Debate contribution: Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 26 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Hunting with Dogs Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5583247
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As someone who is bringing forward a private Member's Bill, it is my understanding that John has followed every part of the Standing Orders and the procedures outlined by the Speaker's Office in support of the recommendations of the Bill Office at every stage. Members from all sides of the House will introduce private Members' Bills over the next few months. It is incredibly disingenuous and discourteous for so many DUP MLAs today to try to undermine the efforts that Mr Blair has made to take the Bill forward. I ask you to refer the matter to the Speaker's Office, in order to ensure that the record reflects the fact that John has followed every single stage required of him to bring forward this private Member's Bill.
136 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: 0.18 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.88).
- 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 | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.15 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.23 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.05 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.18 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.88 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.07 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.74 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.18 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:41 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.