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 5046853
Read the official Assembly record
Text
First, to clarify, I did not say that AEPs could not be fatal, because there are circumstances in which they will be, but they are less-often fatal than the alternative, which is live rounds. That is the point that I made. I did not say that AEPs are not fatal, because I know that, tragically, people have lost their life because they have been hit by a plastic bullet. Plastic bullets are no longer deployed. AEPs are now used, and they are a different category of ammunition. However, they are still ammunition. To be clear, throwing a petrol bomb at a police officer is an assault on that police officer's life. If a police officer's life were under threat anywhere else, the use of live rounds would be resorted to. I will not get into a situation where I try to dictate to the police how they should go about their job. As I said, that is a matter for the Chief Constable, and he is accountable to the Policing Board. I am aware, however, that in order to ensure that robust safeguards are in place, the Policing Board is looking very carefully at the powers of stop-and-search and how they are used. Of course, the human rights of all of us as citizens matter, and police powers have to be fettered within the law. The Policing Board is looking at that. I do not believe that this matter should be tied to what is a basic resourcing issue. We do not have enough police officers, and, with respect, if we had more police officers engaged in more direct community policing, we might not have young people on our streets placing themselves in danger.
284 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: 0.12 (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 (0.88).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.12 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | 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 | 0.78 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.17 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 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.