Member's statement: Kingsmills Massacre

Member's statement by Ms Joanne Bunting on .

MLA
Ms Joanne Bunting
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
13 January 2025
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
Kingsmills Massacre
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4737822

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Last Sunday, 5 January, marked the 49th anniversary of the Kingsmills massacre in which 10 Protestant workmen were mercilessly murdered by the Provisional IRA after being lined up along the side of their van on a dark country road. There was a lone survivor. It has been my honour to work for Mr Black and the family of John McConville. I pay tribute to the families for their fight for truth and justice, which has lasted just shy of half a century. They have even had to take on the very bodies established to help them. What kind of system is it when it exacerbates the pain of the innocent victims who have already suffered unspeakably for such a protracted period? Mr Black sums up the situation as "cruel". It should be a source of grave embarrassment to those concerned. I need not go into the horrors of that night; I recounted the events in a previous debate. However, Members will be aware that there has been an ongoing campaign for the Office of the Police Ombudsman to release its report. We are now nine months on from the conclusion of the inquest, when the coroner advised that they would be in receipt of the report, and still nothing. I recently wrote again to the ombudsman, and here are excerpts from her response:

"There can be no suggestion that I, or any member of my staff, are seeking to 'run down the clock' to the deadline." "I have made a personal commitment to communicate my findings in the Kingsmill investigation." "This remains a matter of priority for me, and my staff, who will be in contact with those affected to discuss arrangements for the delivery of the investigation findings in due course."

There are a few problems with "in due course". We have heard it all before. The Office of the Police Ombudsman's actions vary considerably from the current ombudsman's words, and, again, she demurs to specify a date for the report's release, despite the families being advised a number of years ago that it was finished. So, which is true? Is it complete or is not? How long will it take? The ombudsman's office has been investigating this for 13 years. Unfortunately, the natural conclusion is that the body is running down the clock to the deadline relating to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR). You could write the script. The report will be released at the deadline, at which time, when the family ask questions, they will be told, "The time has passed. It is no longer our remit, and there is nothing that this office can do now. You'll have to go to the ICRIR". The ICRIR will then rightly state that it cannot answer questions related to another body's report, and thus there will be the passing of the proverbial buck. It is as predictable as it is despicable. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I fear that I am not. I publicly call again on the Office of the Police Ombudsman to release this report immediately.

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

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: 0.18 (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 (0.77).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.63).
  • Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.09No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.05No
Cultural grievance politics0.04No
Dog-whistle messaging0.07No
Controversy escalation0.11No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.77Yes
Overall judgement0.18At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.63
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.30
Adopts it0.06
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.66
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.22
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)0.12
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:42 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