Member's statement: Shore Road, Rostrevor
Member's statement by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 February 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Shore Road, Rostrevor
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4778933
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On Sunday 2 February 2025, the Shore Road at Rostrevor in my constituency of South Down was finally reopened to two lanes of traffic, having had one lane blocked and temporary traffic measures in place for the past 15 months and a couple of days since the storm in October/November 2023. Some in the Chamber may be sick of hearing me talk about it, but I have been relentless in tabling questions for oral and written answer and securing an Adjournment debate on the roads in South Down before Christmas. Thank goodness the road is now open. Many questions, however, are now pouring in, as the work to move the blocks placed in the middle of the road to block one lane for over a year to the edge of the road at the bottom of the cliff took just one and a half days this weekend. If such short minor works were required, why did it take over 15 months to do them? Why were the people of South Down left behind and forgotten for so long? What did it cost the Department for Infrastructure to run temporary traffic management on the road for the past 15 months? I have asked that question before and been told that the information was commercially sensitive, but I ask it again, because my constituents deserve to know how much it cost to restrict them to one lane of traffic on that main road for over a year. It caused huge delays and inconvenience and hindered business transportation through the area. I have an evidenced record of consistently fighting on the issue, but I have felt alone. Our local people were failed by our Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister on it. Where was the South Down MP? He has been as absent on the ground as he has been from his seat at Westminster. Where were the two Sinn Féin MLAs? What about our councillors? I heard no support on the matter from our Sinn Féin-run Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, which pushed through a rates increase last night despite an absolute and ongoing failure to deliver things that are as basic as emptying the bins in the area every week. In South Down, we have been very much left behind and failed time and time again. I stand alone as the only unionist MLA for South Down. Our DUP team of councillors is hugely in the minority, with only five out of 41 councillors, but we will always stand up and fight for our constituents. The DUP councillors on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council were the only ones to vote against the rates increase last night. We will not sit idly by and watch as our constituents are failed. However, there is a long, hard fight for everything that we do. Anyone who has watched me work hard for my constituents can see that, but we will continue to do it. We are in the minority, but we are proud to always punch above our weight and represent our constituents.
509 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: 0.42 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.75).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.72).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.25 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.75 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.42 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.72 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.27 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.36 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.33 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.19 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.11 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:51 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.