nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

19 Irish travellers arrested in major FBI operation

Mint Aero

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/19-irish-travellers-charged-with-federal-racketeering-in-us-1.2774081

Wow can't believe it. I was always told they were hard working honest people who made millions from travelling the world selling tarmac driveways, cleaning gutters and trading valuable scrap metal they find on scouting exhibitions in the wilderness...

Funny no mention of this on RTE :rolleyes: One thing I don't get is if you're being charged with racketeering, fraud, money laundering, scamming, theft etc how and why would they accept the 25k bail as a legit transaction

it's a bit like saying I know you stole that kids lunch money but if you give me the money you stole I'll give you a ham sammage.

Mod Edit: Everyone in here knows which posts are going beyond the line. Merely saying at the start that you know it will get you banned/carded/defenestrated isn't a defence. If this thread keeps spiralling into sterilisation and the likes, it will be closed. Let's aim to keep it within an ass's roar of civility, emotive topic or not, please.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ejabrod

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

These guys aren't putting down a deposit. Paid in full, paid in cash.

Point proven

[Deleted User]

ejabrod wrote: »

I have to prove where I got the deposit etc.

To who?

When?

The booking deposit is paid through an auctioneer, the balance through your own Solicitor, who asks for "proof of where you got the deposit"?

bigpink

ejabrod wrote: »

Just because they choose to infest one geographical location is not the reason for revenue investigating.

The fact that the majority of their possessions' are obtained through illegal means is the reason for investigating.

Common sense would dictate that a person/persons with no obvious means outside of welfare should not be in a position to purchase/own a house. If that person then buys a house they should be under obligation to prove where they legally obtained the finances to make the purchase.

If they are all living in one town it is irrelevant to the decision to investigate. If anything it makes it easier for revenue to investigate.

If I, as a private citizen, want to buy a house the red tape I have to go through is huge. I have to prove where I got the deposit etc. With travellers this is not the case.

If I'm under obligation to prove where I got my wealth, so should travellers, regardless of geographic location.

How do they get away with using so much cash?On big purchases like houses cars etc

[Deleted User]

but but but their *culture*

ejabrod

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To who?

When?

The booking deposit is paid through an auctioneer, the balance through your own Solicitor, who asks for "proof of where you got the deposit"?

The bank actually.

I was asked to prove my deposit was not a loan from another financial institution.

Now stop being such an argumentative dìck for the sake of it.

Also why are you so insistant on defence of travellers?

[Deleted User]

ejabrod wrote: »

Now stop being such an argumentative dìck for the sake of it.

Also why are you so insistant on defence of travellers?

You are getting abusive and insulting.

It's an anonymous forum. Rein it in a little, people will have different opinions.

Your point about the deposit was wrong. You may have to prove it to your own bank in the context of raising finance, as opposed to the purchase. But when paying the deposit in the course of the conveyance, the auctioneer or solicitor will not demand proof of where it came from.

I don't have to explain to you why I am against nonsense like removing assets from entire towns or sterilisation. But if you must know, it's simply an application of common sense.

ejabrod

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are getting abusive and insulting.

It's an anonymous forum. Rein it in a little, people will have different opinions.

Your point about the deposit was wrong. You may have to prove it to your own bank in the context of raising finance, as opposed to the purchase. But when paying the deposit in the course of the conveyance, the auctioneer or solicitor will not demand proof of where it came from.

I don't have to explain to you why I am against nonsense like removing assets from entire towns or sterilisation. But if you must know, it's simply an application of common sense.

That's not being abusive in my opinion but I guess that depends on your interpretation.

I never suggested removing assets from entire towns. I suggested travellers should be subject to the same rules as the rest of the population. That is not nonsense. If travellers live in one locality that is their choice.

Yes, I did have to prove to.my own bank before they would sign-off on the mortgage so don't tell me I'm wrong about something I had to do. My point is that travellers are not subjected to this scruitny - this is wrong in every way. Why am I held to a different standard? Why can a traveller buy a house with cash with no questions asked?

You may want to get off your high horse and accept the reality that the majority of travellers obtain what they have illegally.

A minority that cost the state a minimum of €5 million a week that have a better life than most of the employed in this country that ultimately pay for their lifestyle.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Your point about the deposit was wrong. You may have to prove it to your own bank in the context of raising finance, as opposed to the purchase. But when paying the deposit in the course of the conveyance, the auctioneer or solicitor will not demand proof of where it came from.

Your argument --- Country mile --- Point. Let's break it down to easily chewable chunks. How can someone apparently in need of and in receipt of social welfare can be able to afford a large purchase like a new car, mobile home or house? Often all three. Now that's a really simple question, which should require a really simple answer, unless of course we're going down the rabbit hole of deflection nonsense about culture or ethnicity or bigotry or any of that to cover up the bloody obvious. Or it's the someone elses/bigots/settled peeeeeple's fault.

But if you must know, it's simply an application of common sense.

I'm thinking of the mote in your brother's eye and the beam in yours here. While it's clearly utterly bloody moronic to be bleating for sterilisation(no rolleyes large enough), some application of common sense on you and other right on type's part would be welcome too.

Grayson

munster87 wrote: »

Ouch, don't like the sound of edgy sterilisation

Ignoring the nastiness of sterilising a whole group of people.....

The phrase "edgy sterilisation" made me cross my legs.

sbsquarepants

Widdershins wrote: »

Have you ever heard of car finance on child benefit?

Easily enough proved.

And in any case, you wander into your local car dealer and say "I'd like to finance that 50k jeep boss. Pay with the mickey money like" see how far you get! All those cars are paid for in cash.
You'd want your head examined to extend credit to certain "ethnic groups"

[Deleted User]

ejabrod wrote: »

If I, as a private citizen, want to buy a house the red tape I have to go through is huge. I have to prove where I got the deposit etc.

ejabrod wrote: »

Yes, I did have to prove to.my own bank before they would sign-off on the mortgage so don't tell me I'm wrong about something I had to do.

The second point may well be correct.

The first is simply incorrect.

You are in fact wrong. Where you are wrong is that you don't understand the difference between a purchase and a mortgage.

Barry Badrinath

Deleted User wrote: »

If you claim it's odd that they haven't swept through Rathkeale and seized everything...could you advise what other towns or areas or localities or communities were subjected to this treatment?

In millions or billions, how much compo and legal costs would we as a people end up paying for this sort of nonsense?

Are you implying that if the relevant authorities went into Rathkeale to investigate the financial legitimacy of members of the Travelling community....that because of who they are and where they are....it would fail on discriminatory grounds as the next town had not been subject to the same investigation?

So to sum up, professionally, as a member of the legal system, you are against Travellers being investigated and potentially "done" for their possible illegal activities.

How do you personally feel about it?

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

How can someone apparently in need of and in receipt of social welfare can be able to afford a large purchase like a new car, mobile home or house? Often all three. Now that's a really simple question, which should require a really simple answer, unless of course we're going down the rabbit hole of deflection nonsense about culture or ethnicity or bigotry or any of that to cover up the bloody obvious.

I can't answer for the person who has a new car on the dole no more than I can answer how so many families from council estates seem to get 1 or 2 holidays in the sun every year. I'd suspect a mix of nixers and drawing down money that they are not entitled to.

But I wouldn't say seize everything in Dublin. I would have no qualms about social protection carrying out checks on a case by case basis, on either the family in Rathkeale or indeed the family in Tallaght.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

The second point may well be correct.

The first is simply incorrect.

You are in fact wrong. Where you are wrong is that you don't understand the difference between a purchase and a mortgage.

Which again is deflecting from the main and obvious as the nose on your face point that nitpicking aside again answer this simple question; How can someone apparently in need of and in receipt of social welfare can be able to afford a large purchase like a new car, mobile home or house?

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't answer for the person who has a new car on the dole no more than I can answer how so many families from council estates seem to get 1 or 2 holidays in the sun every year. I'd suspect a mix of nixers and drawing down money that they are not entitled to.

Talk about a non committal answer that avoids the obvious. You must be either a politician or a solicitor.

[Deleted User]

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

Are you implying that if the relevant authorities went into Rathkeale to investigate the financial legitimacy of members of the Travelling community....that because of who they are and where they are....it would fail on discriminatory grounds as the next town had not been subject to the same investigation?

So to sum up, professionally, as a member of the legal system, you are against Travellers being investigated and potentially "done" for their possible illegal activities.

How do you personally feel about it?

I said seizing every asset in a town is utter nonsense.

It simply is. It is making up law and applying it nonsensically.

I am not against any individual anywhere being investigated in a correct manner.

Flint Fredstone

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can't answer for the person who has a new car on the dole no more than I can answer how so many families from council estates seem to get 1 or 2 holidays in the sun every year. I'd suspect a mix of nixers and drawing down money that they are not entitled to.

But I wouldn't say seize everything in Dublin. I would have no qualms about social protection carrying out checks on a case by case basis, on either the family in Rathkeale or indeed the family in Tallaght.

Maybe they work for it?

Wibbs

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Maybe they work for it?

Well spotted FF.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Which again is deflecting from the main and obvious as the nose on your face point that nitpicking aside again answer this simple question...

It is nitpicking to observe out that a point was incorrect...

:D

Fair enough.

I am a Solicitor. Hence when I say the legal stuff here about rounding up assets in a town or the hysteria about what other people have to go through to buy a house is complete and utter nonsense, you can take it that it is. It's not an opinion, it's the law, conveyancing procedures etc. etc.

andekwarhola

Deleted User wrote: »

no more than I can answer how so many families from council estates seem to get 1 or 2 holidays in the sun every year.

Most people on 'council estates' actually work. 80% of travelers don't.

keeponhurling

Where do travellers typically get their income from in order to live, in Ireland ?

Barry Badrinath

Deleted User wrote: »

I said seizing every asset in a town is utter nonsense.

It simply is. It is making up law and applying it nonsensically.

I am not against any individual anywhere being investigated in a correct manner.

As a simple lay person, I must admit my knowledge of the legal system is severely limited. Maybe you can help me out.

If a member of any society who has no apparent legal income, who apparently does not pay income tax but who accepts financial aid from the State and can buy property, land, vehicles etc for cash.

Is that not evidence enough for a State organisation to investigate that persons ability to own such things?

Can the State seize any of that persons property and belongings that are not reasonably considered to have been procured legally based on that persons income and/or State financial aid?

What exactly is the purpose of the CAB?

Teyla Emmagan

I wonder if they have Irish passports or are just "Irish travellers". There are loads of them over there if "The Riches" was anything to go on.

fryup

what the hell are travellers doing in South Carolina???

yes i know they're called travellers for a reason, but this is ridiculous

ohnonotgmail

fryup wrote: »

what the hell are travellers doing in South Carolina???

yes i know they're called travellers for a reason, but this is ridiculous

perhaps they were born there?

Teyla Emmagan

Wibbs wrote:

Talk about a non committal answer that avoids the obvious. You must be either a politician or a solicitor.

He's a solicitor

suicide_circus

I honestly think the government are happy to leave travellers alone with their short life expectancy, avoidance of education, crime rates, social welfare dependence and simultaneous unexplained assets because its far easier than doing anything about it.

And there's the eternal problems associated with free money. Once you give someone free cash and demand no responsibility in return, you create a monster.

Widdershins

Anyone who has traveller friends knows about certain concessions and things but we can't prove it.It's not about wanting to dump travellers into trouble. It's the people handing them things on a plate, and turning a blind eye to the criminal element which gives the rest a bad name, that I and I think most people have a problem with. It's grossly unfair. So much for equality.

Widdershins

Rathkeale is a special case. You can't compare Rathkeale to a council estate of settled people if you know what the situation is in Rathkeale.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

It is nitpicking to observe out that a point was incorrect...

In the face of a larger question, yeah.

:D

Fair enough.

I am a Solicitor.

Big shock

Hence when I say the legal stuff here about rounding up assets in a town or the hysteria about what other people have to go through to buy a house is complete and utter nonsense, you can take it that it is. It's not an opinion, it's the law, conveyancing procedures etc. etc.

Wood for the trees. That's the problem with this mindset. Great for the law. Detail work etc. Mostly. Wider picture? Next to bloody useless.

Again the plain fact is there are a fair number of individuals in our nation that with no obvious or declared means of support and in receipt of social welfare and who are seemingly able to purchase assets that would be very expensive for the majority of Irish people. Too many of same belong to a subsection of society and nobody seems to be asking the obvious questions. Never mind suggesting answers. That this kinda thing isn't hidden, indeed openly celebrated to nuclear levels of tacky makes it even more puzzling.

We had similar with the more sloppy and blindingly obvious of the criminal classes until the government finally pulled its finger out after high profile crimes like Veronica Guerin got murdered in broad daylight.