Member's statement: Online Child Sexual Abuse
Member's statement by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- MLA
- Mr Jonathan Buckley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 25 February 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Online Child Sexual Abuse
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4814967
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We hear a lot in the Chamber about emergencies and crises, such as the climate emergency, health crisis and cost-of-living crisis. We debate strategies, funding and urgent interventions, but let me ask this: where is the same determination, intent and urgency when it comes to safeguarding our children? Where is the national outcry for the most vulnerable, the innocent and the voiceless — the children who are being exploited, abused and violated while we stand by and watch the statistics climb? The latest figures from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children paint a horrifying picture. Crimes involving images of child sexual abuse have almost doubled in the past five years in Northern Ireland, with a staggering 98% increase. In the past year, offences have risen by 24%, with 859 cases being recorded by the PSNI in 2023-24. That means that, in the past five years, there have been 3,382 recorded crimes, each involving an individual child who has been robbed of basic human dignity. Let us be clear about this: those are only the ones that we know about, yet there is a silence that allows those crimes to fester in the shadows, emboldens predators and leaves children unprotected. Separate figures show that, across the UK, half of those offences occur on Snapchat and a quarter on platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, yet, in Northern Ireland, the PSNI does not even record which platform is being used. How can we fight that epidemic when we are not even gathering the full picture of the scale of the crime? How can we tackle this horror if we do not have the data, the strategy or the will to take decisive action? We live in a society that is increasingly normalising the sexual threat towards children. It is a society where predators are protected by anonymity, where platforms turn a blind eye and where the response is too slow, too weak and often too late. We must demand action. We must seek stronger laws, tougher sentences and full enforcement. No predator should walk the streets of Northern Ireland safe in the knowledge that their crimes will go unpunished.
362 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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.52 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.31 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.16 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:01 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.