Member's statement: Police: Foyle and Strabane
Member's statement by Mr Gary Middleton on .
- MLA
- Mr Gary Middleton
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 February 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Police: Foyle and Strabane
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4790228
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I wish to speak about the shocking and disgraceful attacks on nine police officers in my constituency and in Strabane over the weekend. PSNI officers responded to ordinary calls only to find themselves being kicked in the head, having blood spat in their face, being charged at with knives and being subjected to other assaults. As elected representatives, it is important that we send out a strong message to our police officers, who put on the uniform to protect our communities, that we stand firm and four-square behind them. I send my regards to the injured police officers. I have spoken to the PSNI leadership in my district to pass on the DUP's sympathies to those officers and to reassure them that they have our support going forward. The sad reality is that our Police Service does not receive the respect that other emergency services receive. Our Ambulance Service, our Fire Service and our Health and Social Care workers deserve respect, and, rightly, there is zero tolerance of attacks on them.
Unfortunately, the PSNI does not receive the same respect. We need the Minister of Justice to work with our justice system to ensure that those who perpetrate such crimes against officers receive the maximum penalty possible. There is an onus on all of us in the Chamber to ensure that there is the political leadership not only to condemn those who attack our police officers but to support the men and women — mothers, fathers, sons and daughters — who put on the uniform. They must receive support from elected representatives.
262 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: 0.10 (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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.09 | 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 | 0.44 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.70 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.04 |
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.