Debate contribution: Naomi Long: Intimidation at her Home
Debate contribution by Mr Andy Allen MBE on .
- MLA
- Mr Andy Allen MBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster 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 5175311
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Speaker, I associate myself and my party with your remarks at the outset. Normally, on matters such as this, most Members say, "I would like to associate myself with the comments of all Members", but, unfortunately, on this occasion, I cannot do that. What we saw last week was wholly unacceptable. There is no justification whatsoever for it. The intimidation outside the Sinn Féin constituency office of Dáire Hughes MP and Minister Liz Kimmins was totally unacceptable. Those are actions of the past that nobody in this place wants to see happen now and many did not want to see happen in the past. I thank the Member for submitting the Matter of the Day. When I heard what had occurred outside Naomi and Michael Long's home, I was appalled. I am not often on Twitter, for some of the very reasons that have been discussed, but I immediately took to Twitter to show my solidarity with Naomi and Michael. In this place, we often have robust debate, and that is what it is: robust debate. Ministers, Members and parties are held to account, but there is no justification for the actions that we saw last week. Those who were responsible should not only desist from but reflect on their actions. Anybody who attempts to justify such actions is plainly wrong, and I challenge them also.
227 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: 0.12 (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 (0.80).
- 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 | 0.14 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.11 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.20 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.80 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.80 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.16 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| 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.