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 5068233
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. It is one of the six key outcomes: working better together. That means all parts of our system working together to try to tackle it. Just last week, we had the privilege and honour of attending an ending violence against women and girls conference at Craigavon Integrated College. There, we joined over 100 pupils from a number of schools and, in particular, the McNally family, who have done such incredibly brave work in the area. It must be so hard for them to talk about Natalie, describe who she was and step up time and time again, but they do that because they genuinely do not want the violence that happened to their Natalie to happen to another woman. I pay tribute to them. It was an absolute honour to be at that event with them. The event also demonstrated that it is not just about working across government and with local government but about working with young people and all parts of our society at the earliest possible opportunity to tackle misogynistic attitudes and the issues that, in turn, give rise to violence against women and girls.
195 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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.74).
- 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
| 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.43 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.74 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.26 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.74 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.26 |
| 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.