Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 7 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5670496
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you very much, Brian, for your considered comment. By way of example, take the "Billy was Wright" flags that went up recently. You will be aware of them. When the police were approached, they said that the flags did not meet the threshold for their intervention. The obvious question then is who removes them. My point is that those lighting columns are public property and the responsibility of the Department for Infrastructure. The Department is the property owner, so it should remove the flags. We cannot allow the Department not to discharge its section 75 duties and ask the police to perform them on its behalf.
The police would provide support, as I have outlined. I have met the police, but, at the end of the day, it would be for the Department for Infrastructure to discharge its section 75 duties. As I said, it would have a clear framework and code of practice in order to do so. Operational guidance and regulations would therefore be produced off the back of the proposals. At the end of the day, the lighting columns belong to the Department for Infrastructure, not the police.
I will, briefly.
195 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: 0.20 (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 (0.88).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.45).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.17 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.20 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.19 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.20 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.40 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.07 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.45 |
| Adopts it | 0.08 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.94 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:13 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.