Prevent programme should continue referrals for no ideology
Independent Prevent Commissioner David Anderson KC has recommended the deradicalisation initiative should remain open to those with no fixed ideology in his report published on Wednesday.
The review, looking at lessons learned from the cases of MP Sir David Amess's murderer Ali Harbi Ali and Southport murderer Axel Rudakubana, said 'intensive' efforts have been made to improve processes, but the 'jury is out' on some of the changes.
Lord Anderson said: 'A huge amount of effort has already gone into making Prevent a stronger programme than the one which failed to deal in 2014 with the future killer of Sir David Amess.
'A blizzard of further initiatives has followed the Southport murders of last summer. Though it is too early for all of these to be fully evaluated, taken together they will reduce the chances of such failings being repeated.
'But more needs to be done. It has to be clear that people with a fascination with extreme violence can be suitable subjects for Prevent, even when they have no discernible ideology.'
He added: 'In the longer term, I believe that Prevent could work better as part of a comprehensive violence prevention and safeguarding strategy.'
The report recommended for a Cabinet Office task force to be set up to explore the possibility of formally connecting Prevent to a broader violence prevention and safeguarding system.
It comes as the commissioner for the Commission for Countering Extremism, Robin Simcox, told the Commons' Home Affairs Committee that if Prevent shifted its focus towards taking on more cases of those with interests in extreme violence, it would mean the system 'isn't really a counter-terrorism programme any more'.
He told MPs on Tuesday it would be a 'pretty fundamental shift in what Prevent is', adding: 'Prevent better brace itself for an awful lot of referrals.'
Meanwhile, the interim Prevent commissioner's report also called for the body to 'up its game in the online world, where most radicalisation takes place'.
Lord Anderson's report said that approaches to understanding organised terrorist activity from the last two decades are 'insufficient' for understanding digital movements of self-radicalised extremists, whose online behaviours are 'increasingly difficult to detect and interpret'.
Speaking at the Home Affairs select committee on Tuesday, Lord Anderson said the average age of a person referred to Prevent is now 16 years old, and 40% are aged 11-15 so they are 'dealing here with digital natives'.
The report concluded: 'Wider decisions loom on how Prevent can be better tailored to the online world inhabited by so many of its subjects; how best to deal with those whose ideology amounts to little more than a fascination with extreme violence; and whether Prevent should ultimately be embedded in a more general violence reduction strategy.'
Lord Anderson detailed that he heard evidence from across the country of a large increase in Prevent referrals in the first quarter of this year following the publicity of Rudakubana's case.
He added that reactions to popular Netflix series Adolescence on the theme of 'incels' may have also encouraged more referrals.
Latest figures on Prevent referrals for 2023-2024 included in the report show 36% of 6,921 cases were made up of concerns of vulnerability but no ideology or counter-terror risk, followed by 19% extreme right wing and 18% for conflicted ideology.
The report follows Prevent Learning Reviews published into the two cases.
A review assessing Rudakubana's closed referrals to the programme years before he went on to murder three girls, and attempted to kill eight others and two adults, found too much focus was placed on the absence of a distinct ideology.
Harbi Ali's case was also deemed to be closed too early after 'problematic' assessments, before he went on to kill veteran MP Sir David seven years later.
Reacting to the Prevent commissioner's report on Wednesday, Radd Seiger, the adviser and spokesperson for the family of Sir David, said the family are 'deeply upset' and 'frankly offended' by the way Lord Anderson's report has been handled by the Home Office.
He said the family were given 'next to no notice' of the timing or advance sight of the report, adding media leaks were a further insult to the family.
Mr Seiger said they also received a 'dismissive' letter from the Home Secretary, which he said was designed to 'protect the Government following its failings' and not support them.
The review on Prevent also comes after the terror watchdog recommended for a new offence to address the gap for lone individuals planning mass killings.
In March, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, said the terrorism definition should not be changed in the wake of the Southport murders, but instead the law could be changed to create an offence to prevent mass casualty attacks before they happen, similar to terrorism offences applying to an offender preparing for an attack.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
25 minutes ago
- The Sun
BBC's refusal to properly describe Hamas stems from its institutional anti-Israel bias
Beeb's bias EVEN after a run of avoidable scandals, senior BBC execs still don't get it. Yesterday they were dancing on the head of a pin over accepted editorial breaches in its Gaza documentary. 2 Viewers weren't told of any links between a 13-year-old Palestinian child narrator and his Hamas father. But in a video to all staff, the BBC claims the dad was only a member of the 'political wing'. Except it is British government policy that no such distinction exists. And to normal people outside Auntie's bubble, Hamas members are ALL terrorists. The BBC's refusal to properly describe those responsible for the October 7 massacre stems from its seemingly unending institutional anti-Israel bias. Viewers deserve the truth, not squirming excuses. Prevent what? THE Government's anti-terror Prevent strategy already focuses too much on tackling far-right terrorism — despite Islamists posing a greater threat. Now a report says it is also failing to deal with suspects fixated on violence because their views don't fit into any recognised terror ideology. 2 Southport monster Axel Rudakubana had repeatedly searched online for shootings, terror attacks and Gaza war videos. But despite three referrals, Prevent did nothing because he wasn't deemed a terrorist. Three little girls died. Ali Harbi Ali, who murdered MP David Amess, was let go after one session and described as a 'great person.' Those obsessed with extreme violence shouldn't need an ideological label attached to them before they're stopped. The clue to Prevent's role is in its name. Keep It Down WE hope the Chancellor took note of the fact that the painful inflation spike was caused in part by rising fuel prices. It's why Rachel Reeves should rule out any idea of ending the fuel duty freeze. That would only clobber the hard-working people the Government insists it wants to protect. The Sun's 15-year Keep It Down campaign has saved Brits almost £100billion which has been ploughed back into the economy by grateful motorists. Helping drivers also helps to drive growth, Chancellor. Whip round WE welcome Keir Starmer getting tough and suspending self-indulgent leftie MP s. It's just a pity he didn't act before their fantasy student politics derailed welfare reforms and cost the country £5billion. That dithering means we all now face paying more tax.
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Thanks for saving us, now we'll sue you: Afghan data disaster takes bleakly predictable twist as ambulance-chasing lawyers cash in
Taxpayers face a potential £1billion bill as law firms race to cash in following the Afghan data disaster. Legal companies have begun signing up thousands of claimants who could, it is claimed, pocket up to £250,000 each in compensation. The Government admitted 100,000 Afghans had been left 'at risk of death' from the Taliban by a catastrophic leak of a database of those who had applied to the UK for sanctuary. There were fears it would be used as a 'kill list'. As exclusively discovered by the Daily Mail, but kept hidden by a super- injunction, ministers launched one of the biggest peacetime evacuations in modern British history to rescue thousands and airlift them here in secret. Last October, ministers in charge of the scheme agreed to spend £7billion, with taxpayers neither asked nor told, the High Court heard. Now the compensation bonanza could send costs soaring as law firms plan class action court cases for damages. The floodgates will also open to thousands of legal challenges on behalf of Afghans previously refused sanctuary in Britain, lawyers believe. The Mail has established Manchester-based Barings Law intends to carve off 25 per cent of the value of each successful claim and hopes to bank in excess of £100million. The huge potential bounty for the law firm is an industry standard figure and is capped under UK law. Barings has already signed up approaching 1,000 Afghans included on the database, according to a legal source. Tonight Adnan Malik, the firm's head of data protection, insisted: 'This is about more than just money. 'It is about accountability. Barings Law is giving a voice to people who have lost their homes, livelihoods and liberties as a result of this debacle.' The Ministry of Defence has vowed to 'fight hard' any compensation claims from Afghans. The data blunder happened when a British soldier accidentally emailed out a database with details of 18,800 people who had applied to a UK scheme to reward loyal Afghans who had worked with UK forces or officials and now feared reprisals from the Taliban. British military and government officials were also named on the database, which has been seen by the Mail. Today, commons defence committee chairman Tan Dhesi MP told the BBC: 'This email could be one of the most costly email blunders in history'. The Government is facing mounting pressure to explain its unprecedented super-injunction – which meant for two years Mail journalists faced jail if they breathed a word of the scandal. Prime Minister Keir Starmer was today said to be 'angry' when he discovered the programme – and the secrecy around it – on taking power. Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, meanwhile, said the whole episode 'raises significant constitutional issues' after MPs were also kept completely in the dark. Two Parliamentary probes were launched today, after the super-injunction was lifted after 683 days enabling the Daily Mail to finally reveal its astonishing exclusive story. Cloaked by the news blackout, the ministers' secret resettlement scheme has seen thousands smuggled out of Afghanistan and flown to Britain at vast cost. Every few weeks, unmarked government charter planes are landing at airports including Stansted and RAF Brize Norton packed with hundreds of Afghans. So far 18,500 Afghans whose data was breached have been flown to Britain or are on their way in taxpayer-funded jets. A total of 23,900 are earmarked for arrival. The MoD said some of them would have come anyway regardless of the data leak. But those whose personal details were breached can expect to win damages. The Mail has seen a WhatsApp message being widely circulated around Afghanistan, Pakistan and the UK encouraging people to sign up to claims against the MoD being brought by Barings. Specialists have been drawing up scales for case values, based on a claimant's whereabouts, the extent of the data breach and the threat to their lives. Mr Malik said: 'We have a long history of successfully pursuing data breach cases. This is perhaps our most significant to date. The victims have been exposed to not just financial harm, but the real threat of violence and death. 'In some cases, these threats have been tragically carried out.' He added: 'We would expect sums upwards of five figures for each person affected.' Some claims are anticipated to be substantially higher, and once the Government's costs accrued in processing the claims are included, the overall exposure to taxpayers is put at be between £500million and £1billion. Claimants can apply for compensation on the basis of a threat to their livelihood, even if they have moved to Britain. This is because they could claim they face reprisals from the Afghan community in this country. Other companies expected to join the race include Leigh Day, a firm known for helping hundreds of Afghans in other cases. The data leak also means a previous decision to turn down an Afghan's application could be appealed, which could lead to years of further legal challenges. The Mail already knows of several cases where a rejected Afghan mounted a legal challenge only for ministers to mysteriously, and suddenly, concede the case without giving a reason why – the suspicion being that the Government secretly knew that the Afghan concerned was on the dataset. Lawyers are set to mount a series of legal challenges known as Judicial Reviews. The first, they say, is likely to be against the Government's closure earlier this month of the flagship Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy without warning. They will claim the scheme was 'cynically closed' just days before the data leak was revealed – to prevent an expected 'deluge' of fresh relocation applications. Thousands have been rejected for ARAP and the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, which has also closed. Lawyers say they will review all the rejections. A spokesman for the MoD said tonight: 'We will do everything possible to defend against any compensation claims. 'We have taken appropriate action in line with the level of risk these individuals faced. Any claims we do get, we will fight them hard.'
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Inflation is home-grown: Reeves has the right ambitions, but the wrong execution, says MAGGIE PAGANO
What planet is Rachel Reeves on? Just hours after the Chancellor assured her City audience at the Mansion House dinner that Labour is building a 'Britain that is better off', up pop inflation numbers showing that the country is markedly less well off than a year ago. As the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics show, the UK's inflation rate ticked up to 3.6 per cent in the year to June – nearly double the target rate – and up from 3.4 per cent in May. It's the steepest rise since January last year. Reeves can't have been doing much of her own food shopping recently, or had to handle household bills for her two homes. Otherwise she would have seen for herself that even the most basic of foods like butter and milk have been shooting up, as have energy costs, water bills and rents. As any regular shopper could have told her weeks ago, food prices have been creeping up again for some time. In June, they were 4.4 per cent higher, the third month in a row that prices have risen and the frothiest increase for 18 months. But the biggest driver behind the June price hikes compared to a year ago are rising housing costs – despite interest rate cuts – including rents which are up by 5.8 per cent. Energy costs were up by 6.8 per cent despite an overall fall in fuel prices while water bills shot up by a staggering 26 per cent. And the reason for inflation running hot again? This time energy and raw material costs can't be blamed solely on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Donald Trump's tariffs or even the Middle East. This time businesses are being more honest – they are passing on higher costs to their customers because of the recent increase in employers' National Insurance (NI) and other tax rises. It's a home-grown problem. An own goal, if you like. In which case, you have to ask whether the Chancellor is either delusional or blind when making other equally extraordinary claims during her speech. Labour, she said, had 'restored Britain's reputation as a beacon of stability by putting the public finances back on a stable footing'. Really? Reeves is pulling our leg. Gilt yields are high, growth is risible if not grinding to a halt, demand is down, the welfare state continues to balloon and the public finances are in dire straits. Figures out today are likely to show a further shake-out in the jobs market triggered by the NI increases, confirming recent warnings by Andrew Bailey, the Bank of England Governor, that the jobs tax is leading to greater unemployment. That is why, despite the latest figures, interest rates are likely to be trimmed in August. When will the Chancellor learn that you can't deliver growth by parroting that you want it? Human endeavour doesn't work like that. If you want entrepreneurs and companies to risk their capital, they must feel confident about a brighter future – and potential rewards – rather than booking flights to Dubai. That's why her much-mooted Big Bang-style Leeds Reforms, aimed at making the 'country more active and more confident', are such a damp squib. Her ambition is the right one, but badly executed. More worryingly, these reforms may lead to another wave of dangerous light-touch regulation – just like we saw under the last Labour administration. She's right that the London Stock Exchange needs to be made more attractive for listings and that households should be encouraged to invest in equities. UK adults own the smallest amount of their wealth in investments of any G7 country at 8 per cent. But you can't order companies to list in London if they can get better valuations across the Atlantic. And you can't order savers to put their money into equities or invest in unquoted companies, however much Sid might tell you to, and certainly not order them to invest more in UK companies, without incentives. So it's not surprising that most City figures are decidedly underwhelmed by her Leeds Reforms, while the rest of us are simply bemused. It would have been much cleverer if Reeves had looked to Sweden where households invest 50 per cent of their assets in equities and investment funds, up from a third just two decades ago. And how was this achieved? First, the government abolished stamp duty on equities, then introduced investment savings accounts which attracted a small flat tax. No capital gains or dividend tax. Big, bold and simple. That's what we should do here instead of the usual fiddling around.
