Debate contribution: Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 22 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Display of Flags and Emblems Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5740360
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Just before the Member moves off the issue of costings, to put it into context, that £27,000 relates to one hour from two constables and one hour of inspector time, which is £143 per hour. That shows that the PSNI is being deployed and is going to certain situations where a flag needs to be taken down. However, if we are to take at face value what Ms Bradshaw says, her intent is to remove paramilitary flags. Do you really think that two constables and one inspector is all the manpower and woman power that the police will need to take down a paramilitary flag? I do not think so, and that, once again, comes back to the elephant in the room, which is that no contractor will take down a paramilitary flag without the police being there. If the police are not willing to do that at the minute, they will not do it with a contractor. It is day 3, and the elephant in the room has still has not been addressed. If the police will not do it, the subcontractor will not do it. What is the Bill sponsor's plan? Are you willing to put those people in danger? If the police are saying at the minute that it is not safe to go into those areas and that they are not taking down those flags, how will this legislation be any different from the powers that the police currently have? If it is not safe today, it will not be safe tomorrow. Your £27,000 is a fanciful number.
262 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: 0.25 (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 (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.65).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.09 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.15 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.25 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.65 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.09 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.12 |
| Adopts it | 0.14 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.60 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.36 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:41 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.