Councillor warns of 'dangerous precedent' as debate on LGBTQ+ campaigner Mark Ashton pulled from agenda at last minute

Members warned that Council was setting a dangerous precedent in deferring the proposal due to possible “outside pressure”.

Mr Ashton moved from his home town of Portrush to London in the late 1970s, and became a prominent figure in the Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM) group during the UK miners’ strike from 1984 to 1985.

In 2021, Causeway Coast & Glens Council approved a motion recognising Mr Ashton for his work and commitment as an activist for the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights and workers’ rights, and calling for “the immediate allocation of funds and identification of a suitable site, to take place in consultation with family and LGBTQ+ groups, for a suitable memorial to Mark Ashton within the council area.”

The request to commemorate Mr Ashton was supported by a public petition containing 28,972 signatures.

In response, Council’s Memorial Advisory Group assessed two applications for commemorations – a plaque in Portrush Town Hall and a mural and small garden within Antrim Gardens.

Members at May’s Leisure and Development Committee were due to decide on the approval of the Town Hall plaque.

However, early in the committee meeting on Tuesday, May 19, Director of Leisure and Development, Pat Mulvenna, told members the item had been removed and will now be brought forward in June.

Sinn Féin councillor Cara McShane said members had not been informed about the postponement, and asked what procedural issues had led to it.

She added: “This was passed on a previous mandate in 2021, it received almost 30,000 signatures in support, so the decision actually pre-dates the scrutiny that appears to have been applied by the policy, which came into existence in my understanding in November 2024.

“We are now sitting in May 2026 and we are made complete fools of as representatives within this council, who have a mandate to represent our constituents.”

Ms Mulvenna said Council’s Chief Executive David Jackson, received a “considerable amount of additional information since the last Working Group meeting” last week, and recommended a deferral to allow the group to consider the information.

Committee members were told that said information was not available to them.

Cllr McShane said: “I don’t know what is happening behind the closed doors but I just hope we’re not setting a dangerous precedent by withdrawing this report, at some political pressure outside this chamber.”

Alliance councillor Peter McCully and SDLP councillor Ashleen Schenning both put on record their disappointment that the proposal had been deferred.

Councillor McCully noted: “It’s going to be interesting to see the information that has come to light that has required the item to be pulled.”

In conclusion DUP councillor Darryl Wilson said members had a right to know why the proposal was postponed.

“Is it a legal issue? Is it an outside challenge? We don’t know and we’re left guessing,” he concluded. “That’s quite poor.”

“I understand an item can be pulled at the last minute, but to come forward to elected members and say ‘it’s been pulled, I’m sorry, I can’t tell you anymore’, I don’t think that’s appropriate.”