Member's statement: Antisocial Behaviour: Carrickfergus
Member's statement by Ms Cheryl Brownlee on .
- MLA
- Ms Cheryl Brownlee
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 20 May 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Antisocial Behaviour: Carrickfergus
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4963723
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to highlight the growing and concerning issue of antisocial behaviour in the Carrickfergus area. Sadly, it is not a new problem in any part of Northern Ireland, but, in recent months, the scale and severity of incidents in Carrickfergus have increased significantly. This past weekend, the Barn United Football and Social Club was once again targeted and damaged. On three separate occasions last week, club members arrived to find broken glass scattered across the 3G pitch, a stand destroyed, dugouts vandalised and surrounding infrastructure damaged. Even the CCTV system has been smashed. Barn United is a community club that is run by volunteers to serve the people of Carrickfergus. Those mindless acts of vandalism have not only put considerable financial strain on the club, which must now foot the bill for repairs, but taken a toll on the dedicated volunteers who give up their time so freely. Two young boys, Logan and Carter, kindly gave up their time to help clean the area. Their actions are a reminder that the vast majority of our young people are compassionate and responsible and care deeply about their community. Barn United has engaged proactively with the Communities in Transition initiative and the PSNI in developing youth intervention projects, such as the Game Bus, to encourage positive youth engagement and respectful behaviour. Given those efforts, the repeated incidents of antisocial behaviour are understandably disheartening. It does not happen only at that club. The Marine Gardens area continues to see large gatherings, particularly at weekends, which leaves many residents feeling intimidated and unsafe. I want to be clear: the antisocial behaviour does not represent the majority of our young people. Across Carrickfergus, we are so lucky to have so many inspiring young people and incredible organisations working day in, day out to make such a difference. Chill, Carrickfergus Community Forum, Carrick YMCA, Communities in Transition and many more groups and initiatives do an outstanding job, as Carrick Connect did previously, to build relationships, prevent harm and offer real support. Their work makes a huge difference on the ground in engaging with our young people and defusing issues before they escalate. I have engaged directly with the Chief Constable on the issue, and police communication and visibility have improved. However, it is clear that this is not a problem that can be solved by any individual, agency or organisation alone. It is a challenge for us all: elected representatives, police, community leaders, family and, most important, the young people themselves.
416 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: 0.04 (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 (0.95).
- Subject area: Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.54 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.38 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.36 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.19 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:32 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.