Nevin reminds us that Spotlight is looking at the Causeway controversy tonight on BBC NI at 10.35pm. That’s for those who won’t be watching David Trimble on Newsnight, on why using Northern Ireland as an exemplar for other peace processes is not a good idea. Here’s an earlier attempt by some other dudes.
Fair play to Iain, he managed to get over 2,200 people voting in his poll for the top Northern Irish blogs this year… We (just, I imagine) retained our top spot, with Splintered coming straight in at number 2, no doubt his pet subject du jour will have garnered him a lot of fans… I’ve [...] read our review »
Is the best way to overcome the legacy of conflict simply to forget about it? Author and journalist David Rieff spoke on this subject last week in a seminar at the Institute for International Integration Studies (IIIS) at Trinity College Dublin. Rieff has recently written a book titled, Against Remembrance (published in Ireland by Liffey [...] read our review »
Great little review of Listening to Van Morrison by Griel Marcus… It’s a short book, not a biography or a career survey, but an attempt to follow those moments in Morrison’s music, as he’s made it from his first records with Them, from Belfast in 1965 to the present day, when something happens that breaks [...] read our review »
The Spotlight video should be available for a week from tomorrow – but you might not want to wait
Over on todays BBC NI news page there is a thumbnail photograph of Seymour Sweeney ….he is a dead ringer for a 70′s Noddy Holder.
Cum on feel the noize.
Baby Doc is under serious pressure. Hiccup my arse!
A good well researched BBC Spotlight expose that also avoided a lot of libellous pitfalls.
Stinks!
That was one of the least convincing rebuttals I’ve seen from Paisley Jnr. Seemed like a spoilt child assuming everyone will believe what mummy and daddy do.
What a liability for the DUP. The First Minister, Tourism and Environment Minister all getting splattered with what is clearly Jnr’s muck – the UNESCO lies should be enough for a sacking but the house ownership issue and vagueness on official lobbying should mean the wee man is going to face more crap yet.
He’s not very good at lying or crap at presenting the truth. Either way Spotlight just shafted our first politico.
Up to the DUP to deal with it now.
Nobody was buying that bollix.
On Slugger first:
I’ve just heard they should have asked when he moved in and when he ‘bought the house’ and ‘started paying a mortgage on it’.
Perhaps Frank
But they should definitely have asked whether Paisley Jnr had discussed his lobbying on behalf of Seymour Sweeney’s proposal with either Foster or Dodds before they became NI Executive Ministers [before May] – or if he knew of anyone else within the party, or without, who had done so at any time.
Or pushed on his lobbying of government officials on the matter which he couldn’t recall was formal or informal since devolution? (how does a Jnr Minister informally lobby a government official?)
stinks is right and jnr saying it was a ‘administrative hiccup’ is an insult to our collective intelligence (such as it is)
Baby Doc is on very very thin ice with all this because he came across as being disingenuous to say the least
Paisley Jnr clearly doesn’t like it up him.
Good work, Kevin Magee.
In any other place a resignation would have been the order of the day. But when one can blame “administrative cock-ups” and keep a straight face, you are way beyond the concept of political integrity.
Seymour really doesn’t like the limelight, you know.
Perhaps people will go and get a little flavour of what Seymour has been up to in other parts of the North Coast.
That house he demolished in Dhu Varren in Portrush for example…the kitchen in the neighbouring house that fell through…the year that Mr Sweeney left the resident to wait before reinstating the damaged area…the subsidence his demolition caused…yes…wee things like that…
The Spotlight programme is well worth a second look. I should think the First Minister will have some questions to answer when he next comes to the Assembly.
MLAs will be surprised that McAllister is still a member of the party, considering the fate of some other DUP MLAs and councillors. They will also want to know why he allowed his name to be appended to the letter to the Heritage Lottery Fund, the one that referred to UNESCO.
The mushrooming development at Ballyallaght poses serious questions for the planning process and its boss, Arlene Foster. It’s not in keeping with the height and footprint of the single-storey one time farmhouse that planners were minded to permit being ‘replaced’.
The Spotlight programme was well researched. An indepth study of the players named tonight would probably generate a mini-series. If only the BBC had the money!!
Spotlight tonight was a complete and utter waste of taxpayers’ money…
What was disgusting tonight was the fact that a DUP councillor claimed £17000 in benefit fraud yet he was not disciplined by the DUP and he keeps his position.
There didn’t seem to be anything new in the programme, as it appeared to re-hash everything that appeared in the press and online over the past few weeks. Still no smoking gun, although the inferences that could be drawn from the ownership of Mr Paisley Jr’s house (already known as well) and watching him visibly squirm made it worth watching nonetheless.
Belfast Gonzo
Didn’t you once have a wee blog about Cllr Alexander standing in front of Seymour’s bulldozers before they trashed some gardens up in Portrush…?
It’s entirely possible, although I can’t remember if it was me or one of the other bloggers here wrote the thing. Feel free to do a search!
there is more -the programme should have had another hour then we would have seen the lengths that some will go to keep developers and polluters happy-lobbying high level meetings-verbal assurancs (referred to in letters on behalf of developers)given in these meetings-of which there are no minutes,on and on it goes.more investigative journalism is most dfinately in the public interest-also there should be an effective whistle blowing mechanism throughout the whole public service.because NI economy is over reliant on the public sector is not to say that all private developement must be good.Public representatives and officials need to be fully accountable.
Decent documentary – nothing new on the factual front but when the evidence against Paisley Junior was set out in a coherent fashion it became patently obvious that the man is utterly, undeniably corrupt. His attitude to forensic and justified questioning is pretty repugnant too i.e. smirk, sneer and insinuate that your questioner is in some way stupid, deluded or insane.
“His attitude to forensic and justified questioning is pretty repugnant too i.e. smirk, sneer and insinuate that your questioner is in some way stupid, deluded or insane.”
Hmmm, that sounds a familiar tactic – would you care to comment again, David?
i thought there was little of substance to the spotlight ‘revelations’ actually.
the whole story was predicated on the basis that baby doc had taken inducements in the form of a house. but that wasn’t made out at all. he bought it from an estate agent, so he prima facie appears to have bought at arm’s length and further it wouldn’t be that hard to find out whether he paid market price. and that old law lecturer guy they held up as an expert was a joke, or rather the question he answered was the wrong one. legal title can still have been passed to baby doc, whether or not notoriously unreliable conveyancers have yet filled out the correct forms.
and dousing him in that raking light to make him look more dodgy was disgraceful. i don’t mind a proper investigation, but less of the spin please spotlight
Agree skintown lad
Much as many posters enjoyed seeing junior look shifty I thought there was little enough in the programme, and I was distinctly underimpressed by the bizarre interview with McAllister, which certainly came across as an ambush.
Of course it’s an appropriate thing to question the man about his conviction, but that was apparently not what the interview was supposed to be about. It just seemed cheap shot journalism to me.
Plus I’d be amazed if there was no paperwork proving Paisley was the owner of the house, having experienced the farce that is the Land Registry. Why not wait for the evidence Junior was claiming his solicitor could produce- or would that have holed the conspiracy thesis below the waterline? Surely they could have run another programme this week- say on the fiasco that is the Republic football team? I’d have watched it
Have we not heard all this before, houses, developers, dodgy administration, lobbying for friends, meals we cant remember. Maybe FF will merge with the DUP and whey can all live happy ever after.
yes darth. i couldn’t quite make out the point of that part of the McAllister interview either. the programme was meant to be about the causeway and then they just threw in a bit of a benefit fraud story too. not sure what they were hoping to achieve, other than some footage of someone storming away from an interview. devalued the investigation in my view – looked more like slinging mud.
i agree that it wouldn’t be too hard to find out whether baby doc paid market price for the house and he seemed open to responding to those questions with proof from his solicitor.
if he did pay market price for the house, what are we left with? they had lunch together and sometimes go to each other’s houses? does that mean politicians aren’t allowed to be friends with their constituents? or if they are allowed, they have to make sure any of those constituents are road sweepers and binmen and do not have an interest in any change in their locality?
‘Smoking gun’ seems to be a favourite of Junior’s; it’s even polluting discourse on Slugger!!
“There are no skeletons in his closet,” his son insists. “There’s nothing in his life which is a secret. The search for the smoking gun is a fruitless search.” .. Guardian September 16, 2004
Presumably the Paisleys will now be able to explain why McAllister is still a party member.
Will the Chuckle Brothers be able to explain why they haven’t raised the matter of a possible breach of the Ministerial Code, a poser not explored in Spotlight but mentioned on SoT?
“Duty to bring matters to the attention of the
executive Committee
2.4 Any matter which:-
(i) cuts across the responsibilities of two or more Ministers;”
Dodds has already made a decision and Foster is ‘minded’ to make one in favour of the recently renamed Seaport (NI) Limited – director and fellow DUP member, Seymour Henry Sweeney. Another case for MC defender Robinson?
There could also be a controversial aspect. Foster met a delegation from Coleraine Borough on July 9, nine days before she and at least one of her senior officials visited the proposed Visitor Centre; the new site is in clear breach of the UNESCO report. The delegation raised inter alia the problems of mushroom development associated with a Seaport/Sweeney project on Mountsandel Road , Coleraine.
Many people are opposed to the Sweeney plans for development.
These views have been aired and we are in danger of going round in circles.
What objections have been lodged?
If permission is denied what appeal procedure is open to him?
This looks like a long process the outcome of which is uncertain.
There is nothing new in this piece of nonsense, Ian bought a property from a developer whose development he supported for planning. So What ?
No matter how many times the media rake over this there is still no wrongdoing, they should stop wasting taxpayers money following a vendetta because Ian spoke out against sin in our society.
“There could also be a controversial aspect. Foster met a delegation from Coleraine Borough on July 9, nine days before she and at least one of her senior officials visited the proposed Visitor Centre; the new site is in clear breach of the UNESCO report. The delegation raised inter alia the problems of mushroom development associated with a Seaport/Sweeney project on Mountsandel Road , Coleraine.”
apologies if i’m a bit thick, nevin, but what is the controversial aspect?
Darth, I want to have another look at that video but it’s not yet online.
McAllister has already spoken on the BBC (Nolan Show) about his relationship with Sweeney. Why did he walk away from this interview – after praising the quality of Seaport projects? Was he concerned that he might then be asked about Robinson Interiors vs Seaport?
No stone being left unturned in Causeway debate…#7
McAllister’s presence had been deleted from earlier BBC photos of the ‘owl and the pussycats’ although all three DUP elected representatives have assisted Seaport projects.
I’ve watched other BBC interviews with Sweeney where we were treated to models of the Seaport proposed Visitor Centre and statements were read out on behalf of the developer. Now IMO that looks too much like the BBC acting as a PR company.
“What objections have been lodged?”
Ulsterfan, I understand that there might be around 100 objections and that the Environment Committee is still trying to get a sight of all the documentation that was made available to Minister Foster. The documents were numbered and apparently #1 and #3 were missing from the public file. Perhaps David Ford can update us on this.
“If permission is denied what appeal procedure is open to him?”
It might just be through the courts. This planning application is proceeding under Article 31:
In practice, most Article 31 applications in the past have been dealt with by Notice of Opinion, indicating that the Department proposes to either grant or refuse planning permission. This is likely to remain the case in future.
However, the Department may cause a public local inquiry to be held where it is considered that the inquiry process will provide additional information to inform the Department in making a final planning decision.
A key test for the Department in deciding the process route will be whether a public local inquiry is necessary to provide all the information to enable the planning decision to be taken.
The volume of public objections received to a planning application will not be a determining factor in the decision as to whether a public local inquiry is required. An important issue for the Department in respect of public comment is the content of all types of representations rather than the volume, and whether they raise issues that cannot be satisfactorily considered through normal consultation arrangements.
The Minister doesn’t have to proceed through the Planning Appeals Commission – a route that an earlier application foundered on in 2002. She has already said that she is minded to say YES.
“apologies if i’m a bit thick, nevin, but what is the controversial aspect?”
Have a look at this Skinlad:
I do not know the applicant, have never met him, and know nothing about him.
“If anyone impugns my integrity in this matter I will be seeking legal advice and will act accordingly.†.. Foster statement, September 11
As I’ve already claimed, implicitly or explicitly, on Slugger she may not know what the developer has for his breakfast but she was well aware of the controversy surrounding his developments in Coleraine Borough at the meeting on July 9.
I’m informed that she has put part of the Mountsandel Road, Coleraine, project on hold and that she was briefed about other projects inter alia in Portrush and Portballintrae. Presumably her officials briefed her on or around July 18 about the PACNI 2002 and UNESCO 2003 reports when she visited the North Coast.
i’m not sure what you can take from that, nevin. she may legitimately not have linked the man seymour sweeney with his development in coleraine, given that he probably uses different corporate vehicles for different projects. having said that i don’t know the ins and outs of the matter and what should have been obvious etc
even then, i don’t know what you take from the line “i know nothing about him”. that strikes me as the sort of line people say when they mean “yes i’ve heard of him but i don’t have lunch with him like baby doc does”. again, looks like people are reading a bit too much into it.
“does that mean politicians aren’t allowed to be friends with their constituents?”
Of course not Skintown lad.
But when first asked if he knew Sweeney, he said “I know of him”.
Is that how you would normally describe a fishing buddy?
What do you make of this, Skintown – thanks to Google?
“C/2006/0612 Sweeney, Mountsandel Road Deferred 15.20″ Coleraine Borough Council minutes
“C/2006/0612/RM. Approval. Mr S Sweeney Studio Rogers, Nos 51 – 55 Mountsandel Road, Coleraine. A residential development of 18 No. apartments ” planningni.gov.uk
Foster was attended by her officials in Belfast on July 9. I understand one was a planning officer from Coleraine. IIRC she supposedly put a plan for additional apartments on hold subject to further consideration.
no its not. but the fact that baby doc was a bit wary of revealing how much he knows sweeney is not enough to declare him corrupt.
fair enough, nevin. she should have said “i know this guy sweeney has a number of planning applications in for coleraine”, if she could remember and link the name. rather than saying “i know nothing about him”.
but so what? where does that get us?
Skintown, can you please give us your definition of, “I know of him”?
My keu question is what does IPJ’s solicitor say about Ballyallaght? Have they an SDLT5 Stamp Duty form showing it was transferred in 2004/5 or if not why not? If so why is there no application at Land Registry? Alarm bells will be ringing in Northern Bank (I’ll leave the obvious jokes about that to someone else)if they have a mortgage in IPJ & Mrs IPJ’s name for a property not owned by them.
However merely to buy a house in a development you lobbied for while a little disingenuous is not immoral much less illegal – still lots of smoke but no fire (or gun). More innuendo than substance IMHO……..
nevin, i’m afraid i don’t know what the question was so i can’t assess paisley’s answer to it – do you know it?
although subject to that i agree paisley was not presenting the true extent of his relationship with sweeney
my point is that he deserves to be pulled up on this but that the investigation looked weak/incomplete and the spolight programme premature, particularly as they don’t appear to have followed through on the house thing. perhaps spotlight would rather insinuate wrongdoing than disprove themselves
Peter Brown
Yes it is very important that the ownership of the holiday home is cleared up.
My experience of these things is that it would not be registered in a ‘new owner’s’ name because
1. His solicitor didnt do a thorough job – this has actually happened to me.
2. Land Registery has made a bollix of it – very possible – and this is what IPJ was effectively saying on the programme
3. The house did not pass hands for a financial consideration and those in possession of it havent got around to doing all the paperwork – perhaps giving them room someday to change their minds.
The fact that it could have been a gift was being hinted at in the programme.
IPJ could of course clear all this up in minutes – ie produce the Northern Bank Statements and draw down documentation that support his assertion that he is paying a monthly Direct Debit for the loan – it is all very simple.
Needless to say if 3 was the case this would be catastrophic for IPJ considering what he has been saying about the matter.
He should forget about solicitors statements and produce the Bank Statements and he could actually use this to knock for six all the programme’s insinuations.
If he cant produce the Bank Statements then he is in deep shit..
This matter should be pursued to a conclusion.
strange lighting on little ian on that show
I might be wrong but until very recently, may even have been some time in 2005 it was not compulsary to inform the land registry people about a new owner..can anyone confirm this?
Either way, it is just another example of the DUP’s jobs for the boys (and wives and sons…and daughters) attitude to life….I am not surprised, even if they can wiggle their way out it still stinks.
This type of behavior has always been hinted at prevously, I think Robinson also ‘knows of’ Frazer and his son lives/ed in a Frazer house – I wonder how much he paid for that?
There certainly may have been little new on the programme for denizens of Slugger.
But the whole business may have just been received for the first time by a wider audience.
as i see it, if an elected representative sees something as good for an area he is entitled to support it, whether or not he happens to be friends with people interested in it. where paisley appears to have gone wrong is not being entirely open about the fact that he is friends with the person interested in the causeway plan.
at another level of seriousness, an elected representative is obliged to declare any personal financial interest in the matter and is obviously not permitted to accept inducements for personal gain for lending his support.
if paisley is guilty of the second point (by gaining from the house) he should be hung drawn and quartered. this completely overshadows the first point in terms of seriousness. the disappointing thing about the spotlight programme is that they messed about trying to prove the first point and didn’t do enough investigating of the second, instead relying on the fog they had generated through all that nonsense about McAllister and his benefit fraud. the fact that the second, much more sensational story, was not built on very solid foundations, suggests that spotlight found it couldn’t be built at all.
JEB
Of your options
1. Hard to believe that a solicitor was caught out….but I would say that wouldn’t I!!! If so he / she would have to state this in his statement so even less likely to get a confession about this from his solicitor!
2. Would be plausible except that as James Russell pointed out (SL beware he is in fact an expert!) there is no application pending ie lodged 3 years later but ordinarily more likely than 1. but for this
3. Stamp Duty forms would had to have been submitted within 30 days of completion irrespective of whether it was payable or not and therefore IPJ or his lawyer should be able to produce the relevant SDLT5 HMRC Certificate from 2004 or 2005 and put this to bed once and for all – if not why not. It’s a better indicator than bank statements…..
mmmmmmm
“I might be wrong but until very recently, may even have been some time in 2005 it was not compulsary to inform the land registry people about a new owner..can anyone confirm this?”
Sorry but you are wrong….
“SDLT5 HMRC Certificate”
Peter, could an FoI request succeed in releasing the information contained in the document relating to #1 Ballyallaght Farm Cottages?
Interesting to note that when Sweeney actually sat down and explained his proposals and all of the to-ing and fro-ing there has been over the issue on Nolan today, 58% of people who teted in said they would support his development proposals. But sure, lets not let that get in the way of (a) trying to destroy Ian Paisley’s reputation and (b) trying to portray Seymour Sweeney as the Devil Incarnate.
Fact of the matter is that Sweeney’s development will save the tax-payer £20million.
The whole thing was a hatchet job from start to finish. I particularly liked the close camera shots of Ian Junior with a light shining directly in his face in order to pick up any facial movement at all and make him look especially sinister.
Oh and as for the deed of transfer stuff. I am sorting mine out at present – 2 years after selling my home. Solicitors make cock-ups and land registry is useless!
texted in , not teted in
Doubt FoI applies to the Inland Revenue but I expect that there will be an application lodged in Land Registry very shortly and you should be able to see it then….