Written question AQW 41045/22-27
Written question by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 19 February 2026
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 41045/22-27
- Department
- Department for Infrastructure
- Business
- To the Minister for Infrastructure
- Assembly identifier
- Document 472258
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister for Infrastructure for her assessment of whether the illegally erected billboard on Department of Infrastructure land, at the Egyptian Arch, Newry, is not a Sinn Fein billboard, despite her Departmental officials writing to Sinn Féin elected representatives to ask for its removal.
46 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Not flagged on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.54 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Controversy escalation (0.67).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.38).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The answers did not meet either automatic threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Second assessment
Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works
- Verdict
- Not flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mainly advances the public interest
Against the published rubric
The question concerns an "illegally erected billboard" on departmental land and whether the minister accepts it is a party's billboard, given that her officials wrote to that party's representatives asking for its removal. It does not mention the billboard's content, any community, culture or symbol, and it makes no claim that a tradition is being favoured or slighted. Its sharpness is aimed at a party's conduct and the minister's account of it, which the rubric treats as criticism of specific conduct, not an identity-based attack.
Public interest or divisiveness
The evident function is to hold a minister to account over enforcement on public land and a possible inconsistency or conflict of interest, since her department appears to have treated the billboard as belonging to a particular party. It is adversarial and plainly meant to embarrass, but the embarrassment rests on planning and land-management conduct rather than on identity. Nothing in the text keeps a communal row going or casts a group as a threat.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.36 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.26 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.36 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.67 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.24 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.54 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.29 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.33 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.38 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.39 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.27 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.15 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.08 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.06 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 06:03 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.