Debate contribution: Retail Crime
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Retail Crime
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4490856
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There are a number of issues. I was at the Retail NI launch, and the figures are absolutely disgraceful. I think that all of us in the Chamber would agree that it is absolutely abhorrent that anyone who provides a public service or serves the public should be subjected to any kind of abuse or attack while they do so. It is important that we look at what options we have during the mandate to redress that. I had originally intended to have an aggravator in the sentencing Bill covering those who provide services in the public sector, particularly those who are involved in emergency response. We are looking at how we can widen that to encompass a wider group of people, including those who work in retail. The language for that would be about providing a public service or a service to the public. That would give protection not only to retail workers and first responders but to those who, for example, provide resources as a result of their charitable work. It would also cover people who work in transport, who have also come forward with fairly significant challenges.
190 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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.07 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.91 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:21 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.