Member's statement: Safer Internet Day
Member's statement by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 February 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Safer Internet Day
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5435203
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Today is Safer Internet Day. The risk that children and young people face online is something that I think about every day. The latest research from CyberSafeKids in the Republic of Ireland shows how children are navigating digital platforms with limited safeguards, limited parental oversight and limited privacy protections. Those findings sit within a wider societal reality. The one thing that I keep thinking is that, every day, there is more news about the Epstein files and more discussion of the abuse and the salaciousness around it. It is really awful, dark content. It is such a reminder that, when power goes unchecked and children are not protected, the darkest side of humanity really flourishes. History has taught us time and time again that abuse is enabled by silence, by environments where those with influence go unchecked and by deference. I worry that, while it is good that we are having these conversations and things are coming out more into the open about child abuse that has been happening, what is happening online is being monetised, and that is increasing. There are certain things that we can do; my party leader is doing what she can on deepfakes, and I plan to bring forward an amendment to the Justice Bill to ban nudification apps. However, there is so much more that we have to do as a society, and that means empowering families and having difficult conversations about the reality of power and the reality of child abuse that exists. We need to strengthen digital literacy and promote existing tools to keep children safe. There are two things that I want to highlight today, which I previously was not aware of. The first is a really important tool that every parent, teacher, youth worker and politician needs to know about. Childline and the Internet Watch Foundation have created the Report Remove tool, which allows any child or young person to request the secure removal of an online image of themselves that they are worried about or did not consent to. That is a really practical and accessible safeguard that every parent, teacher and youth worker should be aware of. Secondly, I am conscious that, while we talk about historical clerical abuse and look at what is happening now, many people who were perhaps abused as children are living in silence now. I want to say to them that there is a victims-led charity called the National Association for People Abused in Childhood. So much of the issue is about the silence that people live with, and them then coming forward to talk about what they experienced but not being treated in the way that they should be. There is a charity there to help those people. Safer Internet Day is more than just a reminder about screens and apps; it is a reminder of our collective duty to challenge the systems that are in place —
— for children who are at risk.
493 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 (0.82).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.82 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.66 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.23 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:33 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.