Debate contribution: Prison Service: Safe Space Advocates
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Prison Service: Safe Space Advocates
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4738182
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As you are aware, employees of the Northern Ireland Prison Service are NICS employees and therefore can avail themselves of all the online services and training programmes that are available. Bespoke training opportunities are also available for Prison Service staff. Those who work in prisons as prison officers are often dealing with people who have themselves been victims of abuse as well as the perpetrators of crime. Therefore, it is important that they understand the seriousness of the issues. In recent years, some of our prison staff developed an ONC qualification on healthy relationships, which they delivered to the women in Hydebank Wood prison, very effectively, identifying that a number of the women in that prison had been victims of trafficking and of sexual abuse and had been manipulated and abused by people whom they had previously viewed as intimate partners. We also work with the White Ribbon organisation, which comes in and delivers, to staff and to prisoners, its programmes on how to be a bystander and how to intervene. All those programmes are important, but we do have bespoke training on the issue for people who work in our prisons.
192 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 (0.69).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.72 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.27 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.