The ‘PREVENT’ programme yet again showing it is unfit for purpose and even part of the problem.

This statement may not apply in West Yorkshire


If for nothing else former British Prime Minister David Cameron will be known for one thing and that is the weakness that he and the Coalition government showed towards the problem of Islamic extremism. The most common phrase that David Cameron uttered with respect to Islam was the dishonest phrase ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’ which was a statement he most often made after some Islamic terror atrocity.

It was under David Cameron’s watch in 2011 that the focus of the major programme to stop Muslims turning terrorist was changed to include alleged ‘far right’ extremism. Now nobody is denying that the real far right is a potential problem but it’s not where the vast majority of terror plots, sedition and violence is coming from. The absolute majority of these problems are coming from the followers of Islam and not from the real neo-Nazi far right. Now I have no time whatsoever for the various subsets of what I call ‘Jackboot-lickers’ as far as I’m concerned the neo-Nazis want me dead almost as much as the Islamic savages do, but we need to face reality and acknowledge which threat is the greater one at present. At the current time the major threat that our civilisation faces is coming from the followers of the ideology of Islam and not from a few nut cases worshipping Hitler and Mosley in their basements or bedsits.

I do not know exactly why the focus of the PREVENT strategy changed from being one where the remit was solely on Islamic terror into one where all ‘extremisms’ were targeted. However I would guess that it had something to do with Cameron’s general weakness and his ability to be easily persuaded into courses of action by various Islamic activists, do-gooders and politically biased civil servants who all pushed their agendas onto his government. This coupled with the fact that he was ruling in coalition with the Liberal Democrat party, which has never been known for its vigorous defence of Britain and its way of life, gave us a dogs breakfast of a PREVENT strategy that in some cases is targeting those who are opposed to Islamic extremism and not the Islamic extremists themselves.

Those appointed to manage or govern local PREVENT programmes are often some of the very last people who you would want overseeing any aspect of the nation’s security let alone being involved in counter-extremism work. In some cases this means appointing Islam appeasing police officers or Leftist former local council staff to senior posts dealing with PREVENT. In other cases it has involved the government appointing other questionable people to these posts. In Herefordshire for instance the government gave the job of counter extremism to a former diversity officer who had been involved in high profile and highly publicised attempts to force a mosque on local people unwilling to accept one or the problems that accompany mosques. Putting the same sort of people whose policies and politics have helped to cause the current Islamic extremism problems to control Islamic extremism seems to be like an act of complete madness.

The reason for the extensive preamble for this piece is because Cameron’s weakness as a Prime Minister and other related factors is having real world negative effects on the people of Britain. As some predicted changing the focus from Islamic terror which is a real threat to us all to a generalised fight against ‘extremism’ in general is being exploited by Muslims, those who pander to them and similar fellow travellers. This has meant that people who have reasonable concerns about Islam and the manifestations of it are being targeted as ‘extremists’, misclassified as ‘far right’ or treated as potential terrorists.

The latest incident of this nature involves a 15 year old boy who was put through what sounds suspiciously like some form of ‘re-education’ by various agencies of the State merely because they expressed a view that is held by a great many other Britons which is that Islamic face covering has no place in British society. Just think about that for a moment and what it means. It means that in the United Kingdom today a teenager can been treated like a criminal and given similar levels of state scrutiny as someone who expresses a desire to go and fight for ISIS, for expressing an opinion. I don’t know about you but this scares the shit out of me and makes me worried for my son’s future because it looks like a future where only permitted opinions are allowed. He could quite easily in the future get picked up, banged up or exposed to a whole lot of enforced propaganda merely for stating a historical fact such as that Islam hates Jews just as much as Hitler did, in the hearing or sight of a Muslim or a Quisling. This is not the Britain that my forefathers fought for or what led those who were not born British to cherish and protect British freedoms. This has all the hallmarks of a very nasty sort of authoritarianism and is yet more evidence to show that the Left loves diversity of skin colours but despises diversity of opinion.

Here’s Breitbart London with their take on this very worrying tale. As is usual policy for this blog the original text is in italics whereas my comments are in plain text.

Breitbart said:

A 15-year-old British schoolboy, who thought “Muslim women shouldn’t be allowed to wear the niqab”, was identified as a potential terrorist and put through the government’s most strict de-radicalisation programme.

You’d think that these resources could be better used dealing with the many thousands of Muslims who hold views far worse than wanting to ban the Niqab?

Channel is part of the Prevent scheme and is reserved for the most serious cases of radicalisation, targeting “individuals at risk of being drawn into violent extremism” and terrorism.

I see no indication of ‘violent extremism’ in this particular case or at least that is what comes through in the report. It appears from the report that the boy expressed a dislike for Islam and Islamic dress and was concerned about Islamic supremacism. These are all things that are permitted by the free speech clause of the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act. There is nothing illegal about showing antipathy for things such as the Niqab and neither is there anything criminal about having a dislike of Islam or any other religious faith. Despite that the boy was treated like a terrorist and forced into what looks like the sort of re-education process that wouldn’t have been out of place in Eastern Europe during the Cold War.

The unnamed boy, who comes from a predominantly white area, was required to spend time with an imam as well as visit mosques and a “multi-faith project”, where he was signed up as a volunteer.

What a revoltingly dishonest enforced propaganda programme this seems to be. All for expressing views that are held by a large number of Britons.

The workings of Channel are usually kept secret, but authorities made the unusual decision to publicise the targeting of the white schoolboy after activists claimed Prevent was “racist” and “unfairly targets Muslims”.

It looks like the police and other agencies are kow towing to the whines of activists many of whom may have agendas that are inimical to the safety and security of Britain’s non Muslims. It may well be that the police and councils may be going after anybody who expresses dislike of Islam both because these officers are politically compromised and in order to prove that these agencies are not being ‘racist’. It could also be the case that this shift in focus that is happening with PREVENT is because they are getting so little help from the Muslim communities in dealing with Islamic terrorism that PREVENT teams have to do something, such as harassing schoolboys for ‘criminal opinions’ for example, to justify their existence and their cash. As for the criticism of bias against Muslims PREVENT cannot really said to be ‘unfairly targeting Muslims’ as the vast majority of all terrorism and related crimes are coming from within Britain’s Muslim communities. Any violence coming from the small number of ‘Jackboot lickers’ pales into virtual insignificance next to the toll of Islamic crime, terror and disorder.

Police told The Yorkshire Post that the boy was dragged in after he made comments in school about Muslims “trying to take over the country” and was “vocal in his views around what Muslim people should or shouldn’t be allowed to wear”.

It seems very much that leftie teachers first grassed this boy up to the authorities. If nothing else this shows that there are some teachers around whom opinions that the Left deem controversial should not be voiced. This is seriously chilling when it comes to the matter of freedom of speech. Do we want schools where debate can happen and where young people are introduced to the idea that the best way to deal with bad ideas is to discuss them? Or do we want what we seem to be getting which are schools where only certain opinions are permitted where deviance from these permitted views is ruthlessly put down? I’d rather see schools where debate can happen rather than schools where diversity of opinion does not exist and I’d certainly want so have schools where the teachers teach and not act like language and opinion police as they appear to have done in this case.

Full face coverings are banned or restricted across much of continental Europe, and a poll last September found that that British public back a ban on burkas by two to one.

This is what really gets me about this case. It’s a very ubiquitous majority view that this boy expressed at least on the issue of Islamic face coverings. In other words he’s been targeted for a view held by thousands of other Britons often for very good reasons of security and the fact that face coverings are culturally inappropriate. As regards the belief that Islam wants to ‘take over the world’ then a basic reading of Islamic history could quite easily cause someone to believe that. A reading of Islamic theology would also indicate a high degree of supremacism in Islam. There is nothing inherently unreasonable in this boy’s view that Niqabs are unwanted and that Islam has an expansionist and aggressive streak. Despite these not being at all unreasonable opinions and despite there being popular support for at least one of these opinions this boy was treated like a criminal and subjected to what looks like a course of intensive pro-Islam propaganda.

Describing the process where the West Yorkshire teenager was referred to Channel, Detective Superintendent Nik Adams, the North East regional coordinator for Prevent, said he had shown a “genuine vulnerability”.

The words ‘genuine vulnerability’ by which Det Supt Adams describes the boy could mean absolutely anything or absolutely nothing. Why was he ‘vulnerable’ was he a special educational needs child or from a broken home or suffered neglect? The reason for the ‘genuine vulnerability’ is not stated and therefore could mean something important or mean sod all.

He was saying that Muslim women shouldn’t be allowed to wear the niqab and he had his head filled with nonsense that Muslims were trying to take over the country,” he added.

Det Supt Adams (Pictured below) arrogantly dismisses as ‘nonsense’ views on Islamic face coverings that are shared by two-thirds of those Britons surveyed and that should raise a number of questions about how much he respects the public or even if he is on the side of the non-Muslims of West Yorkshire?

Det Supt Nik Adams of West Yorkshire Police

He also describes as ‘nonsense’ the opinions of those who have seen their areas comprehensively ruined by Islam and which have become defacto no go areas for Gays, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians. Maybe Det Supt Adams should try donning a Jewish kippah for a day and walking round the more Islamically ‘enriched’ areas of East London before he dismisses people’s concerns about what Islam does to areas as ‘nonsense’.

Det Supt Adams is the sort of officer who causes a lack of trust in the police as he is so obviously a politicised police officer. He’s a living, breathing, talking example of Britain’s pro-Islam policing double standard. His primary concern, as witnessed by his eagerness to publicise this particular case, is not to defend the rights of all British people to speak their minds, a right dearly bought for us by our ancestors, but to protect Muslims from being ‘offended’. Det Supt Adams represents everything that is wrong with the police forces in Britain today.

We’ve got to the disgraceful position where 15 year olds are being dragged through the mill for expressing opinions that the State doesn’t like, not just by politicised police officers such as Det Supt Adams, but also because of the weaknesses of David Cameron’s Conservative/Lib Dem coalition government. Cameron allowed his government to be talked into abandoning counter terror strategies that were quite rightly targeted on the major source of terror which is Islam and turned PREVENT into something that would go after a much more nebulous thing called ‘violent extremism’. Cameron’s Islamophilia and lack of backbone when it comes to the problems that Islam brings to non Muslim societies has landed us with a counter terror policy that is often managed by the very people who should have bugger all to do with any thing security related, is not effective against the main threat and which throws its weight around penalising schoolboys for having dissenting opinions.




Original Breitbart story on the 15 year old sent for re-education about Islam.

Probably the very last person anyone sensible would appoint as a PREVENT co-ordinator

Det Superintendent Adams shroud-waving with the Jo Cox murder to talk up the threat of the ‘far right’.




1 Comment on "The ‘PREVENT’ programme yet again showing it is unfit for purpose and even part of the problem."

  1. Philip Copson | January 5, 2017 at 1:05 pm |

    We already have the situation where people known to support UKIP are prevented from being foster-parents or adopting children by council officials who declare them to be “racist”, so how many teenagers are being removed from their parents by social workers for expressing views with which teachers/social workers /police disagree, or having parents who do ?

    The police too often seem to see themselves as being a snatch-squad for the social services; eagerly tasering parents and dragging screaming children from their arms, to be banged-up and abused in council-run children homes.

    These frequent cases of the systematic abuse of children in care lead me to suspect that there is organised paedophilia amongst the very people running them.

Comments are closed.