Debate contribution: Online Scams
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Online Scams
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4826026
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First and foremost, I encourage people to be vigilant. We need to make sure that people are encouraging others to be vigilant as well and for them to consider whether they need to give out the information for which those scammers may be asking. We certainly do engage on a regular basis with the Department for the Economy. My Department, as the Member will be aware, sponsors the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland, who has worked closely with the PSNI on the Scamwise initiative, which aims to raise awareness among older people of scams. The commissioner played a key role in establishing that partnership. I hope that people are aware of that and will take part in it. There is a responsibility on us all, as MLAs and as individuals, to do everything that we can to make sure that people are alert to the issue and recognise the importance of withholding information and not giving it out when it should not be given out. It is always best to take care, check and verify.
177 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: 0.02 (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).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.43 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.69 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.30 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.