Motion or amendment: Ramming of Police Vehicles in South Armagh - Amendment 4
Motion or amendment by Mr John Blair on .
- MLA
- Mr John Blair
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 18 April 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Ramming of Police Vehicles in South Armagh”
- Heading
- Ramming of Police Vehicles in South Armagh - Amendment 4
- Assembly identifier
- Document 397904
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Ramming of Police Vehicles in South Armagh - Amendment 4
Leave out all after ‘2022;’ and insert: ‘further notes the impact ramming incidents have on operational policing resources, including through sickness absence and rising repair bills; recognises the difficult and often dangerous work police officers do in protecting the public; notes the extremely challenging financial situation facing the PSNI as a result of continued under-investment in the Department of Justice budget and the lack of a needs-based financial settlement for Northern Ireland; calls for collaborative Executive action to ensure multi-agency approaches to crime solving; and further calls on the Minister of Justice to consider the case for increased sentencing for those who weaponise their vehicles to attack police officers.’
119 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.09 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.81 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.12 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.05 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:53 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.