Quinn Director abducted and assaulted

Topgear on Dave

bubblypop wrote: »

Average gardai in ballyconnell are not going to go out & involve themselves in civil matters

When there is a campaign of intimidation going on, practically outside their station door, perhaps they should take an interest.

Topgear on Dave

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

When there is a campaign of intimidation going on, practically outside their station door, perhaps they should take an interest.

Legally, Gardai cannot go onto private land to take down signs which don't actually break any laws.
Gardai work within the law.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Legally, Gardai cannot go onto private land to take down signs which don't actually break any laws.
Gardai work within the law.

Yes they can with a warrant. Which they could easily aqquire if a land owner refused.

Proceedures are in place to allow Gardai TO DO THEIR JOBS. Stop avoiding the reality here, for whatever reason Gardai allowed this to continue until directed by a higher authority to act.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes they can with a warrant. Which they could easily aqquire if a land owner refused.

Proceedures are in place to allow Gardai TO DO THEIR JOBS. Stop avoiding the reality here, for whatever reason Gardai allowed this to continue until directed by a higher authority to act.

OK francie, what warrant would. You suggest? Under which act?

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

OK francie, what warrant would. You suggest? Under which act?

They removed them when directed to do it by a higher power.
Ring them up and ask them 'under what act' they did it. :rolleyes:

BarryD2

Interesting reaction to the parish priest's homily from the Quinns. I'm not sure that was the best idea, you'd be better off just ignoring any supposed inference and keeping the head down.

Odhinn

BarryD2 wrote: »

Interesting reaction to the parish priest's homily from the Quinns. I'm not sure that was the best idea, you'd be better off just ignoring any supposed inference and keeping the head down.

Arrogance on Quinns scale makes that an unlikely course of action.

Boxcar_Willie

Apparently Fr O' Reilly received a phone call from the person believed to be Kevin Lunneys torturer , who is also on bail on both sides of the border , and strongly linked to a well known traveller family from Longford .

UrbanFret

Boxcar_Willie wrote: »

Apparently Fr O' Reilly received a phone call from the person believed to be Kevin Lunneys torturer , who is also on bail on both sides of the border , and strongly linked to a well known traveller family from Longford .

Source?

mynamejeff

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They removed them when directed to do it by a higher power.
Ring them up and ask them 'under what act' they did it. :rolleyes:

So francie your reply is you havet a clue and are just making nonsense statements about a issue you neither understand now have knowledge about

that is a familiar noise

FrancieBrady

mynamejeff wrote: »

So francie your reply is you havet a clue and are just making nonsense statements about a issue you neither understand now have knowledge about

that is a familiar noise

Follow your nose here Jeff.

The Gardai took them down when instructed to by a higher power (look up what the Commissioner said he would tell them to do)

Therefore unless you are suggesting the Gardai acted illegally it is safe to conclude they had the right/or power to act.

The Gardai acted, it isn't up to me to prove they acted illegally, that is up to those who say they had no right to do it. :rolleyes:

Odelay

mynamejeff wrote: »

So francie your reply is you havet a clue and are just making nonsense statements about a issue you neither understand now have knowledge about

that is a familiar noise

The guards got the signs taken down without any special act. It could have been done years earlier if they had done their job.

mynamejeff

Odelay wrote: »

The guards got the signs taken down without any special act. It could have been done years earlier if they had done their job.

Same question

HOW ?

what act , what legal power ?

or are we just gona go around in circles again

FrancieBrady

mynamejeff wrote: »

Same question

HOW ?

what act , what legal power ?

or are we just gona go around in circles again

Off you go to the relevant authority and allege the gardai acted illegally.

It won't change the fact that they were more than capable of removing the signs at any time.

tayto lover

Boxcar_Willie wrote: »

Apparently Fr O' Reilly received a phone call from the person believed to be Kevin Lunneys torturer , who is also on bail on both sides of the border , and strongly linked to a well known traveller family from Longford .

So there’s Travellers, ex IRA members and gangsters all involved in this now.
Someone with big money is financing this for sure.
People don’t do that kind of work for nothing.

woohoo!!!

mynamejeff wrote: »

Same question

HOW ?

what act , what legal power ?

or are we just gona go around in circles again

Planning Act, enforcement of removal of unauthorised signage. Yes the responsibility of Councils but nothing to stop them asking or agreeing to Gardai to remove signs. Of course the courts are open for those to seek to challenge the legalities around their removal.

marieholmfan

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Planning Act, enforcement of removal of unauthorised signage. Yes the responsibility of Councils but nothing to stop them asking or agreeing to Gardai to remove signs. Of course the courts are open for those to seek to challenge the legalities around their removal.

Police don't go looking for extra work.


Or any work at all come to that.

blanch152

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Planning Act, enforcement of removal of unauthorised signage. Yes the responsibility of Councils but nothing to stop them asking or agreeing to Gardai to remove signs. Of course the courts are open for those to seek to challenge the legalities around their removal.

It would be incumbent on the Council to ask the Gardai to intervene, the Gardai can't step in without being asked.

realdanbreen

splinter65 wrote: »

Was McGuinness a married man does anyone know? I don’t see much about his personal circumstances.

Don't know but he was no George Clooney and that's for sure.

AlanG

BarryD2 wrote: »

Interesting reaction to the parish priest's homily from the Quinns. I'm not sure that was the best idea, you'd be better off just ignoring any supposed inference and keeping the head down.

Amazing action from Sean Quinn to make a complaint about the homily. He must have the same media advisor as Prince Andrew.

It's a pity the priest hasn't named every local who threatened him after the homily.

woohoo!!!

marieholmfan wrote: »

Police don't go looking for extra work.


Or any work at all come to that.

Of course they don't. Councils will often ask for police support when dealing with let's say, challenging circumstances. This is what should have happened years ago. From previous reading of the thread and elsewhere, the Council didn't follow through on enforcement notices re removal of the signage.

Anyway that's the legal process for removal of signage on private land. Of course one can obtain planning permission or challenge their removal in the courts. Which of course isn't going to happen in this instance.

UrbanFret

AlanG wrote: »

Amazing action from Sean Quinn to make a complaint about the homily. He must have the same media advisor as Prince Andrew.

It's a pity the priest hasn't named every local who threatened him after the homily.

Maybe because it didn't happen. Several locals spoke to him to voice concern about his homily, there were no threats. The only threat as far as im aware was a phone call to tell him to watch himself and that was 6 weeks back. That could have came from anyone as his contact number is on the parish bulletin and the diocesan website.

AndrewJRenko

blanch152 wrote: »

It would be incumbent on the Council to ask the Gardai to intervene, the Gardai can't step in without being asked.

They could easily have a discussion with the relevant Council officials, using either formal or informal channels.

bubblypop wrote: »

You can out up signs in private land if you want to

No, you can't. You need planning permission to put up a sign.

tayto lover wrote: »

Not going to happen imo.
If a Garda falls from a pole and claims for injury the senior Garda would have questions to ask. Again, it’s a council job surely.

It did happen. They left it far too long to act.

Mrs cockett

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They could easily have a discussion with the relevant Council officials, using either formal or informal channels.


No, you can't. You need planning permission to put up a sign.


It did happen. They left it far too long to act.

FFS

careless sherpa

realdanbreen wrote: »

Don't know but he was no George Clooney and that's for sure.

He was voted Ireland's most eligible bachelor in 2008. Let himself go a little bit after that as he had reached the crest of the wave

Gloomtastic!

careless sherpa wrote: »

He was voted Ireland's most eligible bachelor in 2008. Let himself go a little bit after that as he had reached the crest of the wave

By An Phoblacht readers?

James Brown

I see Mr. Quinn has being asking the Church to talk to the priest about giving a sermon inferring he's the big man behind all the criminality.
FYI: I think he's the front runner.

Sofiztikated

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I see Mr. Quinn has being asking the Church to talk to the priest about giving a sermon inferring he's the big man behind all the criminality.
FYI: I think he's the front runner.

Not just the Church, he went to the ****ing pope.

Millionaire only not

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Not just the Church, he went to the ****ing pope.

And now Leo has backed up the priest !
It’s turning into bigger mess by the day

Beechwoodspark

realdanbreen wrote: »

Don't know but he was no George Clooney and that's for sure.

Nicola tallant said dublin Jimmy was married on dunphys podcast.

She said that his house and gardens were beautifully maintained and that she hadn’t been expecting it.