Member's statement: Anti-bullying Week
Member's statement by Mrs Michelle Guy on .
- MLA
- Mrs Michelle Guy
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 November 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Anti-bullying Week
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4667064
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In Anti-bullying Week, the first thing that I want to do is to speak out to anyone who is experiencing bullying. It is an absolutely shattering thing to go through, and I want to encourage anyone who is experiencing it to reach out to a parent, their school or an organisation like Childline to get the support that they need to get through that experience. I know that words from an MLA who you have probably never heard of will be little consolation if you are going through it, but I felt that it was a better use of my time to speak words like that than to go through lots of statistics about bullying. The House has not been behind in looking at the issue. I want to acknowledge that we have legislation, the Addressing Bullying in Schools Act. I am grateful to the Minister for providing me with information on the impact and implementation of that Act. Around 9,000 people have experienced some training on bullying, about 146 schools are involved in putting together leadership training on bullying, and almost 300 referrals have come through on bullying. Bullying is an issue that we cannot stop talking about and that will always recur. We have to keep our focus on it and look at what else we can do.
The Act required schools to gather information and statistics, but they are not shared with the Department. I call on the Minister to start gathering that information and to publish annual reports on bullying in schools so that we can better target resources and do a better job of trying to eradicate bullying in our schools.
276 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 (0.88).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.74 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.14 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:32 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.