Rachel Allen’s son arrested for €30,000 drugs seizure

seamus

Deusexmachina wrote: »

You are completely full of ****. ‘Fact is...blah blah blah’.

So you don't think that two serious crimes in the space of 20 years is exceptional for a family?

Or are you just a family friend who can't see past their blinkers?

lazygal

Padraig Mor wrote: »

All I know is I heard it from a good friend of mine who was a long time Ballymaloe staff member and who was working there at the relevant time - and I heard it from them long before I heard it anywhere else.


The family member involved is not unnamed plus, way I hear it, it wasn't them specifically being 'saved', but rather the interlinked career of an extended family member. That's about as specific as I can get I'm afraid.

We've all heard the rumours. There's no credibility to them.

grindle

Oh come on, this isn't a serious crime.

I'd consider any serious crime to be innately morally reprehensible.
This crime may be debatably immoral if you consider sobriety in humans to be some pinnacle of achievement and recreational drug use as ineffably evil.

seamus

Your feelings on recreational drugs are irrelevant. The reason it's a serious crime is because the smuggling, importation and sale of large quantities of any drug provides funding for criminal gangs.

Whatever about the limited impact that an individual user has, this was 1.5kg of it. That's enough money to fund 3 or 4 gangland murders.

The seriousness of the crime is reflected in the relatively hard sentences passed down for "sale or supply" offences, versus simple possession ones.

Mojo Hand

€ 40,000 to the Court charity box and Bob’s your uncle!

lazygal

grindle wrote: »

Oh come on, this isn't a serious crime.

I'd consider any serious crime to be innately morally reprehensible.
This crime may be debatably immoral if you consider sobriety in humans to be some pinnacle of achievement and recreational drug use as ineffably evil.

Try using that as a defence and see how far you get in a criminal trial.

grindle

seamus wrote: »

Your feelings on recreational drugs are irrelevant. The reason it's a serious crime is because the smuggling, importation and sale of large quantities of any drug provides funding for criminal gangs.

Whatever about the limited impact that an individual user has, this was 1.5kg of it. That's enough money to fund 3 or 4 gangland murders.

The seriousness of the crime is reflected in the relatively hard sentences passed down for "sale or supply" offences, versus simple possession ones.

Your feelings on the seriousness of a crime are as irrelevant as my feelings on recreational drugs when the linchpin that keeps the drug war train on track are laws which were initially put in place to suppress certain cultures (hippies and blacks) but have become a protectionist racket that actually benefit criminal gangs the most.

The law he's broken which apparently makes it so serious a crime is the very thing which profits the gangs.

If it weren't for the outdated and extremely pernicious law there would be no crime, very little actual harm done and zero money going to criminals (unless they're criminals in some other unlinked way?)

lazygal wrote: »

Try using that as a defence and see how far you get in a criminal trial.

I'm sorry, I forgot that nothing should be questioned at all.
All hail the status quo.

JPCN1

He could grow that amount with a lot less hassle, it's being grown the length and breath of the country. Posting it... hardly a criminal mastermind you'd think. He'll do time for a drug that most certainly should and will in the future be legalised.

sbsquarepants

Deusexmachina wrote: »

How very smug and self righteous of you.
Her Father in Law was caught with child pornography.
How does that make her a ‘c*unt’?.

Anyone who doesn't cut a known paedo out of their lives is a cúnt as far as I'm concerned.

Do you have a problem with that stance?

Deusexmachina wrote: »

The fact that you refer to her as ‘hot’ in the same sentence as calling her a c*unt says all we need to know about you.

Do you think hotness and cúntiness are mutually exclusive or something? I'm confused - what do you think it tells you about me..... other than I believe Rachel Allen to be both hot and a bit of a cúnt?

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He's guilty!

Even on the 1 in a million chance that he's not, it just means they are covering for another dirtbird scumbag.....what changes other than the scumbags name?

Deusexmachina wrote: »

You are completely full of ****. ‘Fact is...blah blah blah’. You are really enjoying this.

Ireland is such a miserable dump sometimes.

Why exactly are you such a rabid Allen family supporter?

Ireland may be a miserable dump sometimes but it would be greatly improved by the removal of rich aresholes, who think it's perfectly acceptable to pull the todger off themselves, while watching a child being raped.

meeeeh

So father in law and son are scum but most judgemental bs is aimed at a person who had nothing to do with either crime but has an audacity to be successful. Some people really are miserable begrudging vermin.

lazygal

meeeeh wrote: »

So father in law and son are scum but most judgemental bs is aimed at a person who had nothing to do with either crime but has an audacity to be successful. Some people really are miserable begrudging vermin.

Any half decent parent would have to wonder if your son growing up in a family which supported a convicted child sex offender wasn't the best choice to make and might make said child think crime doesn't have serious consequences. This family make money from projecting a wholesome inter generational family image. Allen is a brand. You can't use your name for branding and expect only positive associations after what her father in law did. If Darina and the rest had gotten rid of him the day of the conviction people might not think they're so horrible.

sbsquarepants

meeeeh wrote: »

So father in law and son are scum but most judgemental bs is aimed at a person who had nothing to do with either crime but has an audacity to be successful. Some people really are miserable begrudging vermin.

I couldn't give a rats arse about the drugs, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's that scumbag father in law that disturbs me and the way the rest of them are all perfectly happy to row in behind once the money keeps flowing is frankly disgusting.

Fúck them all as far as I'm concerned.

meeeeh

lazygal wrote: »

Any half decent parent would have to wonder if your son growing up in a family which supported a convicted child sex offender wasn't the best choice to make and might make said child think crime doesn't have serious consequences.

I didn't know you have inside knowledge of their family life. So tell us how did the grandfathers conviction influence son to buy weed.

seamus

grindle wrote: »

Your feelings on the seriousness of a crime are as irrelevant as my feelings on recreational drugs when the linchpin that keeps the drug war train on track are laws which were initially put in place to suppress certain cultures (hippies and blacks) but have become a protectionist racket that actually benefit criminal gangs the most.

The law he's broken which apparently makes it so serious a crime is the very thing which profits the gangs.

If it weren't for the outdated and extremely pernicious law there would be no crime, very little actual harm done and zero money going to criminals (unless they're criminals in some other unlinked way?)

Yeah, wonderful. It's still a serious crime though. You can't break the law and claim the moral high ground on the basis that the law shouldn't be there. By your logic, the criminal gangs are doing nothing wrong either. All those people would never die if the laws weren't there.

If you don't like it, campaign against it. Don't flaunt the law and then claim some ideological reason why you're justified.

"I'm not really helping fund the criminal gangs, it's the bourgeois establishment criminalising ordinary decent punters that's to blame".

Hollow words.

And before you start making some lame comparison about human rights and Ghandi, consider that you're talking about peoples' right to get high. Not their human rights, or their life or their health.

Oasis1974

lazygal wrote: »

Any half decent parent would have to wonder if your son growing up in a family which supported a convicted child sex offender wasn't the best choice to make and might make said child think crime doesn't have serious consequences. This family make money from projecting a wholesome inter generational family image. Allen is a brand. You can't use your name for branding and expect only positive associations after what her father in law did. If Darina and the rest had gotten rid of him the day of the conviction people might not think they're so horrible.

Didn't see try to blame staff members for messing with his computer even though it was his CC that paid for the images?

lazygal

meeeeh wrote: »

I didn't know you have inside knowledge of their family life. So tell us how did the grandfathers conviction influence son to buy weed.

Well he got a message that if you commit crimes the family will rally around you outside court and then go on national TV to do a soft interview to make sure the cash keeps rolling in.

lazygal

Oasis1974 wrote: »

Didn't see try to blame staff members for messing with his computer even though it was his CC that paid for the images?

Yeah, said on Liveline I think it could have been people on their cookery courses. Despite the CC details being one of the main pieces of evidence.

Emmersonn

furiousox wrote: »

Are we sure this isn't "fake news"?
There's not a mention of it on the RTE website. :rolleyes:

Of course not. RTE is not unbiased.

This lad has been a keen gardener in the past

meeeeh

lazygal wrote: »

Well he got a message that if you commit crimes the family will rally around you outside court and then go on national TV to do a soft interview to make sure the cash keeps rolling in.

Oh so you mean they made sure the brand and people working there survived. They should close the business, let go all of their employees and live the rest of the life in silent penance to pay for relatives crime. It doesn't seem you are bothered the criminal didn't go to prison, it bothers you they are successful. Green eyed monster and all that...

corks finest

gctest50 wrote: »

corks finest wrote: »

Having a brother od and died here in Cork,a dealer is a dealer,hope the yummy mummys boy gets a sentence ( but of course he won't)

The pitchforks are out

If he didn't buy drugs he wouldn't have od'd and died

It's like blaming the guy working in the off-licence for failing a breathalizer test the next morning

Yes,I'm not naive enough to not know that idiot,point is a dealer deals in death,for profit,and doesent give a **** who gets hurt

lazygal

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh so you mean they made sure the brand and people working there survived. They should close the business, let go all of their employees and live the rest of the life in silent penance to pay for relatives crime. It doesn't seem you are bothered the criminal didn't go to prison, it bothers you they are successful. Green eyed monster and all that...

The usual "jealousy" line! Darina stood by her husband who's a child sex offender. The rest of the family did too. That's not a family I'll give money to or have sympathy for.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

sbsquarepants wrote: »

They're a nasty family. Any family that supports a paedo deserve everything they get. Rachel may be hot, but that doesn't mean she's not a cúnt!

What a ridiculous post.

RasTa

seamus wrote: »

Your feelings on recreational drugs are irrelevant. The reason it's a serious crime is because the smuggling, importation and sale of large quantities of any drug provides funding for criminal gangs.

Whatever about the limited impact that an individual user has, this was 1.5kg of it. That's enough money to fund 3 or 4 gangland murders.

The seriousness of the crime is reflected in the relatively hard sentences passed down for "sale or supply" offences, versus simple possession ones.

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, wonderful. It's still a serious crime though. You can't break the law and claim the moral high ground on the basis that the law shouldn't be there. By your logic, the criminal gangs are doing nothing wrong either. All those people would never die if the laws weren't there.

If you don't like it, campaign against it. Don't flaunt the law and then claim some ideological reason why you're justified.

"I'm not really helping fund the criminal gangs, it's the bourgeois establishment criminalising ordinary decent punters that's to blame".

Hollow words.

And before you start making some lame comparison about human rights and Ghandi, consider that you're talking about peoples' right to get high. Not their human rights, or their life or their health.

It's not a serious crime

Deusexmachina

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Anyone who doesn't cut a known paedo out of their lives is a cúnt as far as I'm concerned.

Do you have a problem with that stance?

Do you think hotness and cúntiness are mutually exclusive or something? I'm confused - what do you think it tells you about me..... other than I believe Rachel Allen to be both hot and a bit of a cúnt?

He's guilty!

Even on the 1 in a million chance that he's not, it just means they are covering for another dirtbird scumbag.....what changes other than the scumbags name?

Why exactly are you such a rabid Allen family supporter?

Ireland may be a miserable dump sometimes but it would be greatly improved by the removal of rich aresholes, who think it's perfectly acceptable to pull the todger off themselves, while watching a child being raped.

You must be very unhappy to enjoy someones elses misfortune so much.

I suspect the truth of your problem is linked to your descibing this woman as a 'C*unt' and 'hot' in the same sentence. Very typical of misogeny related to sexual frustration and a severe lack of self esteem...

Try joining a club, getting more physical exercise and cut down on the porn and masterbation.

Uncharted

Where's this "jealousy" rubbish coming from?

That family rallied around a convicted paedo and did all they could to bury the facts around the case.
Hush hush mentality and throw money at the problems until they go away is their M.O.

This is another PR disaster for their wholesome family "brand".

I'd call that karma.

meeeeh

lazygal wrote: »

The usual "jealousy" line! Darina stood by her husband who's a child sex offender. The rest of the family did too. That's not a family I'll give money to or have sympathy for.

I don't believe you this is about where you buy your relish or cook books.

meeeeh

Deusexmachina wrote: »

You must be very unhappy to enjoy someones elses misfortune so much.

I suspect the truth of your problem is linked to your descibing this woman as a 'C*unt' and 'hot' in the same sentence. Very typical of misogeny related to sexual frustration and a severe lack of self esteem...

Try joining a club, getting more physical exercise and cut down on the porn and masterbation.

I actually find it interesting how crimes were committed by men but the punishment should be dished at women.

sbsquarepants

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

What a ridiculous post.

Care to explain why?

sbsquarepants

Deusexmachina wrote: »

You must be very unhappy to enjoy someones elses misfortune so much..

I'm not enjoying anyones misfortune at all. I just don't like paedo's or those who rally around them

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I suspect the truth of your problem is linked to your descibing this woman as a 'C*unt' and 'hot' in the same sentence. Very typical of misogeny related to sexual frustration and a severe lack of self esteem....

Seems fairly normal to me to find some women attractive. No?

Seems fairly self evident that some women are nicer people than others. Some are in fact cúnts. No?

Given that those 2 statements, it would again seem entirely self evident that there could exist a subset of women who are both attractive but not very nice people. Hot cúnts you could call them.

Rachel is one of those!

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Try joining a club, getting more physical exercise and cut down on the porn and masterbation.

I'll try the club, but I'm not promising anything on the others.

You spelled masturbation wrong by the way - type it with your bad hand did you?;)

keano_afc

By earning an honest living, Rachel Allen is now bringing shame on the family.