Murders of two gay men in Sligo

How can someone on benefits become a citizen?

Surely you should need a minimum of 10 years income tax receipts before you can have an application considered?

The second thing is, how can a non EU citizen claim benefits in the first place?

Hard to know how they'd save 350k legally. 350k÷18(years on welfare 2006-2024)= €373 saved every week without fail. Even if they sold a house in Iraq, I can't imagine property prices there are up to much.

Two, the parents. The dole looks to have been 165 p/w in 2006. They had 8 kids, maybe they saved the children's allowance too!

SFAIK there's no reason to think that any of his victims kept large amounts of money in their homes, and neither the surviving victim nor the families of the murder victims have reported any theft.

Also worth noting that the current proceedings do not involve the murderer. They are between the murderer's father and the State.

Based on newspaper reports, there are two separate issues involved in these proceedings, neither of which involve the son or his crimes.

First, criminal assets: When the house was searched after the son's arrest, they found two suitcases full of cash — about €350,000. Under the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996, if there's a "reasonable suspicion" that assets derive from crime, they can be seized and held pending investigation, so as to ensure that, if they are the proceeds of crime, the offender does not get the benefit of them and they cannot be dissipated. The cash was seized on this basis. However, newspaper reports are now saying that "it is is understood" that the Guards no longer think the money represents the proceeds of crime; presumably those reports are based on information coming from the Guards. If that's so, the upshot of the case may well be the money being returned to Palani.

But . . .

Secondly, Palani has been in receipt of social welfare payments for many years. These have now been denied him. Plus, the state is claiming repayment of benefits already received. We haven't seen the state's arguments on this, but a wild guess is that he didn't disclose the €350k when applying for or receiving the benefits; if he had, the benefits would have been denied; as he wasn't property entitled to the benefits, they must be repaid. And, just possibly, the state will be seeking to deduct the value of benefits paid from the 350k before returning it.

I agree but most of the electorate obviously don't.

Back in the day an uncle of mine lived a spartan life in the countryside with his similar unmarried brother. They survived largely on their own means, working hard growing their own vegetables, selling milk from the few cows they owned, eggs from their chickens, turf from their bog. When the uncle died he left a small cash amount, we're talking c 20k pounds after a lifetime saving. Because he hadn't declared enough from the meager earnings he got from the local creamery social welfare deducted money from his will. The likes of the Palanis can arrive in and be supported by the state with housing and social welfare without lifting a finger for years.

They didn't have to be "well to do" at all.

My oul lad got scalded - the penalties were the higher amount.

I remember another neighbour being near suicide over it.

But in fairness tax is tax - we all have to pay some, - where else would the gov get their funding to give to the non-working 'farmed' people and to the valuable NGOs so they can take us to court to make us provide even more...

Whats the difference?

What the majority of Czech/sloviak/Romians nationals do is come here 1st for holiday ,stay with a buddy ,get their ppsn ,get a job for a week to prove they are looking for work and so get set up with revenue .They then disappear back to their own country and resurface again after a few years with spouse and 4-6 kids ,rent a hovel ,work a few months and then qualify for dole/disability,hap & medical card

assylum seekers they get 38 euro & accomadation in designated hostels and would have to be here 3-4 years to qualify for stamp4 to get dole .The refugees just seem to be the scammers that qualify for everything ,Ukrainians included ,only a tiny % of them staying in hotels where welfare was reduced ,Government would leave you believe they were all cut but 95% are on full wefare

Which High Court case are you referring to ?

I can't remember the details, but I recall being surprised to read about it, because I found it strange to see a taxpayer-funded quango effectively suing the taxpayer who pays its wages. I'll do a bit of searching when I get a chance and revert if I can find it.

You might want to read the title of the thread again...

This discussion exists because we in our seemingly infinite charity and kindness, took in a family from a medieval religion and country.

This generosity and help was repaid by one of them cutting the heads off of some Irish people who's private sex lives they disapproved of.

They further repaid our generosity by not working for 20 years, or paying one brown cent towards the state that rescued them from their medieval sh1thole but rather, defrauded our state welfare system whilst hoarding cash.

Now, they bring a case against our country (cost most likely being paid for by us) to get back the generous benefits of the citizenship we granted them.

Wind your neck in.

We obviously need more of the Palani lads, they aren't wan bit bigoted, against anyone of any race, colour, creed or sexuality... good workers and thrifty stock.

While I think of it, we could use a few more Pushkas as well... I hear they're another mighty industrious crowd altogether, a bit Pushky with the cailíns, but sure isn't that only a sign a health... what about it...

From the Bigot to the apologist/collaborator.

Their sons crimes have shone a light on the family.

The family have questions to answer about their actions. From the outside looking in claiming various social welfare allowances while sitting on 350k cash requires close scrutiny.....

I would love to be sitting on that much cash and perhaps people are just jealous.........…

Sure, there's a big difference between your uncle and Palani; from what you say, I think the two men couldn't be more different.

But there's no difference in the way they were treated by the State. In both cases, when the State took the view that they had received social assistance payments to which they were not entitled, it sought repayment.

(They didn't do this for your uncle until after he had died, so arguable he wasn't disadvantaged at all; it was his heirs who got less money from his estate than they might have been expecting. But Palani is still alive and his benefits have been stopped, as well as repayment having been demanded.)