Debate contribution: Audit and Re-imaging of Memorials
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Audit and Re-imaging of Memorials
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5349669
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the Member's giving way and recognise the vital work that she carried out in South Belfast when she worked in another capacity. I seek some clarity on the motion's reference to:
"acts of violence or events that caused pain and misery".
You talked about war. In North Belfast — I am sure that it is the same in South Belfast — we have a proud tradition of commemorating war heroes. Does she include that in the reference from the motion? Obviously, war causes misery and pain. Does she accept that those memorials should stay, or is she calling for their removal?
103 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: 0.45 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Cultural grievance politics (0.69).
- The text reports, quotes or asks about the framing rather than adopting it (0.50).
- Subject area: Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.40 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.69 | Yes |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.19 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.47 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.40 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.45 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.44 |
| Reports or questions it (chosen) | 0.50 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.06 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.53 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.40 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:38 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.