The Curious Case of Violet-Anne Wynne

limnam

mynamejeff wrote: »

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

Yes, bally'd up boogey man behind me watching every stroke. (heh)

You're a real whiz kid.

Martin Lanigan

Boggles wrote: »

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.

Keep defending the indefensible. No wonder scroungers like Violet-Anne exist. Always someone to defend her and her ilk.

Donald Trump

Boggles wrote: »

Da Fuq?

:pac::pac::pac:

limnam wrote: »

Ah Donald. That's gold.

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

Lol. It's pretty simple to understand.

Limnam stated that he would condemn if he heard her side of the story and if she admitted to deliberately ripping off the charity.

Everybody knows that Ms. Violet ripped off the charity. There was a High Court Case about it. The evidence is incontrovertible. But because she did not explicitly admit to it, he gives her the benefit of the doubt.

Likewise, everyone knows what Bailey was up to as well. Again it is incontrovertible, however there was no finding in a court of law that she lied. Nor was there any admission of guilt. "Strangely" you lose your shit if Limnam's logic is applied to Maria Bailey.......as I fully expected you to! You can see that it is ridiculous there but when applied to a SF lady, it seems ok with you for some reason.

Jesus Christ lads, this is basic stuff. There is a difference to being guilty and admitting to something. Graham Dwyer was guilty of murder but never admitted to it.
Limnam's standard of proof for a SF person is apparently an explicit admission - a converse claim, such as a politician claiming "I was never a member of the IRA" means that they can't have been a member. At least the party has some consistency somewhere. lol

limnam

Donald Trump wrote: »

Lol. It's pretty simple to understand.

Limnam stated that he would condemn if he heard her side of the story and if she admitted to deliberately ripping off the charity.

Everybody knows that Ms. Violet ripped off the charity. There was a High Court Case about it. The evidence is incontrovertible. But because she did not explicitly admit to it, he gives her the benefit of the doubt.

Likewise, everyone knows what Bailey was up to as well. Again it is incontrovertible, however there was no finding in a court of law that she lied. Nor was there any admission of guilt. "Strangely" you lose your shit if Limnam's logic is applied to Maria Bailey.......as I fully expected you to! You can see that it is ridiculous there but when applied to a SF lady, it seems ok with you for some reason.

Jesus Christ lads, this is basic stuff. There is a difference to being guilty and admitting to something. Graham Dwyer was guilty of murder but never admitted to it.
Limnam's standard of proof for a SF person is apparently an explicit admission - a converse claim, such as a politician claiming "I was never a member of the IRA" means that they can't have been a member. At least the party has some consistency somewhere. lol

Ah no sorry I can't Donald:

Donald Trump wrote: »

Originally Posted by Donald Trump View Post
No.
That is not an admission. That is being caught out lying.

hehehehehehe

mynamejeff

limnam wrote: »

Yes, bally'd up boogey man behind me watching every stroke. (heh)

You're a real whiz kid.

https://www.sinnfein.ie/sfos

could be you know

limnam

mynamejeff wrote: »

https://www.sinnfein.ie/sfos

could be you know

Bruce Schneier

As I live and breath. How are ye babes!

Martin Lanigan

Just for you boggles:

Violet-Anne refused to pay rent for the years between mid 2013 and mid 2017 when she was evicted.

Her kids are 9, 8, 7, 5 and 2.

I will let you do the simple maths - why did she have kids while she wasn’t paying rent?

Out and out Scrounger.

Boggles

Donald Trump wrote: »

Likewise, everyone knows what Bailey was up to as well. Again it is incontrovertible, however there was no finding in a court of law that she lied.

Apart from the fact she lied in court.

Dig up FFS lad.

KrustyUCC

Boggles wrote: »

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.

This post should help you there

Nijmegen wrote: »

Firstly, it is entirely appropriate to look at what those in public office say and do.

In fairness, she has walked back her statement on vaccine ("not what I believe now / not in line with party position"). So ok.

But this and the matter of the €12k rent arrears points at a person who has a bit to do to prove themselves a competent, honest and above board public representative.

I think the other thing about curious Violet-Anne is that she's basically got a history that points to the type of welfare-dependency / can't pay/won't pay attitude SF wants to support with even more welfare and taxes on those out working. And as a public rep she has put herself in the spotlight on this, the same way that another politician going on about housing whilst being a landlord should be questioned on their background.

Her partner is indeed the same John Montaine who is the toothless fella with a criminal history for drug possession. So you have here 5 kids, won't even pay for social housing and am I starting to see the story of spongers off the state emerging a little? Had four years’ rent arrears of rent up to June 3rd, 2016 and "the family remained in the Tullycrine house until December 2017."

So five and a half years of not paying their rent stretching back to 2012. Indeed she moved to Clare specifically to access cheap social housing as part of the Rural Resettlement Scheme. She's 32 so they got on that train at 24-25. She's brought her kids into stories in her political campaigning, so we can see from what she said herself in this profile of her on Clare radio in January that their 5 kids are quite young - aged 9, 8, 7, 5 and 2. The first child was born ~2011, gets relocated, stops paying rent around child 2, and then has another 3 while not even able to pay rent? So basically, can't/won't pay out €63 per week in rent but has a couple of kids and juices up those welfare payments (if they are struggling enough to not be able to pay the rent, I'm assuming they're getting full ride on welfare. And certainly €700/month just on child benefit.)

More than anything Violet-Anne is an example of the type of person who needs to take more personal responsibility, of her finances and the opinions she puts around, in a party that is focused on giving over more of other people's hard earned cash to people like herself.

Martin Lanigan

Boggles wrote: »

Apart from the fact she lied in court.

Dig up FFS lad.

Dig up? Says the lad defending the indefensible scrounger. Ha ha. Good one.

mynamejeff

limnam wrote: »

Bruce Schneier

As I live and breath. How are ye babes!

deflection refuse to answer any questions or respond to valid points raised

lot more posters at that here in the last few weeks

strange that ,

limnam

mynamejeff wrote: »

deflection refuse to answer any questions or respond to valid points raised

lot more posters at that here in the last few weeks

strange that ,

I answered your questions.

I stopped at your conspiracy theory nonsense.

Boggles

Her husbands criminality history is rubbing CBD oil into his skin isn't?

As hyperbole goes, that's fair embarrassing.

limnam

Boggles wrote: »

Her husbands criminality history is rubbing CBD oil into his skin isn't?

As hyperbole goes, that's fair embarrassing.

I wonder if him and Leo have the same dealer.

Boggles

Martin Lanigan wrote: »

Dig up? Says the lad defending the indefensible scrounger. Ha ha. Good one.

Where have I defended anything?

Donald Trump

Boggles wrote: »

Apart from the fact she lied in court.

Dig up FFS lad.

Hahaha.

She (obviously) lied on her court submission......but the case was withdrawn and so there was no hearing and no verdict. You seem to think that there was? You are wrong.

Anyway, I suspect you are just playing dumb and trying to shift goalposts or to deflect from the fact that you are trying to defend the indefensible.

limnam

Donald Trump wrote: »

Anyway, I suspect you are just playing dumb and trying to shift goalposts or to deflect from the fact that you are trying to defend the indefensible.

You were the one that brought her up lad.

Martin Lanigan

Boggles wrote: »

Where have I defended anything?

Pull the other one.

Boggles

Donald Trump wrote: »

Hahaha.

She (obviously) lied on her court submission......but the case was withdrawn and so there was no hearing and no verdict. You seem to think that there was? You are wrong.

Anyway, I suspect you are just playing dumb and trying to shift goalposts or to deflect from the fact that you are trying to defend the indefensible.

Again, I am not defending anyone.

You brought Maria into and for some hilarious reason stating that she was a proven liar but you wanted her to admit it or something.

Martin Lanigan

Limnam and boggles. Defending the indefensible. Fair play lads, you are onto a winner with this lady.

mynamejeff

Boggles wrote: »

Her husbands criminality history is rubbing CBD oil into his skin isn't?

As hyperbole goes, that's fair embarrassing.

well that's just not true now is it boggles " and supporter "

"In the case, Mr Montaine of Pella Rd, Kilrush, pleaded guilty to possessing €30 worth of cannabis herb on 10th of August 2017 at Tullycrine Upper, Cooraclare in west Clare."

a minor offence true but what you said is untrue and seeks to minimise the facts .

cant rub cannabis herb into you skin , and cannabis herb isn't freely available in chemists is it ?

soooo ???

Boggles

Martin Lanigan wrote: »

Pull the other one.

I only have one.

But again I have not defended anyone.

I said the lady needs to explain herself, which hopefully she does, hopefully she also gives the 12K to a deserving charity.

Zulu

Boggles wrote: »

Her husbands criminality history is rubbing CBD oil into his skin isn't?

As hyperbole goes, that's fair embarrassing.

Does that also count as a "drug habit"? As far as hyperbole goes, the shinnerbots are way out in front.

limnam

Martin Lanigan wrote: »

Limnam and boggles. Defending the indefensible. Fair play lads, you are onto a winner with this lady.

Don't worry Febuary.

Won't be long till your March.

Boggles

Zulu wrote: »

Does that also count as a "drug habit"? As far as hyperbole goes, the shinnerbots are way out in front.

I don't really know what a shinnerbots is, would imply some form of automation, but fúck it they are doing a fairly decent job.

Wouldn't you agree?

limnam

mynamejeff wrote: »

well that's just not true now is it boggles " and supporter "

"In the case, Mr Montaine of Pella Rd, Kilrush, pleaded guilty to possessing €30 worth of cannabis herb on 10th of August 2017 at Tullycrine Upper, Cooraclare in west Clare."

a minor offence true but what you said is untrue and seeks to minimise the facts .

cant rub cannabis herb into you skin , and cannabis herb isn't freely available in chemists is it ?

soooo ???

Is this Montaine chap a TD or did he run or did I miss something?

Zulu

Boggles wrote: »

Wouldn't you agree?

I would!
I just wish it could be put to use and the betterment of our society. And not to the defense of the morally corrupt.

Boggles

mynamejeff wrote: »

well that's just not true now is it boggles " and supporter "

"In the case, Mr Montaine of Pella Rd, Kilrush, pleaded guilty to possessing €30 worth of cannabis herb on 10th of August 2017 at Tullycrine Upper, Cooraclare in west Clare."

a minor offence true but what you said is untrue and seeks to minimise the facts .

cant rub cannabis herb into you skin , and cannabis herb isn't freely available in chemists is it ?

soooo ???

John Montaine, 36, has been seizure-free since routinely rubbing THC oil, extracted from cannabis, into his skin before he goes to bed each night, Kilrush District Court heard.

.

limnam

Zulu wrote: »

I would!
I just wish it could be put to use and the betterment of our society.

Wouldn't it just

If every pillok in the country who was concerned about a guy in a tri-colour or singing a song or someone going on holidays was concerned about _real_ problems.

Nah. Have a crack of your wan with her 5 kids and sick partner.

mynamejeff

limnam wrote: »

Is this Montaine chap a TD or did he run or did I miss something?

id say you missed something , ask boggles , he know who the chap is