Member's statement: Rathcoole Row on Row
Member's statement by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 November 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Rathcoole Row on Row
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4625176
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As we enter the period of national remembrance, across Northern Ireland communities will come together and fall silent as they remember those who came before us and made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms that we all enjoy today. In my constituency of North Belfast, we are extremely proud of those who made the supreme sacrifice. At the weekend, we came together as a community in Rathcoole to launch this year's Rathcoole Row on Row celebrations. Under the stewardship of the RATH Community Group, Rathcoole Row on Row has grown from a small-scale project that, during the pandemic, afforded members of the community the opportunity to come together to remember our fallen heroes, to a highlight of the remembrance period, with hundreds of people coming together from across the community to stand together and remember those who laid down their lives. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the RATH Community Group, Dalaradia and those volunteers who give of their time freely to ensure that the people of North Belfast and Rathcoole, rightly, remember those who have gone before and ensure that we never forget them. We will remember them.
191 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: 0.06 (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: Parades, bonfires and commemorations.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.04 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.79 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.11 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.05 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 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.