Anti-terror

When I was a Prevent counter terror officer a decade ago our case load was largely focused on Islamist terrorism – clear, defined ideological extremism. Today the picture looks very different. The majority of cases involve ‘mixed, unclear or unstable ideologies’ or a simple ‘fixation with violence’. In other words, many people being referred no longer seem to have any specific ideology. The programme is looking at behaviours that are ‘violence-oriented’, which risks blurring our understanding of the real terror threat in the UK. According to the Home Office, there were 8,778 referrals to Prevent in the latest reporting period, up roughly 27 per cent on the previous year. At first

Britain is reviewing its cornerstone anti-terror programme. As the name implies, Prevent is a strategy designed to stop radicalisation before it metastasises into killer intent. But how well is it working? There have been accusations that Prevent is discriminatory. Groups such as Liberty and the Muslim Council of Britain have criticised the anti-terror strategy for targetting Muslims, arguing that it has caused hurt to Britain’s Islamic communities. But there are also criticisms that, even on its own terms, the Home Office programme isn’t working as well as it should. Dame Sara Khan, the social cohesion tsar, last week warned that efforts to tackle Islamist extremism are being hampered by ‘political