Ballee Belatedly
One of my regular commenters, RJ, has asked for a specific thread on the Ballee land deal in County Antrim. Belatedly, here it is.
I was away in London last Thursday when Martina Purdy's initial report on the deal aired on 主播大秀 Newsline. But I was on duty at Stormont this Monday when the SDLP's Declan O'Loan put out a statement saying he was referring Ian Paisley Jr.'s role in the deal to the Assembly Standards and Privileges Committee and the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister. Viewers of that night's 主播大秀 Newsline will have seen Ian Jr. join me for an impromptu live appearance during which he accused the SDLP of launching a "witch hunt" against him.
The facts related to the Ballee deal are fairly complex and have been recorded elsewhere on this website.
Some commenters on this site and over on Slugger O'Toole view the deal with their usual scepticism.
However others think that a mountain is being made, if not out of a molehill, then out of nearly 100 acres of County Antrim. On Friday last week a political update from the lobby firm Chambre Public Affairs dropped in my e-mail in box. It accused the 主播大秀 of finding Ian Jr. guilty of nothing more than lobbying for his constituents. I shall put the full Chambre comment in the extended entry below.
Aside from the details of Ballee, one issue which may be worth mentioning concerns the Stormont ministerial code.
So far we have had Peter Robinson accusing Margaret Ritchie of breaking the code, Basil McCrea raising questions about whether Caitriona Ruane has broken the code and Ian Jr. facing a similar line of criticism in relation to both his comments about gays and now the Ballee deal. In relation to the "gay" comments he was exonerated of breaking the Stormont MLAs code of conduct by the Interim Assembly Commissioner for Standards, Tom Frawley.
But neither Mr Frawley nor the Assembly Standards and Privileges Committee have any remit over the Executive's Ministerial Code, only over the rules that govern ordinary MLAs. That's why Declan O'Loan also referred his complaint to the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister. The Ministerial Code has legal force, so I suppose that ultimately it could be tested in the courts, but in terms of investigating whether or not it has been upheld there does not seem to be any other system of external assessment.
Here is the section of the Chambre Political Update dealing with Ballee:
Ian Paisley Junior - guilty
The 主播大秀 having made a mountain out of a molehill or rather an entire documentary out of Ian Paisley Junior's friendship with Seymour Sweeney and the failure of Junior's solicitor to properly register a property he bought from Mr Sweeney. The 主播大秀 has found Ian Junior guilty of lobbying on behalf of his constituents. The constituents, who want to buy back land from the Executive, which they were forced to sell many decades ago, happen to be dealing with a consortium of businessmen that include Seymour Sweeney - apparently this is a misdemeanour in the eyes of the 主播大秀 too.
One does not know what facts will emerge in the future but I'm afraid the 主播大秀 are being long on insinuation and short on facts at present. Ian Junior is guilty in this case - but only of extreme naivety. Now that he is a junior minister, he, and his father, a member of the Executive, would be well advised to hand any constituency work that might lead to any accusations of conflicts of interest to the third DUP MLA, the highly able Mervyn Storey. Mind you that might assist Mr Storey's possible bid for the DUP Westminster nomination when ever the First Minster steps down from Westminster
I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
its Quite simple, as the constituents were to be paid a percentage of the sale price by the developers it was in their interest as much as the the general public's to see this land go for as high a price as possible, the only people loosing out being Mr Sweeney et al who would have to pay through the nose for it,
this being the case its clear whose interests Ian jnr was looking after in brokering as cheap a deal as possible
Mark
BALLEE BUNKUM & BALONEY NEEDS TO BE CHALLENGED
鈥淪ome commenters on this site and over on Slugger O'Toole view the deal with their usual scepticism.鈥
In my case, I would have preferred this sentence not to include the words: 鈥渢heir usual鈥. I am not sceptical because it鈥檚 in my nature. I am an unbiased sceptic, prepared to listen to anyone鈥檚 argument but I don鈥檛 have to accept it without question. I want proof.
In my Post of 10 December to your Blog headed 鈥淢artina Purdy鈥 /blogs/thereporters/markdevenport/2007/12/martina_purdy.html I was simply asking Paisley Junior to demonstrate that what he says about his involvement in the Ballee imbroglio is true by providing provide irrefutable evidence to support his claims.
Paisley Junior was unconvincing and shifty in his interviews with Ms Purdy and you. His claim of a 鈥渨itch hunt鈥 by the SDLP and elements within Sinn Fein looked like a diversionary tactic by a man under pressure and a very negative way to prove his claims.
In summary, I will listen to Bunkum & Baloney but don鈥檛 ask me to believe it.
Susie
Carryduff
BALLEE 鈥 BELATEDLY
While it is not for me to defend the 主播大秀, I would comment on the Chambre Public Affairs section.
1. 鈥溾ut of Ian Paisley Junior鈥檚 friendship with Seymour Sweeney鈥
Ian Paisley Junior was asked on the 主播大秀 if he knew Seymour Sweeney and his reply was 鈥淚 know of him鈥 鈥 well then, not up close and personal.
2. 鈥溾roperty he bought from Mr Sweeney鈥︹
Was the said property not registered in Mrs Sweeney鈥檚 name?
3. 鈥淚an Junior is guilty in this case 鈥 but only of extreme naivety鈥.
Well, if he is that na茂ve, he should not be a Junior Minister in the Executive. If a Pope can appoint his 鈥榥ephews鈥 to office, then on an equal opportunity basis, why not the Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church appoint his son to office? Ah! But it was a mandatory appointment!
May I, through the Devonport Diaries, congratulate your colleague, Martina Purdy on her excellent report? Let me know if Ms Purdy needs a longer spade to dig deeper!
In my opinion Ian Paisley Junior is not guilty of misconduct. He seems to have represented his constituents in a fair and proper matter by wanting what is best for them. By looking for the best price this is only what any normal person would want to do. If you look at "Paisley land" the record shows that these residents in and around the Ballymena constituency have been treated very well in comparison to other parts of N. Ireland. The recent flooding shows this. Several towns and village in counties Down and Armagh were flooded while Ballymena escaped unscathed. While politicians in these areas fluff about doing as little as possible the Paisley's are out shouting and demanding proper action and they get it. I say fair play to them.
I would also hope this whole saga highlights again how incompetent the DSD are. Instead of these silly civil servants which apparently are Grade 5 and higher floating about drinking tea and eating scones they would be better served to address housing problems, the CSA and also benefit cheats. Come on DSD lets see positive changes.
The situation bears close resemblance to a Yes Minister skit. It's a question of Hats Minster. As they noted when one has two faces, wearing two hats becomes easier. The conflict of interest is obvious.
Right or wrong, truth or fiction it has to be remembered that Ian Paisley (jun) was verbally attacked in a public place by Mrs O'Loan and it seems that (jun) was not the instigator of aggression. Could it be that the O'Loans are snooping around for revenge more than the desire to uphold good practice.
Thanks for that Mark. I agree with that lobby group that Jnr. is guilty of nothing more than lobbying for his constituents in this particular episode of Sweeneygate.
There are plenty of aspects of his relationship with Mr. Sweeney, and his subsequent attempts at explanation that are at best distasteful to the ordinary straightforward Ulsterman.
However, it is my opinion that the land should have been sold back to the original owners at the price it was taken from them at. Vesting of land all over the province saw families forced to sell their land for a pittance. Now it gets sold by councils to developers because the original owners can't afford to buy it back.
It happened to my family. My grandfather lived in a listed building with about 20 acres of Co. Armagh orchards around it. It had been in the family for about 300 years, and the house was 150 years old.
Then along came the local council and the land became theirs. Shortly after my grandfather died the house was knocked down because the council didn't maintain it properly. In fact for a couple of years they used it to house tenants who weren't welcome in housing estates. They have since ripped out the orchards, replaced all the hedges with fences and chopped down a small woodland.
Another neighbouring farmer tragically put a shotgun in his mouth because he couldn't afford the rent the council were charging him for what was previously his own land.
I am fully behind Jnr and his constituents on this one. My only regret is that they need Sweeney's money to buy back what should always have been theirs, before giving it up to Sweeney.
This is risible stuff from Will Chambre.
Man who makes his living influence peddling says influencing peddling is A-OK and hacks shouldn't ask too many 'stupid' questions.
What a surprise.