Debate contribution: Sex Crimes: North Belfast
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
- Sex Crimes: North Belfast
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111312
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Powers are already available under the current disclosure regime. There is the power to ask, so if someone in the community has a concern about an individual and their interactions, they can ask the PSNI. There is also a power to tell, and the PSNI can use that when it believes that an individual's behaviour has come to its attention or when it has concerns about that person's engagements. There are significant problems with wider disclosure. The first is that many of those whose information would be disclosed would then go to ground and their supervision under our supervision and notification rules would become more complex. The second problem is vigilantism in our communities, which we just talked about. There was quite a serious incident involving such vigilantism this summer, and we need to be very cognisant of that risk. Thirdly, and most importantly, if we provided a list of convicted paedophiles, it could create a false sense of security that there are only 200 paedophiles living in North Belfast and that we know where they are. The truth is that we do not know how many paedophiles are living in your constituency. Many will be undetected and will not have been convicted, and many are living amongst us. We best protect our society by using our right to tell and our right to ask, by treating anyone who is engaging with a child as a potential risk to that child and by taking those responsibilities seriously.
247 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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.48 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.27 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.23 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
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.