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

Seth Brundle

Deleted User wrote: »

The man in Ballymaloe who was convicted in a public court of having downloaded pornographic type pictures of children was named long ago in public, as Darina Allen’s husband, Tim. Darina etc are innocent and very hurt parties to that, have had to live their lives in that shadow and try to run an acclaimed business in spite of it. Now I see here there’s another blight, and my heart goes out to innicent parties.

I'm reminded of the mentalist in America who killed Jason Corbett with a brick and her father helped take the rap although everyone knows that the father wasn't involved but was covering for his child.

King of Kings

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

You berate her for her "tacit" support for her father-in-law, which you seem to define as having any relationship with him whatsoever. But what did you expect her to do, exactly? At the end of the day, Tim Allen is her husband's father, as well as her children's grandfather. The notion that she would never set eyes on him again is farcical.

It's all very well to be a hurler on the ditch and pontificate about what she should have done. But as many family members of convicted sex offenders will acknowledge, the reality is often far more difficult and messy.

i dont care one way or another about rachel..but on the point of Tim Allen.

I'd avoid my own father in such circumstances and 100% guarantee my kids would have no contact. She didn't. Thats fcukin bananas.

sbsquarepants

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In what way was her life made more uncomfortable?

I mean more than her boss as in he was her father in law - he may have worked in the kitchens but he was also one of the owners - it's not like he was just an employed baker or whatever.

She was and still remains a fully fledged supporter of team Allen - you may have no issue with that or dismiss it as just a job, but it is clearly more than that.

Maybe you would do the same thing in her shoes, maybe lots of people would.......but I wouldn't, and I am perfectly happy to take a very negative view of those who would.

Rachel, Darina, Tim - they all give me the creeps, they are a shower of sleaze bags as far as I am concerned. She's just a slightly more photogenic sleaze bag than the other two.

sbsquarepants

meeeeh wrote: »

Are you so daft you think the only people working there are the family members? I was there when we had to let go people from family business in the recession, even though we knew it is something we had to do to survive we felt terrible. Then there are suppliers who would lose business. You obviously lack any experience of responsibility to other people when you are running the business or maybe you just don't care. But it's a bit more complicated than grand gestures and pompous statements.

It's not complicated at all.

They could have come out and condemned him, darina could have divorced him, they could have done a lot of things - they didn't. They thought "lets protect the money, sure it's only kiddie porn"

If that doesn't disgust you, then you need to take a cold hard look at yourself!

Darina is on record as saying he was treated unfairly. I don't know if Rachel ever said anything like that, but I've certainly never heard her say anything against him.

Have you?

lazygal

Tim still works in the business. The family are happy to employ a paedophile.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

King of Kings wrote: »

i dont care one way or another about rachel..but on the point of Tim Allen.

I'd avoid my own father in such circumstances and 100% guarantee my kids would have no contact. She didn't. Thats fcukin bananas.

I find that people who can "100% guarantee" how they would react in a given situation generally have no personal experience of that situation.

I know nothing of the conversations that presumably took place between Rachel and Isaac Allen over whether his father would have access to their children, and if so, under what terms. I will say only that these situations are messy, complex, and that there are no easy answers. Trying to pretend otherwise is facile. The world is not black and white, and not everything is clearcut.

jace_da_face

Trasna1 wrote: »

Importing drugs through the post is incredibly risky though - 100% dependent on other person to pack it properly and cleanly and conceal or there is a non trivial risk it will be picked up.

And if it's picked up, they literally have your name and address.

I would have thought there would be a legal difficulty in proving liability in those situations. Assuming no paper trail. Although his confession would have done it.

Deusexmachina

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

This makes no sense.

Rachel O'Neil started dating Isaac Allen when she was 18. She married him in 1998 when she was 26 years old, taking his name.

Tim Allen was not caught by Gardai until 2002 and pled guilty to possession of child pornography in 2003. This tarnished Darina Allen's image and led RTE to look for someone else to host its cooking shows, which gave Rachel the chance to do her first show in 2004. She published her first book in the same year. That's when her career took off.

Why would she have insisted on being known as "Rachel O'Neil" at that point, when she had been known by her married name for the previous six years?

As for "She was happy enough to accept the leg up and the lifestyle..." -- the same thing could be said of anyone who marries into a wealthy or influential family. It's just throwing mud and hoping something will stick.

Despite your ongoing efforts to smear her name in this thread, and call her derogatory sexist names, Rachel Allen has never done anything wrong. She's a chef, a businesswoman, and a mother. She's added more to Irish society than most people.

You berate her for her "tacit" support for her father-in-law, which you seem to define as having any relationship with him whatsoever. But what did you expect her to do, exactly? At the end of the day, Tim Allen is her husband's father, as well as her children's grandfather. The notion that she would never set eyes on him again is farcical.

It's all very well to be a hurler on the ditch and pontificate about what she should have done. But as many family members of convicted sex offenders will acknowledge, the reality is often far more difficult and messy.

Great post.

Deusexmachina

lazygal wrote: »

Tim still works in the business. The family are happy to employ a paedophile.

Do you know that for absolute certain?

meeeeh

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not complicated at all.

They could have come out and condemned him, darina could have divorced him, they could have done a lot of things - they didn't. They thought "lets protect the money, sure it's only kiddie porn"

If that doesn't disgust you, then you need to take a cold hard look at yourself!

Darina is on record as saying he was treated unfairly. I don't know if Rachel ever said anything like that, but I've certainly never heard her say anything against him.

Have you?

No but I don't demand public statements on anything from people. Neither I know what their arrangements are and neither I care. I don't think anyone should get such a low penalty for that sort of a crime and nobody should be allowed to pay their way out of it. But unlike you I don't demand public flogging of relatives and employees for one persons crimes. It was up to state to deal with the crime not up to the family.

So if it is not complicated at all, tel me how many people did you have to let go?

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

................

So if it is not complicated at all, tel me how many people did you have to let go?

Surely Tim having no involvement with the business would have just been the one being let go?
I'm fairly sure if I was convicted of what he did the folk who pay me for my services would be cutting ties very, very swiftly.

PlaneSpeeking

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Do you know that for absolute certain?

They're employing him aren't they ?

http://www.cookingisfun.ie/items/2017/spuds-are-tim-allen-planting-potatoes

Sick pervert should be nowhere near the public, ever.

meeeeh

Augeo wrote: »

Surely Tim having no involvement with the business would have just been the one being let go?
I'm fairly sure if I was convicted of what he did the folk who pay me for my services would be cutting ties very, very swiftly.

No it was stated that the business should be ran to the ground. Apparently the problem is that Rachel Allen kept the brand alive. Btw it seems Tim Allen did leave the business at the time. (I have no idea about now).

https://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2003/0120/ireland/child-porn-chef-allen-bows-out-of-ballymaloe-432289510.html

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't know if Rachel ever said anything like that, but I've certainly never heard her say anything against him.

Even if she had publicly criticized him, you'd still be attacking her for remaining in the family, for using the Allen name, for allowing her father-in-law access to his grandchildren, and for continuing to play a role in the family business.

No matter what she did, you'd still be hell-bent on attacking her.

It's amazing to see someone with such a malicious vendetta against an innocent woman.

lazygal

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Do you know that for absolute certain?

He works in the cookery school.

.......

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

They're employing him aren't they ?

http://www.cookingisfun.ie/items/2017/spuds-are-tim-allen-planting-potatoes

Sick pervert should be nowhere near the public, ever.

I actually think its even more complex than the fact that he is still employed by them.

People cannot understand how Darina could have stayed married to him. How his children and in laws could bear to be associated with him in any fashion.

There was an article in some Irish newspaper last year saying that their hotel won some award for "family values". Id rather not bring my child to a hotel promoting family values when a man convicted of buying child porn is attached to it.

.......

meeeeh wrote: »

No it was stated that the business should be ran to the ground. Apparently the problem is that Rachel Allen kept the brand alive.

Wrong, again.

The issue with the Allens is that they supported a man convicted of buying child pornography and continued to give him a job.

977 images, and he tried to blame someone else. Would you have stayed married to him? If you employed him, would you have kept him on?

Every one of those images represented a child life ruined. And he was only convicted on the ones he had paid for.

PlaneSpeeking

....... wrote: »

Wrong, again.

The issue with the Allens is that they supported a man convicted of buying child pornography and continued to give him a job.

977 images, and he tried to blame someone else. Would you have stayed married to him? If you employed him, would you have kept him on?

Every one of those images represented a child life ruined. And he was only convicted on the ones he had paid for.

And not on a PC - in a plastic bag, hidden in his office.

Sick twisted ****.

margaretdublin

I think most people would not want to see the closure of a family business because of the actions of one person. What galls me is that Darina tried to downgrade the crime saying sure it was only on the computer.

If you read newspaper reports many years after the event it is reported that she feels Tim was made an example of at the time. She still does not acknowledge that he has done wrong. To an extent she is an innocent party to the crime but she should never have come out with the statements she did. She should have stayed quiet. RTE are wrong to still air programs with her in it when she still holds the view that Tim was singled out.

Rahel on the other hand had nothing to do with it apart from rallying around the family during court.

Deusexmachina

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

They're employing him aren't they ?

http://www.cookingisfun.ie/items/2017/spuds-are-tim-allen-planting-potatoes

Sick pervert should be nowhere near the public, ever.

Do you really, in all honestly, think his wife was 'happy' to find out her husband was looking at child pornography? I would guess she was devastated.

I think they are Quakers? Quakers are generally very charitable, gentle and principled people who strongly believe in community. I can only imagine how difficult that whole thing was for his wife and children. I despise paedophiles but I think it's only fair not to blame his innocent family without really knowing how they feel? I doubt they are one bit 'happy', do you, seriously?

meeeeh

....... wrote: »

Wrong, again.

The issue with the Allens is that they supported a man convicted of buying child pornography and continued to give him a job.

977 images, and he tried to blame someone else. Would you have stayed married to him? If you employed him, would you have kept him on?

Every one of those images represented a child life ruined. And he was only convicted on the ones he had paid for.

I think you are better informed about other peoples marriage and private life arrangements so i bow to your superior knowledge on that. I'm not going to make any grand statements what I would do on the internet except that it would absolutely devastate me. That I know.

PlaneSpeeking

margaretdublin wrote: »

I think most people would not want to see the closure of a family business because of the actions of one person. What galls me is that Darina tried to downgrade the crime saying sure it was only on the computer.

If you read newspaper reports many years after the event it is reported that she feels Tim was made an example of at the time. She still does not acknowledge that he has done wrong. To an extent she is an innocent party to the crime but she should never have come out with the statements she did. She should have stayed quiet. RTE are wrong to still air programs with her in it when she still holds the view that Tim was singled out.

Rahel on the other hand had nothing to do with it apart from rallying around the family during court.

I wonder what she thought he was doing whilst the pics were "on the computer" - they weren't his bloody screensaver!

vicwatson

lazygal wrote: »

Tim still works in the business. The family are happy to employ a paedophile.

He was convicted as a child pornographer afaik not a paedophile

PlaneSpeeking

vicwatson wrote: »

He was convicted as a child pornographer afaik not a paedophile

So he just cracked one out to pictures of someone else abusing children ?

Well, that's just peachy then.

.......

meeeeh wrote: »

I think you are better informed about other peoples marriage and private life arrangements so i bow to your superior knowledge on that. I'm not going to make any grand statements what I would do on the internet except that it would absolutely devastate me. That I know.

Well you have repeatedly demonstrated on this thread that you dont know much about the case itself, the behaviour of the family during and after the case and the state of play now.

Not only did his missus stand by him, she actually tried to downplay his crimes.

Rachel herself did a tv interview where she said she "just had to be strong for Darina AND Tim".

They only had him stand down from his management position because of public outrage and the threat to the business.

.......

vicwatson wrote: »

He was convicted as a child pornographer afaik not a paedophile

He was.

Why would someone be looking at and buying child pornography?

Do you think people who are not pedophiles seek it out?

Being a pedophile does not mean you have physically acted on it - it means that you are sexually attracted to children. You will not be convicted for being a pedophile, you will be convicted if you act on it.

Tim acted on it.

sbsquarepants

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

I find that people who can "100% guarantee" how they would react in a given situation generally have no personal experience of that situation.

I know nothing of the conversations that presumably took place between Rachel and Isaac Allen over whether his father would have access to their children, and if so, under what terms. I will say only that these situations are messy, complex, and that there are no easy answers. Trying to pretend otherwise is facile. The world is not black and white, and not everything is clearcut.

Access to the children - are you for fúcking real.
What type of mother allows a paedo access to her children? What discussion could take place around that?

There's nothing messy or complex about it!

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

This makes no sense.

Rachel O'Neil started dating Isaac Allen when she was 18. She married him in 1998 when she was 26 years old, taking his name.

Tim Allen was not caught by Gardai until 2002 and pled guilty to possession of child pornography in 2003. This tarnished Darina Allen's image and led RTE to look for someone else to host its cooking shows, which gave Rachel the chance to do her first show in 2004. She published her first book in the same year. That's when her career took off.

Why would she have insisted on being known as "Rachel O'Neil" at that point, when she had been known by her married name for the previous six years?

As for "She was happy enough to accept the leg up and the lifestyle..." -- the same thing could be said of anyone who marries into a wealthy or influential family. It's just throwing mud and hoping something will stick.

Despite your ongoing efforts to smear her name in this thread, and call her derogatory sexist names, Rachel Allen has never done anything wrong. She's a chef, a businesswoman, and a mother. She's added more to Irish society than most people.

You berate her for her "tacit" support for her father-in-law, which you seem to define as having any relationship with him whatsoever. But what did you expect her to do, exactly? At the end of the day, Tim Allen is her husband's father, as well as her children's grandfather. The notion that she would never set eyes on him again is farcical.

It's all very well to be a hurler on the ditch and pontificate about what she should have done. But as many family members of convicted sex offenders will acknowledge, the reality is often far more difficult and messy.

I had a bloody thesis typed out and when I went to post it deleted it on me after asking to prove I wasn't a robot!

I'll give you the synopsis.

She could have distanced herself, she didn't. It wasn't a fresh new show for RTE it was a simple re shuffle of a tarnished brand.

I don't think it's farcical to cut a paedo grandfather out of your life entirely, in fact quite the opposite - I think it's disgusting not too. There is no way I am exposing my kids to a risk like that, for any reason. I absolutely look down on any one else who does.

Also as an aside - when I called her a cúnt, I didn't mean it in any sexist way (I'm not sure it makes any difference but just for the sake of clarity) She's a cúnt, Darina's a cúnt and Tim....he's the biggest cúnt of all

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Do you really, in all honestly, think his wife was 'happy' to find out her husband was looking at child pornography? I would guess she was devastated.?

Not so devastated as she left though.
Devastated enough to moan about how he was treated unfairly, but not devastated enough to throw the sleaze bag out.
You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas!

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I think they are Quakers? Quakers are generally very charitable, gentle and principled people who strongly believe in community. I can only imagine how difficult that whole thing was for his wife and children. I despise paedophiles but I think it's only fair not to blame his innocent family without really knowing how they feel? I doubt they are one bit 'happy', do you, seriously?

Where does he live? It appears they are happier to have him be part of the gang, than to not be, doesn't it.

You seem to know a lot about them, do you reckon they let him babysit?

Chanel Swift Swordfish

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

.............. an innocent woman.

Innocent indeed.
Not a great "mom" by all accounts. Took the eye off the ole child rearing it seems. Young lad conducting illegal transactions with thousands of euro..... ah sure nothing to do with Rachel.

sbsquarepants

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

Even if she had publicly criticized him, you'd still be attacking her for remaining in the family, for using the Allen name, for allowing her father-in-law access to his grandchildren, and for continuing to play a role in the family business.

No matter what she did, you'd still be hell-bent on attacking her.

It's amazing to see someone with such a malicious vendetta against an innocent woman.

If "they" not just her - she's only singled out because of this thing with her son at the moment. If they had of said - you know what this is disgusting, we want you out of the business, out of the family, out of our lives altogether I'd have applauded them.

Larry murphy's family for example disowned him, you don't see me calling his wife names do you, or his kids, or his brother or anyone else - He's the filth bag, they are innocent and their actions proved they are innocent. They have nothing but my sympathies and respect.

The Allens on the other hand - eh, no thank you, they've proved themselves sleaze bags.

.......

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what?

He was looking at and buying child pornography.

I wouldnt want someone like that in my circle of association even if a judge had let him off scot free.

There are literally no circumstances where I think I would be ok with someone who did what in my circle of association.

I refused to attend an event before because I knew a child abuser would be at it.

Im perfectly comfortable with my stance on it.