Debate contribution: Child Sex Offenders
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 24 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Child Sex Offenders
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5046760
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Existing arrangements are in place under the PSNI child protection disclosure scheme, allowing information to be disclosed to members of the public in cases where doing so is necessary to protect a child or children from serious harm. Such information may be requested by any member of the public and will be disclosed by the police, where it appropriate to do so. Police or other agencies may also proactively disclose information on serious offenders in cases where doing so is necessary in order to protect victims, potential victims or other persons in the community. Those mechanisms are in line with the disclosure requirements set out in article 50 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and with the statutory guidance that my Department has issued to agencies that are involved in the public protection arrangements in Northern Ireland (PPANI). I consider the arrangements to be consistent with child safeguarding requirements. I encourage anyone who is concerned that an individual poses a risk of harm to children to contact the police, in the first instance, to seek disclosure.
178 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: 0.03 (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).
- 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 | 0.56 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.68 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.19 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.11 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:52 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.