Debate contribution: Soldier F: Not Guilty Verdict
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 3 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Matters of the Day
- Heading
- Soldier F: Not Guilty Verdict
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5212734
Read the official Assembly record
Text
It had not been my intention to speak, but I feel compelled to, given the tone and content of some contributions from across the Chamber. Mr Buckley spoke of the years of "turmoil" visited upon poor Soldier F. That does not compare to the years of turmoil suffered by the Bloody Sunday families — and not just the Bloody Sunday families but so many families across Northern Ireland, from every community, who lost victims. To make that comparison does an injustice to all of them. We are told that the trial is something that the republican movement wanted; no, it is something that the families of victims wanted. Mr Buckley spoke of the recasting of the roles of heroes and villains. There is no confusion as to who the villains of Bloody Sunday were, and there is no confusion as to who the victims of Bloody Sunday were and who the victims still are. The people of Derry always knew, and the UK Government finally accepted, finally admitted and finally apologised for that. Those murders were unjustified and unjustifiable, and the SDLP has always said that all the murders were unjustified and unjustifiable. The only rewriting of that particularly awful chapter in the horror story of our collective past is being done by the DUP, the TUV and others. All victims deserve truth, and all victims deserve justice. You cannot stand and accuse others of hypocrisy, as hypocritical as they might be, while you are engaging in hypocrisy and gloating over victims. That is what is being done. You put a Para flag — a Parachute Regiment insignia — on your social media in the light of the trial. Catch yourselves on. It is absolutely disgusting. This is not about whataboutery; this is about victims, truth and justice.
298 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Not flagged on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.58 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.73).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.78).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- The answers did not meet either automatic 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.
Second assessment
Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works
- Verdict
- Not flagged
- Public interest or divisiveness
- Mixed
Against the published rubric
The contribution is on a legacy flashpoint, but its main thrust is truth and justice for victims rather than which community is winning or losing. It stresses victims "from every community" and that "all victims deserve truth, and all victims deserve justice". Its sharpest lines, accusing other parties of "rewriting" the past and "gloating over victims" and calling the posting of a Parachute Regiment insignia "absolutely disgusting", target specific statements and conduct by named parties. They do not attack a whole community or its culture as such. It rebuts earlier contributions rather than adopting an identity framing of its own.
Public interest or divisiveness
Much of the text defends the Bloody Sunday families and victims generally against a comparison the speaker sees as diminishing them, and rejects the claim that the trial was a republican project. That engages with the substance of a contested legacy issue. However, the combative party-directed language ("catch yourselves on", charges of hypocrisy and gloating) also continues a heated communal argument in the Chamber, so the divisive element is substantial though not dominant.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.73 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.16 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.25 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.37 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.48 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.11 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.58 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.04 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.78 |
| Adopts it | 0.18 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.86 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.08 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.06 |
| No identity-related subject | 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.