Motion or amendment: Bonfire Regulation - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 11 September 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Bonfire Regulation”
- Heading
- Bonfire Regulation - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 449193
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Bonfire Regulation - Amendment 1
Leave out all after “this Assembly” and insert:
‘recognises the cultural importance of bonfires, particularly in the unionist community; believes that issues around bonfires can only be resolved with local community buy-in; notes the recent LucidTalk poll conducted in August 2025, which indicates that only 18 per cent of unionist respondents support the establishment of a regulatory commission for bonfires and flags and does not believe that another quango is required.’
76 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: 0.38 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Cultural grievance politics (0.63).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.67).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.55).
- Subject area: Parades, bonfires and commemorations.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.45 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.63 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.34 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.38 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.55 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.11 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.33 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.70 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.25 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:08 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.