Debate contribution: Flags: Illegally Erected
Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .
- MLA
- Ms Liz Kimmins
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 8 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Flags: Illegally Erected
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5600650
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As the Member will know, that is a long-standing issue. I am pleased to say that my Department has been working closely with the PSNI and other statutory bodies towards a memorandum of understanding to deal with what we know is a sensitive issue. My constituency office has had complaints about flags being erected outside Ardmore police station in Newry, as one recent example. It is a challenging position. We want to ensure that everybody feels that, no matter where they go across the North, it is inclusive and safe. We all have a responsibility to show leadership on these issues. My Department's responsibility is about whether something is a public safety issue. That is why we work with the police on these such issues, particularly where hate crimes have been committed and offensive signage has been erected. We work off police advice on whether we should remove whatever the attachment may be, whether it is flags or signs or whatever else. That work continues. We look at everything on a case-by-case basis. I hope that we, as elected representatives across the House, can show leadership about anything that impacts negatively on people in our communities.
196 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: 0.11 (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 (0.69).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.70).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- 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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.20 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.28 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.70 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.79 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.21 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:53 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.