Debate contribution: Policing Resources
Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on .
- MLA
- Ms Connie Egan
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 25 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Policing Resources
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5259223
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will be as quick as I can with the time that has been allocated. In speaking to the Opposition motion, I will give particular regard to the Police Ombudsman's investigation into the handling of the devastating child abuse case and the need for collaborative steps to be taken across the Chamber and by our Executive to support the full resourcing and recovery of our Police Service. The latter is vital to ensuring that the extreme harm that was endured by the estimated 3,500 children who were targeted by that predator is prevented from ever happening to another individual. That case could be progressed only due to the bravery of the young girls, whose testimonies made it possible. They are nothing short of inspirational. I think in particular of Cimarron Thomas, a young girl who died by suicide following contact with and subsequent abuse by that predator. The findings of the Police Ombudsman's investigation are extremely concerning, as is the growing proliferation of online sexual abuse. In February 2025, the NSPCC revealed that crimes involving images of child sexual abuse have risen by 98% over the past five years. Much of that illegal material is being repeatedly shared and viewed online. Online sexual abuse, particularly with regard to children, is a growing problem. The Alliance Party shares the concerns that are expressed in the motion about the need for greater funding to support police recruitment and workforce recovery. Those concerns have been echoed most vocally by our Justice Minister. I am sure that she will reflect on that in her comments. I know the work that she is doing to support recruitment and retention of police officers. That case is a grave reminder that crime that is committed on a device that is connected to the internet can just as easily create serious hurt across the world as it can to the person next door. The debate feels particularly relevant as, today, we mark International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, of which the theme is "#NoExcuse for online abuse". Ultimately, while that case may have opened in 2016, as the motion recognises, its lengthy timeline and shortcomings are still incredibly relevant learnings for today. I want us all to work towards a society where everyone is safe and respected, whether that is in public places, at home, in the community or online.
401 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: 0.04 (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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.03 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.53 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.46 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:57 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.