Debate contribution: Naomi Long: Intimidation at her Home

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 13 October 2025.

MLA: Mr Paul Frew
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 13 October 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Matters of the Day
Heading: Naomi Long: Intimidation at her Home
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5175309

Text

I, too, condemn the intimidation that we all witnessed last week through not only the attack on Sinn Féin's constituency offices but the mob that turned up at a politician's private residence. Naomi and Michael Long have my sympathy, as do the Sinn Féin representatives. It is absolutely wrong to go to someone's sanctuary — their private family home. However, this is not the first time that it has happened. I recall when a mob surrounded the home of councillor Maurice Mills, a district policing partnership chairperson in Ballymena, way back in, I think, the late '90s. Sammy Brush is another person who comes to mind. No one has a monopoly on intimidation. Many unionist politicians from all ilks and parties have suffered intimidation. It is really important that the parties here do not use the atrocious behaviour of last week for political point-scoring. That is absolutely atrocious. Only last week, one of my colleagues had graffiti sprayed on his constituency office. That was not mentioned by this party. I was the victim of a libellous whispering campaign, also only last week. That was not mentioned in the Chamber. Why would I mention it? We all suffer the same activities. Parties should be very careful not to exploit such atrocious actions for political point-scoring. Even today, when we have the opportunity to unite, we have had attack. That is horrific, and I will tell you why: it is the Chamber that should fill any void or vacuum. The Chamber is where we hold Ministers and politicians to account. The Chamber is where there must be robust debate. The Speaker is a champion of robust debate in the Chamber, as I am. No political party should seek to score political points in order to diminish our role as scrutinisers of this place, of Departments and of individual Ministers. That is what concerns me about what I have heard this morning from the two Members who have spoken. It is wrong to use that atrocious behaviour for a political point-scoring manoeuvre. I ask the Members who have spoken to consider their wording and remember that the Chamber that we sit in is the champion of democracy, and that there should be robust debate.

371 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.25 (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).
The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.61).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.25	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.04	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.03	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.10	No
Controversy escalation	0.16	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.09	No
Overall judgement	0.25	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.38
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)	0.61
Adopts it	0.01

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.84
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.09
No identity-related subject	0.05
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.01
Another identity-related subject	0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:27 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.

Challenge this classification