Debate contribution: Violence against Women and Girls: Deaths of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- 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 5465182
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I express my sincere condolences to the families of Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty. My mind turns particularly to Amy's two young children, who have been left without a mother and robbed of that centrepiece in any family. I am sure that I am not alone in the House when I say that my sincere prayer is that they will know the comfort of almighty God, whom the Bible describes as:
"the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort".
As policymakers, we need to face up to the issues that have been highlighted in the aftermath of that murder. This morning, a lady from Foyle Women's Aid pointed out that, while there has been much talk about ending violence against women and girls and the funding that has accompanied that flagship scheme, the reality is that we are falling down when it comes to the basics. There is no core funding for the groups that provide services daily for those who suffer domestic violence. In the PSNI, there are no specialists who should be assigned to domestic violence cases as a matter of course. There is an appalling backlog in our court system. All of those are real issues about which this place could and should be doing something, particularly in the Executive Office and the Department of Justice. Spending millions of pounds on grants that are awarded through councils instead of on targeted interventions through schools and youth clubs is a missed opportunity in my eyes. It is time that we had more than platitudes from the parties that head up those Departments and real delivery for groups on the front line, such as Women's Aid. That, not speeches in the Chamber after a murder has taken place, would show determination to address the issue. Recently, at the Executive Office Committee, Youth Assembly Members shared with us experiences of women and girls in the education system.
If we want to do something about this issue, that is where we need to target our money and focus to ensure that no other generation has to grow up living through a time like this when such a number of women and girls have been murdered in Northern Ireland. This needs to be a living, breathing document, but, for that to be the case, we need to spend our money and time in a targeted way; not, as is currently the case, through grants that we award through councils. We need to get our core funding right for those who are on the front line and delivering services daily, and we need to put money into our education system to ensure that no generation has to live through what we are going through at the minute.
456 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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.61 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.39 |
| 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.