Comment on Review into Axel Rudakubana will criticise Prevent for rejecting his case three times
BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Yeah of the focus is on Prevent then its scapegoating. Prevent is there to tackle people being radicalised - its not there to detect and police all violent people in society.
The real failings are in police, mental health services and social services - all of which have had resources slashed due to austerity.
Blaming Prevent is a distraction - counter terrorism is not the route this very violent and sick individual should have been caught before committing an atrocity.
I work in the NHS and the real question for me is how a very sick and dangerous child could have been allowed to walk away by child mental health services whose excuse has been that he “failed to engage”. A child does not have autonomy to decide to engage or not - it is the mental health services and social services that failed to follow him up.
A child that was too dangerous to even be allowed on site at a specialist school - he was managed from home for staff and pupil safety - should have had heavy mental health and social service input. Prevent would be able to offer nothing.
The whole story is an indictment of the failure of the state over the last 15 years since the ideological nonsense of austerity has ravaged the UK public sector and services.
Emperor@feddit.uk 5 days ago
Indeed, it says it right at the start:
Now it could be argued that other services binning dangerous kids onto them because they don’t have the budget has forced them to strictly apply their criteria but it is there to prevent terrorism not assess everyone who poses a threat.
I’d hope it would lead to more systematic reform but I fear a few heads will roll and that will be deemed to be suitable action. While I am aure Labour would love to pin the blame in the Tories, any solutions to the mess from the previous administration will be expensive and the cupboards are bare.