The Curious Case of Violet-Anne Wynne

limnam

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

She refused to pay €63 quid a week when there was multiples of that coming in in social welfare payments. She’s a self-entitled gouger who wanted a house for nothing. She shouldn’t have been put on the ticket, and SF need to drop her like a hot snot. Meanwhile you’re getting all jumpy and tetchy attempting to defend the indefensible.

Relax Jim.

I've always maintained I'd like to know more about the situation.

The fact she's declared to give 8k a year back from her wages etc.

I'm not seeing the self entitled gouger theme.

Everyone deserves a chance. Even the rotten gougers who were fleecing the state on her card.

JCX BXC

limnam wrote: »

.

Everyone deserves a chance. Even the rotten gougers who were fleecing the state on her card.

A chance? Yeah

A chance to represent the country? Not a fcuking hope.

limnam

limnam wrote: »

Sure and I'd love to know what the falling out was about as we might understand more about what happened there.

He seemed to fall out with tenured staff of the charity too.

e.g were they trying to make arrangements to pay x etc.

Seems communication was broken down.

Again I don't know enough about her or the situation.

If we put a financial constraint on having kids, there would be very few of them around.

Communication is a two way street. Every effort seems to have been made to get a response from them.

“In addition to written warnings, RRI field officers and finance staff repeatedly visited Ms Wynne and her partner. Despite these efforts, the court file shows Ms Wynne and her family stopped paying rent completely in August 2013 as they complained – sometimes via legal correspondence – of problems with the house.

The file does not appear to refer at any stage to a child’s illness and the hospitalisation of a family member, which Ms Wynne has this week told reporters was the reason for her inability to pay.”

https://extra.ie/2020/02/16/news/politics/violet-anne-wynne-rent-charity

limnam

JCX BXC wrote: »

A chance? Yeah

A chance to represent the country? Not a fcuking hope.

Why not?

There was TD's on her card that had fleeced the state.

Or does it only apply to SF?

Next you'll be saying you can't go on holidays...

limnam

Deleted User wrote: »

Communication is a two way street. Every effort seems to have been made to get a response from them.

“In addition to written warnings, RRI field officers and finance staff repeatedly visited Ms Wynne and her partner. Despite these efforts, the court file shows Ms Wynne and her family stopped paying rent completely in August 2013 as they complained – sometimes via legal correspondence – of problems with the house.

The file does not appear to refer at any stage to a child’s illness and the hospitalisation of a family member, which Ms Wynne has this week told reporters was the reason for her inability to pay.”

https://extra.ie/2020/02/16/news/politics/violet-anne-wynne-rent-charity

As far as I know the council couldn't take the house of RRI as it didn't meet standards.

Might be the problems discussed here.

I wouldn't be too happy for paying rent for a house not meeting council standards either.

Nice find.

limnam

limnam wrote: »

As far as I know the council couldn't take the house of RRI as it didn't meet standards.

Might be the problems discussed here.

I wouldn't be too happy for paying rent for a house not meeting council standards either.

Nice find.

Why stay there for so long if it wasn’t up to standard?

Shefwedfan

limnam wrote: »

Source bore :rolleyes:

Shocked you couldn't back it up


I find it hillarious that people on boards are incapable of admitting when they are talking BS.....


You need to stop listening to the SF propaganda machine, it aint telling you the truth

Rodney Bathgate

limnam wrote: »

Sure and I'd love to know what the falling out was about as we might understand more about what happened there.

He seemed to fall out with tenured staff of the charity too.

e.g were they trying to make arrangements to pay x etc.

Seems communication was broken down.

Again I don't know enough about her or the situation.

If we put a financial constraint on having kids, there would be very few of them around.

Not paying your rent is prone to cause a ‘falling out’ with the landlord.

I think most people would prioritise keeping a roof over their heads when they fall on hard times rather than adding to the problem by having more children.

Donald Trump

limnam wrote: »

As far as I know the council couldn't take the house of RRI as it didn't meet standards.

Might be the problems discussed here.

I wouldn't be too happy for paying rent for a house not meeting council standards either.

Nice find.

Most private houses wouldn't "meet council standards". Whether rented or owned. Most council houses, if the tenant moves on, even to another council house, aren't up to "council standards" at the end of the tenancy. Which is often why they get boarded up for a few months after one tenant moves out.

You in a council house yourself perchance? Might that explain your curious predilection towards not living in a house not up to that "standard"?

limnam

Deleted User wrote: »

Why stay there for so long if it wasn’t up to standard?

Probably couldn't find anywhere else.

You're aware of the housing crisis ya?

limnam

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Shocked you couldn't back it up


I find it hillarious that people on boards are incapable of admitting when they are talking BS.....


You need to stop listening to the SF propaganda machine, it aint telling you the truth

I've quoted the answer since you asked.

Try and focus on whats going on.

limnam

Donald Trump wrote: »

You in a council house yourself perchance? Might that explain your curious predilection towards not living in a house not up to that "standard"?

No. Privately owned two professional income family.

Thanks for your concern though.

mynamejeff

limnam wrote: »

No. Privately owned two professional income family.

Thanks for your concern though.

so one tds wage and whats himself do again ?

was it hard to get work with the drugs convictions I wonder ?

Donald Trump

limnam wrote: »

No. Privately owned two professional income family.

Thanks for your concern though.

Do you realise that it is likely that your own house isn't "up to council standard"?


It might be the nicest house in the country, but there could be one or two little boxes that just aren't ticked.

Perhaps you have a fabulous expensive Aga range on which you do all your cooking and which heats all the water for house.....but the Council standards maybe say you need a 4 ring gas or electric cooker and either an external oil or gas fired boiler to heat the water.

limnam

mynamejeff wrote: »

so one tds wage and whats himself do again ?

was it hard to get work with the drugs convictions I wonder ?

Why do you resort to this nonsensical childish moronic rubbish.

It's not like SF as a whole and Violet-Anne don't make a balls up of enough things for you to discuss rather than going on like a clueless idiot.

limnam

Donald Trump wrote: »

Do you realise that it is likely that your own house isn't "up to council standard"?


It might be the nicest house in the country, but there could be one or two little boxes that just aren't ticked.

Perhaps you have a fabulous expensive Aga range on which you do all your cooking and which heats all the water for house.....but the Council standards maybe say you need a 4 ring gas or electric cooker and either an external oil or gas fired boiler to heat the water.

All I know is they had made complaints about problems with the house and it wasn't up council standard.

I don't want to assume what was or wasn't wrong.

Lets deal with what we know

mynamejeff

limnam wrote: »

Why do you resort to this nonsensical childish moronic rubbish.

It's not like SF as a whole and Violet-Anne don't make a balls up of enough things for you to discuss rather than going on like a clueless idiot.

its the only way to discuss anything with you sure ,

besides its fairy obvious in spite of every one humouring you


you really got back into the thread fast haven't ya for some one who has so much to do :pac::pac:

limnam

mynamejeff wrote: »

its the only way to discuss anything with you sure ,

besides its fairy obvious in spite of every one humouring you


you really got back into the thread fast haven't ya for some one who has so much to do :pac::pac:

The only way to discuss anything with me is to pretend I'm someone else.

Interesting.

Donald Trump

limnam wrote: »

All I know is they had made complaints about problems with the house and it wasn't up council standard.

I don't want to assume what was or wasn't wrong.

Lets deal with what we know

Yes. We know that Ms. VAW says there was a problem with the house. Although there is of course no proof of same. We know that it was significant enough, in her opinion, to justify squatting there without rent for years.

We also know that it was not significant enough, in her opinion, to warrant moving out and finding a new place to live.

What's more, the problems were not significant enough to make her think that it was unsafe place to bring up children, going on an oul' spree of firing them out over the following rent-free squatting years.

blanch152

limnam wrote: »

Relax Jim.

I've always maintained I'd like to know more about the situation.

The fact she's declared to give 8k a year back from her wages etc.

I'm not seeing the self entitled gouger theme.

Everyone deserves a chance. Even the rotten gougers who were fleecing the state on her card.

Was getting tens of thousands from the state yet wouldn't pay €63 per week rent is all you need to know.

limnam

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes. We know that Ms. VAW says there was a problem with the house. Although there is of course no proof of same. We know that it was significant enough, in her opinion, to justify squatting there without rent for years.

We also know that it was not significant enough, in her opinion, to warrant moving out and finding a new place to live.

What's more, the problems were not significant enough to make her think that it was unsafe place to bring up children, going on an oul' spree of firing them out over the following rent-free squatting years.

Now here she is handing back 8k of her salary a year to the state unlike most other TD's who try to cream us for everything including the current bunch looking for a few grand working from home allowance.

I think it's great to see and if more TD's had this moral fiber we'd be in a much better place.

limnam

blanch152 wrote: »

Was getting tens of thousands from the state yet wouldn't pay €63 per week rent is all you need to know.

Now giving 8k a year of her wages to the state.

Thumbs up I'd say

Shefwedfan

limnam wrote: »

I've quoted the answer since you asked.

Try and focus on whats going on.

No didn’t

Try and back up your BS claims

limnam

limnam wrote: »

Now here she is handing back 8k of her salary a year to the state unlike most other TD's who try to cream us for everything including the current bunch looking for a few grand working from home allowance.

I think it's great to see and if more TD's had this moral fiber we'd be in a much better place.

She’d probably make a great housing minister.

Only a small few other TDs suggested an extra working from home grant. As you know from earlier posts, it was rejected.

limnam

Shefwedfan wrote: »

No didn’t

Try and back up your BS claims

You're tiring.

This is the last time I'll hold your hand through the thread. It's hard to believe you're a parent.

"HSE CEO Paul Reid said today that the HSE doesn’t want any further delivery of this equipment which doesn’t meet its specifications"

"It follows the Business Post reporting this morning that four of the ten items assessed in an audit of the PPE delivered were described as “unsuitable” or “not suitable for use” in clinical or other healthcare settings."

The journal and business post.

limnam

Deleted User wrote: »

She’d probably make a great housing minister.

Only a small few other TDs suggested an extra working from home grant. As you know from earlier posts, it was rejected.

They have EOB which would make an excellent one.

The number of them is not relevant.

The nerve and gal of them is the problem.

limnam

mynamejeff wrote: »

its the only way to discuss anything with you sure ,

besides its fairy obvious in spite of every one humouring you


you really got back into the thread fast haven't ya for some one who has so much to do :pac::pac:

So this is your story.

I signed up as Violet to boards 7 years ago.

Mostly discuss football and IT related topics. So I could one day come into a SF thread pretend to be someone else to explain why I didn't pay rent.

I think I've posted in two SF threads in 7 years. Mostly never in the political fora.

This is your theory.

Gobsh|te.

feargale

limnam wrote: »

While other TD's are looking for big hands outs for working from home on massive wages while hundreds of thousands go on to the dole.

Here we have one handing back her 8k raise.

Fair play to her.

SF have form when it comes to bogus assertions of making do with the "average industrial wage." Given the vast wealth of that "business friendly" party, what mechanisms of transparency will be put in place to assure the public that such gestures will not be negatived by the party's generosity to its members, or by benefits in kind such as hospitality provided by the "martyrs" who own holiday homes in Donegal?

Don't forget to tell Jim Connolly about the fair play. I'm sure he will be very impressed.

limnam

feargale wrote: »

SF have form when it comes to bogus assertions of making do with the "average industrial wage." Given the vast wealth of that "business friendly" party, what mechanisms of transparency will be put in place to assure the public that such gestures will not be negatived by the party's generosity to its members, or by benefits in kind such as hospitality provided by the "martyrs" who own holiday homes in Donegal.

Don't forget to tell Jim Connolly about the fair play. I'm sure he will be very impressed.

Is this similar to given ex FG TD's who didn't get elected hundreds of thousands of euro for a business which did nothing but rent an empty warehouse?

This sort of carry on? or?

Shefwedfan

limnam wrote: »

You're tiring.

This is the last time I'll hold your hand through the thread. It's hard to believe you're a parent.

"HSE CEO Paul Reid said today that the HSE doesn’t want any further delivery of this equipment which doesn’t meet its specifications"

"It follows the Business Post reporting this morning that four of the ten items assessed in an audit of the PPE delivered were described as “unsuitable” or “not suitable for use” in clinical or other healthcare settings."

The journal and business post.

Four out of ten not suitable, you said it all was useless

I’m tiring, I would expect I am....especially for someone who continues to post lies