Debate contribution: Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Ending Violence Against Women and Girls
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937484
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 10 together. The delivery of the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls requires a whole-of-society approach. We have engaged with Ofcom on online safety and mobilised work across all councils through our change fund. The Online Safety Act 2023 introduced new, UK-wide laws to protect children and adults from online harm, and placed specific obligations on online service providers. We support Ofcom's call to tech companies to play their part in addressing the risks of online harm, and recently met Ofcom to discuss that important issue. The ending violence against women and girls small business research initiative (SBRI) challenge fund has identified a number of innovative solutions for women and girls' safety, including challenging problematic behaviours online. A current Ofcom consultation is looking specifically at the protection of women and girls online. I am pleased to have got confirmation in the past couple of weeks that a person has been successfully prosecuted, under a section 181 charge, for making threats against me. The charge was of sending messages by way of online communication conveying a threat of death or serious harm, and at the time of sending, intending that the individual — me — would be in fear that the threat would be carried out. That is one of the more serious charges in that legislation. I am pleased that there has been a successful prosecution of that individual and that he will be sentenced very shortly.
253 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 (0.78).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.84).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.84 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.16 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.53 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.46 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:22 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.