Debate contribution: Clonoe Inquest Findings
Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on .
- MLA
- Mr Patsy McGlone
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Matter of the Day
- Heading
- Clonoe Inquest Findings
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4790207
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Like others in the Chamber, I have attended far too many unnecessary funerals and wakes brought about by campaigns of violence on our streets that were unnecessary. I am a member of the SDLP, which stood for non-violence and to provide the alternative and the leadership that, hopefully, has brought us to a peaceful new settlement and scenario. In this instance, the use of lethal force by the SAS was found by Justice Humphreys to be unjustified. I have been with families in other cases who have, time after time, sought recourse and justice through the courts. Innocent people seeking justice through the courts should not be denied, irrespective of their background or whatever route they chose to take. Justice must prevail in any civilised, democratic society. The rule of law and justice must be applied equally and consistently to all, be they paramilitaries, agents of the state — we have seen the havoc that they wreaked — or members of the security forces. I stand by that just as we in the SDLP have done down through many decades of the Troubles and, thankfully now, the peace.
188 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: 0.12 (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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.10 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.41 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.84 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.16 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.92 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:55 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.