Debate contribution: School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Extension of Committee Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Danny Baker on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Baker
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 7 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Committee Business
- Heading
- School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Extension of Committee Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4891164
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We did not have a Bill in front of us, but I am sure that all members of the Committee would agree that it was a very effective piece of work on RSE, particularly when you talk to our young people. If you have not watched the hit TV show 'Adolescence' yet, I suggest that you do, because there are key parts in there that we all need to be educated on, and we need to support our young people. I have to disagree with the Member's saying that it was not a good use of our time: it very much was. As a member of the Committee, I say that we work extremely hard, and I give credit to the Chair and the Clerk, who do great, tangible work.
130 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: 0.09 (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 (0.99).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.16 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.16 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | 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 | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.36 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.32 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.11 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.11 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.10 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:20 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.