Member's statement: Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats
Member's statement by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 December 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5271716
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The DUP unequivocally condemns all violence. We condemn threats of violence towards elected representatives. Last night, as has been mentioned, we saw a disturbing video appear online in which masked men made threatening comments towards local politicians in the Newry, Mourne and Down area. That is unacceptable. People who have stood up for the community and been democratically elected to those positions by the public should never be subjected to that. The PSNI has confirmed that it is investigating the video. We fully support the investigation to establish the identity of those involved, who that group is and the viability of the threat and the steps to ensure the safety of elected representatives as they go about their business. In this online world, such videos and threats are even more dangerous than they were when I was young because they are shared so widely. This morning, it was disturbing for me to face questions from my children, who asked, "Mummy, is the IRA back?". Growing up in the minority unionist community in South Down in the 1980s and 1990s, we were terrorised regularly. I do not want that for my children; they deserve better. That is a key reason why I stand in the House as an elected representative for South Down: to make this a better place for them and their future. It is imperative that the PSNI identifies who posted the video and their IP address. No matter what is discovered about the organisation, those who were involved in posting the video and the malicious communications need to be prosecuted. In this modern world, everyone who has a platform needs to take responsibility and be held to account for how it is used. It is difficult for those of us who stand as minorities in our constituencies, such as myself and the six unionist councillors — five of whom are from the DUP — in the Newry, Mourne and Down area. My colleague Willie Irwin in Newry and Armagh, my colleague Gary Middleton in Foyle and I suffer abuse and threatening behaviour regularly. It is not lost on us. That is unacceptable for every one of us. The video last night was unacceptable. Like the leader of the Opposition, I do not like to give it any further publicity, but it needs to be called out. The hypocrisy of the Sinn Féin MP for the area is also not lost on me. He spoke of "faceless thugs", but, when we think of the history of South Down, we think of the faceless thugs of the IRA who murdered William Heenan in Legananny and Alan Johnston in Kilkeel as he went about his work. We do not want to return to the days of the past. This is not the future that we want for our children. We deserve better in Northern Ireland. We stand with our elected representatives, and we support the police investigation.
486 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: 0.37 (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).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.49).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The overall probability was moderate at most and none of the culture-war criteria was close to being met.
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 | 0.49 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.15 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.43 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.19 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.23 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.37 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.07 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.44 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.49 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.57 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.43 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:06 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.