The Curious Case of Violet-Anne Wynne

Zulu

Boggles wrote: »

Didn't Fine Gael eventually buckle to increased media attention, they then launched an investigation against Maria and then condemned her?
...

<

---

Maria Bailey thread is that-a-way

limnam

Zulu wrote: »

<

---

Maria Bailey thread is that-a-way

Why are people bringing her up in here then?

Boggles

Zulu wrote: »

<

---

Maria Bailey thread is that-a-way

Tell that to the poster who brought her up and had it spectacular explode in his/her face.

Donald Trump

limnam wrote: »

FG pulled 20m in funding from disabled charities. Thankfully at least FF saw what it was. An attack on people who in a lot of cases have no voice of their own.

The same FG who pulled the funding from RRI

Hold on, why are you shiteing on about scumbags stealing money when you are referring to funding being cut.

Only SF know where the magic money tree is. The rest of them have a finite pot to allocate. You can try to help genuine people in need, but unfortunately with scroungers who don't really need that help come in and hoover it all up then you don't have it for the genuine cases.
You can open up a service tomorrow to give out sandwiches or meals to people who can't provide for themselves. You can do your fundraising in the hope of being able to have old pensioners or actual homeless people be able to come in and get a decent bit of food. You can make your sandwiches, open the doors and have Margaret Cash and her brood rush the queue and trample over the pensioners to get in first and eat everything. If you want to have sandwiches for those pensioners, you have to go off and make more. Because the scroungers who shouldn't need them, stole the sandwiches from those who really in genuine need.

Pretty simple to understand. No?

Or perhaps any Trinity graduate should be housed for free for their 20's?

Donald Trump

Boggles wrote: »

Tell that to the poster who brought her up and had it spectacular explode in his/her face.

I'd say you're fairly used to having "things" explode in your face yourself. :pac:

Strange that Violet's (self-declared non SF voting) protectors don't seem to be over posting in protection of poor oul' Maria. Given that she never admitted to anything untoward.

Martin Lanigan

No sign of Violet-Anne’s tweets being made public yet. There must be lots of pruning going on.

Zulu

limnam wrote: »

Why are people bringing her up in here then?

Don't you remember?
It's been a poor attempt to deflect attention and focus from Sinn Feins Violet-Anne Wynne, who spent 4 years stealing from a homeless charity.

A thief you refuse to condemn.

limnam

Zulu wrote: »

Don't you remember?
It's been a poor attempt to deflect attention and focus from Sinn Feins Violet-Anne Wynne, who spent 4 years stealing from a homeless charity.

A thief you refuse to condemn.

I didn't realize Donald was a VAW deflector.

limnam

Donald Trump wrote: »

Strange that Violet's (self-declared non SF voting) protectors don't seem to be over posting in protection of poor oul' Maria. Given that she never admitted to anything untoward.

Wasn't over there trying to throw her under the bus either.

Zulu

limnam wrote: »

I didn't realize Donald was a VAW deflector.

So, stealing from homeless charities - "good" or "bad"?

mynamejeff

limnam wrote: »

Wasn't over there trying to throw her under the bus either.

so why are you so vigorously defending this particular thief ?

BarryD2

Martin Lanigan wrote: »

He also denies being a SF supporter or voter. Yet he has easily posted a hundred times in a thread defending this SF TD.

Standard Shinnerbot, but usually even the ardent ones pull back from an argument when their position is just plain ridiculous.

Rural Resettlement was a great housing charity and rural renewal initiative. It's not surprising that the odd chancer abused their trust and let them down. But particularly in the context of this election, with so much play made of the housing crisis and the need for affordable solutions - for a candidate to have been abusing this great charity is just wrong. It doesn't matter if she pays it back or not. You judge people by what they've done - not fit for purpose.

Martin Lanigan

Zulu wrote: »

So, stealing from homeless charities - "good" or "bad"?

Not her fault the government allowed her to get away with scrounging off the state rent free for 4 years.

If they had proper controls in place then this wouldn’t have happened. That seems to be his defense in a nutshell.

limnam

BarryD2 wrote: »

Standard Shinnerbot, but usually even the ardent ones pull back from an argument when their position is just plain ridiculous.

Rural Resettlement was a great housing charity and rural renewal initiative. It's not surprising that the odd chancer abused their trust and let them down. But particularly in the context of this election, with so much play made of the housing crisis and the need for affordable solutions - for a candidate to have been abusing this great charity is just wrong. It doesn't matter if she pays it back or not. You judge people by what they've done - not fit for purpose.

Was a great charity until FG pulled the plug on them in the middle of one of the worst housing crisis.

If we judge FG/FF on what they've done. Very few would get a seat.

Oh wait.

Boggles

Donald Trump wrote: »

Strange that Violet's (self-declared non SF voting) protectors don't seem to be over posting in protection of poor oul' Maria. Given that she never admitted to anything untoward.

Course she did, she stated in court she could not run for 3 months after the "accident".

All though she put in close to a personal best 3 weeks after it in a 10km race.

She then dropped it.

Martin Lanigan

Boggles wrote: »

Course she did, she stated in court she could not run for 3 months after the "accident".

All though she put in close to a personal best 3 weeks after it in a 10km race.

She then dropped it.

What excuses did Violet-Anne use in court to justify not paying her rent for 4 years before they managed to get her evicted?

I have heard the claim that the husband was ill but she had at least 2 more kids during the 4 years so that doesn’t really stack up.

Boggles

Martin Lanigan wrote: »

I have heard the claim that the husband was ill but she had at least 2 more kids during the 4 years so that doesn’t really stack up.

Can ill people not have kids.

Martin Lanigan

Boggles wrote: »

Can ill people not have kids.

When they are claiming that they can’t afford to pay the rent? Is that a serious question?

mynamejeff

limnam wrote: »

Was a great charity until FG pulled the plug on them in the middle of one of the worst housing crisis.

If we judge FG/FF on what they've done. Very few would get a seat.

Oh wait.

don't you think people refusing to pay their rent contributed to the charity being shut down too ?

Martin Lanigan

mynamejeff wrote: »

don't you think people refusing to pay their rent contributed to the charity being shut down too ?

No, nothing to do with it.

Boggles

Martin Lanigan wrote: »

When they are claiming that they can’t afford to pay the rent? Is that a serious question?

That's not what I asked in relation to what you said.

You said ill people having kids doesn't stack up.

What age are her kids?

limnam

mynamejeff wrote: »

don't you think people refusing to pay their rent contributed to the charity being shut down too ?

If you go to setup a charity to house people in social housing or similar.

You need to look at the reality of the situation. That reality is 60% of tenants are in arrears. This is NOT a fault of the charity but it is a tangible element that anyone getting into this area should be aware of.

If you setup it up in a way that 1 single person falling behind could bring the charity down then the charity may not be viable from the off.

So no, it was either never viable from the start, or the funding been pulled by FG caused it to fail. The head of the charity was very critical of FG housing policy and stated it was like pulling teeth to deal with them

Donald Trump

Boggles wrote: »

Course she did, she stated in court she could not run for 3 months after the "accident".

All though she put in close to a personal best 3 weeks after it in a 10km race.

She then dropped it.

No.
That is not an admission. That is being caught out lying. Show me a source where she actually came out and admitted and accepted that she had deliberately lied?

The standard for the other poster to condemn Violet is not all the facts against her - it was for her to explicitly admit that she had deliberately ripped off the charity.

Ms. Violet was brought to the High Court and had findings against her. That is even stronger evidence than Maria Bailey who was not found guilty by a court (although she obviously was). Poster implied that that was not good enough for him to condemn her.

Boggles

Donald Trump wrote: »

No.
That is not an admission. That is being caught out lying. Show me a source where she actually came out and admitted and accepted that she had deliberately lied?

Da Fuq?

:pac::pac::pac:

limnam

Ah Donald. That's gold.

Stay close to this thread. You're making me look good.

mynamejeff

limnam wrote: »

If you go to setup a charity to house people in social housing or similar.

You need to look at the reality of the situation. That reality is 60% of tenants are in arrears. This is NOT a fault of the charity but it is a tangible element that anyone getting into this area should be aware of.

If you setup it up in a way that 1 single person falling behind could bring the charity down then the charity may not be viable from the off.

So no, it was either never viable from the start, or the funding been pulled by FG caused it to fail. The head of the charity was very critical of FG housing policy and stated it was like pulling teeth to deal with them

SO the charity's should have expected her not to bother paying her rent ? its really the charity's fault ?


That is the answer you are going to give here ? Really ?

people should expect to be ripped off and plan accordingly

you have to be a parody account kid

limnam

mynamejeff wrote: »

SO the charity's should have expected her not to bother paying her rent ? its really the charity's fault ?

Course not. But if you look at the figures of 60% of people in social housing fall into arrears. You need to build something into the plan to allow for at least some % of this.

Again, if one person faling behind in rent brings it down. it was not viable in the first place. OR the funding from FG pulled it. You can't have it both ways.

mynamejeff wrote: »

That is the answer you are going to give here ? Really ?

people should expect to be ripped off and plan accordingly

you have to be a parody account kid

Nope, your lack of coherent thought and agenda are causing you to try to put words in my mouth

But that's ok.

Yeah I hung around for 8 years posting on non political fora for my big chance to protect SF.

You got me.

Martin Lanigan

Boggles wrote: »

That's not what I asked in relation to what you said.

You said ill people having kids doesn't stack up.

What age are her kids?

Where did I say that I was referring to all families?

The topic under discussion is this specific individual and her decision to have more children while her husband was allegedly ill and while they were unable (or more likely unwilling) to pay their rent.

What age are her kids? Use your search engine of choice.

Hard to believe there are multiple posters defending this scrounger.

Boggles

Martin Lanigan wrote: »

What age are her kids? Use your search engine of choice.

Ah no.

You are the one making claims about her kids (which is pretty unsavory to say the least).

So make a claim, back it up?

When you are ready.

mynamejeff

limnam wrote: »

Course not. But if you look at the figures of 60% of people in social housing fall into arrears. You need to build something into the plan to allow for at least some % of this.

Again, if one person faling behind in rent brings it down. it was not viable in the first place. OR the funding from FG pulled it. You can't have it both ways.



Nope, your lack of coherent thought and agenda are causing you to try to put words in my mouth

But that's ok.

Yeah I hung around for 8 years posting on non political fora for my big chance to protect SF.

You got me.

what agenda do you think I have ?. all political corruption regardless of party is rancid and should be punished why cant you bring your self to admit that ?

she clearly could afford to pay but choose not to. you find this acceptable and have spent a lot of time and energy defending her here

why is that ? you are defending the in defensible, it defies logic at this stage

is it because she is SF and the online army must do as told I wonder ?