Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Spotlight on the Causeway…
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.
Mick Fealty @ 07:53 PM
The Spotlight video should be available for a week from tomorrow - but you might not want to wait ;)
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 09:14 PMOver 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.
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 09:58 PMBaby Doc is under serious pressure. Hiccup my arse!
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 09:59 PMA good well researched BBC Spotlight expose that also avoided a lot of libellous pitfalls.
Stinks!
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 10:14 PMThat 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.
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 10:15 PMOn 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’.
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 10:21 PMPerhaps 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.
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 10:27 PMOr 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?)
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 10:34 PMstinks 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 leastPosted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 10:41 PMPaisley Jnr clearly doesn’t like it up him.
Good work, Kevin Magee.
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 10:46 PMIn 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.
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 10:55 PMSeymour 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…
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 11:00 PMThe 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!!
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 11:20 PMSpotlight tonight was a complete and utter waste of taxpayers’ money…
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 11:28 PMWhat 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.
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 11:36 PMThere 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.
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 11:36 PMBelfast 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...?
Posted by on Oct 23, 2007 @ 11:40 PMIt’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!
Posted by on Oct 24, 2007 @ 12:20 AMthere 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.
Posted by on Oct 24, 2007 @ 01:24 AMDecent 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.
Posted by on Oct 24, 2007 @ 06:42 AM“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?
Posted by on Oct 24, 2007 @ 08:28 AMi 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
Posted by on Oct 24, 2007 @ 08:42 AMOutsider, it’s maybe worth having a closer look at the McAllister link in #13:
“A man was convicted at Coleraine Magistrates Court on 5 May [2006] for obtaining benefits to which he was not entitled.
David McAllister (52) of Huey Crescent, Bushmills was fined £200 for claiming Incapacity Benefit to the value of £17,744 while working.
Mr McAllister has to repay the money he received to the Social Security Agency.”
On the same day in the same court we have:
“Robert Wilson (22) of Carnany Drive [Ballymoney] was fined £100 for wrongfully claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance to the value of £105.
Mr Wilson has to repay the money he received to the Social Security Agency.”
Two days later in Belfast:
“Sara Byrne (30) of Lisvanna Heights was sentenced to 12 months probation for wrongfully cashing Income Support cheques to the value of £74.24.
Miss Byrne has to repay the money she received to the Social Security Agency.”
On the 31st May in Dungannon:
“Anne Largey (32) of Laurel View, Killymeal Road, Dungannon was found guilty of benefit fraud at Belfast Magistrates Court yesterday (30 May 2006) and fined £250. She claimed £2974 in Disability Living Allowance benefit between May 2004 and January 2005 despite being ineligible as she was working at the time.
Miss Largey has to repay the money she received to the Social Security Agency.”
And on the 27 June in Lisburn:
“ASSETS OF BENEFIT FRAUDSTER ARE CONFISCATED
The Social Security Agency today won its first case under the Proceeds of Crime Act to confiscate assets gained through benefit fraud.
At Craigavon Crown Court the Agency was granted a Confiscation Order to the value of £22,261 against a woman from Dunmurry.
The woman was convicted at Lisburn Magistrate’s Court on January 26 for falsely claiming benefits as a single parent whilst living with her husband who was in full-time employment.
A spokesperson for the Agency said: “This is the first case which the Agency has taken to a confiscation hearing and we are delighted with the result. It sends out the important message that crime does not pay. Benefit fraud costs £28m per year in Northern Ireland.
“Through the application of the Proceeds of Crime Act, people who commit benefit fraud can be stripped of the assets which they have illegally gained. Our Fraud Investigation Unit has further similar cases in the pipeline. We will also continue to work in partnership with the Assets Recovery Agency. “
NOTES TO EDITORS:
1. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 created the Assets Recovery Agency and provided new powers to recover the proceeds of unlawful activity. These powers also extend to civilian financial investigators of law enforcement authorities hat they have been accredited by the ARA.
2. The Social Security Agency intends to use these powers and established a Financial Investigation Unit in April 2005.”
Those who wish to do further research on this topic can read the Department for Social Development archives.
I suppose David can consider himself very lucky to have got off with a small fine and to be able to retain his Merc - and escape probation.
Posted by on Oct 24, 2007 @ 08:55 AMAgree 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
Posted by on Oct 24, 2007 @ 08:58 AMHave 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.
Posted by on Oct 24, 2007 @ 08:58 AM
