E-scooters, drugs, cash, and more seized in massive Garda raid
Nearly 40 e-scooters were amongst the many items seized during a massive Garda raid in Dublin.
Officers conducted 40 searches from 7am this morning as part of a Day Of Action. Operation Meacan targeted electric motorbikes suspected of being used in criminal activity.
A number of items were seized during the searches in south Dublin this morning. These include:
· Electric Scooters – 39
· Quads – 6
· Surron Electric Scrambler – 1
· Electric Bikes – 14
· Motorbikes – 5
· High Value Clothing - €10,000
· Cash - €13,245
· Cannabis - €12,000
· Cocaine - €2,000
· Tablets - €125
· Mobile Phones – 11
· Chainsaw – 1
· Knives
· Fireworks
· Motorbike Helmets – 6
· Chainsaw – 1
(Image: Garda Press Office)
The searches were undertaken by members attached to the Tallaght, Crumlin and Terenure Crime Units, assisted by members from Community Policing, Uniform, Armed Support Unit, Search teams, and a local authority Dog Warden.
A Garda spokesperson said: "The seized drugs will be sent to Forensic Science Ireland (FSI) for examination and analysis. Investigations are ongoing."
Join our Dublin Live breaking news service on WhatsApp. Click this link to receive your daily dose of Dublin Live content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
For all the latest news from Dublin and surrounding areas visit our homepage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sunday World
9 hours ago
- Sunday World
Dublin Gardai seize motorbikes and scrambler ‘stolen or used in criminal activity'
Gardaí conducted searches in the Dublin 11 and 9 areas between Monday, August 11 and Wednesday 13 One of the motorbikes seized in Ballymun Gardai in Dublin have seized a total of four motorbikes and a scrambler as part of an ongoing investigation this week. Gardaí conducted searches in the Dublin 11 and 9 areas between Monday, August 11 and Wednesday 13. 'During these searches, gardaí from Ballymun Garda station recovered five motorbikes and scramblers believed to have been stolen or used in criminal activity,' a Garda spokesperson said. The four motorbikes recovered that are believed to have been stolen include a red Yamaha Tracer 900GT, a black Royal Enfield motorcycle, a Kawasaki Z500 and a blue Yamaha motorcycle A scrambler was also seized A fifth vehicle, a scrambler, was seized as part of an investigation into dangerous driving and the sale of illegal drugs. All of the vehicles seized have been subject to technical examination. Garda have appealed to the owner of the bikes, 'which may have been stolen in recent months', to contact Ballymun Garda Station on 01 666 4400. One of the motorbikes seized in Ballymun News in 90 Seconds - August 14th
Irish Times
10 hours ago
- Irish Times
Man (40s) dies in crash involving truck and motorcycle in Kerry
A man in his 40s has died following a collision involving a truck and a motorcycle in Co Kerry on Friday. The crash happened at Tieraclea, on the N69 on the Listowel side of Tarbert village at about 10am. The motorcyclist was pronounced dead at the scene. There has been 105 deaths on Irish roads so far this year. READ MORE The road remains closed to facilitate a technical examination by Garda forensic collision investigators. Local diversions are in place. Gardaí are appealing to anyone who may have witnessed the collision to contact them. Road users who may have camera footage (including dashcam) and were travelling in the area between 9.45am and 10.15am on Friday morning are asked to make this footage available to gardaí. Anyone with information is asked to contact Listowel Garda station on (068) 50820, the Garda Confidential Line on 1800 666 111, or any Garda station.
The Journal
13 hours ago
- The Journal
Financial executive awarded €22k over unfair dismissal for posting sexually explicit messages
A FINANCIAL SERVICES executive who was fired after posting sexually explicit messages from the mobile phones of two female colleagues has been awarded €22,500 in compensation for unfair dismissal. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that the procedures used to dismiss the operation's manager were flawed and unfair 'from beginning to end.' The WRC found that the company's conclusion that the manager's conduct was 'highly severe sexual harassment' was 'excessive' and 'not proportional.' It heard evidence that the manager had taken the phone from the desk of a colleague – known as Employee A – on January 30, 2024 and sent a sexually explicit WhatsApp message to her husband. The WRC ruled that the identities of the parties should not be disclosed due to the potential collateral damage to the company and its staff. The manager owned up to sending the message as a joke after the woman discovered it on her phone. She asked the company's chief executive for a meeting to discuss what had happened as both she and her husband had found the message 'vulgar and disgusting' and was worried other content from her phone had been accessed. The WRC heard the operations manager was suspended after a meeting on February 6, 2024 after she had submitted a formal complaint. Another female colleague, known as Employee B. who attended the meeting said afterwards: 'I can't believe this is happening again.' The company's chief executive told the WRC that he had forgotten there had been a previous incident in September 2022 when the manager had accessed Employee B's phone while she was on holidays. Employee B had left her phone at work to allow the chief executive to access a banking app to authorise transactions. Employee B noticed two sexually offensive messages appeared to have been posted by her on one of her social media accounts as well as a message to one of her friends saying 'Hi, how are you?' The WRC heard the manager admitted he had posted the messages as a joke when Employee B contacted him to express concern that her phone had been hacked. Employee B said that her husband and father who were on holiday with her were also disgusted by the messages. While Employee B did not accept it was a joke, she acknowledged she did not take the matter further at the time. The WRC heard that the manager admitted he had done 'two stupid things' to an external investigator hired to examine the complaints. However, he claimed Employee B was conflicted by having used what she heard at the meeting on February 6, 2024 to make her own complaint and its inclusion was unfair. 'In the heat of the moment, I made two bad choices' he told an appeals committee and claimed his actions were in line with 'jokes or stuff' between staff. He claimed the use of the term 'sexual harassment' was grossly untrue and said he felt like 'the fall guy' for widespread sexual comments and innuendo between staff. Advertisement The manager – who was regarded as 'number 2' in the company – asked the appeals committee not to let 'two moments of madness' define him when he had been portrayed as 'some kind of evil predator.' His counsel, Michael Kinsey BL, claimed the process used to dismiss him was 'pre-judged, biased and procedurally flawed.' However, counsel for the financial services company, Lauren Tennyson BL, maintained the manager had been dismissed for gross misconduct due to findings of sexual harassment. Ms Tennyson said the sanction of dismissal was fair and proportionate and 'an inherently reasonable decision.' In her ruling, WRC adjudication officer, Catherine Byrne, observed that the manager had submitted no evidence to support his contention that sexual banter was commonplace among staff. Ms Byrne acknowledged that any reasonable employer would regard the manager's action in relation to Employee A as 'grossly inoffensive and irresponsible.' The WRC adjudicator said Employee B had dealt with the manager's conduct with maturity and forbearance over his use of her phone and had put him on notice that she would not tolerate such action in future. Ms Byrne said it was reasonable for the two women to have been angry, embarrassed, shocked and disappointed by his conduct which she agreed had met the definition of sexual harassment under the company's policy. 'He made unwanted sexual remarks which were offensive and degrading and which had no regard for the dignity of his colleagues,' she observed. However, Ms Byrne, she claimed the finding that what happened was a high severity of sexual harassment was 'too extreme.' She stressed that she did not wish to minimise the impact of the two incidents. Ms Byrne pointed out that the incident with Employee B was originally considered 'done and dusted.' She also observed that the chief executive had not taken any action to address the manager's conduct back in September 2022. Ms Byrne said it was difficult to understand why the chief executive had not 'at the very least' had a conversation with the complainant at the time about his conduct even in the absence of a formal complaint. 'His failure to do so lends some credibility to the complainant's assertion that there was a culture of doing nothing about unacceptable sexual banter,' she remarked. Ms Byrne claimed the retrieval of the earlier incident to bolster the case for dismissal was unfair, given the second incident was sufficiently serious to warrant consideration on its own. Ms Byrne said it was not open to the independent investigator to reach a conclusion regarding the scale of the offence or the severity of the sexual harassment. She claimed the disciplinary panel had relied on the investigator's opinion and failed in their duty to consider the manager's defence, while he also had not been allowed to appeal the investigation report. 'It is my view that a reasonable, prudent and wise employer may have reached a different decision and the complainant may have gone on to make a positive contribution to the organisation,' said Ms Byrne. Although the manager suffered €74,500 in lost earnings over the two years following his dismissal, the WRC limited the award of compensation to €22,5500 – representing 30% of the total – as he had contributed significantly to the decision to dismiss him. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
