Debate contribution: Assembly Business
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 13 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Assembly Business
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4947528
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, the Committee on Standards and Privileges published its report on the complaint that was made against me. The Committee found that I had not breached any Assembly standards. All who value free speech and proper scrutiny in the House should welcome that finding. However, a serious concern remains. As part of that investigation, a transcript of an interview with the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, Ms Bradshaw, was published. In it, she said:
"I just think that every week he comes and tries to find a way, whether it's transgenderism, whether it's against the Catholic Church, whether it's against ...".
The implication is clear: I have acted in a sectarian or prejudicial manner in the Assembly or on its Committees. I utterly reject that allegation. I wrote to the Committee to request that that slur be rejected or that Ms Bradshaw provide evidence to back up her claim. Ms Bradshaw declined to do so. That failure is now recorded in the appendix to the Committee's report. Her unfounded accusation —
— is on the public record —
— published on the Assembly website and left uncorrected.
The public record now contains a serious slur on my character that was made without evidence and left to stand without withdrawal. What recourse is available to me through the Speaker's Office to have the record corrected? Are such remarks open to investigation by the Commissioner for Standards?
248 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: 0.28 (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 (0.85).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.12 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.43 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.07 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.28 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.03 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.12 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.85 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.86 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.08 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:33 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.