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 5046785
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I totally agree with the Member. We were all raised on a diet of stranger danger, where we were told that the people whom we had to be afraid of lurked in parks wearing macs. The truth is that they did not do that; they lived among us. If you look at the history of sexual abuse, you see that they were people in the clergy and those who had access to children through organisations that were respected. They were family, trusted individuals and friends. We also need to be careful about getting that balance right, because the majority of young people who are abused are abused by somebody known to the family. That is the reality of the situation. Whilst we should never diminish the stranger danger part, it is not the main threat. It is important that we do it through education. That is where I believe that age-appropriate, non-judgemental relationships and sexuality education is hugely important, because those are exactly the conversations that we need to start having with our young people. We need to tell them what is and is not appropriate. We need to give them the agency to say if they are uncomfortable with touch or how somebody behaves towards them and the opportunity, in lessons of that nature, to disclose if they have been so unfortunate as to have been abused.
228 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 (1.00).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.68 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.20 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.06 |
| 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.