Thursday, November 01, 2007
Paisley finger pointed in wrong direction…
DESPITE what he said previously about possession being nine-tenths of the law, Ian Paisley Jr still doesn’t legally own the house he claims to have bought off controversial property developer Seymour Sweeney (after lobbying for it to be built - and there’s plenty more to come on the extent of Mr Paisley’s lobbying for Mr Sweeney). After describing it as “an administrative hiccup in Land Registry”, Mr Paisley’s cottage still seems to be registered in Mr Sweeney’s wife’s name. The Land Registry seems to think the fault is Mr Paisley’s, as the application “cannot be processed due to the fact that all the necessary documents are not attached”. The agency added: “This particular application has now been scrutinised and same is incomplete and will be returned to the lodging solicitor.” UPDATE: David Gordon reveals the sustained lobbying by Mr Paisley for the Sweeney Causeway centre, which seems to go somewhat beyond the call of duty to a constituent to me.
To clear up any confusion about ownership on Mr Paisley’s part, LRNI’s statement said:
“Legal ownership rests with the person who is registered as owner on the Land Register. This is the only person who is able to legally deal with the lands - to sell, alter the property, mortgage or charge the property, carry out any works on same.
“Where purchase monies and keys have been exchanged the purchaser will have an equitable interest in the property, but legal ownership will not pass until registration has been effected.”
Land Registry is an agency of the Department of Finance, which is, of course, run by Mr Paisley’s DUP colleague, Peter Robinson.
Meanwhile, Ulster Unionist MEP Jim Nicholson has accused the DUP-controlled Department of the Environment’s Planning Service of “using the cloak of procedure” to avoid a freedom of information (FoI) request to publish documents relating to the Giant’s Causeway Visitors’ Centre discussions.
The News Letter reported:
The MEP asked to see the report, all other departmental documentation, on the Sweeney application, and any correspondence between Department of Enterprise Minister Nigel Dodds and Minister Foster on the future of the visitors’ centre (as Mr Dodds, also on September 10, withdrew support for a publicly backed venture).
Planning Service accepted “strong public interest” in the matter and the need for transparency and accountability, with regard to decisions by the DoE and minister.
But it also noted there had not been a final decision yet.
It said: “As regards the report from the Planning Service to the minister, I wish to advise you this is an internal document which, in our opinion, falls within the terms of the exception under regulation 12 (4) (e) of the Regulations which states that – ‘a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that the request involves the disclosure of internal communications’.”
The letter went on to say: “It is essential that the minister has the time and space required to fully consider all the issues and advice provided before reaching a fully- formed view on the issue at hand. The department believes that this process would be substantially prejudiced by disclosure of advice and guidance provided to the minister prior to a decision being taken.
“The department is therefore of the opinion that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time.”
Mr Nicholson said this raised more serious questions.
These included:
- DoE/Planning Service say the minister has not yet taken a final decision on the application. Why then did the minister disclose that she was of a mind to approve Seymour Sweeney’s application?
- If the DoE Minister has not made her mind up – why then did Tourism Minister Nigel Dodds, on the very same day as the DoE Minister made her announcement, withdraw DETI support for the DETI/NI Tourist Board plans for a visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway?
- DoE has said it does not hold any correspondence between the DoE and the DETI Minister on the issue, yet both ministers made announcements on the visitors’ centre almost simultaneously in the Assembly, on the same day.
- Who are the DOE to decide what the public interest is? Just what are the department hiding?
Commenting further, Mr Nicholson said: “The department is hiding behind the cloak of procedure, refused to disclose the information I requested. In light of what has transpired in recent weeks I find this decision completely bizarre.”
Belfast Gonzo @ 01:40 AM
Great picture of junior.
Looks like he’s been out drinking all night and ended up at a gay bar.Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 01:51 AMAnd he’s starting to hazily recall what happened earlier in the evening…
Seriously, I don’t think this’ll be the final straw in this one. Suspicious and irregular though it looks, it doesn’t prove anything. Solicitors mess up all the time, and I doubt IPJ’s will drop him in the soup here.
I don’t quite understand though why he hasn’t acted to protect his reputation. He could have shown proof of purchase or ongoing mortgage payments to an independent solicitor or other person of good standing and ended all the speculation long ago. His privacy wouldn’t even be particularly intruded upon if he did it that way.
Of course, he could argue he doesn’t have to prove anything as he hasn’t done anything wrong, but I’d have thought at this stage that the whole affair is damaging his reputation so much that he’d want to clear up all doubt once and for all. If it all is above board of course.
The other part of that post that intrigues me is that “there’s plenty more to come on the extent of Mr Paisley’s lobbying for Mr Sweeney.” Don’t be coy Gonzo. What have you got? Or are you enjoying the sweet sensation of letting him run on the end of your line for a little longer?
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 03:01 AMSnakebrain Paisley’s wife showed all the proof regarding his mortgage etc on the Nolan Show last week.
Land Registry does take a while to sort but it seems in this case it is the Solicitor at fault. This happens all the time and many people are not registered as the land owner for quite some time after they purchase a property.
Despite this there are alot of rumours and strange goings on with many developers around North Antrim. A bit of sculldudgery (not sure if that is spelt right) has been going on and it is rumoured that various sites have been passed on between developers as a smokescreen just in case the “Directors” are found out! All a bit strange and it certainly would all add fuel to the fire if it all came out!?
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 08:10 AMWell I suppose Nolan just about qualifies as a person of good standing…
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 08:26 AMthe land registry is what it’s name implies-a register of owners. I.e. it does not prove ownership per se, though naturally most people accept it as the best standard of proof. There are probably many other bits of paper proving ownership- the contract for one
I know of someone who has had papers in the registry for 6 years and no land certificate, though the deal is long done, the house occupied, the money handed over. He owns the house.
I also know of many orange halls with absolutely no title deeds- the ground was given by a local farmer 100 years ago or whatever, and noone ever sorted out title. Of course the lodge owns their hall. Not to mention the thousands of cases of squatters’ title never registered.Whatever issues there may be about this house, the state of its progress in the land registry is definitely not one of them, and the hanging of so much of the Spotlight programme on it was unwise
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 08:45 AM...oh, and if you’re the equitable owner, you’re still the owner- though I mightn’t be keen to buy from you.
And the land registry statement is just wrong when it claims you cannot legally carry out work to or alter unregistered property- or indeed mortgage it- the concept of an equitable mortgage, by handing over title deeds to a lender, is centuries old.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 08:51 AMShades of Dick Nixon here. I can just envisage the above photograph of the Boy Wonder with the strapline,
“Would you buy a used house from this man?”
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 09:50 AMHe looks a bit like that Shoukri guy in that pic..
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:01 AM“Don’t be coy Gonzo. What have you got?”
Snakebrain, Bonar Law has been struggling with this one and fair_deal may not have spotted it:
“Amused, the Paisleys won’t be amused when they read the yarn about Paisley snr failed to spot the bathroom suite in the piggery.”
If you click on First Minister you’ll see two familiar faces of the movers and shakers. The transfer of ownership of the railway company might be worth a look.
Then there’s the matter of the drift net licence: affidavits, crew lists and names of licenceholders and boats since 2000.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:08 AMSee the update.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:24 AMOh dear, I really do think he’s getting shafted in the ass well and truly this time.
Have fun boys.... :)
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:26 AMsnakebrain
There is alot of nonsense posted on slugger some masquerading as an opinion but most based mostly on stupidity and bigotry however your post takes the biscuit! - surely in no one’s twisted imagination can Nolan be considered a ‘person of good standing’
:)
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:26 AMOff the top of my head, that’s about 8 confirmed sightings of the two of them together. Bit much to say you just know of him at that stage.
I’ve had girlfriends I’ve spent less time with than that.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:29 AMis it just me, or has he been to the same hair dresser as michael stone? :D
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:32 AMIn any other democracy in the world he would resign - well actually he never would have made it this far he would have had to have resigned about half a dozen times already, but this one is unreal.......in any other place in the world he would have to fall on his sword rather that screaming for his daddy for help.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:33 AMWell if it comes down to that, I’m sure he can always get a job as full-time lobbyist for Seymour Sweeney.
Oh, hang on a minute, he already does that......
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:37 AMmmmmmmmmmm
Nah, Nolan’s ok. I’ve had pints with him half a dozen times, I’m godfather to his children and I witnessed his will.
But I can’t really say I know him.
I just know of him really :)
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:40 AMThe David Gordon piece is interesting but raises the question, if all the lobbying and interference had got nowhere over so long what was it that made Arlene and Nigel reverse the Governments position given that neither talked to each other nor to anyone else about the issue. A coincidence of timing doesn’t quite cover it and I for for one don’t believe in telepathy (though Baby Doc appears capable of morphing into Papa Doc when writing letters)
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:45 AMAs you can see from #9, the Paisleys and Sweeney have been a triple act since at least 1999. The Paisleys are fond of publicity so the paper trail will be very extensive.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 10:45 AMSteve48, we’re now in a new dispensation. The Chuckle Brothers more or less run the show and one of them is Dodds and Foster’s party boss; the other hasn’t spoken.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 11:03 AMWe couldn’t shame Paisley into doing the right thing 3 decades ago with his fire and brimstone routine just to get power and forget his rightiousness act now so let’s hope the Inland Revenue et al will do a better job.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 11:04 AMI’m trying to think up of some Peter Mandelson and Paisley jokes about home loans etc. Can anyone help me out? LOL
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 11:09 AMIf the complaint to HOC standards is upheld will that make junior the first persion found against BEFORE becoming an MP.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 11:20 AMDon’t know if it’s worth anything but:
1) Sweeney submitted an objection to the Planning Service, marked “RECEIVED 5 JUL 2005”
“The objection is to the draft plan’s policies for protection of the Giant’s Causeway and its setting. The distinctive landscape setting and the supportive landscape setting are excessively large and the policies for development unnecessarily restrictive.”
And, from http://www.ipjr.net, 5 Aug 2005
“I have been made privy to the Tourist Board’s submission. It is clear from that submission that the Northern Area Plan team did not consult the Tourist Board so much so that they have had to launch a scathing objection to several principles contained in the Draft Plan. They object for example to the Giants Causeway distinctive landscape and setting because of its “prescriptive nature”. It is one thing to ensure that the Draft Northern Area Plan is not subjected to pressure from individuals but for the plan to ignore and fail to consult other major sections of the government is a scandal.”
I just wonder whether the Tourist Board said any such thing, given that the choice of words is so similar to Sweeneys. Ordinarily I wouldn’t bother, but he has form for doing this on the Unesco thing.
Going to make a phone call or two.
Also amusing about the plan coming under pressure from individuals..
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 11:22 AMNoel Adams
I may be struggling (cheers Nevin!) but the one thing I can say with any certainty is thaty Jnr will not be the next MP for North Antrim. His total lack of candour in this matter has seen to that.
Posted by on Nov 01, 2007 @ 11:29 AM
