UK Prevent review: It's time to abolish this failing system

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to review the controversial Prevent programme comes too late for the victims of its failures.
After the Southport stabbings last summer, it was revealed that the perpetrator had been referred to Prevent three times, and yet remained free to commit a heinous act - a stark indictment of the strategy’s ineffectiveness.
While the new review is a welcome step, it must result in a replacement programme that not only addresses Prevent’s operational failures, but also rectifies the deep mistrust and harm it has inflicted on Britain’s Muslim communities.
Whatever comes next cannot be worse than what we have already endured.
Prevent has long been a policy built on flawed assumptions. Designed to identify individuals “at risk” of radicalisation, its vague and unscientific criteria have led to the widespread and unjust targeting of Muslims.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Children as young as two have been referred for innocuous behaviour, such as saying “Allahu Akbar” or mentioning historical caliphates in class discussions. Teenagers have been flagged for de-radicalisation simply for protesting against Israeli diplomats or wearing “Free Palestine” badges.
These cases are emblematic of a strategy that views Muslim communities through the lens of security, rather than as partners in safeguarding.
Fear and alienation
A recent report by Rights and Security International has revealed an even darker side to Prevent: personal data from referrals, including those of children, is stored in vast databases accessible to police, intelligence agencies and potentially foreign governments. This data can remain in government systems for decades, leading to long-term harm.
Complaints have emerged from individuals who have lost university places, failed citizenship applications, or even been denied employment because of Prevent referrals. Far from safeguarding, this system entrenches discrimination.
The secrecy surrounding Prevent has allowed abuses to fester unchecked, eroding trust in public institutions and alienating communities
The People’s Review of Prevent paints an equally damning picture, noting that Prevent disproportionately targets Muslims, fostering fear and alienation. The review highlights how Prevent’s extension to schools, healthcare and other public services has turned trusted professionals into informants, undermining their roles as educators and carers.
A report from Amnesty International titled “This is the Thought Police” goes further, concluding that Prevent is “fundamentally incompatible” with the UK’s human rights obligations. Amnesty documents how Prevent’s vague criteria have caused stress, anxiety and a loss of trust in public authorities.
Both Amnesty and the People’s Review call for the abolition of Prevent, urging the government to focus on evidence-based safeguarding instead.
Prevent’s flawed foundation compounds its failures. The strategy relies on the discredited “conveyor belt” model of radicalisation - a linear progression from grievance to violence - while ignoring the complex social, political and psychological factors that contribute to extremism.
MI5’s behavioural science unit, after analysing hundreds of cases, found no typical pathway to violence. Similarly, former CIA officer Marc Sageman, in his analysis of 500 terrorist biographies, argued that this theory oversimplifies radicalisation and fails to account for sociopolitical realities.
Systemic inequities
Prevent’s implementation has also laid bare systemic inequities in counter-terrorism. Muslim children make up 60 percent of Prevent referrals in schools, despite comprising just five percent of the population. Meanwhile, individuals from far-right backgrounds often escape similar scrutiny.
The case of Liam Lyburd, who plotted to bomb his former college but was not treated as a terrorist, contrasts sharply with the harsh penalties imposed on Muslims for far less. Such double standards delegitimise the entire counter-terrorism framework.
Transparency and accountability must be the cornerstones of any replacement for Prevent. The secrecy surrounding Prevent has allowed abuses to fester unchecked, eroding trust in public institutions and alienating communities.
Teachers, doctors and social workers have been turned into informants, damaging their relationships with those they serve. Families, fearful of surveillance, are less likely to seek help when needed.
A new strategy must prioritise safeguarding over surveillance, addressing the root causes of violence - including poverty, inequality, mental health and alienation - while ensuring the views of Muslim communities are genuinely taken into account.
Finally, Britain must reflect on the broader ethical implications of its counter-terrorism policies. Prevent has eroded civil liberties, stifled free speech, and tarnished the UK’s reputation internationally. It feeds into narratives of western hypocrisy, undermining Britain’s ability to promote human rights abroad.
The forthcoming review is an opportunity to abolish a failing system and replace it with one that upholds fairness, trust and justice. Anything less risks deepening the harm that Prevent has already caused - not just to Muslim communities, but to Britain’s social cohesion.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.