Debate contribution: Ramming of Police Vehicles: South Armagh
Debate contribution by Ms Cheryl Brownlee on .
- MLA
- Ms Cheryl Brownlee
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 22 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Ramming of Police Vehicles: South Armagh
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4484174
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. Those serving in the Police Service of Northern Ireland are at the very forefront of public protection, putting their lives on the line to maintain public safety and to hold accountable those who break the law. They are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers, sisters and friends; they are just like you and I. We get up every morning and go to work safe in the knowledge that we have those dedicated men and women working 24/7 to ensure that we can go about our daily lives safely. Our police officers, however, do not enjoy the same luxury. They know that, when they put on that uniform, they are putting themselves in harm's way. They take a huge risk when they patrol, on our behalf, each and every day operating under consistent terrorist threat. We have already heard some of the figures today, but a 32% rise in the deliberate ramming of police vehicles in 2023 should alarm every one of us. Aside from the obvious financial burden that that places on the public purse, the more pressing and important issue is, of course, the impact that it has on the officers who are involved in those incidents. The policing world takes over both the professional and personal lives of officers. Police officers have suffered whiplash and neck and back injuries, with the most recent only a matter of weeks ago when two officers required hospital treatment. Let us be clear: those who deliberately ram police vehicles in an attempt to flee arrest are weaponising their vehicle and must be treated as severely as those who bring firearms or bombs on to our streets. There is an onus on the leadership of the PSNI and, indeed, the Minister of Justice to ensure that the issue is taken seriously. During Question Time back in March, I asked the Minister to detail what her Department will do to address the shocking number of attacks on PSNI officers and other front-line emergency service personnel. While, of course, I was pleased to get confirmation that it will be a key element in the new sentencing Bill, we all need to see action, and I trust the Minister to do everything in her power to action that at pace. While the financial implications of the attacks pale into insignificance compared to the safety and well-being of our officers, it is important to note the significant impact that they have on our public finances. We already have the lowest police numbers in the PSNI's history. I am sure that every Member here will be aware of how stretched our police resources are in their areas. Attacks like these can be devastating for local policing provision, with officers injured or unavailable for duty, vehicles spending time out of service and the significant costs of getting vehicles fixed or their having to be scrapped altogether. That adds a further burden to resources that are already stretched beyond breaking point.
Yes.
Thank you to the Member for his point. I know that the point was made earlier. We have not shied away from the Government's package. We know that we need more resources in Northern Ireland to deliver vital public services, and we have not shied away from that.
Yes.
If the PSNI is in a situation where it cannot recruit, we have to make sure that we look after the officers we already have. Far too often, we focus on the human rights of those who break the law. We have to make sure that we focus on those who uphold it. It is long overdue that Members had an opportunity to promote the safety and well-being of our officers.
624 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: 0.09 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.58 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.21 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.11 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:00 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.