Member's statement: Antisocial Behaviour
Member's statement by Ms Claire Sugden on .
- MLA
- Ms Claire Sugden
- Party at the time
- Independent
- Date
- 28 April 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Antisocial Behaviour
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5509546
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I wish to highlight ongoing concerns around antisocial behaviour in Coleraine, Limavady and, indeed, the wider Causeway area. It is having an impact on people's sense of safety in their communities, particularly for women and girls. In recent months, I have been contacted by residents dealing with persistent disruption, including late-night parties, suspected drug use and, in some cases, violence. Those are not sporadic incidents; they are happening repeatedly over long periods and are having a real impact on people's ability to feel safe and to feel settled in their own homes. For many women and girls, that impact can feel different. Antisocial behaviour is not always just experienced as disruption; it is intimidation and threats. Recent reports in Coleraine and Limavady of women being followed, alongside other incidents, have understandably heightened that concern. For many women, situations such as that are not viewed in isolation. They are part of a wider reality where everyday activities such as walking home, passing through a public space or being out after dark require a heightened sense of awareness. That is the reality of being a woman. There is also a growing frustration about how those situations are being addressed. People feel that, despite reporting issues, there are delays or limits to what can be done. That creates a sense that the system is not working as it should and that concerns are not being resolved. That context matters because, if we are serious about ending violence against women and girls, we cannot separate that ambition from the environments that people move through every day. The areas where antisocial behaviour persists are often the areas where people feel least safe. They are areas with poor lighting, neglected or overlooked spaces and a lack of visible presence or deterrent. Those are not minor issues; they shape behaviour, confidence and how people experience their communities. There are practical steps that we can take. We can improve our street lighting; we can make more effective use of CCTV; we can have better maintenance of public services so that areas feel visible and cared for; and we can have a more consistent presence in areas where concerns are raised repeatedly. There is also a need for a more coordinated approach across the agencies and for earlier intervention where problems are persistent and are clearly impacting on residents. Of course, it is important to recognise that some individuals involved in antisocial behaviour may be dealing with their own complex issues, including mental health challenges or addiction, and support must be part of that response. However, that cannot come at the expense of those who are living with ongoing disruption and feeling unsafe in their homes. It is about balance and about ensuring that communities are protected, concerns are taken seriously and people feel confident that action will be taken when issues are raised.
475 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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.59 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.41 |
| 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 15:27 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.