The Curious Case of Violet-Anne Wynne

Shefwedfan

limnam wrote: »

Sure or FG over the last 10 years could have changed how these types of payments are collected.

Get the money at source and you no longer have to be concerned about the 60% in arrears. and Bringing in millions to the exchequer which they can fck away on a poorly costed hospital

Would you give up with the FG bulls**t

FG are not the root of all problem, take some responsibility....ever post, and you have lots, is pointing finger at FG, it’s stupid and at this gage just trolling

You must be nearly at 50% of all posts on this thread now? 45% of them pointing at FG, sad life to lead always blaming a political party for evrythjbb

ThunbergsAreGo

limnam wrote: »

Sure or FG over the last 10 years could have changed how these types of payments are collected.

Get the money at source and you no longer have to be concerned about the 60% in arrears. and Bringing in millions to the exchequer which they can fck away on a poorly costed hospital

If tenants pay the money, this isn't an issue.
Why can't people take responsibility

Donald Trump

Shapey Fiend wrote: »

Some interesting clarification on this topic, since deleted.

Ha. What an absolute see-you-next.... of a thing to say(Am I allowed say cunt on here?)

Imagine that. Someone organizes a house for you and your entire family for 60 quid a week. Charity or not. And you'd turn around after ripping them off and try to slander them in public.

(RRI was a registered charity btw..........although maybe that's not enough for the SF/VAW people on here. Perhaps they'd only accept it was a charity when VAW admits it was one :pac: )


Can one of the VAW-groupies "explain" the context of her post. In whatever passes for "logic" in their brain. Is it that the landlord wasn't really a charity and didn't care deeply and personally about her so therefore she was fully entitled to rip it off???????? :pac:

Shapey Fiend

I find the idea of questioning where the rent you didn't pay went pretty hilarious.

Shefwedfan

Shapey Fiend wrote: »

I find the idea of questioning where the rent you didn't pay went pretty hilarious.

It standard SF, everyone elses fault and point the finger at someone else....

limnam

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Would you give up with the FG bulls**t

FG are not the root of all problem, take some responsibility....ever post, and you have lots, is pointing finger at FG, it’s stupid and at this gage just trolling

You must be nearly at 50% of all posts on this thread now? 45% of them pointing at FG, sad life to lead always blaming a political party for evrythjbb

You're really reaching when the only thing you has some sort of retort is a post count.

It's FG's fault that this charity went down and jobs were lost.

FG pulled the funds from the charity.

FG pulled the funds from a housing charity when we now have one of the worst housing crisis.

Now you can count my posts all you want. Those are the facts.

limnam

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

If tenants pay the money, this isn't an issue.
Why can't people take responsibility

But they're not paying it. 60% don't

So rather than sit around and do nothing about it. We can make a simple change the tax the money at source.

Something FG have failed to do in the last 10 years so we lost MILLIONS.

But yeah, your wan and her 5 kids.

is_that_so

limnam wrote: »

But they're not paying it. 60% don't

So rather than sit around and do nothing about it. We can make a simple change the tax the money at source.

Something FG have failed to do in the last 10 years so we lost MILLIONS.

But yeah, your wan and her 5 kids.

Your wan is now Your Wan TD, a public representative, and we have far greater expectations of them than of a random social housing tenant.

ThunbergsAreGo

limnam wrote: »

But they're not paying it. 60% don't

So rather than sit around and do nothing about it. We can make a simple change the tax the money at source.

Something FG have failed to do in the last 10 years so we lost MILLIONS.

But yeah, your wan and her 5 kids.

So you attach no blame or consequence to these 60 percent?

It's not your wan and her 5 kids (very irresponsible to have more kids in the situation she has described) it's 60 percent

limnam

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ha. What an absolute see-you-next.... of a thing to say(Am I allowed say cunt on here?)

Imagine that. Someone organizes a house for you and your entire family for 60 quid a week. Charity or not. And you'd turn around after ripping them off and try to slander them in public.

(RRI was a registered charity btw..........although maybe that's not enough for the SF/VAW people on here. Perhaps they'd only accept it was a charity when VAW admits it was one :pac: )


Can one of the VAW-groupies "explain" the context of her post. In whatever passes for "logic" in their brain. Is it that the landlord wasn't really a charity and didn't care deeply and personally about her so therefore she was fully entitled to rip it off???????? :pac:

Well, we might be getting closer to the "falling out"

Looks like Mr. Connolly was falling out with his loyal staff of 18 years.

Who lost thier jobs after FG pulled funding.

Wonder what the cost of the unfair dismissal trial was.

limnam

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

So you attach no blame or consequence to these 60 percent?

It's not your wan and her 5 kids (very irresponsible to have more kids in the situation she has described) it's 60 percent

"blaming" the 60% doesn't get you any revenue.

Getting off your backside on your 100k a year and doing something about it would.

limnam

is_that_so wrote: »

Your wan is now Your Wan TD, a public representative, and we have far greater expectations of them than of a random social housing tenant.

Do we?

We had/have an ilegal drug abuser in the top job funding criminal gangs.

Your expectations must be fairly low

ThunbergsAreGo

limnam wrote: »

"blaming" the 60% doesn't get you any revenue.

Getting off your backside on your 100k a year and doing something about it would.

Having consequences might lead to people paying. But no you can stay there for 4 years paying nothing and stopping other families being accomodated.

Where is personal responsibility gone? It's always "someone else/the governments fault"

limnam

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Having consequences might lead to people paying. But no you can stay there for 4 years paying nothing and stopping other families being accomodated.

Where is personal responsibility gone? It's always "someone else/the governments fault"

Why bother with the consequences when a simple change guarantees you the money ?

is_that_so

limnam wrote: »

Do we?

We had/have an ilegal drug abuser in the top job funding criminal gangs.

Your expectations must be fairly low

I'm sorry I have no idea who this is. I think she was a paper candidate, like quite a few others, selected just to give voters a SF option in constituencies to keep their national vote share up. She would have been expected to do her bit for the party in the GE and then return to obscurity. Now that she has won, the lack of any kind of QC in candidate selection is very clear.

ThunbergsAreGo

limnam wrote: »

Why bother with the consequences when a simple change guarantees you the money ?

Far from a simple change

limnam

is_that_so wrote: »

I'm sorry I have no idea who this is. I think she was a paper candidate, like quite a few others, selected just to give voters a SF option in constituencies to keep their national vote share up. She would have been expected to do her bit for the party in the GE and then return to obscurity. Now that she has won, the lack of any kind of QC in candidate selection is very clear.

Was it not Leo talking about his drug habits?

There's only one man in the top job in Ireland with that sort of form.

Come off it.

limnam

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Far from a simple change

you almost sound like it might require someone on 100k + 100k expenses to work.

Our expectations don't seem so high.

ThunbergsAreGo

limnam wrote: »

you almost sound like it might require someone on 100k + 100k expenses to work.

Our expectations don't seem so high.

So how would you do it?

People set up direct debits for all sorts of things, including rent. Why spend millions to absolve them of responsibility?

is_that_so

limnam wrote: »

Was it not Leo talking about his drug habits?

There's only one man in the top job in Ireland with that sort of form.

Come off it.

Ah I see. Someone once took drugs, still has a habit and is feeding drug dealers. That's a very, very long list of junkies. Dig hard enough and you'd find plenty who'd surprise you, even in the saintly party.

Annasopra

is_that_so wrote: »

I'm sorry I have no idea who this is. I think she was a paper candidate, like quite a few others, selected just to give voters a SF option in constituencies to keep their national vote share up.

In order to give them greater funding from the state

limnam

is_that_so wrote: »

Ah I see. Someone once took drugs, has a habit and they are feeding drug dealers. That's a very, very long list of junkies. Dig hard enough and you'd find plenty who'd surprise you, even in the saintly party.

The partaking in the use of illegal drugs funds criminal gangs.

Leo was partaking. You're standards and expectations for your countries leader is not that high.

Donald Trump

limnam wrote: »

Well, we might be getting closer to the "falling out"

Looks like Mr. Connolly was falling out with his loyal staff of 18 years.

Who lost thier jobs after FG pulled funding.

Wonder what the cost of the unfair dismissal trial was.

Lol. Imagine that - a falling out between a tenant and a landlord after the tenant has squatted in the property rent free for a few years. Who'd-a-thunk-it?

A sponger playing the system will always be stealing from those genuinely in need and for whom the system was intended to help.

It's a bit silly, but not inconsistent, that you wonder about the unfair dismissal trial (where the verdict was that it was not unfair dismissal) and yet you have deflected any questions about the cost of Ms. Violets High Court trial. RRI won both cases by the looks of it. An ex-employee fails in a case against a charity and you think that is somehow relevant.
Imagine a serial proven shoplifter trying to excuse their stealing from a VdeP charity shop by saying that an ex-employee of the VdeP had unsuccessfully tried to take it to court a few years previously :pac:

C'mon, you have to be trolling. Either that or her best friend or something. Or maybe you just fancy her or something? God only knows. Either way, it isn't normal.

limnam

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

So how would you do it?

People set up direct debits for all sorts of things, including rent. Why spend millions to absolve them of responsibility?

It would mostly cost millions because of our track record on making a balls of implementing anything.

Either way we're loosing millions not doing it.

Donald Trump

limnam wrote: »

The partaking in the use of illegal drugs funds criminal gangs.

Leo was partaking. You're standards and expectations for your countries leader is not that high.

So are we certain that VAW's husband/partner got his from a legal dispensary?
You know, one of the many that are licensed down in Clare?

ThunbergsAreGo

limnam wrote: »

It would mostly cost millions because of our track record on making a balls of implementing anything.

Either way we're loosing millions not doing it.

So you have no idea?

limnam

Donald Trump wrote: »

Lol. Imagine that - a falling out between a tenant and a landlord after the tenant has squatted in the property rent free for a few years. Who'd-a-thunk-it?

A sponger playing the system will always be stealing from those genuinely in need and for whom the system was intended to help.

It's a bit silly, but not inconsistent, that you wonder about the unfair dismissal trial (where the verdict was that it was not unfair dismissal) and yet you have deflected any questions about the cost of Ms. Violets High Court trial. RRI won both cases by the looks of it. An ex-employee fails in a case against a charity and you think that is somehow relevant.
Imagine a serial proven shoplifter trying to excuse their stealing from a VdeP charity shop by saying that an ex-employee of the VdeP had unsuccessfully tried to take it to court a few years previously :pac:

C'mon, you have to be trolling. Either that or her best friend or something. Or maybe you just fancy her or something? God only knows. Either way, it isn't normal.

whats relevant is FG's pulling of the funding cost the man who worked there for 18 years to lose his job.

Which led to unfair dismissal case. Which needed to be paid for.

it looks like Mr. Connoloy didn't treat his loyal workers very well and fell out with them. While he won the case. It had to be paid for.

is_that_so

limnam wrote: »

The partaking in the use of illegal drugs funds criminal gangs.

Leo was partaking. You're standards and expectations for your countries leader is not that high.

No, I'm tolerant of youthful transgressions and we all make them. I certainly don't drag them up into arguments half a lifetime after the fact. This lady is current in her miscreant behaviour. If she'd really been expected to have a chance someone might have taken a look at how that might play out and elected someone else.

limnam

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

So you have no idea?

I've already told you.

You take it at source.

I'm not elected to give you solutions.

martingriff

limnam wrote: »

It would mostly cost millions because of our track record on making a balls of implementing anything.

Either way we're loosing millions not doing it.

Are you sure your not a politican because you dodge questions like one.