Iris pursued by gay activist?

Interesting spot on Pat Kenny now, Eamonn, Mark Devenport and Stephen King… Kenny alleging that there has been a gay activist on Iris case ever since the abomination accusation… Eamonn saying that the money question is the important one…

I’ll be on Talkback later on…


  • Paul Doran

    Let’s hope that if there is financial wrongdoings that they will suffer the consequences. There is far to much of on these 2 islands.Unfortunately no one is doing time for it.If it were I , I would be in Mountjoy(Local prison) already. look at the number of people in prison in the 26 for not paying their tv licence.

  • Mick Fealty

    Listener just said that if they do fall on finances, it would not happen in the south…


    Going back to Mr Robinson’s tv interview yesterday, did anyone notice the box set of The Sopranos on the bookshelf behind the journo when the camera angle changed?
    He deserves a bit of credo for that, surely?

  • Nicely put by Shaun Woodward, “We have got to understand there is a need to distinguish between what is genuinely of public interest and what is interesting to the public,”

    and hard though it may be for some, and just like in the Adams case, it is time to let the dust settle rather than kicking up even more.

  • Driftwood

    I thought the ‘Queer as Folk’ DVD’s beside it gave him even more cred.

  • ding dong

    “Kicking up even more”??

    There has been two clear attempts to manipulate the media now one when iris resigned and yesterday.

    if you want privacy you dont go on national TV and bear your soul unless you are after something else.

    Cynically I can see no reason why 9 months after the events discribed yesterday Peter Robinson should have cut such a broken figure, two weeks ago he was his jolly potentially nasty arrogant self – so what changed?

    Peter and Iris have lived their lives in the media have courted the media have used the media and yesterday was just an extention of their ongoing media use

    I would have had more sympathy if back in March or even when iris resigned a simple statement had been issued giving brief facts and asking for privacy – this circus is of Peter’s makng and for his purpose

  • Mayoman

    MU: “Nicely put by Shaun Woodward, “We have got to understand there is a need to distinguish between what is genuinely of public interest and what is interesting to the public,”

    If only Iris had held to this premise, she may not have ended up being hoisted so high on her own petard!

  • Eleanor Bull

    “two weeks ago he was his jolly potentially nasty arrogant self – so what changed?”


  • ding dong

    But will spotlight still run, or has he done enough by clever use of the media to build a head of sympathy steam??

  • Mr. J.

    The Robinsons are extremely adept at keeping details of their private lives out of the media spotlight. This ‘interview’ was a carefully planned media exercise to maintain Peter’s position as an MP, MLA and party lead, and to allow Iris some breathing room when her position as a DUP politician and moral guardian was revealed to be untenable.

    Eamonn is right, what has happened in the past day is a smokescreen to deflect attention from what is to come, especially regarding financial impropriety.

    I just hope the ‘other man’ isn’t Seymour bloody Sweeney.


    Given that the media were unlikely to simply allow Peter to maintain a a dignified silence I don’t think we can fault him for going down the route of prepared statement in front of the camera and also ask for privacy.
    Of course parts of his statement were cringeworthy but I doubt that lessens his humiliation in having to say it.
    As of yet I haven’t seen anything to suggest he’s done anything wrong but his wife most certainly has.
    If you want your bedroom antics kept private, don’t use your position as a public figure to lambast others for theirs.

  • “As of yet I haven’t seen anything to suggest he’s done anything wrong but his wife most certainly has”

    Having a few away days is a politically neutral act there is nothing politically wrong in that – it is strictly a matter for those involved.

  • Mr. J.


    I think that whenever you allow your religious beliefs and moral fortitude to form part of your political and public identity, it becomes more than a matter for just those involved. Especially, as TAFKABO has pointed out, when you use your position to dehumanise an entire section of society.


    Moderate Unionist are you really unaware of Iris’ previous form on the sex lives of others, or the numerous times she has presented herself as a Christian and demanded respect as a result of her faith?

    There’s always something politically wrong in appointing yourself the moral guardian of others but failing to practice what you preach.
    It was Iris Robinson who brought her morality into the public sphere, no one else.

  • Secret Squirrel

    What’s the craic then folks ? Is it correct that while the adulterous moral guardian was slagging of the sexuality of others, she was (or had been) covertly forking about with multiple partners ?


    same principle should apply in ALL cases – a person’s sexuality, including an occasional away day, whether they are male, female or gay or other, should be a matter for themselves. The fact that Iris has not adhered to that principle in the past should not alter that.


    In recent years the comedian Stewart Lee was subject to a private court case by the group Christian Voice who tried to have him and the director of the BBC prosecuted for blasphemy (I know, a blasphemy prosecution in this day and age, what kind of idiots think that’s going to work?). Thankfully the attempted prosecution not only failed but bankrupted the founder and leader of Christian Voice.
    Incredibly, just as we see people insisting we should be sympathetic to Robinson, the leader of Christian Voice had the brass neck to make a public statement demanding that Stewart Lee, the man he tried to have jailed, waive the legal fees he was owed by Christian Voice as a result of having to fight their court action, he cited ‘fair play’.

    Whilst sickening me, neither Robinson or the leader of Christian Voice’s calls for sympathy surprise me. the religious, especially Christians have been raised with the expectation of special treatment as a result of their faith. they honestly believe the rest of us ought to make allowances because they believe in middle eastern fairy tales.

    So we are told that Jesus has forgiven Iris, and surely, if Jesus thinks it’s now all OK, how could any of us disagree with himself?

    Are we really going to allow ourselves to be swayed by the claims that some magic sky pixie has spoken in Iris’ head and told her that it’s all done with?


    MU, once again you miss the point. Iris brought her morality into the public sphere, take the matter up with her if you think this is no place for it.

  • Mr. J.


    I agree that an individual’s sexuality should be a private matter.

    But, when Iris decided to use her public platform to condemn people for that very reason, and began acting as a moral protector, she made any question of her own sexual behaviour a matter of public relevance. It’s the classic ‘people in glass houses’ argument.

    While she was all too happy to single out homosexuals as ‘abominations’, are you arguing that, when she can be singled out as a hypocrite, we should shy away because it’s none of our business?

  • Secret Squirrel

    Did you happen to see Mr Lee winning his heat of Celebrity Mastermind the other day ? :o)


    Haven’t seen it yet SS, will check online for it.

  • Paddy

    “Iris pursued by gay activist?”

    Should that read gay fascist or homosexual fascist bandwagon jumper?

  • Rory Carr

    The answer to that question, Paddy is, I’m afraid, “NO!”.

    Behave yourself.

  • georgieleigh

    “Iris pursued by gay activist.”

    Persist girl, she’ll yield in the end.

  • Mr J,

    her own sexual behaviour is a matter for herself, I didnt agree with what she said but the principle still holds irrespective of whether she has left herself open to the charge of hypocricy.

  • Alias

    [i]Nicely put by Shaun Woodward, “We have got to understand there is a need to distinguish between what is genuinely of public interest and what is interesting to the public,” – Moderate Unionist[/i]

    That is nicely put, but not by Mr Woodward. Public interest versus of interest to the public is a cliché.

    He also said that “the public must respectfully decline any further interest because it’s none of their business.” It is none of the Secretary of State’s business to dictate what is properly the public’s business.

    It is, of course, Mr Woodward who fails to distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is interesting to the public. Publication of information that the wife of an MP has had an affair with someone young enough to be her grandson is certainly interesting to the public but publication of the information cannot be justified as being in the public interest. However, if there is information that an MP who has lectured society to live by moral values in the bible, condemning those social groups who she deemed not to live by those commandments, does not live by those values herself, then it is in the public interest to publicise that information as the public can then decide whether or not they regard a hypocrite as being a fit person to hold public office. Usually, the public do not elect people who they are aware are hypocrites (murderers, of course, are a different matter).

    Also, Ms Robinson has put her own information into the public domain, so it is bizarre of the Secretary of State to demand that the public ignore information that is in the public domain in the privacy interests of the person who has placed that information into the public domain. If the person had not done so and if that person was not a public figure and the information not relevant to the public interest, then he might have a rational basis to lecture the public even if he has no official basis.

    In short, Mr Woodward should keep his nose out of the public’s business.

  • Secret Squirrel

    Sorry to go off topic again :o(
    The blasphamy court case thing or stuff relevant, was on a tv programme once…

    It’s good for a laugh.