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

Melendez

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is a fooking horrendous viewpoint.
Him and his ilk are responsible (indirectly bla bla) for child abuse !!!
If your kids were in the filth he was viewing I'm sure you'd have a different comment to add "a little perspective".

margaretdublin

What has Quakers got to do with? Please don't bring people religious beliefs into it.
Darina should not never have stood alongside her husband supporting him in his court case. I'm not saying she should have divorced him, that in the end is a private matter between him and her.
Her only reason for supporting him so publicly was to save the family business and possibly that she refuses in her own mind to think what he did was a crime.

No one should in any circumstance condone the downloading of child abuse. Darina by her actions has done this, you can talk all you like how devastated she must have been but at the end of the day she publicly stood beside him and not only that she commented sure it was only images on the PC. Sorry but in my book that's just as bad. If she stayed quiet I would not blame her but she spoke out in his defence.

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.

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?

sbsquarepants

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It appears we have differing views on the abuse of children for the sexual gratification of adults. Maybe you have it on a par with shoplifting..... but I certainly don't!

I wouldn't really care if Darina et al had of stood by Tim when he was caught pocketing a Kit Kat!

Tim is every bit as disgusting as Larry as far as I'm concerned.

Melendez

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you agree with it?
Seems as I'm asking you.

PlaneSpeeking

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you look at child pornography for your sexual gratification you are a sick, sick person and deserve as much jail time as those filming it.

"Like shoplifting" ??? Sick.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

sbsquarepants wrote: »

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.

Family members of a sex offender don't have to "prove" that they are innocent. This is just another example of your defamatory innuendo: you're insinuating that because the Allen family didn't "prove" themselves innocent by disowning Tim Allen, they all are somehow guilty by association. Which, of course, is ridiculous.

Rachel Allen has never done anything wrong. Unless you make a habit of going on Internet crusades against convicted sex offenders' daughters-in-law, I'd agree with other posters that you are targeting Allen only because she's successful and affluent.

PlaneSpeeking

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, such a liar aren't I ?

Your personal attack was reported btw.

Seth Brundle

....... wrote: »

Tim acted on it.

Are you sure that Tim acted on it?
What I heard is that he did not.

Melendez

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well you said Tim Allen's crime was not deemed worthy of a custodial sentence, the court's deemed so

The courts didn't say "Tim Allen's crime is on a par with minor shoplifting offences".

You threw in that "perspective" yourself.

lazygal

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Are you sure that Tim acted on it?
What I heard is that he did not.

Those images were just restimg in his account, were they?

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Are you sure that Tim acted on it?
What I heard is that he did not.

Are you suggesting you heard someone else acted on it and Tim took the fall?

PlaneSpeeking

Augeo wrote: »

Well you said Tim Allen's crime was not deemed worthy of a custodial sentence, the court's deemed so

The courts didn't say "Tim Allen's crime is on a par with minor shoplifting offences".

You threw in that "perspective" yourself.

And yet everyone else has the problem - look inwardly he should!

lazygal

Can we stop with the stupid spin that Tim took responsibility for someone else. He used his OWN CREDIT CARD FFS.

.......

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Are you sure that Tim acted on it?
What I heard is that he did not.

He was convicted of acting on it. He accessed and paid for images of child pornography.

That is a crime.

He was never convicted of child abuse - and I did not state that he was.

My post that you referenced was explaining that a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. You are not convicted of being a pedophile. You are convicted of committing a criminal offence.

There are people out there who never act on their pedophilic urges - they never perform a criminal act but they are still pedophiles, they are still sexually attracted to children.

However, Tim Allen did act on it. He committed a criminal offence.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Also as an aside - when I called her a cúnt, I didn't mean it in any sexist way

Hilarious.

Calls a woman a "cúnt" and then claims that's not sexist.

J Mysterio

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Sh1ts gonna get real for Joshua when granny darina gets home from electric picnic on an epic comedown

lol'd quite loudly at this, in the office.

.......

lazygal wrote: »

Can we stop with the stupid spin that Tim took responsibility for someone else. He used his OWN CREDIT CARD FFS.

TBH it would be much worse if he was taking the responsibility for someone else because that would mean there were two criminals rather than one.

One - whoever committed the offences.
Two - Tim for perjuring himself in court.

Its nonsensical anyway. It was his credit card and he tried to blame another staff member who shared the laptop.

PlaneSpeeking

....... wrote: »

TBH it would be much worse if he was taking the responsibility for someone else because that would mean there were two criminals rather than one.

One - whoever committed the offences.
Two - Tim for perjuring himself in court.

Its nonsensical anyway. It was his credit card and he tried to blame another staff member who shared the laptop.

Always the hired help innit ???

lazygal

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Always the hired help innit ???

One just can't finger the staff for the crimes of the family these days. Shocking.

sbsquarepants

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

Family members of a sex offender don't have to "prove" that they are innocent. This is just another example of your defamatory innuendo: you're insinuating that because the Allen family didn't "prove" themselves innocent by disowning Tim Allen, they all are somehow guilty by association. Which, of course, is ridiculous.

No they don't have to prove themselves innocent, but don't even attempt to tell me that when someone is convicted of a crime like child porn that it doesn't reflect on their partner and family if they rally around him.
It may not stand up in a court - but there is such a thing as guilt by association - it's patent nonsense to say there isn't.

Their support of Tim does speak to their view of what he's done - they clearly feel it's not that important an issue, not as important as the family business anyway.

Darina actually seems to feel like he is the bloody victim in all this!

That's a disgusting viewpoint. Do you not agree?

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

Rachel Allen has never done anything wrong. Unless you make a habit of going on Internet crusades against convicted sex offenders' daughters-in-law, I'd agree with other posters that you are targeting Allen only because she's successful and affluent.

I don't know any other daughter in laws of paedophiles - but I can promise you that I'd tar all equally supportive daughter in laws with the exact same brush.
I honestly have no idea why you think her affluence would be a factor in my thinking.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Their support of Tim...

"Their support"? Do you have a source for comments that Rachel and Isaac Allen have made in support of Tim Allen?

I don't know any other daughter in laws of paedophiles

Funny that the only pedophile's daughter-in-law you know of is Rachel Allen, whom you feel free to call a "cúnt."

sbsquarepants

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

Hilarious.

Calls a woman a "cúnt" and then claims that's not sexist.

Was it sexist when I called Tim one too?

And in any case, sexism is considerable less vile than paedophilia or the support of paedophiles........ in my humble opinion.

But hey, as this thread proves we all value different things differently don't we!

.......

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

"Their support"? Do you have a source for comments that Rachel and Isaac Allen have made in support of Tim Allen?

Rachel said in a tv interview after the conviction that things were very difficult but that she had to be strong for Darina AND Tim.

He still works in the family business. His name is still the brand name.

Rachel extended the brand into the UK specifically because the brand was suffering in Ireland post conviction and they needed a new face other than Darina in a market where people were not aware of the conviction.

I genuinely do not see any evidence where she does NOT support him?

sbsquarepants

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

"Their support"? Do you have a source for comments that Rachel and Isaac Allen have made in support of Tim Allen?."

Another one who needs to learn the meaning of the word tacit.

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

Funny that the only pedophile's daughter-in-law you know of is Rachel Allen, whom you feel free to call a "cúnt."

Funny how?

How many do you know?

meeeeh

Only thing this thread proves is we need an English word for schadenfreude.

Hoboo

Chanel Swift Swordfish wrote: »

Hilarious.

Calls a woman a "cúnt" and then claims that's not sexist.

How is it sexist Thats like saying a woman calling a man a dick is sexist.

lazygal

meeeeh wrote: »

Only thing this thread proves is we need an English word for schadenfreude.

Allenfreude.

Oasis1974

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

Amazing he's on camera and jovial to booth.

sbsquarepants

Hoboo wrote: »

How is it sexist

It's not, it's just a handy, lazy accusation to throw in to try strengthen your argument in favour of a woman who tacitly supports a paedo!

.......

Oasis1974 wrote: »

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

Amazing he's on camera and jovial to booth.

Why wouldnt he be jovial?

He got off very lightly for a disgusting crime, his personal wealth wasnt affected and his family have rallied round him.