The Curious Case of Violet-Anne Wynne

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.

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 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?

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"

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.

limnam wrote: »

Yeah after FG pulled funding they went belly up.

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

So how did she "pay it back" then? That was the simple question.



Your attempted deflection is a bit telling.

limnam wrote: »

It was paid to the solicitor of the RRI. Read the article...

I imagine it goes to creditors etc

I did read the article.


Money was sent from one solicitor to another solicitor. As the organisation does not exist, the money was given to a different charity.



RRI no longer exists. They were not paid back

limnam wrote: »

They don't exist because FG pulled their funding.

She made a promise.

Promise was kept.

You can word it anyway you want to try and show she didn't

But she did.

Great to see. Very refreshing from a TD.

We can safely assume that she also made a promise to the charity to pay her rent before stealing from them.

Her paying it back now is like someone after being taken to court to pay a debt owed after being caught stealing from a vulnerable old lady and the court ordering the sheriff to seize property to satisfy it. And then turning around and looking to be thanked for it




Government would have been correct to remove funding from any charity not being run correctly. It would be better to give it to the genuine and competent ones.


Else I could set up a charity to buy houses for homeless. It is relatively easy to set up and register a charity. I could have a plan on paper where I will have the tenants pay rent and the charity become self financing after 5 years. Then get 1m from the the government, buy 5 apartments, put 5 friends into them and tell them not to pay rent. Then come back to the government next year and ask for another 1m "because there is a housing crisis" :pac:

limnam wrote: »

Oh,

Why was that?

There was an influx of people here right behind the guy who started it

I hadn't realized he was incompetent.

Explains maybe why the houses were not fit for purpose.

The house was apparently fit enough for squatters to stay in for 6-odd years or however long it was

As for competence of the organisation, all I can say about that is that is they were unable to collect 60 quid a week rent from a couple of wasters

limnam wrote: »

Not good enough for the council to take them back

But 12k put up anyway even though was not fit for purpose

TD's keeping their promises

Refreshing.

Generally rental contracts or leases don't specify that you "have until the ends of eternity to pay the rent at your own leisure". You are in default of a contract (if you don't know what a contract is, think of it like an agreement or promise written on paper) if you are late by one day with a payment



The fact that she eventually coughed up some money now in some format (or someone else did on her behalf ........ perhaps as an election or PR expense) is evidence that she knows she should have paid it all along.


As for the council taking the house "back" .... do you mean after having tenants in there for a few years making shite of the place

limnam wrote: »

None of the RRI houses met council standards so they couldn't take them.

I don't recall mention of any damage to any of the houses.

Watching the desperation here after all the "has she paid it back yet posts"

Very telling :pac:

She hasn't paid it back though. Someone (maybe her, maybe not) sent an equivalent amount of money to a solicitor to be given to a different charity. If I break into your house and steal 100 quid you have lying around, me sending 100 quid to a charity 10 years later will not have paid you back.


As for damage to the house - it was fine for the first year or so - no? Rent paid on time. Seems like something happened in that time to make it not habitable (by Ms Wynnes story). Perhaps Enda Kenny went down with a sledgehammer in the middle of the night and made shite of the place for the craic?


You obviously have some connection with her (or else your particular tastes extend to being infatuated with her somehow).
Given that, it is kinda funny how you keep the thread alive. If you left it alone and said nothing, it'd drift off the front page here in about 3 or 4 hours and be forgotten about.

limnam wrote: »

I'm more than happy to keep it alive

I didn't know half the stuff FF/FG got up to until reading this thread it's been very enlightening :pac:

All it's done for Violet is show she'll keep a promise. So rare in TD's today

haha. You're a funny guy.


"Rips off a charity" = "keeps a promise" in your books



The only one obsessed with, or mentioning FF/FG is yourself. Oh, well I mentioned about Enda going down with the sledgehammer to wreck her place but that might have been tongue-in-cheek but you are free to believe it if you want