Member's statement: Daisy Lodge: 10th Anniversary
Member's statement by Mr Andrew McMurray on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew McMurray
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 November 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Daisy Lodge: 10th Anniversary
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4625129
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to speak about the 10th anniversary of the opening of Daisy Lodge outside Newcastle in my constituency. Daisy Lodge looks over the Shimna Valley and Tollymore Forest, and towards the slopes of Slieve Commedagh and Slieve Donard: a most peaceful and tranquil view, one of quite a few with which we are blessed in South Down. Daisy Lodge is a residential site, run by the Cancer Fund for Children, the vision of which is to ensure:
"no child should face cancer alone."
Families who are impacted on by cancer can come and stay at its site for a time of respite and therapeutic support. It is not a medical facility; there are no tubes or medical staff. It is a people facility. At the 10th anniversary event, the physical transformation of the site over the past number of years was described. The site was said to be "homely" but also "rustic" and "not fit for purpose". Now, there are two main facilities: Narnia, a log cabin for young people, and Daisy Lodge itself. While the physical infrastructure has changed, emotional support has always been a pillar of what the site provides. A poem, written by a mother who used the site, was recited. It had the recurring line:
"a pause, a breath, a tear, a release".
While the physical infrastructure has been created and is important to those who come to stay, the staff and leadership team at the location have put in great efforts to create more than just a pleasant physical space. They have created a space where relationships and programmes are developed that deliver support for all those who are on a journey with their loved ones. Sometimes, that can be difficult. Sometimes, it means helping those who have suffered loss and bereavement. How they do that was best encapsulated by a young man who, on coming through the worst of what cancer can do, described his experience of one of the programmes as:
"being with the people I was supposed to be with".
As well as celebrating the 10th anniversary of its building, the charity launched its own bespoke, informal, therapeutic support model. While informal, that early intervention model, when implemented, can go some way to preventing more formal, acute support being needed further down the tracks. I will finish by summarising what Daisy Lodge is for those who use it: a place where despair can turn to hope.
405 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.09 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.67 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.31 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:27 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.