Debate contribution: Central Good Relations Fund: Scope
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Central Good Relations Fund: Scope
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4495011
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Building on the good debate that we had in the Assembly, I believe that all parties are strongly united against paramilitarism and the demonstration of that through flags or in other ways. Likewise, it is a critical part of democracy that every candidate can stand and promote what they want voters to examine so as to give voters the opportunity to be as informed as they can be and to do so without intimidation. I believe that everyone across the House would be united in that approach.
87 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: 0.10 (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).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.63).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.18 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.12 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.12 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.15 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.29 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.37 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.63 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.60 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.26 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.13 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:37 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.