Debate contribution: Social Media: TEO Communication
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Social Media: TEO Communication
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4802576
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. The Member is aware that the Department is under the equality duty set out in section 75, as all Departments and public bodies are. We take that duty seriously. It is important to us that we are able to communicate our strategies and other information, including on the things that we do day in, day out, to the maximum number of people in the clearest possible way. That is why training of our comms people has taken place to ensure that they are fully aware of the range of tools that they have by which to make that communication clearer and fulfil our equality obligations.
112 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.46 | 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 | 0.56 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.22 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.17 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:57 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.