Motion or amendment: Creating a Register of Animal Welfare Offenders - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 18 October 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Creating a Register of Animal Welfare Offenders”
- Heading
- Creating a Register of Animal Welfare Offenders - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 414892
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Creating a Register of Animal Welfare Offenders - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘reoffending’ and insert:
‘further notes with regret the widespread abuse of animals on factory farms; calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to reconsider the merits of introducing proposals to ban the cruel and sadistic practice of hunting with dogs; further calls on the Minister to work with his Executive colleagues to review safeguards against those with such convictions from later being employed in roles relating to the care of animals; and calls on the Minister to explore proposals to establish a register of banned animal welfare offenders and make that information readily accessible to animal rehoming charities and reputable pet retailers.'
119 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: 0.07 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.20 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.99 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:58 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.