Debate contribution: Online Safety Strategy

Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on 8 September 2025.

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 5068229

Text

I thank the Member for her question. It is incredibly important that all the actions arising from that are fit for purpose. I have said to the House previously that I have had somebody charged and convicted under the online safety legislation. He pleaded guilty and is currently in custody. That is a demonstration, unfortunately, not only of the Act in action but of the need for the Act. I would like to get into a position where we do not need to use that piece of legislation, and that applies right throughout. I take the opportunity to extend support to Simon Harris, who has been subjected to a number of threats over the summer, including another one in the past number of days. It is absolutely appalling, and it demonstrates that abuse targets not just women and girls — the focus of this particular piece of work — but, very often, those in public life across all political parties. Of course, in this work, it is critical that we genuinely get the right actions to tackle that, should it be towards those in public life, women and girls — no matter where they are — or, in particular, children.

200 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.05 (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 (0.65).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.58).
Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.07	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.02	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.02	No
Controversy escalation	0.05	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.65	Yes
Overall judgement	0.05	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.58
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.42
Adopts it	0.00

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.85
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.14
No identity-related subject	0.01
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.

Challenge this classification