Debate contribution: Funding Applications: Criminal Convictions

Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .

MLA
Ms Michelle O'Neill
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
3 March 2025
Type
Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business
Oral Answers to Questions
Heading
Funding Applications: Criminal Convictions
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4825987

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Of course, nobody wants that, particularly not in those sensitive areas, but let us not make policy on the hoof. Let us be considered about how we do things. In order to bring forward such policies, you need to ensure that there is proper documentation and lists and that you are able to refer to records. Let us not make policy on the hoof. I get the general point about making sure that you can stand over any application for funding. That is an important point.

86 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.08 (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 (0.63).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.03No
Dog-whistle messaging0.06No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.63Yes
Overall judgement0.08At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.98
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.01
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.68
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.27
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.04
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:06 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.

Challenge this classification