Debate contribution: Online Safety Strategy
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Online Safety Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5068225
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Before I begin, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the tragic deaths of Vanessa Whyte and her two children, James and Sara Rutledge. Those were absolutely horrific murders, and I have no doubt that everyone across the House shares in the horror of what happened. It emphasises, once again, the absolute need for us all to work together to end violence against women and girls. I pay tribute to the dignity and courage of their friends and family, and I think, in particular, of the school friends and other schoolmates of both of those children as they start back to school this week, with the grief that, undoubtedly, they will feel. We want to ensure that all women are safe and feel safe everywhere. That is why the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls addresses the whole range of gender-based violence, abuse and harm, including online. The framework is intended not to displace existing policy remits but to strengthen and coordinate the Executive response to challenging violence against women and girls. The ending violence against women and girls change fund is a fundamental part of delivering the strategic framework, and it focuses on prevention. There are many excellent projects, including in our constituency of Lagan Valley, which work with expert organisations and the PSNI to educate on safety in online spaces. The Department of Health has sponsorship of the Executive's online safety strategy and accompanying three-year action plan, which was published in February 2021. Our officials are members of the online safety strategy cross-departmental implementation group and work closely with colleagues to ensure that we use every opportunity to protect women and girls and to ensure their safety. The UK Online Safety Act is also an important tool in combating online abuse and harms, and we remain committed to engaging with Ofcom on its implementation.
317 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.76).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.88).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.88 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.12 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.68 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.32 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:57 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.