The Behavioural Insights Team has its headquarters in a red-brick block just a few blocks from Downing Street.
They are unlikely to have been mentioned before. This unit was once part-of the Cabinet Office. However, it is now a global consultancy that works closely to governments, public bodies, and businesses around the world.
In 2018, the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) — headed by Professor David Halpern, a former chief analyst at No 10 — produced a report, commissioned by the Home Office, to evaluate the effectiveness of deradicalisation programmes introduced in the wake of 9/11.
One of these was the multimillion-pound Prevent scheme.
This is the program, it has been widely reported that Ali Harbi Ali (25), has been charged with the murder MP Sir David Amess. However, it is not clear if he was placed on the channel for those most at risk of radicalisation.
The findings in the unpublished report — by researchers from BIT — was damning. They concluded that Prevent has been unable to carry out the work it was designed to do in many of the grassroots projects that they examined.
They do not actually use the words ‘political correctness’ but you cannot read their findings and come to any other conclusion.
CCTV footage of Ali Harbi Ali (25), a suspect in the murder of MP David Amess, walking from his Kentish Town residence towards Gospel Oak overground. He is believed to then continue his journey toward Leigh-on-Sea.
Surprisingly, more that 95% of 33 projects targeting vulnerable individuals in schools and youth centres, sports clubs, and youth centers (most of which were believed or fell under Prevent’s label) were ineffective, according to the study.
The current system requires public officials to report anyone expressing radical tendencies. Local authority panels consisting of teachers, NHS workers, and police screen those who have been flagged. The most serious cases are given mentoring or brought to the attention the security services for further evaluation.
It sounds convincing in Whitehall press releases and information packs.
But the Behavioural Insights Team found programmes had been let down by ‘facilitators who were uncomfortable dealing with sensitive topics and would often refuse to engage if they were brought up’ . . . teachers who were ‘afraid to bring up race or religion with their students’ for fear of appearing discriminatory . . . and reported success rates of 90 per cent which were ‘not believable’ and not backed up by a ‘sufficiently robust standard of evidence’.
This is impossible.
These were Dr Antonio Silva’s words, a senior adviser to BIT who led the research along with Simon Ruda. Remember, he was referring to data from the Home Office.
In fact, the officials themselves, they discovered, were evaluating the impact of their own projects — which is ‘likely to have affected the accuracy of their findings’.
The Home Office states that the Behavioural Informations Team did no analysis of Channel cases or referrals.
A police officer holds a traumatised girl, who is huddled in a police coat after the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in 2017.
But the work done by Prevent in schools and clubs around the country — precisely the kind of initiatives studied by BIT — are a vital part of the Prevent programme.
Silva and Ruda presented the findings to the Society of Evidence Based Policing conference. The findings were published in the trade publication Police Professional, in 2018.
‘The headline results may seem disappointing but the good news is we now know what doesn’t work and have identified a few things that do,’ Simon Ruda told the audience.
‘I hope those who commissioned the study [the Home Office] will be commended for breaking the mould and that the insights we’ve learned are shared widely.’
The Home Office has not published the report. It received very little coverage beyond the article in Police Professional. The Home Office says it ‘does not recognise’ the findings and insists Prevent is a success at steering participants away from the threat of radicalisation.
Peter Neyroud was one of those who attended the conference. He is a former chief constable at Thames Valley Police.
When he spoke to us, he said he was shocked at how little transparency he saw. ‘There needs to be transparency,’ said Dr Neyroud, who is studying deradicalisation programmes on behalf of the so called Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.S. and the UK.
‘If you cannot publish the data — an explanation of what you are doing and the outcomes you are getting — it does not encourage people to get involved in it.’
The Prevent strategy review by William Shawcross will be presented to Priti Pattel, the Home Secretary, in due course. It is expected to recommend that anti-terrorism police have more control over whether people at high risk of radicalisation are placed onto anti-extremist programmes. This is because they are likely less to intervene in cases involving ethnic minorities and antagonize faith groups.
This was exactly what Silva and Ruda highlighted for in 2018.
At the same time, it has to be acknowledged that the sheer number of referrals to Prevent — 6,287 in the year to March 2020 — is daunting.
Ministers insist that the failure to stop every attack does not make the programme invalid.
‘Ultimately, no strategy can be watertight,’ said a source in counter-extremism. ‘It is very difficult for Prevent to identify someone who has not come to the notice of statutory agencies [such as the police].’
It’s hard to argue with the fact that Behavioural Insights Team’s findings, which are based on a culture of political correctness and influencing so much of modern society, make it less likely that such individuals will ever be picked up.
Three-quarters of offenders in prison for terror-related crimes and the vast majority of suspects on MI5’s terror watchlist are Islamist extremists.
They make up only 22% of all Prevent referrals, and 30% of Channel cases (who receive ideology mentoring). Far-Right extremists, on the other hand, make up 24% of Prevent referrals, and 43% of Channel cases. However, they are a smaller threat to national security.
The head of MI5, Ken McCallum revealed in July that a ‘growing number’ of terror plots were planned by Right-wing terrorists, with ten of the 29 plots disrupted in the past four years attributed to them. According to McCallum, teenagers as young 13-year-olds are being drawn into extremist activity.
McCallum emphasized that Islamist terrorist remains our greatest threat. ‘It is still the case that tens of thousands of individuals are committed to this ideology,’ he said. ‘We must continually scan for the smaller number within that group who, at any given moment, might be mobilising towards attacks.’
Armed officers pictured approaching Sudesh Amman (not pictured) as he lays prone in front of the entrance to Boots on Streatham High Street
The Henry Jackson Society, a leading counter-terrorism think-tank, says this is because the Home Office has allowed its work to be swayed by false allegations of ‘Islamophobia’.
Many believe the Lord Carlile QC treatment is a perfect example of this.
Lord Carlile was originally selected to review Prevent, which is being conducted by William Shawcross. This review follows claims by civil liberties organisations that Prevent encouraged discrimination against Muslims. This claim has been denied by the Government.
Lord Carlile was a qualified individual as an independent reviewer for terrorist activities from 2001 to 2011.
Rights Watch UK (now Rights and Security International), however, objected to his appointment and filed legal action against the Home Office. His support for Prevent made him ineligible for the position, at least in principle. Prevent was seen as state-sponsored spying by many Muslims, and it had become a toxic brand.
The Home Office didn’t contest the legal challenge. In December 2019, Lord Carlile stood down.
He was succeeded by Mr Shawcross, a former chairman of the Charity Commission, whose appointment sparked a boycott by 17 campaign groups earlier this year because, it was claimed, he held ‘hostile views’ on Islam.
Cage and Muslim Engagement and Development both supported the boycott. In 2015, Cage described the Islamic State executioner Mohammed Emwazi — nicknamed ‘Jihadi John’ — as a ‘beautiful young man’.
Mend, which insists it is a ‘not-for-profit company that helps to empower and encourage British Muslims within local communities’, has been described by the Muslim Conservative MP Nusrat Ghani, ‘as a self-appointed sectarian agitator group’.
The Shawcross review will likely conclude that Prevent is not effective in certain parts of the country, as local authorities involve Muslim groups opposed to the programme in the decision-making process about whether individuals should be deradicalized.
An unconfirmed report by the Times this week suggested that Mend is one of these groups; Mend didn’t respond to a request to comment.
It’s not the only concern.
Some critics find it difficult to justify the money spent on Prevent projects at grassroots levels.
In the past, thousands of pounds have been spent in grants on initiatives such as a ‘multicultural food festival’, camping equipment for scouts, a ‘kickball’ five-a-side tournament, and rap workshops.
The Home Office says it does not give out any details about Prevent spending, not even its annual budget (believed to be at least £46 million).
Our inquiries, however, have established that in the West Midlands alone, The Play House charity, which is linked to the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, has received substantial Prevent funding in the past decade (in the region of £248,000 between 2012 and 2019) to put on shows in schools and colleges. One show, a touring production of a play called Tapestry, has been designated a ‘model of best practice’ by the Home Office.
The charity explains why on its website: ‘Tapestry deals with radicalisation due to Right-wing, racist extremism as well as ISIS-inspired ideology and is very popular with schools as a means of opening dialogue about a very difficult and sensitive subject.’
Yet the Behavioural Insights Team found conflating different forms of extremism in the same ‘intervention programme’ was ineffective. For example, one should adapt the message based on whether one is dealing a religiously-based or far-Right threat.
In Birmingham — the charity’s heartland — one in ten convicted Islamist terrorists came from a tiny area of the city, according to an analysis of UK terrorism in 2017.
So some may question why ‘far-Right extremism’ is given equal weight to ‘Islamist extremism’ in the Tapestry play. According to the Home Office councils are responsible of ensuring delivery and commissioning of their projects.
According to Dr Neyroud (ex-chief constable), there are risks in diluting this message.
He said that programmes must be specifically tailored to the participants’ mindset. ‘It’s not an easy thing to do and it can grievously backfire, he said. Handled clumsily, it can serve to confirm “their” world view.’
No one would deny that the far-Right must be closely monitored. However, there is still much to be done to ensure that the Islamist threat is being monitored in accordance with the statistics.
Prevent, however, is ironic in the sense that individuals cannot be forced to take part.
Parsons Green bomber Ahmed Hassan (18 years old) exposed the flaws in this strategy. After he was convicted, Hassan’s former volunteer mentor, college lecturer Kayte Cable, revealed that lack of consent meant he had not properly engaged with the programme.
‘It is a matter of conscience for me that we learn from this terrible experience and do everything in our power to ensure that nothing like Parsons Green ever happens again,’ she told the BBC in 2018.
‘I absolutely understand the concerns that the public have when someone who has refused support and goes on to harm people,’ Prevent co-ordinator Will Baldet told the Mail. ‘But I would add that it is very unusual for people to refuse the offer of support.’
‘The safety of the UK is the Government’s number-one priority,’ a Home Office spokesman said. ‘Prevent is a vital tool for early intervention and safeguarding, and the police and security services work day and night to keep us safe from those who would do us harm.’
But is it suitable for its purpose? Priti Patel, Home Secretary, said this week that Shawcross will be reviewed to determine if it is fit for purpose.
The Behavioural Intelligences Team was able to answer that question three years back.
n Additional reporting: Tim Stewart, Iram Ramzan.