Debate contribution: Historical Clerical Child Abuse Investigation: Communication Plan
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 20 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Historical Clerical Child Abuse Investigation: Communication Plan
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4744540
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We are going through the research. We will then have to make decisions based on the information that comes forward. We want the process to be inclusive. It is important that we ensure that all the voices that want to be heard are heard. I will take the question away. If you have identified particular issues, I would like to hear about them, because it is important that we get it right. It is the third part of the institutional abuse work, and we need to get it right. The research projects are under way, but, as I said, if there are particular issues, please, let me know.
108 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: 0.04 (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 (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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.38 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.73 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:48 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.