Debate contribution: Let Them Protect Campaign
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
- Let Them Protect Campaign
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5046831
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am more than happy to do so. I was at the launch of the Let Them Protect campaign, and anyone who has seen the hard-hitting advertising on television will be struck by the vulnerability of the people whom the police attend to day and daily and the risks to them if PSNI officers are instead in hospital waiting rooms seeking treatment for assault. It is not acceptable that, when people run towards harm to protect us, they end up being spat on, bitten and kicked, having masonry dropped on their head and enduring a host of other abuses, including having their car rammed. When people step forward to protect the community, they deserve to have its respect and cooperation. Those who attack the PSNI are not just attacking the PSNI but attacking, first, people who are members of families and communities, and whose families are distressed by what has happened to them, and, secondly, the wider community, because they are preventing the police from attending crisis situations and thus delaying their response. That could cost any of us if we were ever to need to dial 999 in an emergency. As part of the sentencing Bill that I will introduce in the autumn, I want to increase the aggravator that applies to assault in order to take account of anyone who is providing a public service, or a service to the public, or who is working on the front line so that that can be taken into account during sentencing.
To be clear, if somebody is serving the public, they should be able to do so without fear or threat of intimidation, violence or assault.
276 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: 0.07 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.85).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.85 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.15 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.81 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.10 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:53 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.