The Curious Case of Violet-Anne Wynne

limnam

blanch152 wrote: »

I've just checked

https://www.clareecho.ie/clare-td-wynne-pays-rent-arrears-to-rri/

And it seems that the money has been paid back. However, it is too late for the charity. Her actions contributed to the charity going back.

The problem for the charity was FG pulling the funding.

limnam

Zulu wrote: »

...so after all the usual kicking up of dirt and whataboutry, she still hasn't repaid the stolen money.
Amiright?

She has repaid the rental arrears. Correct.

limnam

Superfoods wrote: »

Has Violet managed to pay any of the money back she robbed from the charity?

Yes, Rental arrears has been paid back

*like* *like* *like*

limnam

blanch152 wrote: »

So should Barry Cowen be Minister for Agriculture then?

Man drink driving putting peoples lives in danger is comparable to a mother of 5 with a sick husband falling behind in rent.

Get off it.

Zulu

limnam wrote: »

...falling behind in rent.

Lol. "It just slipped!!!!"

limnam

Zulu wrote: »

Lol. "It just slipped!!!!"

Ah come on now Zulu, you were strutting around asking if it was repaid.

Now you're grasping

Great to see TD's making promises and sticking by them

limnam

limnam wrote: »

Ah come on now Zulu, you were strutting around asking if it was repaid.

Now you're grasping

Great to see TD's making promises and sticking by them

I’d say she has only paid it back due to being a TD and now a public figure. If she got a job in the private sector on the same sort of salary, she wouldn’t have bothered.

She was shamed into it.

limnam

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I’d say she has only paid it back due to being a TD and now a public figure. If she got a job in the private sector on the same sort of salary, she wouldn’t have bothered.

She was shamed into it.

She said she would pay it.

It was paid.

Great to see.

limnam

limnam wrote: »

She said she would pay it.

It was paid.

Great to see.

I agree it is great it’s paid. But don’t go over egging her reasons for doing so.

limnam

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

I agree it is great it’s paid. But don’t go over egging her reasons for doing so.

Only if you don't make assumptions for the same.

limnam

Zulu wrote: »

True, no one is buying her (or your) bs.

Why wait?
If she was serious, she could take out a loan and repay in full now.
...but thats never going to happen.

Oh but yes it did happen Zulu.

You should have a bit more faith in people

blanch152

limnam wrote: »

She said she would pay it.

It was paid.

Great to see.

Again, very clever language.

"She said she would pay it", creates the clear impression that any repayment of the rent would be and was paid by Violet-Anne.

"It was paid", not "she paid it". The use of the passive tense rather than the active tense, both in the newspaper article and then in your post raises the question again of who exactly paid it.

It is the type of language that we have seen from Sinn Fein, obfuscation and plausible deniability. If asked did she repay the money, Violet-Anne will say "it was paid", without clarifying whether she paid it or someone else (Northern Bank, anyone?) on her behalf.

I don't believe she paid that money back out of her own funds. I just don't. The language being used to describe what happened only strengthens that belief.

limnam

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, very clever language.

"She said she would pay it", creates the clear impression that any repayment of the rent would be and was paid by Violet-Anne.

"It was paid", not "she paid it". The use of the passive tense rather than the active tense, both in the newspaper article and then in your post raises the question again of who exactly paid it.

It is the type of language that we have seen from Sinn Fein, obfuscation and plausible deniability. If asked did she repay the money, Violet-Anne will say "it was paid", without clarifying whether she paid it or someone else (Northern Bank, anyone?) on her behalf.

I don't believe she paid that money back out of her own funds. I just don't. The language being used to describe what happened only strengthens that belief.

Clutching at straws :pac:


The desperation is very telling.

blanch152

limnam wrote: »

Clutching at straws :pac:


The desperation is very telling.

Not at all.

The newspaper was very careful in its wording - it has the truth to protect, and libel laws. It used the passive tense to describe what happened - the money was paid - without ascribing it to Violet paying it.

So were you, the biggest defender of Violet-Anne on here.

The ambiguities are plain and clear to say. The money was paid. Whether she paid it or not from her own funds may be immaterial to you, but some of us look at things with an older more jaundiced eye and see the obfuscation and misdirection.

Topgear on Dave

limnam wrote: »

The desperation is very telling.

Its the willingness to die in a ditch defending her on here that is most amusing. I have no idea why you do it.

JohnnyFlash

SF lost the vast majority of their councillors in the last local elections, and had already had a large number of their former councillors quit due to claims they were being intimidated and bullied by senior party members.

So for the election they really had to scrape the bottom of the already murky and stagnant barrel to find candidates. Violet is an example of this.

Damage limitation is the name of the game for SF with morons like that.

golfball37

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

SF lost the vast majority of their councillors in the last local elections, and had already had a large number of their former councillors quit due to claims they were being intimidated and bullied by senior party members.

So for the election they really had to scrape the bottom of the already murky and stagnant barrel to find candidates. Violet is an example of this.

Damage limitation is the name of the game for SF with morons like that.

Their vote is only going one way and that’s thanks to the two main parties who make someone like her electable. That’s the bigger issue here but it requires self examination, something we don’t do. We prefer to look down on others.

limnam

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Its the willingness to die in a ditch defending her on here that is most amusing. I have no idea why you do it.

Somethings are more important. People driving behind the wheel of the car buckled. Putting other peoples lives in danger for example

It was called out she wouldn't pay back, she has.

Great to see.

blanch152

limnam wrote: »

Somethings are more important. People driving behind the wheel of the car buckled. Putting other peoples lives in danger for example

It was called out she wouldn't pay back, she has.

Great to see.

Paid back the money was, this we know.

Her contribution? This we don't know.




P.S. I didn't see mention of any interest paid

limnam

blanch152 wrote: »

Paid back the money was, this we know.

Her contribution? This we don't know.

P.S. I didn't see mention of any interest paid

She said she would pay it back.

The rental arrears is now cleared.

Job done.

Great to see a TD making a promise and sticking to it.

We could do with a few more willing to do it.

Lets see if some can stay out of their car over the limit going forward.

blanch152

limnam wrote: »

She said she would pay it back.

The rental arrears is now cleared.

Job done.

Great to see a TD making a promise and sticking to it.

We could do with a few more willing to do it.

Lets see if some can stay out of their car over the limit going forward.

The same ambiguity of language is being employed.

However, let's take you at face value. How did a woman who couldn't afford to pay here rent find 12k in two months? Either she had it all along (which makes her a liar) or someone gave her the money (who?)

JohnnyFlash

blanch152 wrote: »

The same ambiguity of language is being employed.

However, let's take you at face value. How did a woman who couldn't afford to pay here rent find 12k in two months? Either she had it all along (which makes her a liar) or someone gave her the money (who?)

I wonder what the processes and procedures are f someone living in or leasing one of SF’s 50 properties fall behind on their rent?

Boggles

blanch152 wrote: »

The same ambiguity of language is being employed.

However, let's take you at face value. How did a woman who couldn't afford to pay here rent find 12k in two months? Either she had it all along (which makes her a liar) or someone gave her the money (who?)

Credit Union?

She would easily get a loan of 12k based on her current basic salary of €96,189.

Credit where credit is due, she said she would pay it back and she did.

Refreshing.

blanch152

Boggles wrote: »

Credit Union?

She would easily get a loan of 12k based on her current basic salary of €96,189.

Credit where credit is due, she said she would pay it back and she did.

Refreshing.

It was paid back, that is acknowledged.

Boggles

blanch152 wrote: »

It was paid back, that is acknowledged.

You asked a specific question.

I gave you an answer.

But credit where credit is due.

She could have easily let the story die down and not pay it back.

Agreed?

Yeah_Right

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I wonder what the processes and procedures are f someone living in or leasing one of SF’s 50 properties fall behind on their rent?

It's either knee capping or a beating. Can't remember which.

Donald Trump

limnam wrote: »

Yes, Rental arrears has been paid back

*like* *like* *like*

From what I remember about this case, was that charity that she ripped off not liquidated?


i.e. they don't exist anymore for them to be "paid back"

limnam

Donald Trump wrote: »

From what I remember about this case, was that charity that she ripped off not liquidated?


i.e. they don't exist anymore for them to be "paid back"

Yeah after FG pulled funding they went belly up.

FG pulled funding from a housing charity during a housing crisis. :pac:

RandomName2

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

SF lost the vast majority of their councillors in the last local elections, and had already had a large number of their former councillors quit due to claims they were being intimidated and bullied by senior party members.

So for the election they really had to scrape the bottom of the already murky and stagnant barrel to find candidates. Violet is an example of this.

Clearly the electorate didn't much care about the quality of candidate though.

blanch152

limnam wrote: »

Yeah after FG pulled funding they went belly up.

FG pulled funding from a housing charity during a housing crisis. :pac:

Funding was provided on the basis that they would generate income from rental.

A tenant didn’t pay, the rental income wasn’t received, the funding was pulled.

Not the government’s fault, but that of the tenant who didn’t pay.