Britain's anti-terror strategy is completely unfit for purpose

Telegraph

a day ago

Following the horrific Southport atrocity last year, the Government will be asked to consider a new scheme to detect people who are obsessed with violence before they potentially kill. The recommendation comes at a time when various organs of the British state are concerned by younger men consuming a diverse diet of horrific content online and displaying worrying levels of interest in acts of violence.
Axel Rudakubana, who murdered three little girls at a dance class in the Merseyside coastal town, was referred to the UK's anti-terror Prevent scheme on three separate occasions – once at the end of 2019 and twice in 2021.
Each time, his case was rejected because officials had concluded that he was not motivated by a clear terrorist ideology. But it was evident that Rudakubana had a morbid fascination with violence – which included genocides, terrorist attacks, and school shootings.
As well as possessing an academic study of an al-Qaeda training manual, he owned material on Nazi Germany and anti-colonial literature. While Rudakubana did not have a clearly-defined belief system, he clearly represented a significant violent threat to the public and Prevent failed to address it – with devastating consequences.
Introducing a new 'anti-violence scheme' for individuals who do not necessarily have a clear ideological background, a proposal floated by the interim reviewer of Prevent, David Anderson KC, could have its benefits.
It could free up time and resources for Prevent to focus more on traditional forms of ideological risk, such as Islamist extremism, which continues to be the primary terror threat in the UK. Of course, this also depends on Prevent itself being reformed to an extent so there is less reliance on public bodies with a progressive-liberal bias which are paralysed by political correctness.
It means this part of the UK's anti-terror infrastructure is freed up to focus more on the growing threat of far-Right extremism and the emergent problem of far-Left revolutionary activity. There are other minor religio-political ideologies of concern which can be clearly identified, such as Hindu fundamentalism (Hindutva ideology) and Khalistani extremism.
A separate scheme which focuses on high-risk violent individuals with a complicated background which involves a ghoulish obsession with violence, however, would have to be c omprehensively funded and well-resourced.
But it could reduce the load on Prevent, which has witnessed a surge in referrals which fall into the 'mixed, unstable, or unclear' (MUU) category of ideologies – in simpler terms, 'conflicted' cases which do not fall neatly into a specific and coherent ideological type, but where the individual has demonstrated a concerning level of interest in violence and is at-risk of being drawn into terrorism-related activity.
In the context of these MUU cases, a more joined-up approach with mental-health services would alleviate pressures on the UK's anti-terror services.
The Southport atrocity was a dark moment in our history – and it was one that could have been avoided. A new anti-violence scheme may be costly, but there should be no price on matters of security – especially when it comes to the safety of the most exposed, vulnerable, and defenceless members of our society.