Monday, February 18, 2008

Junior Junior Resigns - What a difference a year makes

The news today that Ian Paisley Jr has handed in his resignation as Junior Minister, followed a turbulent few months in his high-profile post.

The politician (pictured) talked to The Gown in September about the eventful 12 months which had passed since the Fresher's Bazaar 2006 when he had demanded that Sinn Fein "cross the Rubicon" before any power-sharing would take place. Ian Jr told us he enjoyed the "business-like relationship" he had with his nationalist colleagues. It looks like another interesting interview set for this year's clubs and societies day...if he shows up.

There were calls for his resignation following anti-gay remarks made in September 2007. Mr Paisley admitted he is "pretty repulsed by gay and lesbianism". However the storm eventually calmed...just in time for allegations that he had lobbied on behalf of his own constituents with regard to a lucrative land deal. His associations with Seymour Sweeney and others were called into question and a barrage of complaints followed.

Of course the Queen's graduate states firmly that his resignation is in the interests of his party, who he feels have been subjected to unfair criticism as a result of the allegations, rather than a sign of guilt on his own part.

What do you think? Was it time for him to go? Could the Junior Minister's resignation have any resulting effect on his father's time in office as First Minister? Is the Paisley-ite reign coming to an end so soon after it began?


Anonymous yerman said...

blatantly and unashamedly stolen from another website, but so good it had to be repeated...

"must be the first time someone in politics has resigned to spend less time with his family..."

2/18/2008 4:13 pm  
Anonymous Simons said...

I hear Sarah Mc Caffrey is involved

2/18/2008 7:13 pm  
Anonymous SU Mag Guy said...


How could Sarah be involved?

Typical stupid comment from you.

2/19/2008 3:15 pm  
Anonymous Typical Gown User said...

I blame the non-sabbs!

2/19/2008 5:11 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paisley Jnr. may have been foolish but he has done nothing illegal, improper or gone against the ministerial code. Which is certainly more than can be said for certain convicts, killers and spies in the Assembly.

All that Mr Paisley has been accused of is a sneaky web of inferrence lead by those who do not like the Paisleys, the DUP or anything they stand for. Indeed by falling on his sword he has shown himself to be a man who is not afraid to take the heat for something that he has not done anything wrong.

All this shows a man who is upright and a man who is prepared to sacrifice his job in order to protect his constituents, father, party and Northern Ireland.

2/20/2008 1:29 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Hogg, your defence of a homophobic, corrupt, sectarian, money-obsessed politician is admirable... is he your hero? .. probably.

2/20/2008 6:41 pm  
Anonymous John said...


This has gotta be the most constructive comment so far on the gown this year.

I disagree. Paisley has done everything wrong.

If the UK Mainland rules applied here he would be in trouble.

2/20/2008 8:06 pm  
Anonymous Sarah C said...

Wow to the person above. I didn't know the DUP had a PR mole at Queens. I also wasn't aware that Ian Paisley Jnr was Spiderman. "A man who is prepared to sacrifice his job in order to protect his constituents, father, party and Northern Ireland"

Does he wear a cape as well?

2/21/2008 11:29 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

glad he is gone

2/21/2008 10:24 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lets be honest anyone in the DUP can not be trusted... equally anyone in the DUA can not be trusted. all a bunch of twits

2/22/2008 12:37 pm  
Anonymous Grow up said...

Anon aka Helferty your assumptions that it was Mr Hogg that wrote the commetn defending Jr couldnt be any further fro the truth

2/22/2008 3:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon. "Mr Hogg, your defence of a homophobic, corrupt, sectarian, money-obsessed politician is admirable... is he your hero? .. probably."

First of all may I ask you to define how Mr. Paisley has been any of the above accusations? The above accusations are certainly libellous.

Secondly I admire your rhetoric, some of the best that I have seen but sadly it is not backed up with logic so I shall point out a number of logical fallacies in the above statement which you made.
- Argumentum ad Odium, The above statement is an appeal to the emotion of hatred, you do not counteract what I have said you merely accuse Mr. Paisley of 4 types of (what is seen by most people as) negative personality traits which most people disagree with and then with that emotional backing use that to sway people to disagree with me.
-Plurium Interrogationum (Or the complex question fallacy), You have an assumption of the guilt of Mr. Paisley on all the above charges and then ask me a question in a yes or no format when it is not a yes or no answer when in reality (due to the statement that precedes) the question you ask is a compilation of questions as opposed to a single one.
-Argumentum Ad Homineum, Yes, I suppose one could argue that this is included too, by the very fact that the issue of his resignation was not over sectarianism or homophobia (it did come into the article but it was not why he resigned) and use this against Mr. Paisley to bulk out the argument. You then finish this off by asking whether he was my hero and without waiting for a reply suggest that the “bad man” (constructed by your rhetoric) is, implying that as he is so am I (as I see him as my hero), Focus on the argument not the person please.
- A One Sided Argument, Anyone can choose to look only at the negatives of one subject (in this case Mr. Paisley) and ignore the positive. Granted you could argue that I was also being one sided in my first statement but then again I conceded that he was “foolish”.

Thirdly why assume I am Mr. Hogg? I could be anyone.

2/22/2008 7:28 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This has gotta be the most constructive comment so far on the gown this year.
I disagree. Paisley has done everything wrong.
If the UK Mainland rules applied here he would be in trouble."

Thank you for your kind words.

Indeed you may disagree with me that is what freedom of speech is all about (and thank goodness for that). I agree that he did do some things wrong, he certainly was foolish in his handling of the S.Sweeny case on Radio Ulster by not being entirely open with his relations to S.Sweeny. However I do not find anyone in the News coming out saying that he has done anything illegal, far from it so far it has all been inferred this being the case. In the absence of any real proof, we must take the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

To your second point (about whether Westminster Rules were placed here) in the interests of being informed could I ask you to show me some Westminster rules that he would have broken had they been in place I do truly want to know (btw I'm not being abusive I do genuinely want to know). However even if this was the case all MLAs do not work under Westminster rules but the Assemblies even if he would have done something improper by Westminster standards. Mr Paisley is not subject to them no more than an Englishman while in England is subject to Sharia law (not yet at least) and thus if he breaks Sharia law which is not in place in his jurisdiction then he is not guilty.

What we must also remember is that (while of course this would not excuse any wrongdoing if it had been carried out) Ian Jnr. is the only MLA facing scrutiny at the minute we should scrutinize all the politicians and then we would see how clean everybody else appears. As I have said before if we look in the pasts of some of the MLAs and certain members’ involvement in sleaze, criminality, terrorism and murder makes even the disgraced Tory MP Derek Conway's sleaze rather pale in comparison

2/22/2008 8:03 pm  
Anonymous Bob the Goldfish said...

What kind of moron are you? Spiderman doesn't wear a cape.

Anyhow, hear hear to the 1st anonymous.

2/23/2008 12:06 am  
Anonymous Sarah C said...

Bob the Goldfish, of course Spiderman does not have a cape. He might however, have a secret one which he uses on convert operations along with Superman and Batman and Harry Potter.I do apologise if my cartoon hero analogy angered you so. You need to get out more.

2/24/2008 2:45 pm  
Anonymous Bob The Goldfish said...

Sarah C

The word is "covert".

Batman and Superman are in the same universe, but since Spiderman is Marvel, he doesn't, nor does Harry Potter. Whos just a losebag anyway.

I get out quite enough. Perhaps you would too if you spent less time on blogs.

2/24/2008 6:25 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whats going on here? actual debate

(or is it the same person?)

2/24/2008 10:28 pm  
Anonymous Simons said...

just looked through some sabb manifestoes.

Atleast the unionist candidates are open about who they are. Unlike are our friend Colin " Building a University of Equals" McShane. LOL

What a joke.

2/25/2008 6:11 pm  
Anonymous Result is obvious said...

Congratulations Helferty on your election to SU President.

The past years trolling of these boards and false promises to students has worked a treat.

2/25/2008 10:15 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


At least (note the space between those two words)Mr McShane had the courage to post a picture of himself on his manifesto. What about the Unionist Candidates? Are they scared that their pictures would stop young children from ever getting to sleep again?

2/26/2008 4:11 pm  
Anonymous Michael Collins said...

What about me guys I have a chance!!!!!!!!

2/26/2008 8:41 pm  
Anonymous Yoshima said...

Given Eddie Hanna's recent re-ship jumping to the UUP I am surprised his once allies in the DUA havn't yet enlightened us all with who exactly was behind the failed "email scam" at the start of the year.

Come on DUA, don't take pity on him. Get the knives out of big Ed and tell us who was behind it. I'm sure T. H. won't mind taking the first blow.

2/27/2008 12:23 am  
Anonymous Big Jock said...

I was aware

2/27/2008 5:17 pm  
Anonymous Simons said...

Was it Eddie Hanna who was behind the e-mail scam???

Surely someone in the DUA can confirm this?? Go on - spill the beans.

He's bound to have let slip to someone about it. Mr. Hogg, Mark dodds, Ms. Simpson?

3/02/2008 12:09 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yoshima, no-one apart from you thinks Eddie Hanna was behind that. Most people with any wit can make a good guess at who was involved.

3/05/2008 1:31 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home