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 4744544
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I do not have the exact details in front of me, but promotion of the scheme to ensure that people are alerted to it has been wide-ranging. It has been done in various ways, including online and in publications. A lot has been done. I do not believe that concerns have been flagged with us that we have not reached large swathes of people, because so many have come forward. However, as with all these things, we want to listen. I just want us to get it right, because those people have been failed at every turn. It is important that, when we are able do something, we do something that is positive, that is important for them and that is exactly right for them.
125 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: 0.05 (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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.51 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.53 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.14 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.11 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.08 |
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.