Debate contribution: Paramilitary-style Attacks
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 3 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Paramilitary-style Attacks
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4774197
Read the official Assembly record
Text
At the outset, I record my condemnation of the two most serious recent paramilitary-style shootings that occurred: one of a teenager in Ards, the other of a pensioner in Coleraine. Such barbaric brutality has no place in our community. Those attacks must stop. Statistics provided by the PSNI indicate that, in 2024, there were 28 casualties of paramilitary-style attacks, a significant reduction from the 50 recorded in 2023. Within that, there were five casualties of paramilitary-style shootings, approximately a quarter of the number that occurred in 2023. Whilst there is likely to be a range of factors affecting the reduction, I must commend the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC) on the work being done to address this complex societal and generational issue. Over the last eight years, EPPOC has been testing innovative interventions aimed at tackling paramilitary harm in the here and now and breaking the cycle of violence for future generations. Those interventions include those that support victims of paramilitary harm, improving outcomes for individuals and helping to break the victim-perpetrator cycle. Targeted youth work that is delivered in a variety of ways, including through street-based initiatives and even in emergency departments, and help to prevent young people at risk of paramilitary exploitation and abuse from becoming engaged in criminality in the first place are just some of the structures that we have put in place.
230 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.72).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.92).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.72 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.95 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:52 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.