Prevent - there are more children like Rudakubana

[noblegiraffe]

I just read this interesting and worrying article about the increase in children being referred to Prevent but not getting support from them due to lack of terrorist ideology.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/school-prevent-referrals-rise-but-fewer-get-support/

I can see that if Prevent resources are geared to children who are being groomed into jihadist ideology or white supremacy then they wouldn't necessarily be able to tackle someone who just wants to go on a killing spree. However it is clear that if violent tendencies and posing an obvious risk do not meet the threshold for Prevent support, then we either need a different agency to deal with these troubled children, or Prevent needs to widen its remit.

If Rudakubana phoned Childline aged around 12 to say he wanted to kill people, if social services were involved, if CAMHS was involved, if there were enough concerns that he was repeatedly referred to Prevent, then clearly there was need for a type of support that wasn't on offer.

The article says "In the year to April 2024, two in five school referrals were found to involve a vulnerable child, but one deemed not to be driven by a terrorist ideology.
That meant more than 1,000 cases from schools were classed as “vulnerability present but no ideology or CT [counter-terrorism] risk” – an increase of 140 per cent since before Covid."

"Just 8 per cent of all school referrals in the year to April 2024 resulted in a decision to give the child specialised support through Prevent"

Then what on earth is happening with the other 92%?

Agree, and MI5 have pointed this out themselves (last year, BBC interview). Islamic terrorists number 1 threat, right wing growing fast, but a substantial amount of young people who have a dark fascination with violence and killing just because they are attracted to it. Brianna Grey's killers were in this terrible cohort as of course was Rudukabana. It doesn't help that they can access all sorts of very violent real life content online. It's something society and the government in particular needs to have a plan for. It's only going to get worse (not just my opinion but also MI5's).

Deeply frightening.

Maybe what should be looked at is why schools are referring to the wrong service and getting the government to sort out camhs out so it's fit for purpose

In my role I have reported several students to prevent. Most have been white boys.. people are often looking in the wrong direction. Their heros are Tate and Tommy

Which service should Rudakubana have been referred to that he wasn't already under and which is set up to deal with someone who wants to kill people (as expressed 6 years ago)?

This worries me. I understand there may be a threat from terrorists, which is awful. But for me the far bigger red flag with the whole Southport situation was just how many violent white men flooded the streets in the riots, completely believing their racist tirades were acceptable.

@Maddy70 in my role I've also been referring white young adult males who are also into Tommy Robinson with the idea that tommy robinson, andrew tate, katie hopkins are the ones who are telling the truth. and were immigration banned, then suddenly they would be transformed into positive, engaged, employable adults. This instead of the unmotivated, monosyllabic, cannabis smoking, social media dependent men they are.

It's unfair to expect parents to be effectively held hostage in their homes by a child like Axel and no one helping you deal with the issues despite repeated requests

@LittleRedRidingHoody the men I'm working with are anti authoritarian men who love nothing better than giving police a kicking. But all claim they aren't racist they just want themselves to have access to all the freebies they think others are getting, eg, a flat, clothes, etc etc

Well not Prevent because he wasn't radicalized, they are a specialist service. He probably was referred to correct services as well however the services are seriously underfunded and unable to cope ie child services and camhs.

He should have had a lot more intervention when younger but that means we need to seriously invest in services. We probably also needed specialist service setting up to deal with children who have a fascination with death and violence.

They'll need to create somewhere new to accommodate and deal with these DC away from home and before they end up in prison having played out their fantasies and killed people

The fact that at 12, he clearly knew the feelings he had about wanting to kill people were wrong and called childline is just harrowing. Why didn’t anyone intervene.

I once referred a young man to prevent and we had a multi agency meeting before they got in touch with the family but the boy declined support and that was that! I don’t know if he was deemed low risk so his support was consent based but he didn’t consent to support so it didn’t proceed! I’d like to think it’s not the case for every referral… but not sure if there are tiers of risk I guess there are but if not what good is a service that will only work with you if you consent

Like an old fashioned Borstal but obviously run better than they were

Clearly they tried, he was referred to Prevent three times to no avail. He was under CAMHS, he was in a pupil referral unit, he had an EHCP, his parents phoned the police on him five times.

It sounds like there were people quite desperate to get him support.

There was no where to place him

Your post sounds a bit as if you are blaming the school for ‘using the wrong e-mail address’.

Whereas actually, schools were referring him to everywhere they could, including Prevent as its description looks as if it is the right place. The filter ‘we don’t consider anyone without an obvious ideology’ is not made clear, and even if it was, the main point is that there were NO better services for a child like this for schools to use.

He should have been sectioned but the mental health service barely exists.

Apparently he stopped engaging with his mental health support team.

The barrister for the defence said "There is no psychiatric evidence that could suggest a mental disorder." although I don't understand how wanting to go on a killing spree and then planning and executing this doesn't constitute a mental disorder?

Not sure that he was detainable under the MHA - as well as risk to self/others there needs to be a treatable mental disorder/mental impairment - high functioning autism with or without an emerging personality disorder might not fulfil the 'treatable' criterion

Younger teens can be admitted under parental consent ie Children Act but MHA better esp if wanting to compel treatment eg trial of medication

It's not straightforward unfortunately and it's not clear why he wasn't admitted for assessment - ??risk to other patients/staff in a non-secure environment and secure adolescent forensic beds are as rare as hen's teeth

SSD secure units are also hard to access

I understand that you can be sectioned if you were a danger to yourself and others.

Austerity ftw!

I'm not blaming schools I'm blaming a succession of governments for not putting in place enough different services to cover all needs. This in turn means schools can't refer to the right services as they don't practically exist.

That's right but you also have to have a treatable mental health disorder or mental impairment - just being a danger to self or other people isn't enough

And it's the treatable part which is the problem - ASD isn't treatable

..

Well that sounds like a massive hole in the system??

That doesn't make sense. What happens with people who are a danger to others or themselves and don't have a treatable problem?