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
- 14 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5686479
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I listened to your questions. First of all, I would like to put on the record that I wrote to all the political parties on 7 July, including Mr Carroll's party, and offered a briefing and a sit-down over the summer to allow them to go through such queries. I could have talked them through the Bill. I remind you of that email, Mr Carroll. On the first day of the debate, I addressed a lot of the questions that you have asked, and I will go back over them during my summation. However, I will not make an intervention on every point, because I addressed them all the first time. I took a lot of interventions to deal with a lot of queries. We could be here until Christmas if Members keep regurgitating the same questions.
I am up for that, but I will not intervene every time Members ask the same question over and over again.
158 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: 0.18 (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).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.08 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.05 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.55 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.44 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:17 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.