Debate contribution: Bonfire Regulation
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Bonfire Regulation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5111578
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you for the intervention. I have no issue if a bonfire is too close to a building. I say that I have no issue: what I mean is that they should be in places where they are at a distance. I did my fire safety engineering exams, and I understand that they should be in places where they are not too close to properties and where nobody is in danger. I would like to see a series of bonfires on the Eleventh night to which tourists can come and at which we can tell our story in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, the motion does not address that, and it also leaves out very important parts of the FICT report that matter to me, as a former prison officer. The motion talks about personal safety, but, unfortunately, there are things in the FICT report about memorials to terrorists that apply to me, given what happened to 32 members of the prison workforce. I would like to see that recommendation in the FICT report brought forward and implemented. Perhaps a motion will be tabled about that at some stage. What we have learnt today from some of the commentary is that we lose sight of all the good that has been done. There is still more to do. I am not speaking as its Chair, but I chair the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. Part of the Committee's role is to look after the environment. Through what we are doing, I would like to see young people educated on how we can repair the environment. Unless people are serious about having a conversation about how we cherish that part of our culture and save it, rather than, as some Members have said, and, disappointingly, I heard this from someone whom I respect daily, eradicate it in totality, we cannot be part of that conversation.
314 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: 0.26 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Cultural grievance politics (0.64).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.68).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.50).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.27 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.64 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.12 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.26 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.68 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.26 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.30 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.50 |
| Adopts it | 0.17 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.53 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.44 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:15 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.