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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don’t see why family should always support family if a heinous crime is committed. If you would think a stranger a scumbag for a crime they were convicted of, can you explain why that same crime would suddenly be okay because they are family? Like seriously, what's the logic there?

Serious crimes - rape, murder, assault. You’d seriously be grand with supporting a family member that was proven to have committed a crime that serious? A crime that destroys or takes the life of the victim? All because of some woolly notion of always sticking up for family?

And accessing child pornography IS one of those serious crimes. Every single person who downloads the stuff adds to the demand for those images and videos and that means destroying the lives of the children featured in them. It is a serious fucking crime and I would in my hoop support a family member who committed it.

Yes, that's completely logical but family relationships are not based on logic and rhetoric. They're overwhelmingly emotional.

This is a bit off topic, since the crime of possessing cannabis for sale or supply cannot reasonably be described as 'heinous'. But it's an interesting point you raise. I doubt that the parents of most people who are convicted of serious crimes (say, crimes liable to a penalty of a five year sentence or longer) simply abandon their convicted relative.

if most people don't abandon their relative in this situation (and I'm open to correction on it), then the chances are that you and I wouldn't do it, however we think we'd behave hypothetically.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yes, that's completely logical but family relationships are not based on logic and rhetoric. They're overwhelmingly emotional.

This is a bit off topic, since the crime of possessing cannabis for sale or supply cannot reasonably be described as 'heinous'. But it's an interesting point you raise. I doubt that the parents of most people who are convicted of serious crimes (say, crimes liable to a penalty of a five year sentence or longer) simply abandon their convicted relative.

if most people don't abandon their relative in this situation (and I'm open to correction on it), then the chances are that you and I wouldn't do it, however we think we'd behave hypothetically.

Well firstly, I thought it was obvious from my post that the term ‘heinous’ was being applied to crimes like murder, rape and accessing child porn (because it contributes to the abuse of children). I said nothing of cannabis. The poster I replied to was talking about sticking by family no matter what the crime.

As for the bolded part, eh, I don’t know. I have an uncle who is a criminal. Less serious stuff than murder or rape and I have no problems whatsoever thinking him a scumbag and generally dissociating myself from him. I know for sure that I wouldn’t stand by a relation committing a more serious crime (murder etc.), even if it was a parent or sibling. I know this about myself. Things I won’t be talking about here have informed my viewpoint.

I understand the initial wrench and the emotions and that there would be continuing feelings of familial love but I cannot understand anyone intellectually being fine with a family member committing a heinous crime, never mind standing by them if they were convicted. I absolutely reject that the norm would be to stand by them. To anyone who thinks it would be the norm, I say speak for yourself. If you’d consider the crime heinous if committed by a perfect stranger then standing by a family member for doing the same is nothing short of sh1tty. Familial bonds only explain away so much.

freshpopcorn

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well firstly, I thought it was obvious from my post that the term ‘heinous’ was being applied to crimes like murder, rape and accessing child porn (because it contributes to the abuse of children). I said nothing of cannabis. The poster I replied to was talking about sticking by family no matter what the crime.

As for the bolded part, eh, I don’t know. I have an uncle who is a criminal. Less serious stuff than murder or rape and I have no problems whatsoever thinking him a scumbag and generally dissociating myself from him. I know for sure that I wouldn’t stand by a relation committing a more serious crime (murder etc.), even if it was a parent or sibling. I know this about myself. Things I won’t be talking about here have informed my viewpoint.

I understand the initial wrench and the emotions and that there would be continuing feelings of familial love but I cannot understand anyone intellectually being fine with a family member committing a heinous crime, never mind standing by them if they were convicted. I absolutely reject that the norm would be to stand by them. To anyone who thinks it would be the norm, I say speak for yourself. If you’d consider the crime heinous if committed by a perfect stranger then standing by a family member for doing the same is nothing short of sh1tty. Familial bonds only explain away so much.

What do you think of people who say they'll disown there son/family member for commuting various crimes and are very adiment about it but when it actually does happen they don't be complete opposite.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What do you think of people who say they'll disown there son/family member for commuting various crimes and are very adiment about it but when it actually does happen they don't be complete opposite.

Well, what is there to say about that? I’d think their moral compass was in need of recalibration.

Erm, your post is a bit jumbled so I hope I answered the right question there.

freshpopcorn

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, what is there to say about that? I’d think their moral compass was in need of recalibration.

Erm, your post is a bit jumbled so I hope I answered the right question there.

That does answer my question sorry about the post being jumbled.
I think my main point was you don't really know how you'll react until it actually happens in my experience.

Deusexmachina

To my mind, judging people is wrong without knowing all the reasons, their buried motives, the influences on them, the full circumstances.
Many 18 year olds are still adolescents and not fully developed emotionally, psychologically or even physically (particularly young men). That’s not to in any was excuse his actions but to accept that little is black and white in this world.

I hope his mum is coping. She seems very brave and determined to face up to this.

Well done her.

Some of the stuff flung at her on here was sad to read.

smurgen

Irish Kings wrote: »

Everyone is a critical expert until it happens in their family.

This lad must be a total nightmare idiot to steer in the right direction, focused on all the wrong stuff, no appreciation of the opportunities he could have had, and has now at least severely damaged them, if not thrown them away.

He definitely has no idea how lucky he is to have such a decent mother, who is an absolute lady.

Youth really is so wasted on the young.

Maybe she's a **** mom?

Visconti

skooterblue2 wrote: »

No it wasnt. You dont have the full story. If it would the place would have folded long ago, but it has grown. I was down there at the wedding 6 years ago. I know the full story and anyone in the catering trade in Cork knows what happened. You havent a clue what happen. You dont know how it was resolved. It was unfortunate but the person at the center of it was punished and business resumed as normal afterwards.

Tell us the full story as I dont believe you.

Visconti

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Once again, you dont know the full story and that person has been removed from the company. I have been there and Ballymaloe is a great peaceful place with great food and wine.

What person ? So you are saying the aul fella was wrongly convicted of CP ? Plot thickens. Is that not perverting the course of justice ? A crime in itself.

Visconti

skooterblue2 wrote: »

They didnt protect that individual. The individual was removed from the company and property. If they properly exposed the individual, the whole business would be gone.

So its even worse than the aul fella with CP ? What could be worse Darina ? You said the whole business would be gone ? Plot thickens further.

Visconti

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You dont know the identity of the person is you think you are talking about. If you made a spelling mistake as basic as that I doubt you could afford to go to there for a stay.

Some of the richest people in history did not finish school. You are arrogant and seemingly defending someone convicted of CP. Your not coming across well.

Visconti

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.

What about innocent parties who turn up in court to support a family member convicted of CP ? Does your heart go out to them ?
Does your heart go out to innocent children who are abused for the pleasure of sick minds ?
Nice priorities.

Deusexmachina

Visconti wrote: »

What about innocent parties who turn up in court to support a family member convicted of CP ? Does your heart go out to them ?
Does your heart go out to innocent children who are abused for the pleasure of sick minds ?
Nice priorities.

I am sorry but that’s a very childish reaction. The previous poster was referring to Rachel supporting her son. You have somehow made this about the poster having no sympathy for child victims of pornography.

That’s ridiculous.

Visconti

vicwatson wrote: »

He was convicted as a child pornographer afaik not a paedophile

Ahhh thats grand then didn't realise he was only a pornographer of innocent children.

Visconti

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I am sorry but that’s a very childish reaction. The previous poster was referring to Rachel supporting her son. You have somehow made this about the poster having no sympathy for child victims of pornography.

That’s ridiculous.

i
No.

dense

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You dont know the identity of the person is you think you are talking about. If you made a spelling mistake as basic as that I doubt you could afford to go to there for a stay.

So the guy took the rap for someone else?


Can I get Gemma O Doherty on to this miscarriage of justice?

Deusexmachina

Visconti wrote: »

Ahhh thats grand then didn't realise he was only a pornographer of innocent children.

There is no one on here who supports child pornography. Tim Allen is a horrible sick man.
That does not mean that Rachel Allen is guilty of anything. In fact, it must have been really tough for her to know her Father in Law was like that.
What was she to do? Leave her husband?

Deusexmachina

Visconti wrote: »

i
No.

Oh, okay then.

Visconti

Deusexmachina wrote: »

There is no one on here who supports child pornography. Tim Allen is a horrible sick man.
That does not mean that Rachel Allen is guilty of anything. In fact, it must have been really tough for her to know her Father in Law was like that.
What was she to do? Leave her husband?

She should not have attended court to support him. Larry Murphy's family have disowned him and are a decent family by all accounts unlike some. Huge drug imports , CP what a family.

Visconti

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Oh, okay then.

I dont have much to say to someone who is clearly a huge Allen fan. Makes me wonder about your personal life too.

Visconti

dense wrote: »

So the guy took the rap for someone else?


Can I get Gemma O Doherty on to this miscarriage of justice?

Its just a smoke screen by the Allen fan club to diminish his CP conviction. He is guilty as is the drug importer for sale and supply.

Deusexmachina

Visconti wrote: »

She should not have attended court to support him. Larry Murphy's family have disowned him and are a decent family by all accounts unlike some. Huge drug imports , CP what a family.

Hold on. There are two things got have happened. 1. Her Grandfather is convicted of watching child porn. 2. He son is caught making a drug deal.

She has had a really rough time. No fault of her own.

What’s all this crap about Larry Murphy? He was convicted of rape, kidnapping and attempted murder. You are comparing his family to Rachel Allen???

Btw was Rachel actually in the court supporting Tim Allen?

padd b1975

smurgen wrote: »

Maybe she's a **** mom?

Throwing fast cars and credit cards at their child is hardly the calling card of a good mother.

Particularly a child so young and troubled, it's a lethal cocktail that has inevitable consequences.

Deusexmachina

Visconti wrote: »

I dont have much to say to someone who is clearly a huge Allen fan. Makes me wonder about your personal life too.

That’s quite an accusation. Would you like to elaborate?

Visconti

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Hold on. There are two things got have happened. 1. Her Grandfather is convicted of watching child porn. 2. He son is caught making a drug deal.

She has had a really rough time. No fault of her own.

What’s all this crap about Larry Murphy? He was convicted of rape, kidnapping and attempted murder. You are comparing his family to Rachel Allen???

Btw was Rachel actually in the court supporting Tim Allen?

Yes she was in court supporting him hence my issue with her. Watching child porn ? Nice way to tone it down. People who watch child porn are as bad as the ones who commit it as bad as the ones who rape children. Making a drug deal lol you make that sound like he was caught buying a €20 bag. He is guilty of importing a huge amount with intent to supply he is a drug dealer.
The more you write the more I learn about you and its not nice.

Visconti

Deusexmachina wrote: »

That’s quite an accusation. Would you like to elaborate?

I didnt accuse anything I said it makes me wonder. And I do wonder.

Deusexmachina

Visconti wrote: »

Yes she was in court supporting him hence my issue with her. Watching child porn ? Nice way to tone it down. People who watch child porn are as bad as the ones who commit it as bad as the ones who rape children. Making a drug deal lol you make that sound like he was caught buying a €20 bag. He is guilty of importing a huge amount with intent to supply he is a drug dealer.
The more you write the more I learn about you and its not nice.

What’s the weather like up there on the moral high ground? You are conflating a lot of unrelated issues to support your condemnation of Rachel Allen.

Larry Murphy ffs!!!

Deusexmachina

Visconti wrote: »

I didnt accuse anything I said it makes me wonder. And I do wonder.

Well wonder away. Like the rest of your arguments, complete bull****

Ash.J.Williams

Visconti wrote: »

Yes she was in court supporting him hence my issue with her. Watching child porn ? Nice way to tone it down. People who watch child porn are as bad as the ones who commit it as bad as the ones who rape children. Making a drug deal lol you make that sound like he was caught buying a €20 bag. He is guilty of importing a huge amount with intent to supply he is a drug dealer.
The more you write the more I learn about you and its not nice.

It was a weeks worth of weed

Visconti

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Well wonder away. Like the rest of your arguments, complete bull****

They are not arguments they are facts. You are the one who is arguing. So you applaud Rachel for going into court and supporting a paedophile .