Debate contribution: Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme: North Antrim Applicants
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
- Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme: North Antrim Applicants
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937556
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. The First Minister is answerable for her own activities, of course, but I can say clearly to this place that I believe that any glorification of terrorism is wrong. Of course, families may want to remember their loved one, and they can do so privately. That is understandable, but the public glorification of those who have been convicted of terrorist activities is absolutely wrong in my view. It has no part to play in Northern Ireland, and it never did. It certainly has no part to play in our future. I want us all to stand united against paramilitarism, intimidation, threats and any glorification of same.
113 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: 0.15 (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).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.81).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.17 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.13 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.13 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.22 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.14 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.15 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.18 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.81 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.98 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 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.