Gangland Shootings part 3 - Read OP before posting - updated 27/12/23

AmberGold

On another note is Kinahan involved in any legit business other than MTK, they owned a busy little bar near San Pedro which was closed down at the time of the raid.

Has to be a serious issue managing all that cash without putting it in a hole in the ground.

Chris P Bacon

Conlan is a clown, could of signed with anyone but chose these gangsters, I'd assume because they only charge 10%, he dosent seem the brightest to be fair big horses Delph on him, he looked better before he got the Turkey teeth.

Jono Carroll is another wet brain, posted a video a while ago of the drug money he received as payment all wrapped up in cling film .

begbysback

Chris P Bacon wrote: »

Conlan is a clown, could of signed with anyone but chose these gangsters, I'd assume because they only charge 10%, he dosent seem the brightest to be fair big horses Delph on him, he looked better before he got the Turkey teeth.

Jono Carroll is another wet brain, posted a video a while ago of the drug money he received as payment all wrapped up in cling film .

Its not uncommon for top athletes to be a bit short in the intelligence department, Wayne Rooney, Ronaldo, Beckham. Its usually the case where these are more focused on their sport from a very early age as opposed to schooling.

Same for top boxers Id imagine to some degree, there are exceptions to the rule of course, but they are exceptions - plus its harder on the boxers side, once they turn pro they have to worry about all sorts of people ripping them off, promoters/managers etc. To go with the easiest money is understandable to me in such a profession.


Just notice my 3 examples above all played for Man U, which kind of validates my point that bit more :pac::pac::pac:

Don Logan

Chris P Bacon wrote: »

Conlan is a clown, could of signed with anyone but chose these gangsters, I'd assume because they only charge 10%, he dosent seem the brightest to be fair big horses Delph on him, he looked better before he got the Turkey teeth.

Jono Carroll is another wet brain, posted a video a while ago of the drug money he received as payment all wrapped up in cling film .

Turkey teeth hahaha, I’ve heard it all now

John_D3

DK played Conlan well. He signed his brother Jamie first who nobody else would of signed, Jamie was finished before Micheal signed and DK gave him a job for life at MTK, he is in Dubai many times a year. So when Micheal wen’t to sign pro Top Rank wanted him though he couldn’t go by his brother either who was running mtk here. So he signed with both. DK new everybody wanted Conlan and the way to get him was through Jamie.

Figel Narage

Chicoso wrote: »

You'd always be owing money to them

Cash tied up and with seizures prob a couple of deals behind

I've always wondered how that works on a large scale like a Colombian exporter selling Cocaine to the Cartel, is it done on credit or deposit or how would it work?

I wonder when the Cartel sell it onto gangs in Ireland is it done the same way

You guys are all international drug traffickers right? You'd know well? Lol

PLATOBONG

begbysback wrote: »

Its not uncommon for top athletes to be a bit short in the intelligence department, Wayne Rooney, Ronaldo, Beckham. Its usually the case where these are more focused on their sport from a very early age as opposed to schooling.

Same for top boxers Id imagine to some degree, there are exceptions to the rule of course, but they are exceptions - plus its harder on the boxers side, once they turn pro they have to worry about all sorts of people ripping them off, promoters/managers etc. To go with the easiest money is understandable to me in such a profession.


Just notice my 3 examples above all played for Man U, which kind of validates my point that bit more :pac::pac::pac:

:D

smodgley

Apparently big raid by cops in Dublin this evening
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/garda-battering-ram-operation-thor-18412658#ICID=Android_App_DublinLiveAppShare

Chicoso

Figel Narage wrote: »

I've always wondered how that works on a large scale like a Colombian exporter selling Cocaine to the Cartel, is it done on credit or deposit or how would it work?

I wonder when the Cartel sell it onto gangs in Ireland is it done the same way

You guys are all international drug traffickers right? You'd know well? Lol

Credit I'd say mostly all around

At your peril if you don't pay

Chicoso

smodgley wrote: »

Apparently big raid by cops in Dublin this evening
https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/garda-battering-ram-operation-thor-18412658#ICID=Android_App_DublinLiveAppShare

Dozens of Garda storming a house

Wouldn't be room to move

Banana Republic.

Any news on that shooting in Limerick last night?

wiz1001

The British press are waking up, here the MailOnline is upping the pressure on the UK boxing fraternity who are happily associating themselves with DK " Boxing's shame as it jumps into bed with a crime boss..." https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-8415699/Boxings-shame-Anthony-Joshua-Tyson-Furys-clash-tied-crime-boss.html

Sureitlbegrand

I wonder is there any truth in the allegations that DK is an MI5 informant and could that save him down the line?

Banana Republic.

Sureitlbegrand wrote: »

I wonder is there any truth in the allegations that DK is an MI5 informant and could that save him down the line?

Whoa what?

Sureitlbegrand

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Whoa what?

Yea the whistleblower has had it up a few times along with other Twitter accounts how credible it is I have no idea

Jeff2

Muahahaha wrote: »

Im surprised a smart Youtuber hasnt yet taken that professionally produced video of the Regency into editing and re-jigged it a bit by adding a few newspaper headlines and tv reports to it and then re-release it. Flip it on its head as it were.

I wish someone would do this.

Don Logan

Sureitlbegrand wrote: »

I wonder is there any truth in the allegations that DK is an MI5 informant and could that save him down the line?

Hahahahaha

Tomtom3105

Banana Republic. wrote: »

Any news on that shooting in Limerick last night?

Only that he was meant to be shot somewhere else and dumped there

hatrickpatrick

This will be an unpopular view I'm sure, but at least anyone who's seen me post in this thread over the years knows I'm pretty much the exact opposite of a Kinahan apologist. With that in mind:

Does anyone else find it a little disturbing how quickly and eagerly we as a society seem to have done away with concepts such as the presumption of innocence and due process? Everything from #metoo to the Belfast trial and now this is symptomatic of the same thing, guilt by accusation and punishment without conviction.

Based on everything I've read both in the media and on this thread, as well as things I've heard from extremely reliable sources in real life, I'd be of the view that DK is indeed the warlord he is alleged to be and that he does have at least some of the blood of the victims in the crusade against the Hutch family on his hands. There's enough evidence in various different forms to suggest this. However. A core tenet of our democratic system is that unless you are convicted in a court of law, you are presumed to be innocent of any crimes of which you are accused, and treated as such. No conviction, no consequences.

That the leader of our country has stood up and publicly stated that somebody who has never been convicted, only accused of involvement in gangland crime should be boycotted or otherwise prevented from living his life and carrying out whatever legal and legitimate business activities he chooses to participate in, is just something I find extremely disturbing, and it disturbs me further that there's zero discussion of any of this.

In terms of the feud and the crimes therein, the Gardaí and the courts need to get their sh!t together and, in the case of the Gardaí, build a case against these guys, and in the case of the courts, put them away for long enough stretches behind bars that their organisation disintegrates during that time. However, in the absence of that, by every metric of a free and democratic society, Daniel Kinahan is an innocent man. He has every right to live his life as he wishes until such time as he is not considered an innocent man - IE, after having been formally convicted in a court of law and sentenced by the presiding judge.

Leo Varadkar, in my view, shouldn't be throwing unproven and untested allegations against an individual around. It's an abuse of office.

Before everyone jumps on me, just consider the implications of allowing this paradigm to fester. Guilt by accusation. Speeches and phone calls by a politician derailing the career of someone who has absolutely no convictions for crime, just accusations. If you open that Pandora's box, then everyone from journalists who uncover scandals in government to political opponents running for election are fair game. The very reason we have due process is to prevent such appalling consequences for society if allegations are able to be used as a tool to hurt somebody.

The Taoiseach's word is not enough. The word of a judge is not enough. The word of a journalist is not enough. The only mechanism by which Daniel Kinahan's legal activities in the world of boxing should be up for being disrupted is by a formal ruling in a court of law at the end of a criminal trial. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, I am not a Kinahan fan as anyone who's read any of my posts in this thread will know - in terms of the Hutch-Kinahan feud they are very much the villains in this piece. But what I think is irrelevant. What you think is irrelevant. What Leo thinks is irrelevant.

In the absence of a criminal conviction, it would be profoundly wrong for businesses to blacklist this man, and it would be especially wrong for businesses to blacklist an individual because a member of a national government asked them to. Just think for a moment about the precedent we would be setting.

One foot in the door of tyranny if the word of a TD or minister can destroy a man's career despite him not having had his day in court.

White lighting

John_D3 wrote: »

DK played Conlan well. He signed his brother Jamie first who nobody else would of signed, Jamie was finished before Micheal signed and DK gave him a job for life at MTK, he is in Dubai many times a year. So when Micheal wen’t to sign pro Top Rank wanted him though he couldn’t go by his brother either who was running mtk here. So he signed with both. DK new everybody wanted Conlan and the way to get him was through Jamie.

Conlans father is originally from crumlin so the roots could be deeper than when Jamie signed up. None of those boxers give a bollox once they are getting there ball of cash on a weekly basis. There is **** all money in boxing except the upper classes. Half these rehabs like carroll keeler and Geraghty be on the dole if it wasnt for the drug money

Blanco100

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This will be an unpopular view I'm sure, but at least anyone who's seen me post in this thread over the years knows I'm pretty much the exact opposite of a Kinahan apologist. With that in mind:

Does anyone else find it a little disturbing how quickly and eagerly we as a society seem to have done away with concepts such as the presumption of innocence and due process? Everything from #metoo to the Belfast trial and now this is symptomatic of the same thing, guilt by accusation and punishment without conviction.

Based on everything I've read both in the media and on this thread, as well as things I've heard from extremely reliable sources in real life, I'd be of the view that DK is indeed the warlord he is alleged to be and that he does have at least some of the blood of the victims in the crusade against the Hutch family on his hands. There's enough evidence in various different forms to suggest this. However. A core tenet of our democratic system is that unless you are convicted in a court of law, you are presumed to be innocent of any crimes of which you are accused, and treated as such. No conviction, no consequences.

That the leader of our country has stood up and publicly stated that somebody who has never been convicted, only accused of involvement in gangland crime should be boycotted or otherwise prevented from living his life and carrying out whatever legal and legitimate business activities he chooses to participate in, is just something I find extremely disturbing, and it disturbs me further that there's zero discussion of any of this.

In terms of the feud and the crimes therein, the Gardaí and the courts need to get their sh!t together and, in the case of the Gardaí, build a case against these guys, and in the case of the courts, put them away for long enough stretches behind bars that their organisation disintegrates during that time. However, in the absence of that, by every metric of a free and democratic society, Daniel Kinahan is an innocent man. He has every right to live his life as he wishes until such time as he is not considered an innocent man - IE, after having been formally convicted in a court of law and sentenced by the presiding judge.

Leo Varadkar, in my view, shouldn't be throwing unproven and untested allegations against an individual around. It's an abuse of office.

Before everyone jumps on me, just consider the implications of allowing this paradigm to fester. Guilt by accusation. Speeches and phone calls by a politician derailing the career of someone who has absolutely no convictions for crime, just accusations. If you open that Pandora's box, then everyone from journalists who uncover scandals in government to political opponents running for election are fair game. The very reason we have due process is to prevent such appalling consequences for society if allegations are able to be used as a tool to hurt somebody.

The Taoiseach's word is not enough. The word of a judge is not enough. The word of a journalist is not enough. The only mechanism by which Daniel Kinahan's legal activities in the world of boxing should be up for being disrupted is by a formal ruling in a court of law at the end of a criminal trial. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, I am not a Kinahan fan as anyone who's read any of my posts in this thread will know - in terms of the Hutch-Kinahan feud they are very much the villains in this piece. But what I think is irrelevant. What you think is irrelevant. What Leo thinks is irrelevant.

In the absence of a criminal conviction, it would be profoundly wrong for businesses to blacklist this man, and it would be especially wrong for businesses to blacklist an individual because a member of a national government asked them to. Just think for a moment about the precedent we would be setting.

One foot in the door of tyranny if the word of a TD or minister can destroy a man's career despite him not having had his day in court.

They need to do a better job at following the money.

Alarm bells should be ringing that a lad with a gym in Spain is brokering mega fights worth hundreds of millions.

Everyone is getting paid though so theres no urgency.

Cant wait to see how Sky address it. Kinahan mustnt be able to help himself getting praise for this, a smart man would have insisted on not receiving public plaudits.

Thesiger

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This will be an unpopular view I'm sure, but at least anyone who's seen me post in this thread over the years knows I'm pretty much the exact opposite of a Kinahan apologist. With that in mind:

Does anyone else find it a little disturbing how quickly and eagerly we as a society seem to have done away with concepts such as the presumption of innocence and due process? Everything from #metoo to the Belfast trial and now this is symptomatic of the same thing, guilt by accusation and punishment without conviction.

Based on everything I've read both in the media and on this thread, as well as things I've heard from extremely reliable sources in real life, I'd be of the view that DK is indeed the warlord he is alleged to be and that he does have at least some of the blood of the victims in the crusade against the Hutch family on his hands. There's enough evidence in various different forms to suggest this. However. A core tenet of our democratic system is that unless you are convicted in a court of law, you are presumed to be innocent of any crimes of which you are accused, and treated as such. No conviction, no consequences.

That the leader of our country has stood up and publicly stated that somebody who has never been convicted, only accused of involvement in gangland crime should be boycotted or otherwise prevented from living his life and carrying out whatever legal and legitimate business activities he chooses to participate in, is just something I find extremely disturbing, and it disturbs me further that there's zero discussion of any of this.

In terms of the feud and the crimes therein, the Gardaí and the courts need to get their sh!t together and, in the case of the Gardaí, build a case against these guys, and in the case of the courts, put them away for long enough stretches behind bars that their organisation disintegrates during that time. However, in the absence of that, by every metric of a free and democratic society, Daniel Kinahan is an innocent man. He has every right to live his life as he wishes until such time as he is not considered an innocent man - IE, after having been formally convicted in a court of law and sentenced by the presiding judge.

Leo Varadkar, in my view, shouldn't be throwing unproven and untested allegations against an individual around. It's an abuse of office.

Before everyone jumps on me, just consider the implications of allowing this paradigm to fester. Guilt by accusation. Speeches and phone calls by a politician derailing the career of someone who has absolutely no convictions for crime, just accusations. If you open that Pandora's box, then everyone from journalists who uncover scandals in government to political opponents running for election are fair game. The very reason we have due process is to prevent such appalling consequences for society if allegations are able to be used as a tool to hurt somebody.

The Taoiseach's word is not enough. The word of a judge is not enough. The word of a journalist is not enough. The only mechanism by which Daniel Kinahan's legal activities in the world of boxing should be up for being disrupted is by a formal ruling in a court of law at the end of a criminal trial. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, I am not a Kinahan fan as anyone who's read any of my posts in this thread will know - in terms of the Hutch-Kinahan feud they are very much the villains in this piece. But what I think is irrelevant. What you think is irrelevant. What Leo thinks is irrelevant.

In the absence of a criminal conviction, it would be profoundly wrong for businesses to blacklist this man, and it would be especially wrong for businesses to blacklist an individual because a member of a national government asked them to. Just think for a moment about the precedent we would be setting.

One foot in the door of tyranny if the word of a TD or minister can destroy a man's career despite him not having had his day in court.

I don’t know, I think “No conviction, no consequences“ should be re-phrased as “No conviction, no legal consequences.” Of course there can be non-legal consequences for being an complete ****ebag. We see this all the time, from Ron Atkinson to Kevin Spacey. Boycotts and similar measures are a totally legitimate means of protest against this dickhead living his dream life and making a mockery out of every law-abiding citizen on this island. It doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll end up in prison, but at the very least it might remind people of all the deserved baggage that goes with that lifestyle.

Muahahaha

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Does anyone else find it a little disturbing how quickly and eagerly we as a society seem to have done away with concepts such as the presumption of innocence and due process?

Agreed, it started with the Special Criminal Court which was created to deal with the IRA and has now evolved to be used all the time to convict people who are not IRA or alleged to be, instead it has become the court of gangland. There is no jury and your rights to a trial in front of your peers is thrown completely out the window. By that measure alone anyone can 'look' guilty. The jury in the SCC is just three judges and under the law a Garda Superintendent can take the stand in that court and say that X person is a member of X gang 'in his opinion' and then the judge can take that as gospel and use it to convict. IMO the SCC completely thrashes the right to a fair trial, the UN say pretty much the same.

However the other side of it is the SCC is needed because drug gangs are known to intimidate witnesses and even jury members if necessary. So theres your problem. Ireland is too small for a witness protection program.

Even when there is a witness protection program it costs an arm and a leg and the witness being protected can make things seriously expensive. Look at the case of April Collins, she gave the evidence that sent the Dundons to prison. Now it costs the State almost a million a year to protect her 24/7365, there are around 10 Garda detectives protecting her in groups of three running 12 hour shifts. And thats with the Dundons inside prison, when they get out they will need at least double that to protect her in Limerick. Her protection has alreay cost the taxpayer 10 million euro and more and could end up being over the 30 million mark yet.

Deco Barry

Muahahaha wrote: »

Agreed, it started with the Special Criminal Court which was created to deal with the IRA and has now evolved to be used all the time to convict people who are not IRA or alleged to be, instead it has become the court of gangland. There is no jury and your rights to a trial in front of your peers is thrown completely out the window. By that measure alone anyone can 'look' guilty. The jury in the SCC is just three judges and under the law a Garda Superintendent can take the stand in that court and say that X person is a member of X gang 'in his opinion' and then the judge can take that as gospel and use it to convict. IMO the SCC completely thrashes the right to a fair trial, the UN say pretty much the same.

However the other side of it is the SCC is needed because drug gangs are known to intimidate witnesses and even jury members if necessary. So theres your problem. Ireland is too small for a witness protection program.

Even when there is a witness protection program it costs an arm and a leg and the witness being protected can make things seriously expensive. Look at the case of April Collins, she gave the evidence that sent the Dundons to prison. Now it costs the State almost a million a year to protect her 24/7365, there are around 10 Garda detectives protecting her in groups of three running 12 hour shifts. And thats with the Dundons inside prison, when they get out they will need at least double that to protect her in Limerick. Her protection has alreay cost the taxpayer 10 million euro and more and could end up being over the 30 million mark yet.

Money well spent in the scheme of things though because that was the dismantling of that gang,she married a paedophile and rapist afterwards,constantly spits at and insults the detectives keeping keeping her alive,i wish they just left her fend for herself the ****ing nacker

kingstevii

AmberGold wrote: »

On another note is Kinahan involved in any legit business other than MTK, they owned a busy little bar near San Pedro which was closed down at the time of the raid.

Has to be a serious issue managing all that cash without putting it in a hole in the ground.

Which bar was that?

Un happy in rush

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/daniel-kinahan-cannot-be-defeated-by-policing-alone-1.4277856

Banana Republic.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This will be an unpopular view I'm sure, but at least anyone who's seen me post in this thread over the years knows I'm pretty much the exact opposite of a Kinahan apologist. With that in mind:

That’s a fascinating take on DK, fair play. There’s many ways to look at it, 1. He never gets his hands dirty 2. In the eyes of the law he is innocent until proven guilty 3. What cases has he ever been in court for and what evidence did they have against him? As that would give a clearer picture of any guilty actions he has committed. 4.
It’s only on the words of the press that DK ordered this or ordered that. 5. Guilty cause his father is running one of the biggest cartels in the world and is a convicted drug trafficker. So while the jury’s out on what he’s ever done with evidence to back him up I find it hard to believe he’s Snow White clean and isn’t a Drugs king as he is portrayed. Worth diving deeper into to be fair.

OnYerPike

begbysback wrote: »

Its not uncommon for top athletes to be a bit short in the intelligence department, Wayne Rooney, Ronaldo, Beckham. Its usually the case where these are more focused on their sport from a very early age as opposed to schooling.

Same for top boxers Id imagine to some degree, there are exceptions to the rule of course, but they are exceptions - plus its harder on the boxers side, once they turn pro they have to worry about all sorts of people ripping them off, promoters/managers etc. To go with the easiest money is understandable to me in such a profession.


Just notice my 3 examples above all played for Man U, which kind of validates my point that bit more :pac::pac::pac:

Some haul of medals and cash among the three mentioned.

Ruddock, McMenamin, Fowler, McAteer, Balotelli, El Hadji Diouf.

Coollio

Tomtom3105 wrote: »

Only that he was meant to be shot somewhere else and dumped there

Was actually shot over the border in Co Clare and made his way to where they found him. Actually shot closer to Parteen than Moyross, as the news want it reported.

wiz1001

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Does anyone else find it a little disturbing how quickly and eagerly we as a society seem to have done away with concepts such as the presumption of innocence and due process?

As a society we have the court system to provide objective analysis and process that has a presumption of innocence until the opposite is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This however is a gangland forum thread(not a jurisprudence one), we are allowed to speculate/gossip and often many things written on here are way off but many other things aren't and with DK in particular there is simply too much information out there for him not to be a very a bad man. Hopefully one day however DK will get the objective legal analysis and process he is entitled to when he is brought before a court.