|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Two-tier policing claims are part of a “right-wing extremist narrative.” according to a leaked Home Office report.
Islamists are responsible for 94% of terrorism-related deaths and 88% of injuries in Great Britain since 1999. Yet the report suggests the Government is deprioritising the Islamist threat and instead focusing on other “behaviours of concern,” such as misogyny, “spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories,” and “preventing integration.”
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
The UK Home Office’ ‘Rapid Analytical Sprint’ report was commissioned to address extremism following the Southport riots in August 2024. The aim was to map and monitor extremist trends, understand what works to disrupt and divert people from extremist views, and identify gaps in existing policy.
The ‘Sprint’ report, leaked to the think tank Policy Exchange on 28 January 2025, claims that fears over two-tier policing is an “extreme right-wing narrative” and suggests that grooming gangs are an issue exploited by the far-right to stir hatred against Muslims.
“You can tell a government report has gone down badly when ministers are distancing themselves before it has been officially published,” The Spectator wrote the day of the leak. “Today, it’s the Home Office’s ‘Rapid Analytical Sprint’ … that is causing trouble for ministers.”
The report recommends increasing the use of controversial “non-crime hate incidents” and introducing a new crime of “harmful communications” to tackle online abuse of Members of Parliament.
The review’s censorious conclusions are supplemented by a dizzying array of what constitutes “behaviours and activity of concern.” The “damaging extremist beliefs” listed in the ‘Sprint’ include a vast range of attitudes and acts – among them misogyny, violence against women and girls, having “a fixture on gore and violence without adherence to an extremist ideology,” “spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories,” “influencing racism and intolerance,” “preventing integration” or involvement in “an online subculture called the manosphere.”
Yet dramatically widening the definition of extremism in this way means significantly de-prioritising Islamism, which, as Policy Exchange notes, made up 80 per cent of police counter-terror workload last year.
Home Office: ‘two-tier’ police claims are an ‘extreme right-wing’ narrative, The Spectator, 28 January 2025
The Spectator went on to note that Dan Jarvis, the Security Minister, said he and the Home Secretary had rejected the report’s recommendations, despite having commissioned the review. The problem for ministers is that the report mirrors much of Keir Starmer’s earlier rhetoric on grooming gangs.
In further complications for ministers, The Sun noted that on the same day as the Rapid Analytical Sprint was leaked, a report by the Children’s Commissioner came out that said the 147 youngsters arrested in the unrest after the Southport murders were not motivated by racism or far-right misinformation.
The Children’s Commissioner cited a deep distrust of the police and lack of opportunity as drivers in children’s motivation to take part in last summer’s riots. These won’t have been drivers for only the children.
Further reading:
- UK Home Office Report Dismisses Online Criticism of “Two-Tier Policing” As Right-Wing Extremist Narrative, Reclaim the Net, 31 January 2025
- How voter fraud in the UK has enabled the Asian rape gangs, The Exposé, 3 February 2025
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Extremely Confused, an Overview
Policy Exchange has published a 27-page report titled ‘Extremely Confused: The Government’s new counter-extremism review revealed’ written by Andrew Gilligan and Dr. Paul Stot. We have used an unchecked artificial intelligence (“AI”) summary of this report for the text below to give a preview of what the report contains. Related articles shown in [square brackets] have been added by us and do not form part of the report.
It’s important to remember that AI is not intelligent, it is simply a computer programme that will output what it has been programmed to output and can, and does, make mistakes. If you are interested in reading Policy Exchange’s full report, you can do so HERE.
UK Counter-Extremism Review Proposes Shift in Focus
The UK Government’s ‘Rapid Analytical Sprint’ (“the Sprint”) review on extremism has been leaked, proposing a shift from focusing on “ideologies of concern” to a wide range of “behaviours” including violence against women, spreading misinformation, and misogyny.
This approach risks overwhelming counter-extremism staff and police with thousands of new cases, potentially missing genuinely dangerous people, and addressing symptoms rather than causes.
The review de-centres and downplays Islamism, acknowledging “left-wing, anarchist and single issue (LASI) extremism,” “environmental extremism,” and Hindu extremism as distinct phenomena to be tackled.
The review raises concerns over freedom of speech, recommending the reversal of restrictions on “non-crime hate incidents” and floating a new crime of making “harmful communications” online.
Concerns over the Review’s Approach to Extremism
The review may have been influenced by the events of Southport but risks confusing extreme violence with extremism. Prevent is the UK’s counter-terrorism policing programme. Experts suggest creating a “non-extremist” version of Prevent to interdict individuals with an interest in violence but no obvious ideological motivation.
The UK government’s counter-extremism review, known as the Sprint, focuses on various forms of extremism, but it does not adequately address the threat posed by Islamist extremism.
Islamist extremism has been responsible for 94% of terrorism-related deaths and 88% of injuries in Great Britain since 1999. Yet the Sprint devotes equal space to other forms of extremism that have caused no terrorist deaths.
The review’s emphasis on behaviours rather than ideology risks tackling symptoms rather than causes, and ignores the role of institutions in spreading and incubating extremism, particularly in Islamist extremism.
Criticism of the Review’s Focus on Behaviour over Ideology
Policy Exchange criticises the Sprint for its approach to extremism, which may confuse extreme violence with extremism and terrorism.
The review’s focus on behaviour rather than ideology has been influenced by the Southport case, in which Axel Rudakubana committed violent acts without a clear ideology.
[Related: Southport stabbings: Who trained Axel Rudakubana? Could he have learnt from his father?]
Experts, including Jonathan Hall KC and Neil Basu, argue that a new approach is needed to deal with people who are motivated by non-instrumental extreme violence but do not fit into traditional definitions of extremism.
Concerns about Freedom of Speech and Resource Allocation
The Sprint’s recommendations, including the introduction of a new criminal offence for “harmful communications” and the reversal of the code of practice on non-crime hate incidents, have raised concerns about freedom of speech.
The review’s approach is criticised for potentially diverting resources away from actual threats to national security and democratic values.
Labour’s Proposal to Reverse Downgrading of Hate Monitoring
The 2024 Labour manifesto proposed reversing the Conservatives’ decision to downgrade the monitoring of antisemitic and Islamophobic hate, which would encompass all five protected characteristics.
The reversal would involve changing the NCHI (Non-Crime Hate Incident) code of practice, which was introduced to ensure that recording NCHIs is proportionate and necessary to mitigate harm or prevent future crimes.
Criticism of the Review’s Labelling of Certain Narratives
The Sprint document labels claims of “two-tier policing” as a “right-wing extremist narrative,” which could lead to tarring significant swathes of the public as “far right.”
The document also categorises debates over perceived inequalities in resource provision as a “far right” narrative, which could be contentious.
Concerns about the Composition of the Ministerial Board
The creation of a ministerial board to take key decisions on extremism is a positive development but the absence of the Minister for Border Security and Asylum is concerning.
The document lists nine types of extremism, including Islamist, extreme right wing, and extreme misogyny, but fails to mention specific groups by name, which could lead to criticism that the Government lacks clarity on who it sees as a problem.
Criticism of the Review’s Handling of Specific Topics
The UK Government’s counter-extremism review is criticised for its handling of certain topics, such as the exploitation of child sexual abuse cases by right-wing extremists and the omission of high-profile grooming cases in towns like Rochdale and Rotherham.
The review highlights various forms of extremism, including Pro-Khalistan Extremism, Hindu Nationalist Extremism and environmental extremism, and notes the need for a more nuanced approach to addressing these issues.
The Government is advised to adopt a three-pronged approach to counter-extremism, involving targeted/punitive measures, building resilience and learning from partners, and to consider international best practices, such as those in Denmark and the Netherlands.
Establishment of a Counter-Extremism Ministerial Board
The UK government has established a Counter Extremism Ministerial Board, comprising representatives from various government departments, devolved administrations and security services, to oversee and develop the country’s counter-extremism strategy.
The board includes ministers such as Dan Jarvis, Diana Johnson and Jess Phillips, as well as representatives from the Security Service (MI5), GCHQ and the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre.
Recommendations and Criticisms of the “Sprint” Review
The Sprint recommends a focus on behaviours that cause harm rather than a definition of extremism and proposes changes to legislation, including extending aggravating offences for hate crime and targeting extremist abuse of the charity sector.
The review also suggests increased disruption of people and organisations that have a radicalising impact in communities but lacks clarity on how this will be implemented in practice.
Critics, including Policy Exchange, argue that the review is too broad and lacks focus on ideology and that the government’s efforts may be spread too thin, leading to an ineffective programme.
Risks and Concerns of the Counter-Extremism Review
The UK government’s counter-extremism review risks delegitimising the fight against Islamism, a major systemic threat, by deprioritising it.
The Prevent programme is already being asked to deal with issues outside its national security remit, leading to missed threats, such as the murder of MP Sir David Amess.
[Related: Southport and Amess murders ‘linked by failings’, BBC, 26 January 2025]
Expanding the definition of extremism to include criticism of certain policies risks damaging democratic debate and politicising non-partisan issues like violence against women.
A “non-extremist” version of Prevent is proposed to address social ills and prevent crimes without using the counter-extremism lens.
Featured image: Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, launched Sprint, an internal review of anti-extremism strategy, in August 2024. Source: The Times
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News
That´s normal behavior for criminals.
Faced with responsibility they either go mute or change the subject.
Last week, this was in the Daily Mail.
“Current and former police officers reveal they’ve never heard of anti-terror plan Prevent that failed to stop Southport killer… as even cops aware of the scheme say it doesn’t protect the public and the UK is full of ‘ticking time bombs”.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14308969/Current-former-police-officers-reveal-theyve-never-heard-anti-terror-plan-Prevent-failed-stop-Southport-killer-cops-aware-scheme-say-doesnt-protect-public-UK-ticking-time-bombs.html
Never heard of Prevent” The public knew about it because it was in the news often enough.
The police did know about it. Not knowing about it is a lie to cover up that they failed to act. They were only interested in going after white people who they labelled far right. A few years ago, one police force used the excuse that some of its officers didn’t know that it was an offence to have sex with an under-age girl. Can you believe that? I don’t. And about two weeks ago South Yorkshire Police said they didn’t go after the rape gangs because they were too busy. The police are lying to cover up their crime of failing to stop the rape gangs. They are trying to re-write history.
They were only interested in going after white people who were never a threat, but who they labelled far right, and this report is intended to make that the official policy. They won’t give up trying to make that happen.
If they want to act on misogyny and violence against women, then the Met Police should look internally. Over the last few years I have seen many news reports of Met Police officers either being convicted of rape or who faced internal disciplinary hearings for sexual assault or violence against women, and often against female officers in the force. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that I read two per month on average, and have definitely seen times when there were three in a single week.
You only have to look at Cooper to see she’s not all there, most of these Labour MPs are head the balls.
Are these the same “Islamist Terrorists” who engineered 911, i.e. Mossad, CIA (or, in UK, likely MI6), etc, all under City of London/Rothschild/Banking Cartel control? Certainly, we need to be aware of mis/dis information!
Downplaying the Islamist threat is about avoiding bringing to light the complicity of Western politicians in the bogus “war on terror” which devastated many Moslem countries, and killed a few millions of the people there, many of them children who died because US sanctions limited the amounts of medicines available. What was it? 1.6 million children in Iraq alone? And the devastation of Afghanistan, Libya, Lebanon, Palestine/Gaza, Syria, and all the push for war with Iran? Maybe it’s time for us people in the West to hold our politicians accountable? I’m sure Moslems everywhere would breathe a great sigh of relief!
About dead children in Iraq – Madeleine Albright said it was a price worth paying. Those who can read faces could see evil in her face and in the faces of those of her brothers..
[…] Britain: Leaked Home Office counter-extremism report downplays Islamist threat. Islamists are responsible for 94% of terrorism-related deaths and 88% of injuries in Great Britain since 1999. Yet the report suggests the government is deprioritizing the Islamist threat and instead focusing on other “behaviors of concern,” such as misogyny, “spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories,” and “preventing integration.” […]
Rapists of no matter which religion are not spiritual people and they shock good hearted people of every religious persuasion. Those rape gangs should be called what they are… rapists, hooligans, evil doers. They are definitely not religiously inclined in any way!
It is irrelevant what their nationality or religion is, they are simply evil or deranged people.