Debate contribution: Racist Hate Crime: Increase
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Racist Hate Crime: Increase
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111300
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Chief Constable has made a number of asks, but the first and most important one was made during the period of riots when we needed to rely on mutual aid. We were able to get an additional £5 million for his budget to cover that. You will know that I am on record on saying that, whilst that was absolutely necessary and had to happen, it was, in many ways, another classic example of bad behaviour absorbing resources that could otherwise have been invested where they might have done some good. The Chief Constable and I have been working together to develop a five-year plan: the first three years would be to regrow PSNI numbers to around the 7,000 that we have as a target, and the further two years would be to sustain that. We have first call on the resources for that to happen, which will, I think, have a big impact on neighbourhood policing. I am also hopeful that, in this round, when we are setting up a CSR period for three years, there will be the opportunity to secure the remaining funding that the PSNI needs so that we can grow police numbers. We cannot get through this without good neighbourhood policing and the work on the ground that allows communities to have confidence in the PSNI and allows the PSNI to respond in an appropriate manner when challenges arise. I reiterate, however, that we cannot look only to policing when it comes to issues around hate. The crime is one thing, and, by then, people will already have been harmed, but the hate will have to be tackled by us all, not just by policing and justice.
283 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: 0.06 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.66).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.66 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.34 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.67 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.32 |
| 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 13:13 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.