Debate contribution: Mobile Phone Coverage: West Belfast
Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Mobile Phone Coverage: West Belfast
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4964623
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I was not going to say anything. I just want to pick up on one small thing. Matthew said that his constituency is next door to West Belfast. My constituency is on the other side of West Belfast, and I travel through it every day on my way here. It is frustrating for me, but it is much more frustrating for the residents. The Glen Road has been mentioned: I stopped using that road because it would do your head in. You simply cannot have a phone call when you are driving down that road. If you try to use data to make a call, that does not work either because it drops out. There is exactly the same problem in the Monagh bypass area near Aisling's office. It is a significant issue that definitely needs to be addressed. My frustrations pale into insignificance when compared with those of the residents who need emergency services or a call back from a GP and the businesses that need to take calls to grow their business. Alliance will support whatever can be done. We need to look at having better security to stop the physical damage to the transmitters. I have noticed the stencilled signs about 5G. A transmitter was burnt in the Monagh bypass area near Aisling's office, and it had been stencilled just before that.
Recently, I have noticed around my constituency that people mark transmitters. I do not know what can be done to provide better security or what work can prevent that from happening. Conspiracy theories have grown since COVID. I want to touch on that subject. It is not helpful. Pat Sheehan talked about the "tinfoil hat brigade". That is probably the best description that we can have. It is not helpful when we have it in here. We had a debate earlier in which conspiracy stuff around COVID was spewed out as though it were fact. That is so unhelpful, as the language that comes from the House feeds into it, is heard by others and is understood to have some sort of merit. The attitude of, "Because somebody said it somewhere on the internet, it must be fact" has to be challenged. This place needs to show leadership across all parties and to challenge that. Just because you have heard or seen it does not make it fact. If people have concerns, that is fine. We can list the concerns and talk through the facts. Discussion should be based on facts. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister can take any steps or about what she can do. I give my support and that of the Alliance Party to addressing the issue and hearing what practical steps can be taken to address it and sort it out for residents of West Belfast.
468 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.52).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.11 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.52 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.47 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.93 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:33 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.