Debate contribution: Violence against Women and Girls: Deaths of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan
Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Diana Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Matter of the Day
- Heading
- Violence against Women and Girls: Deaths of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5465172
Read the official Assembly record
Text
This is a solemn day. Once again, the Assembly is forced to confront the killing of not one but two women in such a short space of time: Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty. I will name them both because they deserve more than to be reduced to statistics, to be entries on a list or to be numbers on a growing tally. Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty were not numbers; they, along with the 28 other victims of femicide since 2020, were daughters and loved ones, women with futures that have now been stolen. They were known and cherished, and they should still be here. Their deaths are not isolated incidents. They represent a pattern that is repeated, relentless and utterly unacceptable. Too many times, we have stood in the Chamber offering condolences. The words have become routine and the statements predictable, yet the violence continues. That is the uncomfortable truth. The strategy on ending violence against women and girls is not delivering the protection that it promises. Northern Ireland has, for some time, been described as one of the most dangerous places for women to live. We cannot allow our children and the next generation to grow up and believe that it is right for girls and women to be harmed. What message are we sending when perpetrators believe that they can abuse, assault and even kill without meaningful consequence? Where is the deterrence? Where is the urgency? We cannot allow the issue to silently become white noise for the general public. The Justice Minister and the First Minister and deputy First Minister must act and act decisively. We are living in an emergency. If the Executive cannot deliver a strategy that works, they must have the humility to invest in those who make it work. Organisations like Women's Aid are on the front line every day supporting women in crisis, often with inadequate resources. I have seen that first-hand in my constituency. They are stretched and underfunded, yet they are indispensable. This is not a women's issue; it is a failure of our society and a test of our political will. If we continue as we are, we will be back here again, offering more condolences, naming another victim and explaining once again why nothing has changed. I offer my heartfelt sympathy to the Doherty and Flanagan families. I appeal to anyone who needs assistance or reassurance to reach out to support groups like Women's Aid.
408 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: 0.05 (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 (0.89).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.64 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.36 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:06 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.