Skip to content


Britain’s “politically correct” deradicalisation programme focused on Right-wing extremism while failing to tackle Islamist terror, the Home Secretary has said.

William Shawcross, the review’s author, said Prevent had failed to do enough to counter the dangers from “non-violent Islamist extremism” and had instead broadened the definition of Right-wing extremism to include even mainstream politicians.

Give the biased a platform to be biased from and they’ll be biased shocker.

Seven of the 13 terror attacks in the past six years, including the murder of MP David Amess, the stabbing of three friends in a Reading park, and the bombing of Liverpool women’s hospital have been carried out by Islamist extremists who had been referred to Prevent.

That selectivity in immigration filtration is working wonders, no?

10 thoughts on “Whocouddanown?”

  1. So murder, stabbing and bombing are ‘non violent’? But perhaps it was the murder of a MP that made the Home Secretary take at least a bit of notice.

  2. 7/13 were referred to prevent for Islamist. 4/13 had not yet been referred for being Islamist. The other one would have been that crazy chap using his car as a battering ram against people leaving a mosque. so 12/13 were Islamist yet we have a problem with far right terrorists?

  3. “That selectivity in immigration filtration is working wonders, no?”

    Worth noting that Amess’ killer was born in the UK, so although it would indeed be very desirable to have the stable door firmly locked, that particular horse bolted long ago. The same applies to Pakistani rape gangs. And to many “Londoners” stabbing each other. Failed policies go back a long way.

  4. Andrew Again: …so 12/13 were Islamist yet we have a problem with far right terrorists?

    The Establishment Narrative must be maintained at all costs.

    From the piece:

    She said the Government would accept all 34 of the review’s recommendations to refocus it on its “core mission” of protecting the public.

    Will anything actually change though, or will we still be sold the lie that it’s the Right that are the ‘real threat’?

  5. “Right-wing extremism”: for decades the likes of the Guardian have warned against neo-Nazis in our fair land. Yet for decades no evidence of such conspirators has ever emerged. I’d say that, to a working approximation, there are none.

  6. I’d say that, to a working approximation, there are none.
    OK – true, now that Prince Harry is on the other side of the pond.

  7. Why are we trying to combat non-violent extremism? In a democracy we should sort out that kind of thing in elections.

  8. @ dearieme
    There have been some “extreme right-wing” (for some definition of “right-wing”) conspiracies discovered – I find it difficult to remember any details but I reckon it’s one or two a decade.
    So “extreme right-wing” conspirators are roughly one in a million.
    For another definition of “right-wing”, if they are “extreme right-wing” they won’t conspire with other people so the “Prevent” focus on them is nonsensical.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *