that is rather a lot !

I don’t see where the possible naming of somebody as a child abuser comes into this at all. We are talking here about a large festive gathering of Irish travellers, a particular occupational group from a particular part of the British Isles (but of ordinary white European race), at which it was expected that there was likely to be some trouble, just as one might say that there is a 60% chance of rain tomorrow. There was trouble. Quite a few people were not particularly surprised. How often does a large number of policemen get sent to watch over a cemetery during a funeral ? How much did the policing of all this cost ?

When DoctorBob says that Irish Travellers have to be "protected", what protection did they need ? It seems to me more the local people who needed protection against them. For one Irish Traveller to stab another can't be considered "racist", can it ?

If you take a second to read what I have posted you will see that I have not tried to define race. I have merely stated that under British Law certain sections of Travelling communities are protected under race relations laws and are define as a distinct ETHNIC group.

Now stop reading what you think I said, because it fits your argument, and read what I actually said.

Your analogy using the weather is completely incongruous as is your nonsense about bats and birds which are completely different species. It's almost as poor as the usual dog in a stable nonsense trotted out by those trying to justify their own prejudice.

You think the difference between describing 'sticking it in' about a knife with the actions that caused 'superficial injuries' is a minor point do you? My oh my how you twist and abuse the language that you use to suit your own strange view of the world. You really should ask for a dictionary for Xmas before trotting out your own versions of actual words.

You think festive is a word that describes a funeral do you? Jeez, no wonder you struggle to understand my point to Lord Palmerstone about thought crime and false accusations of child abuse.

"a particular occupational group"? Are you just making stuff up?

Where have I ever said anyone should be protected? You are making stuff up again mate.

You finish with another stunning example of the complete bastardization of the English language when you talk about local people needing protecting when talking about injuries and disorder inflicted by Travellers on Travellers.

Mate, your post is a catalogue of atrocious use and understanding of English.

I bet you think you sound good though don't you?

Cherwell wrote:
" The Irish Travellers own government in Ireland accept that they are Irish and not a separate ethnic group".

Pavinder Msvarensy is absolutely right about this. DoctorBob's mallicious comment is pointless and unwarranted.

Another perfect example of your own ignorance of actual facts and particularly your understanding of the law and it's application in your own country.

Niko Bellic wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:

Niko Bellic wrote:
DoctorBob - look up the definition of race and then argue your point. I assume you also have an excuse whoever brought a knife to a funeral and stuck it in another person? Maybe you can use your same logic for the wedding at the holiday in a few years ago when, in similar circumstances, a knife was repeatedly stuck in someone until they were dead?

No mate, I won't.

Why do you assume I have an excuse? I haven't offered any excuses so far so I am at loss as to why you are going down that track?

What I will do however is remind you that my post was based on evidential fact and that is, in British Law, certain groups within the Traveller community are protected under the race relations act.

What logic are you banging on about exactly mate?

ps. when you talk of a knife being "stuck in another person" how do you account for there only being 'superficial injuries' as described by the Emergency Services? I think you spend too much time in your own head,. you need to get out more and experience the real world.

Real world experience? It still takes a knife to be "stuck in someone" to cause superficial injuries...

I'd point out in my work I've dealt with travellers on a day to day basis so yeah, I've been in the "real world" as you call it. Clearly you haven't set foot in it for a long time. Ignorant and naive to the extreme

You really are stretching this link between emotive and violently descriptive language and what the dictionary defines as superficial.

If you live in the real world why are you so keen to twist and distort language to fit your own prejudiced views?

Cherwell wrote:
I would say that Remembrance Sunday and indeed the St Giles Fair, or a public event in Broad Street, are of more importance to the community as a whole than a private funeral. They are better organised too, with proper advance notice and re-routing arrangements and provision made for emergency vehicles. Iffley Road is very much narrower.

Ah, I see what you have done. You've arbitrarily downgraded the event that you disapprove off and have elevated the one you do approve of. Nice move.

Cherwell wrote:
"Do you know anything about Catholicism and where you are supposed to get Christened, confirmed, married and buried?"

I know quite a bit about Catholicism; I also know that any requirements it might have on these points are not mandatory on the rest of us, nor do we have to go out of our way to facilitate them for Roman Catholics.

I doubt if it is internally obligatory for them to have a funeral in their own Roman Catholic "parish", and I don't suppose the deceased lived in that parish anyway. She was not buried in the same Roman Catholic parish. Wolvercote must come under St Aloysius. The question of christening (don't they call it baptism ?), confirmation (don't they call it "First Communion" ?) and marriage doesn't really concern me. They have no right to insist on parking illegally so as to get married in a place which they consider appropriate any more than the rest of us do.

I am quite certain that there is no religious obligation on Roman Catholics to attend funerals in cars and park them illegally. I think DoctorBob is missing the point.

What a bizarre hotchpotch of ramblings.

You state you know about Catholicism then go on to guess stuff, doubt stuff, suppose stuff all around the subject matter you profess to 'know about'.

Your head is full of nonsense you are trying to pass off as fact.

Now this statement of yours is pure cultural and bigoted arrogance:

"I also know that any requirements it might have on these points are not mandatory on the rest of us, nor do we have to go out of our way to facilitate them for Roman Catholics."

What you think you have been made to go out of your way for is beyond me.

If I had any idea what your point is I might not miss it so consistently.

Lilychapman wrote:
I am astonished that Dr Bob equates the illegal acts committed on Tues to Rememberance Sunday. One gathering caused the whole of an area of Oxford to be blocked off without warning, cars parking illegally were dangerous to others, carrying a knife, let alone using it on a person is illegal and the brawl was to say the least disrespectful and undignified. The other gathering was organised, legal and respectful. Take your pick.

Then I can only conclude that you are limited in your understanding of your own language at worst or willfully negligent in your reading of it at best.

Take your pick?

Lord Palmerstone wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Why do you bother Dr Bob Goebbels? we all know how ugly this country has become with its socialist bigotry, ThoughtCrime, the wholesale smashing of the meaning of language. We really don't need a little Commissar like you constantly reiterating the foulness of it all in the Oxford Mail.

I wonder if the strong viewed Lord would be so happy if someone who thought he may be a child abuser started a campaign in his local area naming him?

I wonder if Lord P would be defending that person's right to their thoughts and calling any objectors Nazi names and the 'thought police'?

I wonder?

Yes, probably I would, if, like you, I came home in the early hours of the morning having had a skinfull and lost every dispute I had with my fellow saloon bar lefties, finally able to vent my intoxicated spleen over the internet.However I'm not sure that even you, as awful as you no doubt feel this morning, would condemn folk for having thoughts, but you never know....

So, I ask you, would you have no objection to someone starting a local campaign against you claiming you are a child abuser if that person really thought you were? You know, thought crimes and all that?

ps. Congratulations on a complete post without your political Tourettes kicking in and shouting "Socialist!".

Troll...

Niko Bellic wrote:
Also, Doctorbob, the second article (where comments are blocked - who would have though eh?) says someone was stabbed in the neck. A superficial injury can quiet easily have been a fatal one. Grow up

Err, local rag reporter or police spokesperson? Take your pick.

Why do you take on the mantle of the grown up and downgrade me to child? Does it help rescue your extremely strong stand on it's own argument?

Cherwell wrote:
" It still takes a knife to be 'stuck in someone' to cause superficial injuries..."

I would have thought so too, in rough and ready terms, but DoctorBob will no doubt find a sub-section of the Knife Crime Act of 1864 which defines superficial injuries as having a depth of less than 3 thirty-seconds of an inch, whereas "stuck in" can only be used for wounds deeper than 7 thirty-seconds of a inch,

If anything like this proves to be true, one snag is that under more modern legislation the hospital will not release an individual's detailed medical information to the newspapers or to DoctorBob, so it is going to be very difficult to assess exactly who is right unless the depth comes out in court. But will an Irish Traveller fighting a feud in accordance with his ancestral traditions ever be taken to court ? We shall see.

No mate, unlike you I used a dictionary and applied a little thought to the matter.

You can't seriously be trying to suggest on here that what was meant by "sticking it into someone" actually meant something that caused a superficial injury are you?

It's amazing how loose people become with language when shown to be acting completely over the top.

Two further things:

1) I'm a Doctor (can't you read?). I have access to medical records.

2) Why do you have a habit of just inventing negative stuff ("ancestral traditions") that suits your particular version of prejudice and then attempt to nail it on the object of your prejudice as nailed on fact? Is it a psychological trick to replace analysis, fact and rationale?

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
Puts you in mind of the Ballybunion Riot in the late 19th century doesn't it? Plus ca change and all that eh ole Doc Bob. Still you're learning stuff which may help you in tomorrow night's argument with the Fellow Travellers and Useful Idiots , or should I say eejits?

You can say what you like my Lord, the only people who take any notice are the uneducated crackpots.

Cherwell wrote:
The difference from Ballybunion is that then the travelling and sedentary Irish were fighting for Home Rule. Now that they have got it, all they need to do is to travel back home to enjoy it. They won't get Travelling Irish Home Rule for caravan sites in Oxfordshire, no matter how much they fight each other, or cause great inconvenience for the police, and local people, and people trying to travel along Iffley Road.

As this fair land isn't the cradle of humanity where is your ancestral home? Where is your DNA rooted? Do you think your ancestors were settled people and they just happened to trot over to the British Isles for a day trip and never left?

We are all descendants of immigrants and travelling ones at that. Ironic that wouldn't you say?

Niko Bellic wrote:
Troll...

Nazi!

DoctorBob asks me where he has ever said that anyone should be protected.

He wrote : “in British Law, certain groups within the Traveller community are protected under the race relations act.”
At 12.33 am on 15th November. And he seems to approve of this quite uncritically.

He wrote: “Roma, Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are now all recognised to have protection under the Race Relations Act as they have been finally recognised as minority ethnic communities in law.”
At 1.58 am on 14th November . And he seems to approve of this quite uncritically.

DoctorBob says he has not tried to define race, but surely he has tried to define race for the purpose of deciding what is to be considered “racist”, by quoting definitions in the Race Relations Act, definitions which he meekly agrees with, but not all of us do.

Certainly, large Irish funerals and the ensuing wake are festive occasions. The 12th edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary describes an Irish wake as a party, and the 11th edition of Chambers actually uses the word festival.
Local pubs were still boarded up that evening because they were not willing to host the continuing festivities.

There is no point in anybody going into the rest of DoctorBob’s wilfully negligent ramblings, to use the sort of language he enjoys. He pretends to think that where individual Roman Catholics are “supposed” to have their funerals is a key point of understanding Catholicism which it is ignorant not to know (and yet he doesn’t tell us these arcane ruels); he pretends to see no difference between this regrettable occasion and Remembrance Day; he shows no sympathy for local people, because Irish Travellers are legally protected, like some rare species of newt. He can’t really believe all this, he is just being deliberately provocative.

I particularly sympathise with Lilychapman and Pavinder Msvarensy whose sensible points of view have been trampled on so appallingly.

This strange so-called Doctor, who is not aware of the very many non-medical doctors in Oxford and who would apparently raid confidential medical records which he has no right to see, just cannot imagine who would have had to go out of their way so that a Catholic funeral could illegally take up the whole of the road. How about somebody trying to get a bus from High Street to the Magdalen Arms ? He would have had to get a bus to the Regal and walk the length of Magdalen Road. The further towards Rose Hill you live, the worse your predicament gets. Then there are the hundred odd policemen who had to come to this really rather minor incident to keep the official ethnic minority in some kind of civilised order.

Truly DoctorBob inhabits another world, and I don't think it is a hospital, unless as a patient.

Cherwell wrote:
DoctorBob asks me where he has ever said that anyone should be protected.

He wrote : “in British Law, certain groups within the Traveller community are protected under the race relations act.”
At 12.33 am on 15th November. And he seems to approve of this quite uncritically.

He wrote: “Roma, Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are now all recognised to have protection under the Race Relations Act as they have been finally recognised as minority ethnic communities in law.”
At 1.58 am on 14th November . And he seems to approve of this quite uncritically.

DoctorBob says he has not tried to define race, but surely he has tried to define race for the purpose of deciding what is to be considered “racist”, by quoting definitions in the Race Relations Act, definitions which he meekly agrees with, but not all of us do.

Certainly, large Irish funerals and the ensuing wake are festive occasions. The 12th edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary describes an Irish wake as a party, and the 11th edition of Chambers actually uses the word festival.
Local pubs were still boarded up that evening because they were not willing to host the continuing festivities.

There is no point in anybody going into the rest of DoctorBob’s wilfully negligent ramblings, to use the sort of language he enjoys. He pretends to think that where individual Roman Catholics are “supposed” to have their funerals is a key point of understanding Catholicism which it is ignorant not to know (and yet he doesn’t tell us these arcane ruels); he pretends to see no difference between this regrettable occasion and Remembrance Day; he shows no sympathy for local people, because Irish Travellers are legally protected, like some rare species of newt. He can’t really believe all this, he is just being deliberately provocative.

I particularly sympathise with Lilychapman and Pavinder Msvarensy whose sensible points of view have been trampled on so appallingly.

There you go again making stuff up that I didn't say.

I say again, I have not ever said anyone should be protected. In even your own post it is plain to see, but not to yourself apparently, that I have merely stated facts about British Law.

It is you that has decided that because you believe me to be uncritical (opinion not fact) that I therefore approve. Neither invention of yours being based on anything other than your wild imagination.

Let me state this for you just one more time so you are clear. I have not stated what you say I have and your examples suggesting I have merely highlight the strange mixed up world that is your own head.

You have this bizarre habit of adding in stuff that isn't true, was never said and doesn't even make sense. It's a masterful plan.

You really struggle in this opinion versus fact thing don't you?

You also appear to be struggling with the concept of basic law and it's application. Stating how an action would be viewed under the law is not defining it as a concept.

Whether you agree with the application of the law and it's definition is irrelevant, it exists therefore it is hence my claim of factual evidence.

Yet again you engage in your silly game of equating stating fact with offering supportive opinion on it but this time you've meekly added an adverb for greater effect.

Certainly funerals, which is the event being discussed, are not festive in the Traveller community but I see what you've attempted to do when faced with an uncomfortable truth being pointed out to you and that is, you've added in something we aren't talking about, namely a wake, because you think it suits you argument better. You really are persistent with your manipulation, distortion and invention of facts.

Do you think the wake follows the funeral? I thought you said you 'knew about' Catholicism? Oh, I see, you're at it again. The facts don't fit so turn them around, in fact, even reverse the chronology to match your increasingly desperate attempt at debate.

I wonder how much of the world around you you actually recognise as solid because it seems to be very fluid when you get involved.

Jesus H Christ, there you go again! Manipulating, twisting, distorting and blatant inventing to suit your prejudices.

Listen mate, we are not discussing a wake here. You stated clearly a Traveller funeral was festive. A wake was nowhere in the conversation until you inserted it because the funeral bit got exposed. Now you are quoting editions of the Dictionary about an event and word you just decided to add in. I don't care whether a wake is considered festive because that is not what I called you out on. You are truly unbelievable.

I see you are now using the age old tactic of the right of appropriating words and phrases used against people like you and trying to turn them back on me.

I'm sure your internet buddies are up to the standard to defend their own corner with good solid facts and argument but considering what I've read, maybe they do need to gang up with you for strength. An argument always sounds better when you can say others agree with me therefore you must be wrong. You are right about one thing though, I did trample all over their points as I am doing to your good self now. It warrants it.

I tell you what mate, you just keep making stuff up and twisting the known world out of shape because It's all you've got.

Go and Google Confirmation Bias.

Cherwell wrote:
This strange so-called Doctor, who is not aware of the very many non-medical doctors in Oxford and who would apparently raid confidential medical records which he has no right to see, just cannot imagine who would have had to go out of their way so that a Catholic funeral could illegally take up the whole of the road. How about somebody trying to get a bus from High Street to the Magdalen Arms ? He would have had to get a bus to the Regal and walk the length of Magdalen Road. The further towards Rose Hill you live, the worse your predicament gets. Then there are the hundred odd policemen who had to come to this really rather minor incident to keep the official ethnic minority in some kind of civilised order.

Truly DoctorBob inhabits another world, and I don't think it is a hospital, unless as a patient.

Ha-ha, this strange so called Doctor blah blah blah.... Are you for real mate?! You sound bonkers.

You're right about inhabiting a different world, you are bang on it with that one, lol.

That has to be the strangest post I have read on here for a good while, it's completely snooker loopy nuts are we nonsense. You don't sound like a sane individual.

"He would have had to get a bus to the Regal and walk the length of Magdalen Road.

The further towards Rose Hill you live, the worse your predicament gets".

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, absolutely brilliant! Does anyone have any spare pants, I think I've just wet mine!

PS. Nice way you have consistently use animal analogies when talking about Gypsies and racism. Bats, birds, and now newts! Very subtle. I think you are bats and probably peed as a newt but not likely to be associated with any birds.

You should take a look at this link, lol. Oh no, wait, you might not have any right to see it. lol.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=enn_BT5CB
oQ

I wonder what your notes might reveal?

A medical doctor. God help the NHS!

A medical doctor. God help the NHS!

DoctorBob wrote:

Lilychapman wrote:
I am astonished that Dr Bob equates the illegal acts committed on Tues to Rememberance Sunday. One gathering caused the whole of an area of Oxford to be blocked off without warning, cars parking illegally were dangerous to others, carrying a knife, let alone using it on a person is illegal and the brawl was to say the least disrespectful and undignified. The other gathering was organised, legal and respectful. Take your pick.

Then I can only conclude that you are limited in your understanding of your own language at worst or willfully negligent in your reading of it at best.

Take your pick?

Well Dr Bob, I certainly am limited in my understanding of mental health issues
rather than language but it is also true that I find it hard to plough through long diatribes. Take your pick!

DoctorBob wrote:

Cherwell wrote:
This strange so-called Doctor, who is not aware of the very many non-medical doctors in Oxford and who would apparently raid confidential medical records which he has no right to see, just cannot imagine who would have had to go out of their way so that a Catholic funeral could illegally take up the whole of the road. How about somebody trying to get a bus from High Street to the Magdalen Arms ? He would have had to get a bus to the Regal and walk the length of Magdalen Road. The further towards Rose Hill you live, the worse your predicament gets. Then there are the hundred odd policemen who had to come to this really rather minor incident to keep the official ethnic minority in some kind of civilised order.

Truly DoctorBob inhabits another world, and I don't think it is a hospital, unless as a patient.

Ha-ha, this strange so called Doctor blah blah blah.... Are you for real mate?! You sound bonkers.

You're right about inhabiting a different world, you are bang on it with that one, lol.

That has to be the strangest post I have read on here for a good while, it's completely snooker loopy nuts are we nonsense. You don't sound like a sane individual.

"He would have had to get a bus to the Regal and walk the length of Magdalen Road.

The further towards Rose Hill you live, the worse your predicament gets".

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, absolutely brilliant! Does anyone have any spare pants, I think I've just wet mine!

PS. Nice way you have consistently use animal analogies when talking about Gypsies and racism. Bats, birds, and now newts! Very subtle. I think you are bats and probably peed as a newt but not likely to be associated with any birds.

You should take a look at this link, lol. Oh no, wait, you might not have any right to see it. lol.

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=enn_BT5CB

oQ

I wonder what your notes might reveal?

Well, I thought only Cameron and pre teens used 'lol' nowadays but even Cameron uses logical debate so as you say you are in danger of wetting your pants I suspect you belong to the pre teen category or younger.

DoctorBob wrote:

Cherwell wrote:
This strange so-called Doctor, who is not aware of the very many non-medical doctors in Oxford and who would apparently raid confidential medical records which he has no right to see, just cannot imagine who would have had to go out of their way so that a Catholic funeral could illegally take up the whole of the road. How about somebody trying to get a bus from High Street to the Magdalen Arms ? He would have had to get a bus to the Regal and walk the length of Magdalen Road. The further towards Rose Hill you live, the worse your predicament gets. Then there are the hundred odd policemen who had to come to this really rather minor incident to keep the official ethnic minority in some kind of civilised order.

Truly DoctorBob inhabits another world, and I don't think it is a hospital, unless as a patient.

Ha-ha, this strange so called Doctor blah blah blah.... Are you for real mate?! You sound bonkers.

You're right about inhabiting a different world, you are bang on it with that one, lol.

That has to be the strangest post I have read on here for a good while, it's completely snooker loopy nuts are we nonsense. You don't sound like a sane individual.

"He would have had to get a bus to the Regal and walk the length of Magdalen Road.

The further towards Rose Hill you live, the worse your predicament gets".

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, absolutely brilliant! Does anyone have any spare pants, I think I've just wet mine!

PS. Nice way you have consistently use animal analogies when talking about Gypsies and racism. Bats, birds, and now newts! Very subtle. I think you are bats and probably peed as a newt but not likely to be associated with any birds.

You should take a look at this link, lol. Oh no, wait, you might not have any right to see it. lol.

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=enn_BT5CB

oQ

I wonder what your notes might reveal?

Well, I thought only Cameron and pre teens used 'lol' nowadays but even Cameron uses logical debate so as you say you are in danger of wetting your pants I suspect you belong to the pre teen category or younger.

Lilychapman wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:

Cherwell wrote:
This strange so-called Doctor, who is not aware of the very many non-medical doctors in Oxford and who would apparently raid confidential medical records which he has no right to see, just cannot imagine who would have had to go out of their way so that a Catholic funeral could illegally take up the whole of the road. How about somebody trying to get a bus from High Street to the Magdalen Arms ? He would have had to get a bus to the Regal and walk the length of Magdalen Road. The further towards Rose Hill you live, the worse your predicament gets. Then there are the hundred odd policemen who had to come to this really rather minor incident to keep the official ethnic minority in some kind of civilised order.

Truly DoctorBob inhabits another world, and I don't think it is a hospital, unless as a patient.

Ha-ha, this strange so called Doctor blah blah blah.... Are you for real mate?! You sound bonkers.

You're right about inhabiting a different world, you are bang on it with that one, lol.

That has to be the strangest post I have read on here for a good while, it's completely snooker loopy nuts are we nonsense. You don't sound like a sane individual.

"He would have had to get a bus to the Regal and walk the length of Magdalen Road.

The further towards Rose Hill you live, the worse your predicament gets".

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, absolutely brilliant! Does anyone have any spare pants, I think I've just wet mine!

PS. Nice way you have consistently use animal analogies when talking about Gypsies and racism. Bats, birds, and now newts! Very subtle. I think you are bats and probably peed as a newt but not likely to be associated with any birds.

You should take a look at this link, lol. Oh no, wait, you might not have any right to see it. lol.

http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=enn_BT5CB


oQ

I wonder what your notes might reveal?

Well, I thought only Cameron and pre teens used 'lol' nowadays but even Cameron uses logical debate so as you say you are in danger of wetting your pants I suspect you belong to the pre teen category or younger.

DoctorBob has a good command of language and argument, but he spends a lot of time amusing himself by misusing it. I think he must be young, but not as young as Lilychapman suggests. I think he is probably an unemployed arts graduate, and I am very sorry for him.

“Whether you agree with the application of the law and it's definition is irrelevant, it exists therefore it is hence my claim of factual evidence.”
writes the never-tiring DoctorBob of the NHS , ever keen defender of our language despite his own misuse of the apostrophe and the word “hence”on this occasion.

NO. Hence my entirely hypothetical example of birds and bats .
Just suppose the Law decides to define bats as birds for its own convenience in applying a regulation, as it well might.

Yes, in that case the law would exist.
But it would not be irrelevant that I disagreed with the definition, and I would continue to maintain that bats are not birds.
Bats are not birds.
You could not claim that the law was factual evidence that bats are birds.

If people come out from a funeral, the funeral service over, and block the street and start fighting, at this stage it doesn’t resemble a normal funeral. Noting that the pubs had carefully closed their doors, I would have thought that this was part of the wake as much as part of the funeral proper. Anyway, what DoctorBob actually wrote was :
“You think festive is a word that describes a funeral do you?”
and I had not used it to describe the funeral itself.
At that point he was criticising what I had originally written, which was in fact :
“We are talking here about a large festive gathering of Irish travellers”.
Yes, fighting and wanting to go drinking in pubs. By that stage, a festive gathering. But if DoctorBob doesn’t like the word “festive”, who cares ?
Incidentally, it is DoctorBob himself who was advocating the use of dictionaries (“You really should ask for a dictionary for Xmas”), but now he pours scorn on it !!!

Poor DoctorBob !

DoctorBob wrote:

Niko Bellic wrote:
Troll...

Nazi!

Ha! My point is proven

Christ on a bike, you lot know how to put the fun in funeral...

Irish Travellers are a race totally different from the rest of us who have different funerals and must be allowed to do so at all costs. So we are told.

It was them that put all the fun and games into this one, after their own festive fashion (if you will allow the word "festive").

I can't wait to hear Doctor Bob's views on the recent election, can you ?

Not sure it qualified as an election, to be honest...

I can quite understand why the pubs closed.

I had the unfortunate experience of being in a pub on the Iffley Road when about 20 Travellers entered it. The bar man declined to serve them because they were obviously drunk. He was punched in the face over the bar. An old lady and her dog sitting at a table were knocked over. They then went outside and tried to lift the benches to throw them at the pub windows. I was petrified, as were my companions and all the customers in the pub.

In the village I live all the pubs were closed too, as it was near their base camp.

I really don't see any connection with them being Catholics or Irish. The vast majority of Irish Catholics are peace loving, friendly people.

I wouldn't allow my son to attend the school where Traveller children are taught. This surely doesn't make me prejudice, but acting on my experience of the violent way these people live.

How many of the Travellers were arrested? I only ask as the police are petrified of them too.

Are you saying that these were Travellers but not Irish Travellers ? Or simply agreeing with the law (in the UK but not in the Republic of Ireland) that Irish Travellers are a totally distinct race from the Irish in general ? I think there is a connection in people's minds with them being catholics because several hundred of them had invaded Iffley Road to have a catholic funeral in the catholic church which happens to be there.

As you are familiar with their "base camp", can you tell us if they actually do much travelling ?

I agree entirely that, because of the "known likely behaviour" of this group, it is perfectly reasonable to be wary of them. This is not prejudice or racism.

But DoctorBob is wiser than us. He even disputes the very use of the phrase "known likely behaviour", and he would doubtless accuse you of "ignorance", though it seems to me the very opposite -- you have the knowledge which makes you wary, and so now has the barman, and the other customers of what is usually a perfectly peaceful and respectable pub.

Thank you for your very interesting contribution to this, and I do hope you get an answer to your question. How many Irish Travellers were arrested ?

Lilychapman wrote:
A medical doctor. God help the NHS!

I blame Lee Nelson!

Niko Bellic wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:

Niko Bellic wrote:
Troll...

Nazi!

Ha! My point is proven

Oh dear.

Johnny Speight once said ' The problem with satire is it often goes over the heads of those it's aimed at'.

Cherwell wrote:
Irish Travellers are a race totally different from the rest of us who have different funerals and must be allowed to do so at all costs. So we are told.

It was them that put all the fun and games into this one, after their own festive fashion (if you will allow the word "festive").

I can't wait to hear Doctor Bob's views on the recent election, can you ?

Who told you that because I certainly didn't?

You're responsible for more inventions than Dragon's Den.

BackontheMainland wrote:
I can quite understand why the pubs closed.

I had the unfortunate experience of being in a pub on the Iffley Road when about 20 Travellers entered it. The bar man declined to serve them because they were obviously drunk. He was punched in the face over the bar. An old lady and her dog sitting at a table were knocked over. They then went outside and tried to lift the benches to throw them at the pub windows. I was petrified, as were my companions and all the customers in the pub.

In the village I live all the pubs were closed too, as it was near their base camp.

I really don't see any connection with them being Catholics or Irish. The vast majority of Irish Catholics are peace loving, friendly people.

I wouldn't allow my son to attend the school where Traveller children are taught. This surely doesn't make me prejudice, but acting on my experience of the violent way these people live.

How many of the Travellers were arrested? I only ask as the police are petrified of them too.

Except it does make you prejudiced because you have taken a single experience and extrapolated it to a whole group of people.

What you have described on the Cowley Rd has also happened by people from your community.

Cherwell wrote:
Are you saying that these were Travellers but not Irish Travellers ? Or simply agreeing with the law (in the UK but not in the Republic of Ireland) that Irish Travellers are a totally distinct race from the Irish in general ? I think there is a connection in people's minds with them being catholics because several hundred of them had invaded Iffley Road to have a catholic funeral in the catholic church which happens to be there.

As you are familiar with their "base camp", can you tell us if they actually do much travelling ?

I agree entirely that, because of the "known likely behaviour" of this group, it is perfectly reasonable to be wary of them. This is not prejudice or racism.

But DoctorBob is wiser than us. He even disputes the very use of the phrase "known likely behaviour", and he would doubtless accuse you of "ignorance", though it seems to me the very opposite -- you have the knowledge which makes you wary, and so now has the barman, and the other customers of what is usually a perfectly peaceful and respectable pub.

Thank you for your very interesting contribution to this, and I do hope you get an answer to your question. How many Irish Travellers were arrested ?

HELLOOOOOOO?!?!?!?

When is it going to sink into your brain that no one has said they are a distinct race of people, that has come about because you: 1) can't read, 2) can't understand what you read, 3) don't want to understand what you read, 4) have subconsciously deleted the bits that don't suit your viewpoint, 5) deliberately deleted the bits that don't suit your view, 6) you employ Confirmation Bias, or 7) you don't have a functioning brain.

ps. being wary of people you don't know because of what other people have done is exactly the definition of prejudice. Look it up.

So, my argument is so weak and wrong that those in opposition aren't satisfied with just dealing with the points, they also feel the need to add gravitas with such suggestions as:

You must be mentally ill.
You must be a teenager or a child.
You must be from outer space.
You must be a Troll.
You must be blah, blah, blah

And I must say, they are all points that are essential bolsters for those who feel their argument stands up on it's own.

What is your argument exactly ?

Cherwell wrote:
Are you saying that these were Travellers but not Irish Travellers ? Or simply agreeing with the law (in the UK but not in the Republic of Ireland) that Irish Travellers are a totally distinct race from the Irish in general ? I think there is a connection in people's minds with them being catholics because several hundred of them had invaded Iffley Road to have a catholic funeral in the catholic church which happens to be there.

As you are familiar with their "base camp", can you tell us if they actually do much travelling ?

I agree entirely that, because of the "known likely behaviour" of this group, it is perfectly reasonable to be wary of them. This is not prejudice or racism.

But DoctorBob is wiser than us. He even disputes the very use of the phrase "known likely behaviour", and he would doubtless accuse you of "ignorance", though it seems to me the very opposite -- you have the knowledge which makes you wary, and so now has the barman, and the other customers of what is usually a perfectly peaceful and respectable pub.

Thank you for your very interesting contribution to this, and I do hope you get an answer to your question. How many Irish Travellers were arrested ?

I have no idea if they were Irish Travellers.

Their base camp was simply where they parked their caravans over the weekend in order to attend the funeral.

Perhaps they should be treated the same as football hooligans and given a police escort to and from the funeral, with police in attendance during the service in case of trouble.

Dr Bob, I urge you to go and socialise with them. If you survive the experience you can come back online and tell us about it.

Their behaviour was truly barbaric without regard for any other person in the pub.

In my opinion their reputation should be even more notorious than it is, an opinion shared by the police and proprietors of the pubs who took evasive action.

This report appeared on this website on 15th November (no comments allowed):
“ NO ARRESTS have been made following a stabbing at a gipsy funeral in Oxford on Tuesday.
Police also said there had been no further reports of trouble following the service at the Greyfriars Church in Iffley Road for 76-year-old great-grandmother Winnie Joyce.
Her family lives at the Redbridge Hollow travellers’ site, near Kennington, but Oxfordshire County Council said its traveller liason officer had not visited the site since the incident. “
http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/news/1004784
3.No_arrests_over_fu
neral_stabbing/

I don’t know if that link will appear here and be usable .
The longest and most detailed report was in the Oxford Times, and also appeared on this website on 14th November (again no comments allowed).

http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/news/1004483
1.Man_stabbed_in_fig
ht_during_gipsy_fune
ral/

Again, I don’t know if the link will work.

Neither of these reports refers to Irish Travellers, only Travellers, but nobody has suggested that they were Romany Travellers . It was DoctorBob who introduced the term “Irish Travellers”.

It was also DoctorBob who introduced the word “prejudice”, following which Darkforbid substituted the word “racism” when he denied it. It was me who denied racism on the basis that Irish Travellers were not a separate race, and that it was perfectly reasonable to take precautions according to the ways that they are known to behave from time to time.

Crucially, Doctor Bob wrote:
“ Roma, Romany Gypsies and Irish Travellers are now all recognised to have protection under the Race Relations Act as they have been finally recognised as minority ethnic communities in law.”
That suggests :
a) Travellers are Irish Travellers, otherwise they would be Romany Gypsies.
b) As this is the Race Relations Act after all, the “ethnic communities” are equivalent to “races”, or at least, it would be “racist” to discriminate against them.

The whole point is, though, that to act rationally in accordance with known likely behaviour is not discrimination as most people see it.

Winnie Joyce, who managed to produce 64 grandchildren and 45 great-granchildren (so far !) was born in Manchester but her family are “of Irish descent” according to the Oxford Mail in 2005.
http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/archive/2005
/08/11/Oxfordshire+A
rchive/6641980._We_r
e_the_same_as_anyone
_else_/
The problem then was a wedding.
“ The travellers initially annoyed residents by cutting chains to get into South Park and camping in 15 caravans. “

So it might have been a good idea to wonder where they were all going to park their cars during this funeral, or would that be discrimination ?

Cherwell wrote:
What is your argument exactly ?

You mean you have posted all that stuff and you don't know?

I'll tell you what, as you've engaged so profusely I'll let you tell me.

BackontheMainland wrote:

Cherwell wrote:
Are you saying that these were Travellers but not Irish Travellers ? Or simply agreeing with the law (in the UK but not in the Republic of Ireland) that Irish Travellers are a totally distinct race from the Irish in general ? I think there is a connection in people's minds with them being catholics because several hundred of them had invaded Iffley Road to have a catholic funeral in the catholic church which happens to be there.

As you are familiar with their "base camp", can you tell us if they actually do much travelling ?

I agree entirely that, because of the "known likely behaviour" of this group, it is perfectly reasonable to be wary of them. This is not prejudice or racism.

But DoctorBob is wiser than us. He even disputes the very use of the phrase "known likely behaviour", and he would doubtless accuse you of "ignorance", though it seems to me the very opposite -- you have the knowledge which makes you wary, and so now has the barman, and the other customers of what is usually a perfectly peaceful and respectable pub.

Thank you for your very interesting contribution to this, and I do hope you get an answer to your question. How many Irish Travellers were arrested ?

I have no idea if they were Irish Travellers.

Their base camp was simply where they parked their caravans over the weekend in order to attend the funeral.

Perhaps they should be treated the same as football hooligans and given a police escort to and from the funeral, with police in attendance during the service in case of trouble.

Dr Bob, I urge you to go and socialise with them. If you survive the experience you can come back online and tell us about it.

Their behaviour was truly barbaric without regard for any other person in the pub.

In my opinion their reputation should be even more notorious than it is, an opinion shared by the police and proprietors of the pubs who took evasive action.

When you say "their behaviour" do you mean only those involved or all Travellers across the country? I ask because you appear to be talking about small groups on one hand but extending their behaviour across a much larger group.

I regularly socialise on the Cowley Road and see disorder often so should I tar all those that socialise on the Cowley Road with the same brush?

"It was me who denied racism on the basis that Irish Travellers were not a separate race, and that it was perfectly reasonable to take precautions according to the ways that they are known to behave from time to time."

If you denied services to Black people on the basis some Black people engage in criminal behaviour would that be racist in your logic?

"The whole point is, though, that to act rationally in accordance with known likely behaviour is not discrimination as most people see it."

The problem with your statement is that you have claimed your viewpoint is in accord with "most people". Where did you carry out this piece of research to come to that conclusion? Even if your statement was indeed correct it wouldn't make it right.

Dr Bob, this wasn't a 'lads' pub but a quiet family establishment just off the Iffley Road, hence an old lady with her dog who were patrons. I don't know why you keep saying Cowley Road as I stated quite clearly Iffley Road if you would care to peruse my original post.

It would only be prejudice if all the reports of Traveller violence were unsubstantiated. Interesting to hear the Joyces were involved as they have a history of violence. Let's not forget that these people engage in bear knuckle fighting competitions and teach their sons to fight from a very young age. They feed the fire of their reputation for violence by carrying out their unsociable acts. In my opinion it is sensible to be wary of them.

BackontheMainland wrote:
Dr Bob, this wasn't a 'lads' pub but a quiet family establishment just off the Iffley Road, hence an old lady with her dog who were patrons. I don't know why you keep saying Cowley Road as I stated quite clearly Iffley Road if you would care to peruse my original post.

It would only be prejudice if all the reports of Traveller violence were unsubstantiated. Interesting to hear the Joyces were involved as they have a history of violence. Let's not forget that these people engage in bear knuckle fighting competitions and teach their sons to fight from a very young age. They feed the fire of their reputation for violence by carrying out their unsociable acts. In my opinion it is sensible to be wary of them.

My point is regardless of the actual road.

"Perhaps they should be treated the same as football hooligans and given a police escort to and from the funeral, with police in attendance during the service in case of trouble."

When you say "they" do you actually mean those who it has been proven have engaged in such behaviour or do you mean, as I suspect, anyone from a community of people based on association of social label?

Do you see what I am getting at? You seem to flip between referring to specific individuals and group labelling.

DoctorBob wrote:

BackontheMainland wrote:
Dr Bob, this wasn't a 'lads' pub but a quiet family establishment just off the Iffley Road, hence an old lady with her dog who were patrons. I don't know why you keep saying Cowley Road as I stated quite clearly Iffley Road if you would care to peruse my original post.

It would only be prejudice if all the reports of Traveller violence were unsubstantiated. Interesting to hear the Joyces were involved as they have a history of violence. Let's not forget that these people engage in bear knuckle fighting competitions and teach their sons to fight from a very young age. They feed the fire of their reputation for violence by carrying out their unsociable acts. In my opinion it is sensible to be wary of them.

My point is regardless of the actual road.

"Perhaps they should be treated the same as football hooligans and given a police escort to and from the funeral, with police in attendance during the service in case of trouble."

When you say "they" do you actually mean those who it has been proven have engaged in such behaviour or do you mean, as I suspect, anyone from a community of people based on association of social label?

Do you see what I am getting at? You seem to flip between referring to specific individuals and group labelling.

Not all football fans are violent, some attend as a family. Never the less they are always escorted to the away ground if there is any indication of potential trouble. Do you see what I am getting at. Prevention of violence and safe keeping of innocent members of the public.

BackontheMainland wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:

BackontheMainland wrote:
Dr Bob, this wasn't a 'lads' pub but a quiet family establishment just off the Iffley Road, hence an old lady with her dog who were patrons. I don't know why you keep saying Cowley Road as I stated quite clearly Iffley Road if you would care to peruse my original post.

It would only be prejudice if all the reports of Traveller violence were unsubstantiated. Interesting to hear the Joyces were involved as they have a history of violence. Let's not forget that these people engage in bear knuckle fighting competitions and teach their sons to fight from a very young age. They feed the fire of their reputation for violence by carrying out their unsociable acts. In my opinion it is sensible to be wary of them.

My point is regardless of the actual road.

"Perhaps they should be treated the same as football hooligans and given a police escort to and from the funeral, with police in attendance during the service in case of trouble."

When you say "they" do you actually mean those who it has been proven have engaged in such behaviour or do you mean, as I suspect, anyone from a community of people based on association of social label?

Do you see what I am getting at? You seem to flip between referring to specific individuals and group labelling.

Not all football fans are violent, some attend as a family. Never the less they are always escorted to the away ground if there is any indication of potential trouble. Do you see what I am getting at. Prevention of violence and safe keeping of innocent members of the public.

You've completely missed the point.

To use your football analogy should all activities undertaken by football fans be policed because some football fans are violent?

"I had the unfortunate experience of being in a pub on the Iffley Road when about 20 Travellers entered it. The bar man declined to serve them because they were obviously drunk".

Now there's a rare incident, a barman refusing someone because they were drunk. It was just a coincidence that on this exceptionally rare occasion it just happened to involve Travellers.

Let me ask you a simple question based on your analogy. Why don't you refuse to send your kids to the same school as kids of football supporters?

Because children of football fans aren't taught to bare knuckle fight from the age of 2 years.

By the way the Travellers also trashed the Harvester in Wheatley and they were allowed to drink in there.

However much you try to defend them Doc they lead extremely violent lives.

Anyone who is born and bred in Oxford knows the reputation of this family. Maybe 'Dr' Bob should offer his home to them for their next get-together!

Cherwell wrote:
Irish Travellers are a race totally different from the rest of us who have different funerals and must be allowed to do so at all costs. So we are told.

It was them that put all the fun and games into this one, after their own festive fashion (if you will allow the word "festive").

I can't wait to hear Doctor Bob's views on the recent election, can you ?

Whilst I've no wish to stray into DoctorBob territory, who "told" you this? I got the impression the police were looking for the person responsible?

Anyone who lives in Oxford will be aware of this family's reputation, it's not an exaggeration, it's not made up in anyway, BUT this incident had nothing to do with them, however.

As for this silly "classification", who cares? Is it really important?
The fact remains that these are known "travellers" and there are several known families in and around Oxford who have proven time and time again that they are troublemakers.

Also, Dr Bob, I highly doubt that you are of the medical profession, you seem to regularly pour scorn on people at very ungodly hours and your language does not befit anyone who has gone through higher education.

locodogz wrote:

Cherwell wrote:
Irish Travellers are a race totally different from the rest of us who have different funerals and must be allowed to do so at all costs. So we are told.

It was them that put all the fun and games into this one, after their own festive fashion (if you will allow the word "festive").

I can't wait to hear Doctor Bob's views on the recent election, can you ?

Whilst I've no wish to stray into DoctorBob territory, who "told" you this? I got the impression the police were looking for the person responsible?

I'm afraid it was a wilful tongue-in-cheek exaggeration of the kind of thing some people get hold of from the law and from DoctorBob and fellow travellers. My point has always been that they really are not a different race from the rest of us, and that it is not "racist" to take sensible precautions in view of their known likely behaviour when they get together for weddings, funerals, or just drinking sprees.

The police were apparently looking for him with their helicopter at first, but (despite all that illegal parking, and more than a hundred people fighting) they made no arrests.

To update, a bloke has been arrested and charged with GBH with intent... Or "sticking a knife in" if the Doctor doesn't know what that means...

Firstly, thank you Niko Bellic for the update.

DoctorBob has asked BackontheMainland :
“ When you say ‘they’ do you actually mean those who it has been proven have engaged in such behaviour or do you mean, as I suspect, anyone from a community of people based on association of social label?

Do you see what I am getting at? You seem to flip between referring to specific individuals and group labelling. ”

Well, it all depends, doesn’t it, how many individuals constitute a group ?
DoctorBob himself has told us that Irish Travellers make up a special group, or as he puts it, they and certain others “under the Race Relations Act …. have been finally recognised as minority ethnic communities in law” . This looks to me very much like the group labelling of a community of people, and it does strongly suggest that they can be expected to behave in particular distinctive ways, and this is the law of the land.

As for the local incident, it certainly appears to be that many people in Oxford and beyond know about this particular group of Irish Travellers who are related to (in many cases descended from ) Winnie Joyce. It seems very reasonable that they should be considered as a “group” with known behaviour patterns, just as students are a “group” with “known” behaviour patterns, to which not all of them conform. No doubt many of the Joycian travelling group are very charming as individuals, but experience has shown that when they get together they can be excessively lively.

Certainly there are individuals amongst the Joycian travelling group who are meek and mild and who lead exemplary catholic lives in every respect, but how can we know which they are when they are mixed in with the others and all of them have just come out of church ? Even they might park inconsiderately. A lot of this group did, not isolated individuals.

It’s time for another of my animal examples. Most dogs are delightful creatures, but once you have been bitten by a dog, you will probably be wary of dogs. One individual will indeed make you wary of the whole tribe, and because of this, you might escape being bitten again, or it might never have happened again anyway. Once bitten, twice shy. That is the way human beings are. There’s nowt so queer as folks, I’m afraid, DoctorBob, but you will know that if you are a psychiatrist or even a GP .

Cherwell as ever is right. What the extreme left calls "stereotyping" normal folk understand as a necessity for survival. PS I'm not sure the Mongans and the McDonaghs would be happy to be regarded as an homogenous entity though....

I think it's time to put some people out of their misery. To the simple minded, the terminally stupid, those that can't read, those that haven't bothered to read and those that are so desperate to score a point, any point, in a vain attempt to cover their own failings I have taken a user name from a comic character invented and performed by the comedian Lee Nelson.

I did post a link to the character and I did reference his creator so,I'm sorry to disappoint but I an not a GP or medical Doctor in any way shape or form.

I did notice however another attempted personal smear from the 'my arguments so strong I feel the need to personally smear my opponent' brigade. Apparently not am I not a real Doctor I also haven't gained any higher education.

I do have to comment on this nonsense though.

"Well, it all depends, doesn’t it, how many individuals constitute a group ?
DoctorBob himself has told us that Irish Travellers make up a special group, or as he puts it, they and certain others “under the Race Relations Act …. have been finally recognised as minority ethnic communities in law” . This looks to me very much like the group labelling of a community of people, and it does strongly suggest that they can be expected to behave in particular distinctive ways, and this is the law of the land."

Dear me, your understanding of basic concepts is woeful my friend, especially labeling theory. Oh, sorry, an uneducated ignoramus like my good self shouldn't be talking about such intellectual subjects as social construct and the like.

"It’s time for another of my animal examples. Most dogs are delightful creatures, but once you have been bitten by a dog, you will probably be wary of dogs. One individual will indeed make you wary of the whole tribe, and because of this, you might escape being bitten again, or it might never have happened again anyway. Once bitten, twice shy. That is the way human beings are. "

Very subtle using animal analogies. Should you be harassed, followed by the police, denied services, banned from using the internet because, according to your own logic, you come from a community (internet forum users) where the chances of you being a predatory grooming pedophile are higher than the national average? Do you see my point?

You are sounding very much like our resident loony Julia Gasper.

There you go again with your "Socialist!, Lefty!" Tourettes Lord P.

Of course we all followed your link to the comic character, or at least I did, but the fact that you use the name "DoctorBob" as an ID certainly doesn't rule out the possibility that you might be a real doctor in the NHS, and certainly not that you might be an unemployed Arts graduate, my own preferred guess.

You don't have to have a higher education to know that "once bitten, twice shy" is a common reaction.

But "labelling theory" ? What is "labelling theory" ? Tell us more.

Is this still going on?

What ?

Woeful ignorance of labelling theory and social construct ? Probably. We are not all as well educated as DoctorBob .

Discrimination against Irish Travellers in the form of being careful to keep out of their way when there is likely to be trouble ? Probably, I'm afraid. That is human nature : some might call it common sense.

Cherwell wrote:
Of course we all followed your link to the comic character, or at least I did, but the fact that you use the name "DoctorBob" as an ID certainly doesn't rule out the possibility that you might be a real doctor in the NHS, and certainly not that you might be an unemployed Arts graduate, my own preferred guess.

You don't have to have a higher education to know that "once bitten, twice shy" is a common reaction.

But "labelling theory" ? What is "labelling theory" ? Tell us more.

I don't really understand your 'real Doctor' nonsense. It's bizarre to say the the least.

Ah, another set of guessed negative labels attached to me in a vain attempt to somehow place me lower in the debate.

For someone who professes to have used rationale and logic as a process and not plain old simple negative labeling when talking about Travellers I'm surprised to see you engaging in plain old negative labeling when trying to denounce me as an unemployed Arts graduate.

Maybe your true colours are shining through?

This is weird.

It's very sad when intelligent young people work hard for a degree but can't get a job. Therefore there is no question of denouncing you by suggesting that you might be an unemployed Arts graduate !

The doctor point is very easy to understand. Let me put it as simply as I can. Somebody who calls himself X might really be Y. Similarly, someone who calls himself Doctor X might really be Doctor Y .

I am not really called Cherwell, but I might really be called Ray. Both are rivers in Oxfordshire.

So there is no reason why you might not really be called Doctor Charles.

Stark raving bonkers!

Somebody who really is a doctor might make it known that he is a doctor, but give a false name. They do this all the time in advice columns of various kinds, for ethical reasons. If Doctor Bob really was a doctor, he certainly wouldn't want his patients and employers to know who he was.

Why is it stark raving bonkers to point that out ?

If I was called Ray, it might have occurred to me that Cherwell was rather a neat pseudonym. Hardly anybdy on the internet uses their real name.

DoctorBob wrote:

Darkforbid wrote:
DoctorBob,,, making a joke about lead theft is in no way racism...

You appear to only have a view of other peoples view! why is that?

Making a joke using racial stereotypes is racism my friend despite what you think.

Just thought I'd quote the above to point out the obvious flaws in DB's argument that he doesn't regard travellers as a race...