I’m not sure if it’s been made clear here, but Irish travelers are not Gypsies (i.e., not Romani). Ethnically, they are the same as other Irish. They’re apparently Irish people who were made homeless some generations ago and now travel around like the Gypsies.
That’s interesting. Do you have a cite for more info?
No, but the Irish travelers are called “gypsies” informally, and classed as such under English law, which leads to much confusion.
Not readily to hand and I’m in the middle of cooking, but there’s some stuff to be found on the Banjara Times. Other than that I think useful Google keywords would be Patrin, WR Rishi and Roma Publications Chandrigah.
Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party writes:
> No, but the Irish travelers are called “gypsies” informally, and classed as such
> under English law, which leads to much confusion.
No? No to what question? I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
No, as in to confirm that Irish travelers aren’t “Gypsies”.
never mind…
So you agree with someone by saying “No”? Now I am confused.
The “affirmative no”? I thought you were a linguist 
(AskOxford.com says it’s especially common in South Africa; I don’t know where I got it from. Agreeing with, or embellishing, a negative claim with a “no” seems natural to my ears.)
Anyway, enough hijacking.
It’s pronounced “shih - THEE - ahd” :mad: 
A friend of mine found a copy of the report. It’s dated 26-Jun-2007 and written by Gfactor and Silenus if that helps. I can also provide a copy, if it’s lost.
Interestingly enough, the media in the UK seem to muddy this a little bit.
For example in today’s Guardian there’s an article entitled:
Gypsies on greenbelt site face eviction after court ruling
Within the article the quoted “Gypsy” has an Irish name, which presumably means the group are Irish Travellers rather than Gypsies. In the Irish media they generally use the term Traveller rather than Gypsy for the ethnically Irish group.