Debate contribution: PSNI: Conditions on Funding
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
- PSNI: Conditions on Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5046849
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, plastic bullets have not been used in Northern Ireland for a very long time. The AEPs that are currently used are of a different magnitude and make, and they are not used in a liberal fashion. They are used only when there is a threat to life, and the alternative to using them is to use live rounds. We have to be careful to leave the PSNI to make the calls on how it polices those situations and the Policing Board to scrutinise the use of different tactics as they come along. I am aware of issues with stop-and-search. Much research has been done into that, and we have received much feedback, particularly from those who feel targeted by it. However, it would not be appropriate to tie the PSNI's hands beyond what is required by the Policing Board on the appropriateness of its responses. Again, it would not be appropriate to put conditions on resourcing and link them to political points about how the police go about their operational duties. I have always been clear: the operational duties of the police are the responsibility of the Chief Constable, and he is answerable to the Policing Board.
198 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: 0.10 (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 (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.65 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.15 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.14 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.