Ballymaloe brand never questioned

marathonm@n

I find it hard to understand that our multiples stock the brand and advertise it, one of our largest fast food outlets now advertising it and endless programmes dedicated to it's name.
Not so long ago the head of the family brand name was convicted of having child images on his computer and only escaped a severe sentence by donating a sizeable amount of money.
Th families reaction was to stand by him and to shove him to the background so as to protect the family brand.
I personally would not allow the brand near my house and am disgusted when I see it on the shelves or the family name on TV.
If the family had not been so vehement in their defence of him, with no remorse for what the innocent victims of this terrible crime had been subjected to then I would not be attacking the brand in this way and subsequently feel so strongly about this?
Remember this is about more than photos. All the sick depraved acts that are carried out on children are only carried out because somebody is prepared to pay for it.

endacl

I think people were very aware of that at the time.

To play devil's advocate, do you think everybody employed by the company, from the directors down to the floor sweepers, deserved to lose their jobs because of the crimes of one individual?

Plus, it's damn tasty.

Youngblood.III

I that the same approach...I wouldn't touch it for those reasons too.

Exclamation Marc

It's a tasty sauce and I buy it because I like it, not that I have any support for the previously committed acts. Slightly flippant comparison but much like when I visit Germany, it's for the lovely place and people, not the condemned former regime.

Generalising an entire product on one person would probably lead to people boycotting the majority of commercial products if you dug deep enough.

Dozen Wicked Words

Manufactured Miracle wrote: »

It's a tasty sauce and I buy it because I like it, not that I have any support for the previously committed acts. Slightly flippant comparison but much like when I visit Germany, it's for the lovely place and people, not the condemned former regime.

Generalising an entire product on one person would probably lead to people boycotting the majority of commercial products if you dug deep enough.

I'll just boycott the child pornograpghy apologists, that shouldn't be too difficult I'd hope.

Exclamation Marc

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I'll just boycott the child pornograpghy apologists, that shouldn't be too difficult I'd hope.

Exactly

L1011

This is the reason why other members of the (extended) family have done quite a bit to hide where they're from - one half of Cully & Sully for instance.

Day Lewin

I think you have to draw the line when tempted to scapegoat entire tribes. Just because Person A did something awful, do other people have to take the blame? Where does this end?

marathonm@n

The big problem I have is that the protection of the brand was paramount over everything and the public support from the family with no apology or regret.
This disgusts me as the thought of what happens to these children makes me physically sick.
Unfortunately we are a society of 'I'm alright jack'

HamsterFace

To be fair, was it not his family who reported him after finding the images?

Its easy to have a holier than thou attitude but very hard to do that to a family member I'd imagine.

And its quite possible to completely condemn a family members actions and stand by them as well.

Also, understandable if you don't want to support the brand but the brand , I believe, is more than one man.

Completely condemn his actions of course and expect to have some responses with many exclamation marks but its worthwhile to place yourself in others shoes (his families I mean)

Exclamation Marc

marathonm@n wrote: »

The big problem I have is that the protection of the brand was paramount over everything and the public support from the family with no apology or regret.
This disgusts me as the thought of what happens to these children makes me physically sick.
Unfortunately we are a society of 'I'm alright jack'

I don't think there was any brand protection. Simple fact is that the sauce is a good seller, liked by a lot of people, made a lot of money and kept people in jobs etc etc. The product was never going to die.

If they relaunched under a new name, people would have seen right through it and accused them of really trying to cover it up. Again not condoning anything, but in terms of sticking with 'Ballymaloe' or something new, it wouldn't have made a difference.

marathonm@n

HamsterFace wrote: »

To be fair, was it not his family who reported him after finding the images?

Its easy to have a holier than thou attitude but very hard to do that to a family member I'd imagine.

And its quite possible to completely condemn a family members actions and stand by them as well.

Also, understandable if you don't want to support the brand but the brand , I believe, is more than one man.

Completely condemn his actions of course and expect to have some responses with many exclamation marks but its worthwhile to place yourself in others shoes (his families I mean)

I would in their position not only publicly condemn him but disown him permanently. To me this is the most heinous crime that can be committed by any person (not the photos but what also is been done to these kids, you can't separate them)

HamsterFace

marathonm@n wrote: »

I would in their position not only publicly condemn him but disown him permanently. To me this is the most heinous crime that can be committed by any person (not the photos but what also is been done to these kids, you can't separate them)

Would you disown your mother or father? Or do the more difficult thing and stand by them as they did you over the years?

Kristopherus

marathonm@n wrote: »

I would in their position not only publicly condemn him but disown him permanently. To me this is the most heinous crime that can be committed by any person (not the photos but what also is been done to these kids, you can't separate them)

But, but,but.... do you have any evidence that he molested a child/children?

Dozen Wicked Words

HamsterFace wrote: »

Would you disown your mother or father? Or do the more difficult thing and stand by them as they did you over the years?

Personally I'd disown any of my family found guilty of child pornograpghy, and you wouldn't?

newmug

Tim Allen is not Catholic, thats why. If Darina Allen's husband was Catholic, everybody who ever worked for, bought, or tasted Ballymaloe would be branded a paedophile by sites like this one. The anti-Catholic agenda doesnt apply.

Exclamation Marc

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Personally I'd disown any of my family found guilty of child pornograpghy, and you wouldn't?

I honestly have no idea but I imagine if someone had raised you for 30+ years as a perfect parent where they loved, cared and raised you, it's not as simple as just 'walking away' after one (admittedly awful) act. It's very easy to say you would from the sidelines but I imagine much tougher when you're right in there.

colm_mcm

I was surprised at the time that RTE stuck with promoting them too through various series

Dozen Wicked Words

Manufactured Miracle wrote: »

I honestly have no idea but I imagine if someone had raised you for 30+ years as a perfect parent where they loved, cared and raised you, it's not as simple as just 'walking away' after one (admittedly awful) act. It's very easy to say you would from the sidelines but I imagine much tougher when you're right in there.

It was 977 awful acts. Not one oops I accidentally looked at something. It was hundreds of images of child abuse. Any of my family did that I would never speak to them again. If that's the "easy" thing to do I'm happy with that.

HamsterFace

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Personally I'd disown any of my family found guilty of child pornograpghy, and you wouldn't?

No, I'd condemn them and see them pay their price and help them rehabilitate.

Its actually the smart thing to do if we're being completely dispassionate as they'd be less likely to offend again.

drunkmonkey

Isn't there some evidence that people committing crimes like this were usually victims themselves, there's also no route for them to get help without avoiding the law.
I'd just assume there's more to the story than we'll ever know.
Genuine Evil people would not be able to buy themselves out of that crime as suggested.

You could draw a very big list of people, places and things to boycott going down that road.

VW
The Cosby show
Subway
The English
The Church

There's no end to where you could stop, if we're to boycott everything associated with bad things.

Its just a sauce, life's to short to get the rage thinking about it, just choose a different sauce. You can't ban everything from the house.

Exclamation Marc

I'm sure you've considered buying something from Hugo Boss in the past.

Sure they have historical links to the Nazis and supplying uniforms. Have to draw a line somewhere.

Their jackets are lovely (not that i can afford them) but I hardly think anyone advertising them these days is subvertly supporting the Third Reich.

marathonm@n

HamsterFace wrote: »

Would you disown your mother or father? Or do the more difficult thing and stand by them as they did you over the years?

They stood by me because I am there for them and them for me but as I've stated I would be so disgusted that I would disown them permanently as this is lowest form of a human. They deserve the most severe punishment possible. I could forgive somebody who killed someone but not this, as this is the most vile and deserves utter contempt.to me there is no worse crime than to act upon an innocent and defenceless child?
what if it was one of your children?

Exclamation Marc

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

It was 977 awful acts. Not one oops I accidentally looked at something. It was hundreds of images of child abuse. Any of my family did that I would never speak to them again. If that's the "easy" thing to do I'm happy with that.

Fair enough and I wouldn't judge you for that as I don't think there's any uniform approach to anything.

You can have someone who's a total predator who preys on children and is caught with child pornography. You can also have someone who's extremely damaged with extreme issues from their past that lead to that sort of behaviour (before anyone jumps on me, I'm not in anyway advocating that as an excuse or a mitigating factor). Sure, they're both still awful crimes but there's more to it. On the facts; the first person, let them rot. The second person, maybe its worth trying to rehabilitate them if you've a deep bond with them. Maybe it's not worth it, maybe its not possible, but it's certainly not straightforward.

As I said, I'd have no idea what I'd do, but I'm sure its a lot more complex than anyone knows but I should say that I have no detailed knowledge either which way, I'm just looking at it from a very high-level point of view.

marathonm@n

Kristopherus wrote: »

But, but,but.... do you have any evidence that he molested a child/children?

He never did as far I know and I never intimated he did. that was not my point

Day Lewin

Yes, punish the criminal: but why ostracise his whole family, who did nothing wrong, and put the whole family business down and all its workers out of a job? Bit of a witch-hunt?

They weren't to blame. They stood with a family member but they never said they approved of what he had done. [Quite the contrary if I recall]

Parents watch their sons get sent to Mountjoy every day of the week. They don't necessarily refuse to ever speak to them again...compassion, and healing, are called for too. Always, always. Or how would anyone rise above their previous crimes?

Lord Riverside

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

It was 977 awful acts. Not one oops I accidentally looked at something. It was hundreds of images of child abuse. Any of my family did that I would never speak to them again. If that's the "easy" thing to do I'm happy with that.

And how do you know who in his family is speaking to him or not ? As if in the real world you'd allow your perfectly legal and decent multi million euro business and entire family's future to be flushed down the drain because one cousin , uncle , father etc turned out to be a scumbag, in a matter that had nothing to do with the business. Half your family could turn out to be Paedos and crims for all we, or you, know. Internet warrior know alls are not so smart when they find themselves in the same situation or problem.

Exclamation Marc

I can guarantee you now that if the product was from a sole trader and that sole trader committed the crime, it's a shut and dry case of boycotting it, I doubt anyone would disagree.

But that business spans far too many people (many of whom probably worked their life away to be successful) to fall on the sword of one person's acts.

marathonm@n

Manufactured Miracle wrote: »

I can guarantee you now that if the product was from a sole trader and that sole trader committed the crime, it's a shut and dry case of boycotting it, I doubt anyone would disagree.

But that business spans far too many people (many of whom probably worked their life away to be successful) to fall on the sword of one person's acts.

I would agree but surely the boycott would be because it would be a simple and easy choice have no consequence to their life either way. As others have said the sauce is to nice to boycott.

Dozen Wicked Words

Lord Riverside wrote: »

And how do you know who in his family is speaking to him or not ? As if in the real world you'd allow your perfectly legal and decent multi million euro business and entire family's future to be flushed down the drain because one cousin , uncle , father etc turned out to be a scumbag, in a matter that had nothing to do with the family firm. Half your family could turn out to be Paedos and crims for all we, or you, know. Internet warrior know alls.

Where did I mention anything about business or affects of anything to their business? To answer your first question, here is a selection of quotes from an article from last year:

WHEN I walked into Ballymaloe farm the last person I expected to greet me was Tim Allen.

It is 10 years since Ireland's most famous culinary family was rocked by the infamous child porn scandal, but celebrity chef Darina Allen's husband is firmly back at the front of house and working build up the family empire again.

Her brave decision to publicly stand by her husband could be seen as logical in retrospect.

Earlier that day the family had invited me to sit down for a family lunch.

Three generations of the clan gathered around a chequered garden patio table in the beating sunshine.

Tim sits relaxed eating salad and drinking fresh homemade lemonade, surrounded by the laughter of his children and grandchildren.

There are clearly no signs of any tension

It is telling in itself that all of Tim and Darina's children live within a few miles of the homestead and come back every day to spend time with one another.

http://m.independent.ie/life/food-drink/darina-allen-i-felt-a-deep-sympathy-for-nigella-when-she-was-in-the-public-glare-30337284.html


I stated if anyone in my family pleaded guilty to child pornograpghy I wouldn't speak to them again. Nothing Internet warrior about that, I'm stating a fact. Sorry if you've found yourself in that position though, must be hard.

And Crims?

Lord Riverside

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Where did I mention anything about business or affects of anything to their business? To answer your first question, here is a selection of quotes from an article from last year:

I stated if anyone in my family pleaded guilty to child pornograpghy I wouldn't speak to them again. Nothing Internet warrior about that, I'm stating a fact.

And Crims?

Facts ? So I'll ask you again, how do you know for a fact, who in his family is speaking to him and who's not ?

Dozen Wicked Words

Lord Riverside wrote: »

Facts ? So I'll ask you again, how do you know for a fact, who in his family is speaking to him and who's not ?

:rolleyes: Perhaps if you read my last post you'll see the only thing I stated as fact was how I would act. Regarding the talking arrangements of the Allen family, maybe he just sits at the family dinner table and no one speaks to him, who knows. If he asks for someone to pass him the salad maybe they all ignore him and he has to get up himself. Maybe they don't talk to paedophiles or, and you'll like this one, crims. Who knows, not me, but please feel free to ask again.

lalababa

Ballymaloe or ballymaloo or whatever stuff is a restaraunty/ guesthousey/cooking shcooly/ supermarkety foody brandy/ slow cookingy/ local ingriedienty/ typey thingy/ way of lifey /eating thingy, oh and cooking programy tvy thingy. It is not an avocating paedophilia type of thingy. And anybody trying to bycott or even cast dispersions or even complain about the carry on / business stuff/ produce / brand on account of stuff Tim Allen or his son did on a computer years ago is deluded. I would however jail their daughter in law for they way she talks on the tv. Or I suppose I could switch channels.

marathonm@n

Some statements say a great deal about the person!

Cold War Kid

newmug wrote: »

Tim Allen is not Catholic, thats why. If Darina Allen's husband was Catholic, everybody who ever worked for, bought, or tasted Ballymaloe would be branded a paedophile by sites like this one. The anti-Catholic agenda doesnt apply.

Good point actually.

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Didn't he take the rap for the son?

This was the rumour but never confirmed to be fair.

Viewing/possessing any amount of child pornography is heinous - and almost a thousand?!! It's not direct abuse but it is facilitating abuse and exploitation of unimaginable magnitude. The stories behind those images don't bear thinking about. It's an obscene crime. Even if the perpetrator is also damaged, it may be the reason but it's not an excuse.

That said, I don't agree with punishing his family and extended family and employees either.

flogen

OP has made their point and I can't see much coming from what's left of the discussion on it - besides more potentially libellous statements. For that reason I'm locking it now.