Motion or amendment: Supporting a Public Health Approach to Tackling Gambling-Related Harms - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 22 January 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Supporting a Public Health Approach to Tackling Gambling-Related Harms”
- Heading
- Supporting a Public Health Approach to Tackling Gambling-Related Harms - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 424693
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Supporting a Public Health Approach to Tackling Gambling-Related Harms - Amendment 1
Amendment
Leave out all after ‘gambling disorders;’:
‘: and further calls on the Minister for Communities to introduce a gambling levy requiring the gambling industry to provide funding to address the cost of the social damage caused by gambling in Northern Ireland both in relation to terrestrial and online gambling from 6 April 2025, as in Great Britain.'
70 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: 0.03 (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 (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.96 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:01 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.