Topical question AQT 603/22-27

Topical question by Mr Peter Martin on 7 October 2024.

MLA: Mr Peter Martin
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 7 October 2024
Type: Topical question
Assembly reference: AQT 603/22-27
Business: Oral Answers to Questions
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4579194

Text

Mr Martin asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether, in light of the case of the former Sinn Féin press officer Michael McMonagle, who recently admitted child sex offences, and as the Executive Office has responsibility for important areas of work involving victims, historical abuse and safeguarding, victims of abuse can be confident that Ministers in the Executive Office act at all times in the interests of openness and transparency and, most importantly, in the interests of victims.

80 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Follow-ups by the same MLA in the Chamber

These were assessed together with this record:

7 October 2024 – I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. In light of what she said, does she agree that the First Minister…

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.42 (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 (0.93).
Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.

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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.06	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.07	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.23	No
Controversy escalation	0.17	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.58	No
Overall judgement	0.42	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.93
Reports or questions it	0.03
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.04

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.70
No identity-related subject	0.13
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.10
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.04
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.02

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:13 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.

Challenge this classification