THE GOVERNMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATIONS

 Prevent datasets by revising how referrals are categorised. Other recommendations include encouraging referrals from friends, family and community cohorts; investigating whether there is an imbalance in thresholds applied to Islamist and Extreme Right-Wing Channel cases; and developing a new training and induction package for all government and public sector staff working in counterextremism and counter-terrorism. The government has accepted the recommendations. Home secretary Suella Braverman said: “I wholeheartedly accept all 34 recommendations and am committed to quickly delivering wholesale change to ensure we are taking every possible step to protect our country from the threat posed by terrorism.”

“Prevent will now ensure it focuses on the key threat of Islamist terrorism.

“As part of this more proportionate approach, we will also remain vigilant on emerging threats, including on the extreme right.

“This independent review has identified areas where real reform is required. This includes a need for Prevent to better understand Islamist ideology, which underpins the predominant terrorist threat facing the UK.”

Reception

In the government’s official response to the Independent Review of Prevent, Braverman said: “The Independent Review, led by William Shawcross, is a vital part of ensuring Prevent is fit for purpose and agile enough to meet the threat we face. I would like to thank William Shawcross and his team for their hard work and dedication in completing such a thorough piece of work. In his report, the reviewer is clear that while Prevent is a crucial element in our armoury against terrorism, it needs to refocus on its core mission of stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. This includes Prevent placing greater emphasis on tackling ideology and its radicalising effects, rather than attempting to go beyond its remit to address broader societal issues such as mental health.”

Counter Terrorism Policing’s National Prevent lead, Detective Chief Superintendent Maria Lovegrove said: “Counter Terrorism Policing has long held the view that our delivery of the Prevent Duty is one of the most important things we do in our mission to keep the public safe.

“We are pleased that William Shawcross has recognised the vital work Prevent does, particularly how the Government, Counter Terrorism Policing and our many partner agencies are tackling the radicalisation of young people and reducing the risk of violent extremism.

“The terrorist threats we face now are very different to when Prevent began, and a strong collective approach is absolutely vital if we are to keep up with this changing landscape and its growing dimensions.

“We will now work alongside the Home Office to respond to the recommendations, and continue our contribution to the Government’s refresh of the CONTEST strategy.”

CRITICISM

However, as we have already touched on, there are others who have voiced strong criticism. Ilyas Nagdee, Amnesty International UK’s racial justice director, said: “This review is riddled with biased thinking, errors, and plain anti-Muslim prejudicefrankly, the review has no legitimacy.

“William Shawcross’ history of bigoted comments on Muslims and Islam should have precluded his involvement in this ill-starred review in the first place.

“There’s mounting evidence that Prevent has specifically targeted Muslim communities and activists fighting for social justice and a host of crucial international issues – including topics like the climate crisis and the oppression of Palestinians.

“There is growing evidence that Prevent is having disastrous consequences for many people; eroding freedom of expression, clamping down on activism, creating a compliant generation and impacting on individual rights enshrined in law.

“A proper independent review of Prevent should have looked at the host of human rights violations that the programme has led to - but these have largely been passed over in silence.”

Ruth Ehrlich, head of policy and campaigns at Liberty, said: “We all want to live safe and flourishing lives, but Prevent is a fundamentally misconceived and oppressive policy that stops us from doing so. It embeds discrimination against Muslims in public services, erodes carefully cultivated relationships, and fosters a culture of fear and mistrust.

“In 2019, Liberty along with 16 other human rights and community groups made the decision to boycott the Shawcross review. Shawcross’s appointment as chair of the review, following his history of Islamophobic comments, made it clear that the Government did not intend to conduct an impartial review of the strategy, but instead sought to whitewash it.

“The publication of today’s long-delayed report – and the fact that its recommendations have already been accepted in full by the Government – shows that the Government is not committed to engaging meaningfully with Muslim communities but instead targeting them further. Muslim organisations are singled out for their criticisms of Prevent, despite the fact these concerns are shared widely among human rights organisations, as well as frontline workers. Instead of addressing the human rights issues raised by the Prevent duty, the review proposes to extend the reach of Prevent to more public sector bodies, entrenching its harmful effects.”

Zara Mohammed, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “What we see in the so-called independent review is a rehashing of divisive talking points determined at stigmatising Muslims and Muslim civil society.”

Incel Ideology

The Guardian recently reported that there has been a rise in Andrew Tate related cases referred to Prevent by schools, and there has also been criticism that Andrew Tate and other misogynist and incel ideology has been overlooked by Shawcross.

Reports include incidents of verbal harassment of female teachers or pupils and outbursts which reflect Tate’s views.

One practitioner told the Guardian: “From September he’s just accelerated from nowhere to become a primary issue for schools that I have been dealing with. He obviously doesn’t fit within the Prevent sphere but incels do. He is parallel to them and has a crossover. When I’m in schools I find myself describing him, effectively, as toxic misogyny on steroids.

“It may have been the delayed effect off the back of young people talking more about him after he lost access to some of his social media platforms, but we started to see a rise before Christmas, in terms of schools telling us about pupils really challenging staff, such as cases where pupils have said to female teacher: ‘What do you know, you’re a woman, you can’t teach me anything. Your place is in the kitchen.’”

Shawcross concluded that the “Incel” culture was not a counter-terrorism matter, stating in the report: “However, the country’s deputy senior national co-ordinator for counterterrorism policy has said that Incel is not a terrorist ideology. I agree.”

ACROSS THE WORLD, INCEL IDEOLOGY HAS ALSO BEEN A FACTOR IN KILLINGS IN ISLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, IN 2014; IN TORONTO IN 2018 AND 2020; AND IN TALLAHASSEE IN 2018

This is despite cases in the UK such as the terrorism conviction of Gabrielle Friel who “expressed affinity with and sympathy for one incelmotivated mass murderer” and the mass shooting in Plymouth, which was carried out by a man involved in incel ideology. The Plymouth attacker had been referred to Prevent. Across the world, incel ideology has also been a factor in killings in Isla Vista, California, in 2014; in Toronto in 2018 and 2020; and in Tallahassee in 2018. Dr Tim Squirrell of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) told the Guardian: “Tate clearly represents a risk of radicalising young men into misogynist extremism. This kind of extremism is not currently considered for support under Prevent unless it is accompanied with a recognised ideology, e.g. incel/extreme rightwing/ Islamist. That’s a problem.”

Squirrell added: “Incel ideology isn’t the only misogynist ideology, or even the one that causes the most damage in absolute terms, but claiming that it is not and shouldn’t be considered a terrorist threat is misguided.”

“It also cannot be dealt with under hate crime because – and you would hope that Shawcross would know this – misogyny isn’t included in hate crime legislation.”

Conclusion

Shawcross’s 192-page Independent Review of Prevent has faced a lot of hurdles, including delays, changes in reviewer, criticism and even legal action. The government and counter terror policing have committed to working on the recommendations. On the other hand, the review has been criticised by human rights groups, experts and others for not being independent, for focussing too much on Islamist extremism and not enough on far-right extremism. L

Who We Are

Our cutting-edge physical security solutions are trusted by a range of high-risk environments and businesses, from data centres and schools to transport hubs, manufacturing plants, sports stadiums, public spaces, and even critical national infrastructure (CNI) sites. Whether you're looking to safeguard your physical assets, protect your sensitive data, or ensure business continuity, CLD's products are your best defence against today's evolving threats.