Debate contribution: Child Criminal Exploitation
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 17 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Child Criminal Exploitation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496392
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The hope is that the videos will serve as a prompt for discussion and learning to be used by EPPOC's delivery partners, engaging with different groups of service users as well as with all schools. They can be integrated into existing programmes, such as those by the Education Authority, Communities in Transition, Developing Women in the Community, Aspire, Engage, NIACRO and others. The plan is that the videos can serve as a prompt for people who may not realise that they or, indeed, their friends have been subject to, for example, child criminal exploitation but, on watching the videos and looking at the evidence that is presented in them, may recognise themselves or others as victims and, therefore, be more willing to report and make disclosure about that abuse.
129 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: 0.02 (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 (0.71).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.45 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.29 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.22 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:43 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.