‘Prevent’ in the UK is a government programme that forms one of the four pillars of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy, known as CONTEST. The Prevent programme aims to stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. The idea is to tackle the ideological causes of terrorism by intervening early to support those susceptible to radicalisation, and helping those who have already engaged in terrorism to disengage and rehabilitate.

The Prevent programme is delivered through a network of partners, including public sector institutions, community groups, and civil society organisations, and is fundamentally about safeguarding individuals and communities from the harms of radicalisation—similar to other safeguarding programmes for issues like drugs or gang involvement. It claims not to be focused on any particular community, religion, or ethnicity, and participation in support programmes under Prevent is confidential and voluntary. That all sounds very laudable but the reality is much different.

Irelands Anti-Terrorism Approach

Ireland as of the present does not have a direct equivalent to the UK’s ‘Prevent’ programme. It does have a robust set of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism measures. The primary legislative tools are the Offences Against the State Acts (1939–1998) and the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, which have been amended over time to address both domestic and international terrorism. These laws give An Garda Síochána significant powers to investigate, disrupt, and prosecute terrorist and extremist activities.

Ireland’s approach includes intelligence-led policing, multi-agency cooperation, and legislative frameworks that distinguish between domestic (often Troubles-linked) and international forms of extremism. There is also an emphasis on proportionality and respect for human rights, with judicial oversight of intrusive powers, something that ‘Prevent’ glaringly ignores.

EU-Wide Initiatives

While Ireland does not have a named programme like Prevent, it participates in EU-wide initiatives such as the ‘Radicalisation Awareness Network’ (RAN) and has multi-agency strategies for managing offenders at risk of radicalisation, especially around prison release. The government is currently updating its legislative framework to better align with evolving threats and EU standards, including new reforms under consideration in 2025.

In summary, Ireland’s initiatives focus on legislative, policing, and community engagement strategies rather than a single branded programme like Prevent, but the goals—preventing radicalisation and violent extremism—are broadly similar. 

Blinkered Training by ‘Prevent’

In an online training course intended for government employees at British hospitals, schools, universities, and other public institutions bound by law to flag likely extremists to the programme, ‘Prevent’ detailed elements which could be a sign that someone has developed an ‘extremist right-wing terrorist ideology’. This approach suggests that ‘Prevent’ is skewered and focused in one direction to the exclusion of all others. Most terrorist activities including radicalisation and recruitment including deadly attacks and the export of terrorism resulting in attacks in Europe and the sending of recruits to ‘Isis’ and to other terrorist activities in the Middle East’s flashpoints don’t come from ‘Prevents’ terrorist profile. Bedford’s town of Luton is a hotbed of radicalisation, recruitment and activation of Islamic terrorism which the ‘Prevent’ programme in its political bias and political correctness chooses to completely ignore.

Seeing Nationalism as Terrorism

In addition to ‘white supremacism’ and ‘white/ethno-nationalism’, the anti-terror programme listed “cultural nationalism”, which it defined as the belief that: “Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups.”

The inclusion of such broadly held and inward focused views seeing all voices of opposition to migration as sources of terrorism, the anti-terror scheme would become bogged down by erroneous claims of supposed terror threats from mainstream conservatives, thereby limiting or ignoring the scheme’s ability to target likely Islamist terrorists. ‘Prevent’ chooses to see all white skinned people as potential terrorists to the exclusion of all others. Therein lies its weakness.

 Prevent has long faced critiques for failing to actually stop terror attacks while disproportionately focusing on alleged right-wing threats. The town of Luton is not on ‘Prevents’ map.

All UK Terrorist Attacks are Islamist in Nature

A 2023 independent government report by William Shawcross found that “extreme right-wing ideology is often identified within ‘Prevent’ in a manner that includes populist conservative voices who have nothing to do with violent extremism… Yet when it comes to Islamism only the most violently fascist jihadist groups appear to be identified.”

 “All the terrorist attacks across Britain committed since my review was commissioned have been Islamist in nature,” William Shawcross said. “But far more people are now being referred to Prevent because of extreme right-wing concerns, and the largest numbers appear to be referred because of mental health concerns and domestic and social ‘vulnerabilities’.”

Hear no Evil, See no Evil if its Islamist Evil

The Shawcross report further noted that over half of the terror attacks since 2016 had been committed by individuals who were already known to the Prevent programme whom they choose to ignore. Therefore because of their bias they failed in their stated aim of de-radicalisation. Prevent is demonstrably a disaster which has resulted in the cost of lives and potentially many more.

This trend continued with last year’s mass stabbing at a children’s dance party in Southport, killing three young girls and injuring 10 others. This atrocity was committed by Axel Rudakubana a second-generation migrant who had been reported to ‘Prevent’ on three separate occasions prior his horrific attack. Yet those reports were ignored or dismissed as a potential threat by ‘Prevent’ and the authorities each time. As a black African he didn’t fit ‘Prevents’ politically correct ‘white cultural nationalist’ profile of a potential terrorist. Axel Rudakubana made enough ricin to ‘kill 12,000 people’ as Met chief says attack wasn’t terrorism. They still claim that Rudakubanas murderous attack on defenceless children was not a terrorist inspired attack. Tell us another one.

Anti-Terror Scheme Designed to Stifle Public Debate

There have been warnings that by misclassifying “cultural nationalism” as the primary indication of extremism, the anti-terror scheme could be used as a weapon to stifle public debate which of course appears to be its real intention.

 In a letter to the UK’s Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Lord Young of Acton, the founder of ‘The Free Speech Union’, said: “While not defined in law, nor subject to statutory constraint, the definition in the training course expands the scope of suspicion to include individuals whose views are entirely lawful but politically controversial.

 “Now that ‘cultural nationalism’ has been classified as a subcategory of extreme right-wing terrorist ideology, even mainstream, Right-of-centre beliefs risk being treated as ideologically suspect, despite falling well within the bounds of lawful expression.”

 ‘The Free Speech Union’ founder noted that mainstream politicians, including former Tory immigration minister Robert Jenrick and even Prime Minsiter Sir Keir Starmer for his recent speech warning that migration could result in Britain becoming an “island of strangers”, could be considered as potential extremists under those guidelines.

 Lord Young warned that people are referred to ‘Prevent’ for such innocuous views could face “serious, long-lasting consequences” to their educational and career prospects as well as their public reputation.

It’s a recipe for witch hunting and demonization of individuals and groups by those with an axe to grind.

 In response to Lord Young, a Home Office spokesman said: “Prevent is not about restricting debate or free speech, but about protecting those susceptible to radicalisation.” Tell us another one. If the UK is serious about terrorist prevention it should eliminate ‘Prevent’ and replace it with unbiased professional preventers of terrorism.