Topical question AQT 1553/22-27
Topical question by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Topical question
- Assembly reference
- AQT 1553/22-27
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111311
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Brett asked the Minister of Justice whether she will support his call for a change in the law to protect the local community, given that information that the PSNI released to him shows that his constituency of North Belfast is home to more people who have been convicted of sex crimes than any other part of our city, with the figure now standing at 200, and also given that, under current legislation, there is no requirement for automatic disclosure to the local community if someone who has been convicted of a child sex crime moves into that community.
99 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Follow-ups by the same MLA in the Chamber
These were assessed together with this record:
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: 0.13 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.12 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.13 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.52 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.40 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.08 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:12 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.