Debate contribution: Supporting Service Leavers, Veterans and their Families
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Supporting Service Leavers, Veterans and their Families
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5217075
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. I did not mention this, because I always mention it in the Chamber, but when my son left the RAF, he was told about the bars and clubs that he was not to go to, not just because of republican paramilitary threat but because of loyalist paramilitary threat. I echo the point made to the other side of the Chamber that a really important message could be sent that the past should be left in the past and the threat from paramilitary control, coercion and potential violence to any section of society should be shunned. Supporting the motion would send a message that the days of the paramilitaries and the threat that they pose to society are over.
125 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: 0.13 (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 (0.76).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.12 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.37 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.13 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.23 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.76 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.88 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.12 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:46 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.