Ian Paisley Jnr fined £5000 for contempt of court
The profit made by Sarcon 250 the Ballymena Advice Centre Ltd doesn’t quite cover Ian Paisley Jnr’s reported fine for contempt of court – £5000. Apparently he’s also had costs awarded against him. And then there’s this in the iol report
Mr Paisley also heavily criticised the Billy Wright inquiry lawyer, John Larkin QC, who yesterday told the court the MLA would relish being imprisoned for defying the order because it would further his political career. The former Stormont junior minister described those remarks as “flippant, trite and trivial”.Mr Larkin has been earmarked by the DUP/Sinn Féin-led Stormont administration as the North’s attorney-general when justice powers are finally devolved from Westminster. Significantly, when Mr Paisley was asked about Mr Larkin taking on the role, he cryptically said: “A lot of things could happen.” “John will come to regret the day he said those things because I think he knows they were not in keeping or in touch with the realities and the sensitivities of this case.”
I wondered about this. Larkin was the DUP’s advisor at St Andrews and is the DUP/SF choice for Attorney General. Assuming he still is, then one wonders what Paisley Jr could possibly do to make Larkin regret his remarkable quote.
IPJ’s clout isn’t what daddy’s was, is it? Or does he just think Larkin’s conscience may eventually kick in?
Didn’t I mention earlier that some MLAs are simply pompous windbags?
Yeah Joe. MLAs are flippant, trite and trivial.
Oh well, IPJ lost this one.
I wonder if he’ll put some effort into the Rosemary Nelson murder inquiry. I certainly would in his shoes.
Guys
If we could keep it civil, and on topic.
The problem is that this was a serious allegation and if the authorities cannot question the person who made it then the veracity of the statement cannot be examined. Paisley should not have made his statement without corroboration or an agreement with the person that he could be named.
Keep it civil says Pete, the opening premise of whose thread is uncivil and nasty.
Ah Bisto (no pun intended) he has a point. Sorry Pete.
Yeah Pete, what’s the Ballymena Advice Centre malarkey got to do with this case?
Villager, is it a problem that Pete can walk and chew gum at the same time?
“Paisley should not have made his statement without corroboration or an agreement with the person that he could be named”
Oh do get with the programme Joe!
Just like all the other statements by politicians over the years made without a shred of evidence and frequently made up for political purposes or gleaned in a saloon bar from ‘knowledgeable sources’?
I hold no brief for Junior but why should he or his ‘source’ be treated one way and Suzanne Breen another? Yes it is an important matter and yes its the duty of the Tribunal to examine the allegation. And it can do so without the source although it would be better if it had access to him or her.
But like all the other Tribunals this is really a big legalistic game of manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre in which objective truth is a secondary issue. It’s about process, not outcome and because so many will lie and obfuscate on the most basic of issues the whole truth will never appear in most of the cases.
I think it’s a bit hypocritical for him to berate others for going off topic, when he conflates the contempt of court issue with the advice centre issue. I’m not wetting myself about it but people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
“A lot of things could happen.” “John will come to regret the day he said those things”
Is there a culture of persecution in politics here?
SFIRA did an extreme version to working justice officials in their time and does IJP think he is now free to blight the careers of people who do not oblige him? Where does this stop for the DUP? Planning issues? Government contracts?
We are full UK or Irish citizens per choice and will not be bullied.
How many enemies does IJP and his sorry gang of sectarian opportunists imagine they can afford?
It’s not like a Paisley to be “flippant trite or trivial” though. Not for them a cheap remark about the colour of hosiery of the occupant of St Peter’s, or the casting of aspersions as to the aesthetics of the current’s Taoiseach’s visage….no- these are serious men, Roman senators being their model for propriety and quiet dignity