It's no surprise that Prevent has gone to the dogs
Conquest's Second Law states that the behaviour of an organisation can best be predicted by assuming it's controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies – and that certainly seems to apply to Prevent (although it's a 'programme' rather than an organisation). Prevent is a key strand of the counter-terrorism framework introduced after the 7/7 bombings and aims to stop people becoming radicalised. Given the historical context – and the fact that 75 per cent of MI5's counter-terrorism work involves monitoring Islamist extremists – you'd think the main focus would be radical Islam. At least, you would if you weren't familiar with Conquest's Second Law.
Of the 6,817 people referred to Prevent in the year ending 31 March 2023, just 11 per cent were suspected of Islamist extremism, compared with 19 per cent in danger of succumbing to 'extreme right-wing terrorism'. And according to a Prevent Refresher Awareness Course on the Home Office website, one of the three most common subcategories of extreme right-wing terrorist ideology is 'cultural nationalism'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Labour promise to ‘end asylum hotels' is worthless… Reeves will be turfed out long before last asylum seeker leaves B&B
AS election manifesto pledges go, it was as simple and straightforward as they get: Labour will 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. No wriggle room there, you might think. Not SOME asylum hotels, ALL of them. 3 3 3 And, given the current huge annual cost of housing Channel migrants, that would surely save taxpayers money. Simple! Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad — and expensive — news, but apparently not. After 11 months in office, Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave a helpful update this week on that vow to the British people during her Spending Review, and added in the teeny-tiny oh-so-insignificant caveat that it wouldn't actually happen until 2029. That's four long years away. It also means many more billions of pounds of taxpayers' money being thrown away. After all, the Government is currently forking out more than £4BILLION a year to house illegal migrants, some of whom have arrived on small boats, and even by 2029 asylum costs are STILL predicted to top £2.5billion a year — with or without a hotel room in sight. After the Tories failed to deliver on their promise to stop putting asylum seekers in hotels, we have every right to be cynical. Indeed, they were happily paying for expensive four-star rooms until that was exposed to widespread public fury. But even if Labour do actually keep their manifesto pledge by 2029, what does 'ending asylum hotels' actually mean? Let's look at the best-case scenario. Let's imagine a world where Home Office officials go to warp speed to process the massive backlog of asylum seekers who are currently waiting years to learn their fate. Will that mean we can finally stop paying for their accommodation? Almost certainly not. Windows smashed at migrant hotel as UK braces for another night of violence Although Britain already grants asylum at a far higher rate than most other European countries (indeed, it offers asylum to those who've already failed to win it elsewhere in Europe), tens of thousands of claims from undocumented economic migrants are still likely to be refused. So will that mean those failed asylum seekers will be packed off home and finally off our books? Nope. Unless their own countries agree to take them back and their safety can be guaranteed in places like Iran, Afghanistan or Eritrea, then I'm afraid they will be staying right here. What about shipping them off to third countries, like Rwanda or Albania, if they won't go home? Again, that's a non-starter under Sir Keir Starmer, whose human rights lawyer chums will have a field day arguing for failed asylum seekers' rights to a family life in Britain. Staying right here If it turns out that the thousands of young men who pay people-smugglers to get on dinghies to come to our shores are NOT in fact all brilliant rocket scientists, brain surgeons and engineers, they will probably end up working in low-wage jobs, often in the black economy, needing benefits and will likely remain a drain on taxpayers for the rest of their lives. Anyway, even if the Home Office could manage to deal with the existing backlog, what are they going to do about the thousands of new asylum seekers who are arriving from the beaches of Calais every week? This year has so far seen the highest ever number of illegal immigrants crossing the Channel, with no sign — despite Sir Keir Starmer's promises — of the smuggling gangs being smashed any time soon. It doesn't really matter where these people live; once they set foot on our beaches, we will end up footing the bill one way or another Julia Hartley-Brewer OK, fair enough, but at least by 2029 we won't be paying for these new arrivals to live in hotels any more. True, but they will need to live somewhere. Unless the Government is secretly planning to send them off to the Falklands or give them all tents and plonk them in a field in the middle of nowhere, that means paying for their accommodation and other living costs. If officials are not going to pay for hotels, then more and more asylum seekers will end up being moved into private rented flats and houses in a street near you. This is already happening in many towns and cities, as companies such as Serco, Mears and Clearsprings have been handed multi-million pound contracts to strike deals with local landlords to house asylum seekers. Hope we won't notice Using our hard-earned taxes, they often pay far above (sometimes even double) local market rents, with guaranteed leases for five years, with all utilities and any other costs paid for by taxpayers, and pushing rents beyond the means of countless local families. Getting asylum seekers out of hotels also brings the added bonus that the cost of thousands of individual private rentals are rather easier to hide from the public than enormous Home Office hotel bills totalling billions. And after the Channel migrants are processed and allowed to stay — with or without asylum status — they can then be quietly shunted on to the general benefits bill or on to local councils' housing costs in the hope that we won't notice or care any more. Like so many manifestos, the promise to 'end asylum hotels' isn't worth the glossy paper it is printed on. It doesn't really matter where these people live; once they set foot on our beaches, we will end up footing the bill one way or another for years to come. We don't know how many more Channel migrants will turn up this week, this year or by 2029, so we can't know how much that bill will be. But the one thing we can say for certain is that Rachel Reeves will be turfed out of the Treasury long before the last asylum seekers are turfed out of their hotel. HOMELESS TENT CITIES ON WAY DON'T look now but the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, has had another brilliant idea. This time, her clever plan is to tackle the rising problem of rough sleeping on our streets by decriminalising it. She plans to repeal the 1824 Vagrancy Act which, for two centuries, has made it a criminal act to sleep rough, raising fears that we will soon see tent cities pop up in our parks and streets, similar to those in San Francisco. Ms Rayner says these people are not criminals but 'vulnerable' victims of 'injustice'. Indeed, this is true for many. In the first three months of this year, 4,427 people spent at least one night sleeping on the streets of our capital. Many of them are drug addicts or alcoholics, while others are service veterans who are victims of both PTSD and a bureaucracy that just doesn't care. Making it easier for people to sleep on the streets won't solve THEIR problems – but it will create more problems for everyone else.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Bob Morris obituary
My friend and colleague Bob Morris, who has died aged 87, was the oldest among the many volunteers working for the Constitution Unit at University College London, which specialises in constitutional reform, with help from those with inside knowledge of government. He was also by far the longest serving, having worked with us for almost 30 years. His time with the unit was almost as long as his time in the Home Office, where he was a senior civil servant for almost 40 years. He was highly respected and much loved in both roles, for his strong sense of public service, the breadth and depth of his knowledge, and his generosity in sharing it with others. Born in Cardiff, Bob was the son of William Morris, a mechanical engineer, and his wife, Mary (nee Bryant). The family moved according to his father's wartime postings as a marine engineer with the Royal Navy, and Bob went to several schools, including Handsworth grammar in Birmingham. He was old enough to do national service in the South Staffordshire Regiment before going to Christ's College, Cambridge, in 1958 to read history. In his long Home Office career, which began in 1961, he worked variously on crime, policing, security, prisons, immigration and constitutional matters. He was private secretary to two home secretaries, Frank Soskice and Merlyn Rees, and secretary to departmental committees on Northern Ireland, and on UK prisons. He led UK delegations to the EU, the Council of Europe and the UN, and travelled widely on official business. In Bob's final position, as head of the Criminal Justice and Constitutional Department from 1991, he was in charge of relations with Buckingham Palace and the Church. After retiring from the Home Office in 1997, he became acting secretary for public affairs to the archbishop of Canterbury, and secretary to the Review of the See of Canterbury, chaired by Douglas Hurd in 2000-01. He found time to do a PhD on relations between the Metropolitan police and the government, 1860-1920, and started working for the Constitution Unit. There Bob launched a whole new programme of work on church and state. That began with a book and journal articles on disestablishment, and ended with detailed reports on the coronation, and revision of the accession and coronation oaths. That in turn kindled our interest in the monarchy, leading to a comparative study of the other monarchies in Europe, where we explored the paradox that countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden are hereditary monarchies, but are also among the most advanced democracies in the world. Bob was also heavily involved in training government departments and public bodies for the advent of freedom of information. His latest book, published last year, was about the Home Office 1782-2007, and was based on private witness seminars with key participants, which he had organised with the Institute for Contemporary British History. He was steadfast and loyal to all the institutions for which he worked; unfailingly reliable, courteous and considerate, and immensely generous with his time as well as his wisdom and experience. Bob is survived by his wife, Janet (nee Gillingham), whom he married in 1965, their children, Emily, Matthew and Ben, and grandchildren, Isabel, Sally, Joe and Julia.
BBC News
6 hours ago
- BBC News
Lincolnshire Police chief constable Paul Gibson warns of job cuts
The chief constable of Lincolnshire Police has warned 400 staff and officer jobs could be cut if the force cannot secure extra funding by comes after Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the government's Spending Review, which includes a 2.3% real terms yearly funding increase for policing in England and Constable Paul Gibson said this was not enough for Lincolnshire and would leave the force facing a deficit of almost £70m. He said he had begun negotiations with the Home Reeves told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme she did not "accept" the need for cuts to police jobs. Speaking during a hotseat with BBC Radio Lincolnshire presenter Frances Finn, Mr Gibson said the Home Office had recognised Lincolnshire as a "significant outlier" in terms of funding."If we don't get more money by October, then, unfortunately, I have to start consultation to reduce our organisation significantly," he Gibson said cuts to officer numbers could result in reductions to services that were "hugely important" to communities, including neighbourhood, roads and rural policing and crime prevention said: "I have to make sure that I balance the budget, and if I can't do that then I have to reduce resources, which obviously will be felt within the communities across our great county."The chief constable said he had a meeting planned with Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson for early July, and he would be "pitching for more money"."I'm as optimistic as I can be, but I can't guarantee money will come along," he April, Lincolnshire Police announced previous planned cuts to 400 jobs had been delayed due to a new £5.7m government funding speaking on BBC Radio Lincolnshire, Mr Gibson said this was "one-off money" to provide "stability" for six months. 'Working hard' A report by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue, released in May, rated Lincolnshire Police inadequate at investigating crime, responding to the public and managing offenders and Gibson said he appreciated the findings of the report would be "concerning" for residents, but he said funding had a "massive impact" on the level of service the force could said: "It's [the report] not as good as I wanted it to be, that's absolutely clear, and there's no doubt that there are things we need to do better. I completely accept that."We're working incredibly hard in the background to make sure we are investigating crimes better, supervising criminal investigations better, meeting the requirements of victims better." Caller Chris Fairweather, from Old Leake, near Boston, told the chief constable she had not been visited by officers after reporting a garage break in at her said tools and equipment had been stolen, but she had received a letter from police a week later to say the case had been Gibson said it was "just not possible" to visit the scene of every crime, and officers had to work out the likelihood of solving a said: "Finance, whether we like it or not, has a major impact upon what you're able to do, in terms of the quality of service you can deliver."Later in the discussion, Mr Gibson said: "I know that people are concerned about policing – they always want more, quite understandably."But I also need to make sure that I balance that with my staff, who are operating in difficult circumstances."They get assaulted quite frequently. I write to them, I speak to them, almost daily, in terms of someone who's been punched, kicked, spat at."The Home Office has been approached for comment. Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
