19 Irish travellers arrested in major FBI operation

Mint Aero

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/19-irish-travellers-charged-with-federal-racketeering-in-us-1.2774081

Wow can't believe it. I was always told they were hard working honest people who made millions from travelling the world selling tarmac driveways, cleaning gutters and trading valuable scrap metal they find on scouting exhibitions in the wilderness...

Funny no mention of this on RTE :rolleyes: One thing I don't get is if you're being charged with racketeering, fraud, money laundering, scamming, theft etc how and why would they accept the 25k bail as a legit transaction it's a bit like saying I know you stole that kids lunch money but if you give me the money you stole I'll give you a ham sammage.

Mod Edit: Everyone in here knows which posts are going beyond the line. Merely saying at the start that you know it will get you banned/carded/defenestrated isn't a defence. If this thread keeps spiralling into sterilisation and the likes, it will be closed. Let's aim to keep it within an ass's roar of civility, emotive topic or not, please.

Overheal

Funny, I drive to Aiken quite often and had never heard of or seen Murphy's Village on a map. It's a colloquialism for the area these folks reside.

http://ducknotes.blogspot.com/2008/09/murphys-village.html

Aiken's a kind of strange place anyway, full of "old money" type people. Quaint place though. The Wilcox does a great brunch.

SEPT 23 1989

One flick of a pen and CAB /Revenue could sweep through Rathkeale and seize everything

To redeem the property

Proof of purchase
Bank statements
income tax returns

Odd that the state is unable/unwilling to do this to one section of society

ClovenHoof

This will get red carded and me banned but I do not care.

Mod: <snip>

SEPT 23 1989

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

One flick of a pen and CAB /Revenue could sweep through Rathkeale and seize everything

To redeem the property

Proof of purchase
Bank statements
income tax returns

Odd that the state is unable/unwilling to do this to one section of society

It could also confiscate most things in everybody's home if "proof of purchase" is the requirement for it to be returned.

Mint Aero

Mint Aero wrote: »

Funny no mention of this on RTE :rolleyes:

About 19 people were hauled up for social welfare fraud in the town I live near last year. None travellers. But no mention of it in RTE either.

It's probably a conspiracy that sees 13 billion euro tax issues and the war in Syria top of the pile, instead of covering the big stuff like your food stamps thing in some place in the States.

The J Stands for Jay

ClovenHoof wrote: »

<snip>

Is this the big plan to end your current dry spell?

SEPT 23 1989

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

One flick of a pen and CAB /Revenue could sweep through Rathkeale and seize everything

To redeem the property

Proof of purchase
Bank statements
income tax returns

Odd that the state is unable/unwilling to do this to one section of society

If you claim it's odd that they haven't swept through Rathkeale and seized everything...could you advise what other towns or areas or localities or communities were subjected to this treatment?

In millions or billions, how much compo and legal costs would we as a people end up paying for this sort of nonsense?

Ilovemybricks

Deleted User wrote: »

If you claim it's odd that they haven't swept through Rathkeale and seized everything...could you advise what other towns or areas or localities or communities were subjected to this treatment?

In millions or billions, how much compo and legal costs would we as a people end up paying for this sort of nonsense?

How do they earn their loot, sorry, I mean money? You telling me that everything is above board in that town?

Ilovemybricks

Ilovemybricks wrote: »

How do they earn their loot, sorry, I mean money? You telling me that everything is above board in that town?

No no.

In fact I could say the opposite, there is no town in which "everything is above board".

But that does not mean the State can sweep through an area and seize everything on the basis of who the locals are.

ejabrod

ClovenHoof wrote: »

This will... <snip>

.

I may get banned for this also, however it is my opinion that travellers should be subject to the same laws as the rest of society (as they are not). If they do not pay tax, anything they own is gotten by illegal means. Sure they have my taxes paying for some of their lifestyle but what about the 161/162 cars they drive? Without taxable income, how do they afford such cars? - through illegal means.

If a traveller has a relatively new car outside the state provided house, that traveller/family should not be entitled to that state provided house or my taxes (in the form of dole).

Travellers do not deserve to be treated in any way different to the rest of society regardless.

The inbreeding may actually be a good thing for the rest of us

Sterilization may also be an option

ejabrod

ejabrod wrote: »

The inbreeding may actually be a good thing for the rest of us

Sterilization may also be an option

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz, the old edgy sterilisation line.

munster87

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz, the old edgy sterilisation line.

Ouch, don't like the sound of edgy sterilisation

Flint Fredstone

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No no.

In fact I could say the opposite, there is no town in which "everything is above board".

But that does not mean the State can sweep through an area and seize everything on the basis of who the locals are.

There's a difference in a town where there's one or two dodgy characters with flash cars with no discernible income and Rathkeale but I'm sure you already know this.

ejabrod

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz, the old edgy sterilisation line.

Great reply mate.... Clearly you see nothing wrong with the behaviour of the majority travellers who preach about their rights but never mention their responsibilities.

The fact of the matter is that travellers do not contribute positively to society in any way.

gctest50

Lovely :

Wealthy farmer gave almost £200,000 to 'menacing and callous' gang of travellers in three-week blackmail plot



http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14287687.Wealthy_farmer_gave_almost___200_000_to__menacing_and_callous__gang_of_travellers_in_three_week_blackmail_plot/

wexandproud

Deleted User wrote: »

If you claim it's odd that they haven't swept through Rathkeale and seized everything...could you advise what other towns or areas or localities or communities were subjected to this treatment?

In millions or billions, how much compo and legal costs would we as a people end up paying for this sort of nonsense?

the self employed and small business of this country get this treatment on a regular basis , proof of purchase , bank statements , sometimes bank statements of wife and kids asked for , revenue have even gone to banks and sought information on people so they have the info before they even ask you for it and you have to be dam sure that what you tell them matches the info they have

andekwarhola

There's a definite - you might say urgent - need to discuss the high levels of criminality and antisocial culture amongst traveler communities and the alarming kidglove approach to same from guilty liberals, lobby groups and the state.

The debate won't be had here though when people insist on going down the usual road of intemperate calls for internment, sterilisation, OTT police response, etc.

The point is that it doesn't require bigotry: just that they be judged like any other other portion of society would be for littering, crime, school attendance, living conditions, unemployment and so on, without the application of bogus 'ethnic' and 'cultural' considerations.

up for anything

ejabrod wrote: »

Great reply mate.... Clearly you see nothing wrong with the behaviour of the majority travellers who preach about their rights but never mention their responsibilities.

The fact of the matter is that travellers do not contribute positively to society in any way.

Wow! That's a sweeping statement, mein Fuhrer. You could say the same about the womb to tomb JSA strata of society.

gctest50

They'll hang themselves with technology :

The folks of Murphy Village rue the day they heard of Madelyne Gorman Toogood. The 25-year-old Traveler became infamous last month when she slammed her 4-year-old daughter into the back seat of an SUV in a shopping center near South Bend Ind. and hit her over and over. A surveillance camera caught it all and the footage was broadcast nationwide.

Then Toogood did the unthinkable in the eyes of her fellow Travelers She held a news conference and announced her ethnic origins.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Refreshing to see some law enforcement not deciding it's their culture and therefore right.

Samaris

Edit: Moved mod warning to first post.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

It could also confiscate most things in everybody's home if "proof of purchase" is the requirement for it to be returned.

The vast majority of people could furnish proof of purchase of the major items in their lives and if they couldn't, could explain how they own them. House, car and so forth. CAB would hardly be asking for receipts for the pint of milk in the fridge. If you have a 2015/16 car/van/4X4 and you're in receipt of social welfare something is seriously amiss and you should be investigated. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Wibbs

andekwarhola wrote: »

The point is that it doesn't require bigotry: just that they be judged like any other other portion of society would be for littering, crime, school attendance, living conditions, unemployment and so on, without the application of bogus 'ethnic' and 'cultural' considerations.

Ahh but there's the rub A. Doing any of that is considered "bigotry". How dare you culturally impose on them, silly person you! This is how such groups are protected by well meaning but ultimately daft right on policies and such groups are all too happy to wave that shield around too. There is clear statistical evidence that Travellers have more criminality, shorter lives, worse health, more spousal abuse etc than background levels. Quite the bit more. Do the official representatives condemn this? Almost never and when and if they do it's almost inevitably the fault of the "settled peeeeple".

Wigglepuppy

up for anything wrote: »

Wow! That's a sweeping statement, mein Fuhrer. You could say the same about the womb to tomb JSA strata of society.

You could say the same about a number of people, yes. It's pretty extreme to be using a Hitler comparison in relation to that poster also. It doesn't mean they endorse genocide. I personally cannot see what's incorrect about their statement but I'm open to correction via examples being offered.

Cee-Jay-Cee

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

One flick of a pen and CAB /Revenue could sweep through Rathkeale and seize everything

To redeem the property

Proof of purchase
Bank statements
income tax returns

Odd that the state is unable/unwilling to do this to one section of society

But sure that would be discribidayshun boss!

wexandproud

wexandproud wrote: »

the self employed and small business of this country get this treatment on a regular basis , proof of purchase , bank statements , sometimes bank statements of wife and kids asked for , revenue have even gone to banks and sought information on people so they have the info before they even ask you for it and you have to be dam sure that what you tell them matches the info they have

On people.

Not entire towns.

On individuals. That's perfectly legitimate. Targetting a person because of geography is not.

Widdershins

Wibbs wrote: »

The vast majority of people could furnish proof of purchase of the major items in their lives and if they couldn't, could explain how they own them. House, car and so forth. CAB would hardly be asking for receipts for the pint of milk in the fridge. If you have a 2015/16 car/van/4X4 and you're in receipt of social welfare something is seriously amiss and you should be investigated. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Have you ever heard of car finance on child benefit?

ejabrod

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On people.

Not entire towns.

On individuals. That's perfectly legitimate. Targetting a person because of geography is not.

Just because they choose to infest one geographical location is not the reason for revenue investigating.

The fact that the majority of their possessions' are obtained through illegal means is the reason for investigating.

Common sense would dictate that a person/persons with no obvious means outside of welfare should not be in a position to purchase/own a house. If that person then buys a house they should be under obligation to prove where they legally obtained the finances to make the purchase.

If they are all living in one town it is irrelevant to the decision to investigate. If anything it makes it easier for revenue to investigate.

If I, as a private citizen, want to buy a house the red tape I have to go through is huge. I have to prove where I got the deposit etc. With travellers this is not the case.

If I'm under obligation to prove where I got my wealth, so should travellers, regardless of geographic location.

lazybones32

If found guilty, I hope they get a prison sentence and not just kicked out of the Country.

Flint Fredstone

ejabrod wrote: »

Just because they choose to infest one geographical location is not the reason for revenue investigating.

The fact that the majority of their possessions' are obtained through illegal means is the reason for investigating.

Common sense would dictate that a person/persons with no obvious means outside of welfare should not be in a position to purchase/own a house. If that person then buys a house they should be under obligation to prove where they legally obtained the finances to make the purchase.

If they are all living in one town it is irrelevant to the decision to investigate. If anything it makes it easier for revenue to investigate.

If I, as a private citizen, want to buy a house the red tape I have to go through is huge. I have to prove where I got the deposit etc. With travellers this is not the case.

If I'm under obligation to prove where I got my wealth, so should travellers, regardless of geographic location.

These guys aren't putting down a deposit. Paid in full, paid in cash.

ejabrod

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

These guys aren't putting down a deposit. Paid in full, paid in cash.

Point proven

ejabrod

ejabrod wrote: »

I have to prove where I got the deposit etc.

To who?

When?

The booking deposit is paid through an auctioneer, the balance through your own Solicitor, who asks for "proof of where you got the deposit"?

bigpink

ejabrod wrote: »

Just because they choose to infest one geographical location is not the reason for revenue investigating.

The fact that the majority of their possessions' are obtained through illegal means is the reason for investigating.

Common sense would dictate that a person/persons with no obvious means outside of welfare should not be in a position to purchase/own a house. If that person then buys a house they should be under obligation to prove where they legally obtained the finances to make the purchase.

If they are all living in one town it is irrelevant to the decision to investigate. If anything it makes it easier for revenue to investigate.

If I, as a private citizen, want to buy a house the red tape I have to go through is huge. I have to prove where I got the deposit etc. With travellers this is not the case.

If I'm under obligation to prove where I got my wealth, so should travellers, regardless of geographic location.

How do they get away with using so much cash?On big purchases like houses cars etc

but but but their *culture*

ejabrod

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To who?

When?

The booking deposit is paid through an auctioneer, the balance through your own Solicitor, who asks for "proof of where you got the deposit"?

The bank actually.

I was asked to prove my deposit was not a loan from another financial institution.

Now stop being such an argumentative dìck for the sake of it.

Also why are you so insistant on defence of travellers?

ejabrod

ejabrod wrote: »

Now stop being such an argumentative dìck for the sake of it.

Also why are you so insistant on defence of travellers?

You are getting abusive and insulting.

It's an anonymous forum. Rein it in a little, people will have different opinions.

Your point about the deposit was wrong. You may have to prove it to your own bank in the context of raising finance, as opposed to the purchase. But when paying the deposit in the course of the conveyance, the auctioneer or solicitor will not demand proof of where it came from.

I don't have to explain to you why I am against nonsense like removing assets from entire towns or sterilisation. But if you must know, it's simply an application of common sense.

ejabrod

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are getting abusive and insulting.

It's an anonymous forum. Rein it in a little, people will have different opinions.

Your point about the deposit was wrong. You may have to prove it to your own bank in the context of raising finance, as opposed to the purchase. But when paying the deposit in the course of the conveyance, the auctioneer or solicitor will not demand proof of where it came from.

I don't have to explain to you why I am against nonsense like removing assets from entire towns or sterilisation. But if you must know, it's simply an application of common sense.

That's not being abusive in my opinion but I guess that depends on your interpretation.

I never suggested removing assets from entire towns. I suggested travellers should be subject to the same rules as the rest of the population. That is not nonsense. If travellers live in one locality that is their choice.

Yes, I did have to prove to.my own bank before they would sign-off on the mortgage so don't tell me I'm wrong about something I had to do. My point is that travellers are not subjected to this scruitny - this is wrong in every way. Why am I held to a different standard? Why can a traveller buy a house with cash with no questions asked?

You may want to get off your high horse and accept the reality that the majority of travellers obtain what they have illegally.

A minority that cost the state a minimum of €5 million a week that have a better life than most of the employed in this country that ultimately pay for their lifestyle.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Your point about the deposit was wrong. You may have to prove it to your own bank in the context of raising finance, as opposed to the purchase. But when paying the deposit in the course of the conveyance, the auctioneer or solicitor will not demand proof of where it came from.

Your argument --- Country mile --- Point. Let's break it down to easily chewable chunks. How can someone apparently in need of and in receipt of social welfare can be able to afford a large purchase like a new car, mobile home or house? Often all three. Now that's a really simple question, which should require a really simple answer, unless of course we're going down the rabbit hole of deflection nonsense about culture or ethnicity or bigotry or any of that to cover up the bloody obvious. Or it's the someone elses/bigots/settled peeeeeple's fault.

But if you must know, it's simply an application of common sense.

I'm thinking of the mote in your brother's eye and the beam in yours here. While it's clearly utterly bloody moronic to be bleating for sterilisation(no rolleyes large enough), some application of common sense on you and other right on type's part would be welcome too.

Grayson

munster87 wrote: »

Ouch, don't like the sound of edgy sterilisation

Ignoring the nastiness of sterilising a whole group of people.....

The phrase "edgy sterilisation" made me cross my legs.

sbsquarepants

Widdershins wrote: »

Have you ever heard of car finance on child benefit?

Easily enough proved.

And in any case, you wander into your local car dealer and say "I'd like to finance that 50k jeep boss. Pay with the mickey money like" see how far you get! All those cars are paid for in cash.
You'd want your head examined to extend credit to certain "ethnic groups"

ejabrod

ejabrod wrote: »

If I, as a private citizen, want to buy a house the red tape I have to go through is huge. I have to prove where I got the deposit etc.

ejabrod wrote: »

Yes, I did have to prove to.my own bank before they would sign-off on the mortgage so don't tell me I'm wrong about something I had to do.

The second point may well be correct.

The first is simply incorrect.

You are in fact wrong. Where you are wrong is that you don't understand the difference between a purchase and a mortgage.

Barry Badrinath

Deleted User wrote: »

If you claim it's odd that they haven't swept through Rathkeale and seized everything...could you advise what other towns or areas or localities or communities were subjected to this treatment?

In millions or billions, how much compo and legal costs would we as a people end up paying for this sort of nonsense?

Are you implying that if the relevant authorities went into Rathkeale to investigate the financial legitimacy of members of the Travelling community....that because of who they are and where they are....it would fail on discriminatory grounds as the next town had not been subject to the same investigation?

So to sum up, professionally, as a member of the legal system, you are against Travellers being investigated and potentially "done" for their possible illegal activities.

How do you personally feel about it?

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

How can someone apparently in need of and in receipt of social welfare can be able to afford a large purchase like a new car, mobile home or house? Often all three. Now that's a really simple question, which should require a really simple answer, unless of course we're going down the rabbit hole of deflection nonsense about culture or ethnicity or bigotry or any of that to cover up the bloody obvious.

I can't answer for the person who has a new car on the dole no more than I can answer how so many families from council estates seem to get 1 or 2 holidays in the sun every year. I'd suspect a mix of nixers and drawing down money that they are not entitled to.

But I wouldn't say seize everything in Dublin. I would have no qualms about social protection carrying out checks on a case by case basis, on either the family in Rathkeale or indeed the family in Tallaght.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

The second point may well be correct.

The first is simply incorrect.

You are in fact wrong. Where you are wrong is that you don't understand the difference between a purchase and a mortgage.

Which again is deflecting from the main and obvious as the nose on your face point that nitpicking aside again answer this simple question; How can someone apparently in need of and in receipt of social welfare can be able to afford a large purchase like a new car, mobile home or house?

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't answer for the person who has a new car on the dole no more than I can answer how so many families from council estates seem to get 1 or 2 holidays in the sun every year. I'd suspect a mix of nixers and drawing down money that they are not entitled to.

Talk about a non committal answer that avoids the obvious. You must be either a politician or a solicitor.

Senor Fancy Pants

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Are you implying that if the relevant authorities went into Rathkeale to investigate the financial legitimacy of members of the Travelling community....that because of who they are and where they are....it would fail on discriminatory grounds as the next town had not been subject to the same investigation?

So to sum up, professionally, as a member of the legal system, you are against Travellers being investigated and potentially "done" for their possible illegal activities.

How do you personally feel about it?

I said seizing every asset in a town is utter nonsense.

It simply is. It is making up law and applying it nonsensically.

I am not against any individual anywhere being investigated in a correct manner.

Flint Fredstone

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can't answer for the person who has a new car on the dole no more than I can answer how so many families from council estates seem to get 1 or 2 holidays in the sun every year. I'd suspect a mix of nixers and drawing down money that they are not entitled to.

But I wouldn't say seize everything in Dublin. I would have no qualms about social protection carrying out checks on a case by case basis, on either the family in Rathkeale or indeed the family in Tallaght.

Maybe they work for it?

Wibbs

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Maybe they work for it?

Well spotted FF.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Which again is deflecting from the main and obvious as the nose on your face point that nitpicking aside again answer this simple question...

It is nitpicking to observe out that a point was incorrect...

:D

Fair enough.

I am a Solicitor. Hence when I say the legal stuff here about rounding up assets in a town or the hysteria about what other people have to go through to buy a house is complete and utter nonsense, you can take it that it is. It's not an opinion, it's the law, conveyancing procedures etc. etc.

andekwarhola

Deleted User wrote: »

no more than I can answer how so many families from council estates seem to get 1 or 2 holidays in the sun every year.

Most people on 'council estates' actually work. 80% of travelers don't.