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 5670907
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. He will recall that I read out the number of times in each year that the Department asked the police for advice on unauthorised attachments. I will not read them all out again, but they totalled 604. On no occasion in the case of any of the 604 complaints from residents did a flag come down. Does the Member agree that there is clearly a failing in the existing legislation and that no amount of dialogue between the police and those people who are, supposedly, community representatives has resulted in any of the flags coming down?
103 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Uncertain: weak signal Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials
Uncertain: this record is published but not counted in any total.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.52 (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 (0.64).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.47).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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 | 0.23 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.16 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.52 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.38 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.40 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.52 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.47 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.17 |
| Adopts it | 0.31 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.99 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| 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 16:15 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.