BREAKING: Belfast Councillor reports exclusive Unionist Voice bonfire story to PSNI 

UUP Councillor Sonia Copeland has announced on Facebook that she has contacted the PSNI over the EXCLUSIVE  story carried by Unionist Voice in relation to the clandestine bonfire meeting which targeted bonfire sites in east Belfast. 

Join over thousands of readers who are receiving our newsletter and being kept up to date with the latest news from the community
We hate spam. Your email address will not be sold or shared with anyone else.

It is believed to be the first time a politician has reported a news article reporting on events within the council to the PSNI.

It is unclear what offence Ms Copeland believes has been committed. Matters relating to libel and defamation are dealt with via civil courts and therefore would not result in criminal ‘prosecutions’, contrary to what another UUP Councillor Jim Rodgers appeared to suggest yesterday. 

Unionist Voice issued an open invitation to any person who was present at the clandestine bonfire meeting to outline their position on the matter, neither Councillor Copeland or Alderman Rodgers took up this invitation. 

Instead Councillor Copeland has taken to Facebook and published a dismissal of the account provided by Unionist Voice in yesterday’s exclusive story. 

The UUP member also blamed those with an “agenda” for being behind the story and claimed that she was in “no doubt” who was behind the leak, which she described as “trash”. It is not clear which fellow politician or council officer present at the meeting Councillor Copeland is referring to. 

Unionist Voice would like to once again provide Councillor Copeland with the opportunity to answer a number of simple questions, the answers to which, in any event, would have to form part of any statement to the PSNI or civil affidavit. 

1. Did you support the proposal to take out an injunction against the Walkway bonfire site in east Belfast? 

2. After the initial proposal in relation to the Walkway bonfire, did you also support a suggestion to extend the injunction to another 3 sites in east Belfast? 

3. Who specifically do you believe was behind the leak in relation to the account published by Unionist Voice in relation to the clandestine bonfire meeting? 

All those present have remained publicly silent in relation to the content of the secret bonfire meeting, however with the blame game now starting it seems that the confidentiality agreement which has shielded many of those involved appears ever more vulnerable. 

Unionist Voice stands over our EXCLUSIVE account of the clandestine meeting which can be read HERE

Any of those present at the meeting are free to contact Unionist Voice via 

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Unionist Voice than ever but unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can.

The Unionist Voice is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias. No one edits our Editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important because it enables us to give a voice to the voiceless, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical.

f everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as £1, you can support the Unionist Voice– and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Support Us