Debate contribution: Loneliness Strategy
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Loneliness Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4486524
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the Member giving way. I will say this as briefly as I can. It is a really important point that is niggling me. We know the importance of skin-to-skin contact, for instance, for mums and babies. As a society, and I am not targeting anybody, we have gone from these blinking things — mobile phones — and we now have screen-to-skin contact. I am seriously concerned about the problem that we are building up for our young people, in particular, who are sometimes more interested in getting followers than friends. Does the Member agree that the societal approach and the prevention need to be targeted at young people too?
111 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: 0.06 (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 (0.63).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.63 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.52 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.36 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.09 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:20 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.