County Armagh brothers surrender £5.7million of assets

Three County Armagh brothers, who had £8.2million worth of assets seized in 2007, have agreed to surrender property and other assets worth £5.7million to the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca). From the BBC report.

Soca said that the men had made millions from years of cross-border fuel smuggling. The assets they handed over include 12 homes in Belfast and south Armagh, three offices and building land both in NI and in the Republic of Ireland. Monies totalling more than £870,000 and the proceeds from the sale of two houses are included in the Consent Order, granted on Wednesday. The civil action began in 2005.

, , , ,

  • joeCanuck

    Good work.

  • Pat the Baker

    Baker,

    Why your silence on the spate of widely reported sectarian attacks perpetrated by ‘loyalists’ over the past few days? Wrong type of victim? You’re usually very keen at highlighting the “battle for control”, as you put it, going on within republican areas and on those occassions when republicans are involved in unsavoury behaviour. Your silence on these recent events is somewhat confusing, or not.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Are you suggesting that the Loyalist hi-jinks and skull-duggery haven’t been covered on the this blog, pat? That all the bloggers here have to march in lock-step, all discussing the same stories at the same time?

    Are you suggesting that Pete is obligated to cover every crime story because he covers some crime stories?

    Are you suggesting that what Pete has chosen to blog isn’t newsworthy?

    Or, as I suspect, is this just some kack-handed effort to change the subject on your part – slap the blogger when the blog is inconvenient.

    It is amazing how this blog is called “Unionist” by some Republican commentators and a “a Republican talk shop” by some Loyalist commentators — it is all a matter of whose ox happens to be getting gored.

  • Pat the Baker

    [i]Are you suggesting that the Loyalist hi-jinks and skull-duggery haven’t been covered on the this blog, pat?[/i]

    No.

    [i]That all the bloggers here have to march in lock-step, all discussing the same stories at the same time?[/i]

    No.

    [i]Are you suggesting that Pete is obligated to cover every crime story because he covers some crime stories?[/i]

    No. I am stating that his prolific coverage of often relatively mundane crime stories is highly selective.

    [i]Are you suggesting that what Pete has chosen to blog isn’t newsworthy?[/i]

    Absolutely not, far from it.

    [i]Or, as I suspect, is this just some kack-handed effort to change the subject on your part – slap the blogger when the blog is inconvenient.[/i]

    No. I’m surprised and somewhat bemused that this is a mere civil action, these brothers clearly have committed illegal acts or else they would have surrendered their considerable aforementioned assets.

    Not every contributor on this site, yourself excluded, reduces every issue to us v them.

    [i]It is amazing how this blog is called “Unionist” by some Republican commentators and a “a Republican talk shop” by some Loyalist commentators—it is all a matter of whose ox happens to be getting gored. [/i]

    The issue isn’t with the blog. It’s more to do with the entirely biased contributions of some commentators and, to a lesser extent, the illogical and highly inconsistent manner in which the “ball, not man” dictum is applied by some moderators. As an Irish nationalist I find, for example, Turgon’s contributions balanced, incisive and highly articulate.

    Now Dread, take a deep breath, count to ten and then re-read any contributions which you feel compelled to hysterically rant against in future.

  • pacman

    “Those involved in the illegal fuel trade are not providing a public service; it is organised crime funding luxurious lifestyles,”

    and the exhorbitant taxation of the legal fuel trade, as the MP’s expenses row has ably demonstrated, is funding exactly the same.

    On bunch of crooks denying another bunch of crooks their loot.

  • joeCanuck

    FFS. “Biased” commentators! You mean people should all have the same opinions? Get a grip.

  • Pat the Baker

    [i]“Biased” commentators! You mean people should all have the same opinions? Get a grip. [/i]

    Jesus, calm down. Commentators cannot be anything other than biased given their diverse backgrounds and views. However, there is a fundamental difference between us mere commentators and those, like Baker, who are engaged in more journalistic, reporting endeavours on this site.

    My point is that Baker’s prolific reporting of criminal activity, some of which is relatively trivial (although certainly not in this case), is highly selective. More specifically, his voyeuristic fanaticism with all things criminal in the Catholic community is disturbing.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    pat the baker: “No. I am stating that his prolific coverage of often relatively mundane crime stories is highly selective.”

    Why would he want to double down on events that have already been ably covered by other bloggers?

    pat the baker: “Not every contributor on this site, yourself excluded, reduces every issue to us v them.”

    Really? Wasn’t it you who complained that… how did you phrase it again? Oh yes — “Why your silence on the spate of widely reported sectarian attacks perpetrated by ‘loyalists’ over the past few days? Wrong type of victim?”

    So, let me see if I follow this correctly — you accusing Pete of being wall-eyed to the benefit of the Loyalist community — that’s fine and dandy… my questioning you as to your reasoning is “reduc(ing) every issue to us v them.” Which, as a matter of fact, I did not – I merely asked you a series of questions.

    pat the baker: “It’s more to do with the entirely biased contributions of some commentators and, to a lesser extent, the illogical and highly inconsistent manner in which the “ball, not man” dictum is applied by some moderators. As an Irish nationalist I find, for example, Turgon’s contributions balanced, incisive and highly articulate.”

    And, if you follow this blog with any sort of attention span, you know that Pete has taken his whacks at the UDA in the past. Likewise, leaping into the blog to all but accuse Pete of being a closet-Loyalist and then complain about “ball not man” borders on rank hypocrisy — it may not qualify, but you can smell it from there.

    Pat — you’re a hypocrite — you want the right to question Pete’s motives when you feel he’s goring your political ox, but bristle when you’re questioned on your motives. Can’t have it both ways.

    So take a deep breath, count to ten and realize that the criminality of Republicans is a legitimate question for discussion, just as the criminality of Loyalists is a legitimate question for discussion, even if it takes different bloggers to discuss the topic. Frankly, NI would be a much happier place if the likes of you would put more emphasis on criminal’s *crimes* and less on their politics.

    pacman: “and the exhorbitant taxation of the legal fuel trade, as the MP’s expenses row has ably demonstrated, is funding exactly the same.

    On bunch of crooks denying another bunch of crooks their loot. ”

    Mayhap, but at least the populace got to pick their elected political crooks, as opposed to the fuel smugglers, who self-select.

  • joeCanuck

    But we’re not talking about a publicly funded enterprise like the BBC.
    Hit the tip jar.

  • Pat the Baker

    [i]Why would he want to double down on events that have already been ably covered by other bloggers?[/i]

    You completely miss the point and seem to prefer to indulge in attributing as assertions of mine mere suppositions which you have drawn after (deliberately?) misinterpreting my comments. Of course the actions of members of the UDA/UVF etc, have been discussed at length on this site.

    However, much more mundane stories concerning relatively low-level criminality, as perpetrated by unionists and loyalists, fail to feature on this website with anything remotely like the regularity that those which involve nationalist and republican perpetrators, and which Baker revels in discussing, do so.

    [i]So, let me see if I follow this correctly—you accusing Pete of being wall-eyed to the benefit of the Loyalist community—that’s fine and dandy… my questioning you as to your reasoning is “reduc(ing) every issue to us v them.” Which, as a matter of fact, I did not – I merely asked you a series of questions.[/i]

    No, you follow it incorrectly. And yes, you did reduce it to the manner which I previously referred to.

    [i]And, if you follow this blog with any sort of attention span, you know that Pete has taken his whacks at the UDA in the past.[/i]

    I haven’t disputed that assertion once.

    [i]Likewise, leaping into the blog to all but accuse Pete of being a closet-Loyalist and then complain about “ball not man” borders on rank hypocrisy—it may not qualify, but you can smell it from there.[/i]

    I did nothing of the sort. He strikes me as a fairly moderate unionist, albeit of a voyeuristic disposition concerning mundane matters of criminality prevalent in the Catholic community.

    [i]Pat—you’re a hypocrite—you want the right to question Pete’s motives when you feel he’s goring your political ox, but bristle when you’re questioned on your motives. Can’t have it both ways.[/i]

    He can highlight the shortcomings of my “political ox” all day if he wants, and he does, so long as he then matches this with balanced coverage of trivial criminal matters within his own “political ox” – sadly, however, he very much, along with every other prominent contributor to Slugger, fails to do this. Therefore, legitimate questions can be asked.

    [i]realize that the criminality of Republicans is a legitimate question for discussion, just as the criminality of Loyalists is a legitimate question for discussion, even if it takes different bloggers to discuss the topic. Frankly, NI would be a much happier place if the likes of you would put more emphasis on criminal’s *crimes* and less on their politics.[/i]

    Absolutely. However, once again, for the slow learners amongst us, I have to point out that I’m commenting solely on the prolific amount of articles posted by Baker concerning relatively trivial matters of criminality… that happen to occur within one community only.

  • Penelope

    Good job of staying on topic lads, FFS you’re playing right into Pat’s hands!! Just a thought…

    Now back to topic… well done that at least SOME profits from underhanded sources are confiscated. To me it doesn’t matter what “side” the loot came from nor who blogs about it!!!

    p.s. oddly enough my submit word is “thought” 🙂

  • Rory Carr

    Pity the government doesn’t penalise the oil companies’ profits with the same enthusiasm it has applied to these comparitively rather minor profiteers. Now such an application would go along way to taking the cost of the bankers’ greed off the backs of the public for a start. Thereafter we might look at funding a decent health service and education system free from the rapaciousness and mismanagement of PFI’s.

  • fin

    “So take a deep breath, count to ten and realize that the criminality of Republicans is a legitimate question for discussion”

    In this case thats a strange connection to make, is this a republican crime because the criminals are likely to vote SF, in which case as the only person jailed for the NI Bank robbery is from a Fianna Fail family …………..

    To be far to Pat, the strapline for this site is ‘notes on NI politics and culture’ and I don’t see either in this story, however a story I haven’t seen here, possibly I missed it,was a recent political crime, shots fired through a couples window because they complained about flags been erected in their area, if the unionists have decommissioned how come a bloke in a balacava was running around with an automatic rifle? personally I find that a more relevant blog for this site, possibly Pete also blogs for crimewatch and got confused.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    pat the baker: “However, once again, for the slow learners amongst us, I have to point out that I’m commenting solely on the prolific amount of articles posted by Baker concerning relatively trivial matters of criminality.”

    Pat, are you *WHOLLY* unaware that what you said is still on the web-page?

    You wrote “Why your silence on the spate of widely reported sectarian attacks perpetrated by ‘loyalists’ over the past few days? Wrong type of victim?”

    Implied by the above is the plaintive whine “why can’t you pick on themmuns for a while?”

    What you asked (see above) and what you said you asked are two different things.

    Fin: “In this case thats a strange connection to make, is this a republican crime because the criminals are likely to vote SF, in which case as the only person jailed for the NI Bank robbery is from a Fianna Fail family”

    Gee, Fin — read an IMC report or three and get back to me as to which side deals in tax-evasive schemes and money-laundering and which side deals in street-level extortion and drugs. Next you’ll want me to believe ol’ Slab is just a gentleman farmer whose been wrongly harassed by the state.

  • pacman

    “but at least the populace got to pick their elected political crooks, as opposed to the fuel smugglers, who self-select”

    True – but the self-elected provide a service at a more realistic price to the customer than the elected. 😉

  • fin

    Dread, easy tiger, I made a valid point if crime is allocated politically by the voting intentions of the criminals than FF have questions to answer.

    Also you are the only person to refer to this as a republican crime, although as its blogged by Pete I’m guessing he’s staying through to form and labelling it as such also.

    In fact just read your reply to me, and not wishing to be rude but its rubbish, what are you trying to say, what has the IMC or Slab got to do with this thread, areyou now implying these people are terrorists and subject to a IMC report? is Slab involved? why haven’t they been charged with these political crimes instead of like ‘odinary criminals’ you obviously have a lot more information on this than anyone else, do you care to share it