Debate contribution: Antisocial Behaviour
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Antisocial Behaviour
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563903
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Given the complexity of ASB, it cannot be addressed by the criminal justice system alone. Effective partnership working across local government and central government is required to identify the causes and put in place solutions to prevent incidents arising and tackle the cumulative impact of ASB on individuals and communities. That partnership approach is evidenced in the work of policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs). Those PCSPs are funded by my Department and the Policing Board, for which tackling ASB is a key strategic priority. PCSPs lead on my Department’s operational response to specific concerns at a local level. They work with designated partners, including local statutory bodies and agencies and the community and voluntary sector, to tackle actual and perceived ASB in our communities. At a strategic level, the community safety network, which is chaired by my Department, promotes shared and collective ownership by partners inside and outside the Department of Justice to ensure that there is a collaborative response to multifaceted community safety issues such as ASB. Additionally, where a criminal justice response is appropriate, and to ensure that the relevant authorities have effective and proportionate enforcement powers, my Department led a multi-agency, cross-departmental review of ASB legislation and launched a joint public consultation with DFC on potential legislative change. It is now progressing the outworkings of that consultation.
221 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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| 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 | 0.97 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:12 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.