10EUC627 Intelligence Studies

 Widen the
EFFECTIVE communities
within the
PREVENTION OF scheme

EXTREMISM - AN  Review
funding
ANALYSIS OF OUR allocation

STRATEGY.
 Promote cross
Our PREVENT strategy is in need of urgent review. With community
better allocation of funding, widening the PREVENT net to
integration
include other extremist groups and supporting projects
which promote cross community integration we can
streamline PREVENT to be more effective in achieving its
aim.

A812795 Matt McClure

10EUC627 Intelligence Studies

Executive Summary

PREVENT is aimed to “Challenge the ideology behind violent extremism through targeted
communications and work with credible religious authorities both in the UK and overseas to
counter the extremis t narrative” (Homeoffice.gov.uk).

This brief will ar gue this is has not been successfully achieved since its establishment in
2007. This is displayed through criticism from the press as well as the Islamic communities
to which it has been aimed at in relation to the allocation of funding and Intelligence
gathering techniques used. It appears the PREVENT strategy has increased tensions between
the Muslim community and the government, the complete opposite to its aim of working in
conjunction with them.

My recommendations will include a move away from segregation of the British Muslim
communities by: widening the scope of PREVENT to include other extremist groups such as
the radical right-wing, better allocation of funding to projects which actively discourage
Muslim extremism schemes such as, the youth parliament ‘Project Safe Space’ to encourage
debate on the issue of extremism amongst vulnerable young people. Finally, a clear line
needs to be drawn on PREVENT schemes which prevent violent extremism to those which
promote integration. It has been the case that this line has become blurred up to this point
resulting in PREVENT losing its focus.

Context and Importance of the problem

The PREVENT strategy was established in the aftermath of the 2005 London bombings, an
event which shook the lives of British citizens and bringing the threat of violent extremism
to our doorstep. PREVENT is a section of the wider UK Counter-terrorism strategy CONTEST
with the aim to reduce the risk of terrorism as a threat to the safety of the UK. The Prevent
section of CONTEST has come under severe scrutiny over the last year in particular, with a
call for review on its methods.

The Home office has described one of the key aims of PREVENT is to build community
resilience primarily through work at a local level with Muslim communities in particular
(Home office.gov.uk) but contradictory to this a large number of people within these
communities have felt alienated and targeted due to their religious beliefs with reports
arguing it had tainted local projects which otherwise could have played an important role in
strengthening communities (Casciani 2010)

The main cause for this ‘tainting’ of communities is the funding being provided to them in
return for information with a large focus on those with links to Islam. PREVENT has come so
far as to be coined “a cash cow which any enterprising Muslim group could tap into” with
spending on these initiatives being over £140million from 2008-2009 (Murrray 2010). There
is no denying that the Muslim community has problems with extremism however experts

A812795 1|Page Matt McClure

10EUC627 Intelligence Studies

have stressed these people represent the minority when the scheme is targeting the
majority, resulting in some of the Muslim community feeling targeted by their government.

Examples of this include mosques receiving £5000 for a rap workshop, £10,000 for a cricket
club, £11,000 for a youth initiative as well as finance for sports such as judo, five-a-side
football and even scouts. (Murray 2010)

These methods have produced wide spread concern over their effectiveness, several of the
national newspapers have commented on the scheme and as such requires investigation to
see what improvements can be made on its performance.

Critique of policy

The PREVENT policy consists of key ‘strands’: Challenging and disrupting violent extremism,
supporting and increasing resilient communities to this threat and addressing the grievances
that the radical ideologies are exploiting. ( HM Government: 2008)

The strategies adopted in achieving these aims have been met with wide spread criticism.
Firstly because of the view that the government has used it as a spying tool on the Muslim
community It has aimed to provide a counter-narrative to that of Al-Qaeda and other
extremist groups but instead of teaching British values and beliefs and letting the authorities
enforce the law it has got involved in almost creating a “MI5 Islam” (Murray 2010)

This has in turn affected the trust of these communities to which it is aiming to protect.
There have been refusals for the financial support amongst various areas as they feel it
would do more damage to their cohesion than good in their aim to limit extremist influence.
There are fears and confusions about PREVENT and what it is really trying to achieve, people
are in fear of joining a PREVENT due to opening themselves up to covert surveillance and
intelligence gathering. (Casciani 2010)

PREVENT is recognised for having a positive effect on areas for tackling extremism, its
principle is one of social cohesion and that should not be overlooked in its Critique . As with
most initiatives, the positives are rarely reported compared to the negatives, there is wide
recognition for the possibilities PREVENT can bring to the eradication of extremist
movements.

However, its history has shown worrying moments of excessive surveillance. Such as a
student being reported as a potential extremist for going to a meeting about Palestine,
London borough youth workers having to record in their database which members were
Muslim and which streets they were likely to hang out in (Kazi 2010). This is an issue as even
though these methods are aimed at preventing these young people from the threat of

A812795 2|Page Matt McClure

10EUC627 Intelligence Studies

extremism, it makes them feel targeted and segregated because of their beliefs. In turn, un-
doing all the beneficial work PREVENT has undertaken.

Criticisms have also occurred over PREVENT in relation to the monitoring of grants after
they have been distributed, there are claims that some councils have received money from
the scheme and simply added it to their budgets or not spent it at all as opposed to
delegating it to a PREVENT project. (Kazi 2010) Understandably this is a cause for concern
as the budget for the program is so large at a time when the country is in recession.

Recent news has criticised the scheme for not focusing on high threat individuals such as the
Stockholm bomber Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly who, it has been reported was removed
from a Luton mosque for advocating violence but was not reported by the authorities.
(Telegraph, 15 Dec 2010) it is this minority of extremist individuals the scheme is aimed at
apprehending which it cannot do unless it has the support of local Muslim institutes as they
are the ones to report them.

Lady Neville-Jones, Minister of State and Security has recently stressed the need to tackle
these individuals with the budget, admitting the previous method of ‘multiculturalism’ was a
mistake as it emphasised the differences between individuals rather than bringing them
together. She sees the answer to this being through funding initiatives which bring people
out of their communities to meet each other as opposed to those which are separate.

Policy recommendations

Due to the claims that the British Muslim community is feeling segregated and targeted by
the strategy I suggest widening the scope to include other extremist groups such as the
radical right-wing. The threat posed by Islamic extremism is not to be watered down
however it is not the only radical movement able to make an impression on vulnerable
people and should not be treated as such.

Claims that PREVENT has cost the government £140million should not be overlooked when
relating this to its achievements. An urgent review of expenditure is essential to make the
strategy cost-effective, instead of money being handed out aimlessly, assessments need to
be made on the influence such projects have on the community.

A clear line between preventing extremism and promoting integration needs to be formed.
PREVENT’s history so far has shown a lack of definition between community projects which
tackle the Muslim extremist issue and those which are purely for community integration.
Ultimately the PREVENT scheme is there to stop the threat of terrorist ideologies and in
order for it to be successful investment needs to be put into protecting the most vulnerable
people.

A812795 3|Page Matt McClure

10EUC627 Intelligence Studies

PREVENT has developed an image of dishonesty and spying on the public, we must reinforce
the message that its aim is to work with the local community to tackle the real and present
threat of extremism.

Sources Consulted

Home Office UK ‘Review of the Prevent Strategy’ URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-

terrorism/review-of-prevent-strategy/ [Accessed 24 January 2010]

Murray, D (2010) “The Prevent Strategy: a textbook example of how to alienate just about everyone”
(Telegraph online) 31 March 2010 URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-
in-the-uk/7540456/The-Prevent-strategy-a-textbook-example-of-how-to-alienate-just-
about-everybody.html [Accessed 24 January 2010]

Dodd, V (2010) ‘MP’s demand investigation into Muslim ‘spy’ allegations against Prevent’ (Guardian
online) 30 March 2010 URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/30/prevent-islam-muslim-
communities [Accessed 24 January 2010]

Kazi, T (2010) ‘How Prevent undermined cohesion’ (Guardian online) 16 July 2010 URL:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/16/prevent-cohesion-communities-
islam?INTCMP=SRCH[Accessed 24 January 2010]

House of commons (2010) ‘Communities and Local Government Committee – sixth report, Preventing
violent extremism’ (Communities and local government committee publications) 16 March 2010
URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcomloc/65/6508.htm#a19
[Accessed 24 January 2010]

HM Government, (2008) ‘The Prevent Strategy: A Guide for Local Partners in England’ Ref:
288324. May 2008
URL:http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationdetail/page1/288324
[Accessed 24 January 2010]

Telegraph Online (No credited author) 2010 “Stockholm bomber: Government money should target
those at risk of radicalisation’ 15 Dec 2010 URL:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8203125/Stockholm-bomber-
Government-money-should-target-those-at-risk-of-radicalisation.html [Accessed 24 January 2010]

A812795 4|Page Matt McClure