Debate contribution: Traffic Collision Sites: Privacy and Dignity
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Frew
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Traffic Collision Sites: Privacy and Dignity
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5284953
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I support the motion and commend the proposer of it for bringing to the House a very sensitive issue. We are a legislature, and, in legislating, we need flexibility to bring in new laws when they are required. As life becomes more modern and digital technology takes over, the Assembly must adapt. The legislative process takes a long time, as it should, for all sorts of good reasons, but we really need to get started on legislation that is required for the modern era. We support the motion wholeheartedly, because it is simply wrong to take an image on a phone or to use another device to take a picture of the scene of a horrific incident in which someone might be seriously injured or, indeed, lose their life. I was a first responder to an accident. There was a fatality in a multi-vehicle traffic accident that blocked the road in both directions, which meant that ambulances had to come from both directions, putting them miles out of their way. When I came across that, I would never have dreamt of using my phone to take a picture of the horrific scenes that I witnessed. Not only do people sustain injuries in such incidents, but others can suffer from shock, causing them to do things that are completely out of character. In that moment, such a situation can be dangerous and volatile. Rather than take your phone out, you need to deal with what you see in front of you. You need to think about the casualties who need your help and how you can respond in the best way that you can in that situation while feeling, as you do, completely hopeless. The last thing that you should do is take out your phone, other than to contact the emergency services. When I came across that scene, I was able to communicate with the fire and ambulance services in order to describe where exactly the accident was on the road and to make sure that appliances came from both directions, as was required. When people come across accidents, it is important that they act responsibly and as best they can and that they communicate with the people whom they need to communicate with, not least those who are involved in the accident. It is really important that we send the message today that it is wrong to take images at the scene of a tragic, fatal or horrific road accident. You are not serving the people who are caught up in it, you are not solving any of their vulnerabilities and you are absolutely not helping at the scene of an accident. Therefore, I support legislation that will prohibit someone taking an image of such a scene. Think of the devastation for the families finding out that their loved one has perished or has been severely hurt. Think how much more negatively impactful that would be if you were to hear it or see it on social media. Of course, when loved ones get that message from the police, it is all about trying to get around extended family before they hear it from somewhere else. They do not stand a chance if the news goes out on social media quickly and instantly and travels around the community and the town or village where they live. They have absolutely no chance. I think that we can do this, and we should search through all the existing legislation to see whether we can amend it to include this matter.
That is the way that we should go on the issue in order to have it in legislation as quickly as possible.
611 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: 0.03 (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 (0.91).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.98 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:11 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.