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 5600654
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member will also be aware that that is a policing decision. The police have outlined that, where a crime is committed, they are willing to assist in the removal of materials that are essentially a crime, and they have done so in the past. As I said in my previous response, we continue to work with the PSNI. I also have a duty to protect my staff in the removal of offensive materials. A balance needs to be struck all the time. Regardless of who puts up the material, we have to recognise the risks that may be associated with its removal. That is why I work with the PSNI, as I hope do all statutory bodies. It is not just on DFI property that we see those signs or flags erected. I want to ensure that, whatever we do, we build an inclusive society for everybody here.
149 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: 0.14 (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 (0.76).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.75).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.13 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.75 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.19 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.94 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| 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.