Member's statement: Lisburn Road Police Station
Member's statement by Mr Peter McReynolds on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter McReynolds
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Lisburn Road Police Station
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563402
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I became a member of the Policing Board a few months ago. Since then, I have had the opportunity to hear from the police about their views on next steps on a variety of issues, to scrutinise officers and to hold them to account directly, all of which are essential functions of a Policing Board member. On Friday, I arrived at 11.00 pm at Lisburn Road police station and had the opportunity to spend time with two local policing officers, Peter and Nigel. They impressed me with their diligence, empathy and desire to help, regardless of the situation. Moreover, they impressed me with their ability to adapt in real time to new circumstances. On getting there, I heard about the ongoing police response to a fatal car accident in east Belfast. We then left the station to assist with a potential missing person search. We were then directed to a potential domestic violence incident and helped a deeply distressed woman who was covered in blood get back safely to her family in Lisburn.
I then watched them adapt in real time, establishing that a badly parked car was worth closer inspection. It had no insurance, and the owner, for a variety of reasons, should not have been driving. They were intoxicated while two children were passengers in the back seat. Throughout all that, those officers answered the questions that I asked from the back seat about the challenges in delivering policing in Northern Ireland. It was an eventful evening. I was able to head home, bleary-eyed, at 4.30 am, and they returned to the station to begin the paperwork from the events that had just passed before clocking off at 6.00 am or 7.00 am. Many MLAs will have had the opportunity to observe the police in action. That was truly one of the most rewarding, eye-opening and impactful evenings of my time in politics. My main takeaway was that the police play a crucial role across all our communities and that, yes, the resources are challenging. It was a reminder to me that, when the Assembly is functioning, we can do an awful lot more than when it is not. Like the police who support our communities and the group of neighbourhood watch coordinators whom I met the next day, let us — the Executive and Assembly — push on and support our police and all the Departments with consistency, diligence and an ability to adapt ourselves in order to deliver the safe, thriving and united community that Northern Ireland deserves.
422 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.25 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 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.