Member's statement: D-Day: 80th Anniversary Commemorations
Member's statement by Mr Harry Harvey on .
- MLA
- Mr Harry Harvey
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- D-Day: 80th Anniversary Commemorations
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4493778
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Speaker, first, I echo your words from yesterday and send my deepest sympathy to our Member Colm Gildernew and his entire family circle on their unimaginable loss at this time. I assure the family of our thoughts and prayers. I wish to speak about the 80th anniversary of D-Day. During the Second World War, 6 June 1944 was a pivotal date: after five years of war, a powerful military force left the United Kingdom, heading towards France to overthrow Nazi Germany. The Allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy and battled through the German defences. More than 6,000 ships, 10,000 planes and 150,000 troops formed part of the D-Day operation. On the day of the invasion, thousands lost their lives. Without those brave airmen, sailors and soldiers, we might not have had the privilege of living in this democratic and largely peaceful society. Over this incoming week, as we commemorate the events of 6 June 1944, it is important that we remember those who gave so much for our benefit. We thank all of those in that vital operation who willingly played their part. We are immeasurably indebted to those individuals. By remembering those events, we hope to share them with future generations.
205 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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.03 | No |
| 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 | 0.66 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.25 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.03 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 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.