Debate contribution: Clerical Child Abuse

Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .

MLA
Ms Paula Bradshaw
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
27 January 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Clerical Child Abuse
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5345167

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the junior Minister for giving way. I am not sure how long your speech is, so I want to get this in before you conclude. I refer to the call in the motion for you to publish the reports, findings and recommendations, set out a time-bound response and state your position on a statutory public inquiry. I fully appreciate all the other work that the Department is involved in, but victims and survivors need to know whether those questions will be answered today.

85 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.88).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.01No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.88Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.61
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.12
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.11
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.09
Another identity-related subject0.05

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:21 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.

Challenge this classification