Member's statement: Social Media Ban
Member's statement by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Social Media Ban
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5613389
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had been hoping to get back in to make a Member's statement, in part because I had requested an urgent oral statement. I am not challenging the Chair's decision, but I am asking for the Speaker's Office to look at guidance after the request for a statement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister was turned down. I have real concerns about the lack of accountability over the response to the riots. I wanted to address some of that in a Member's statement, but, despite my role as leader of the Opposition under Standing Orders, I was prevented from getting in with a Member's statement. I ask the Speaker's Office to look at the privileges offered to the official Opposition at moments like this. Frankly, it is not a defensible position that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have not come here to give a statement. The Communities Minister is facing questions, but he has not come to make a statement proactively, and the leader of the Opposition has been prevented from making a follow-up statement, so I ask the Speaker's Office to look at those rights and privileges, given the seriousness of the situation.
206 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: 0.12 (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 (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.31 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.85 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.10 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:47 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.