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%?

It is exactly these gaps that the Southport killings are such a chilling reflection of. Anyone working with children now knows that there are myriad such gaps, where children with evident need fall outside the specific bounds of individual services - not to mention all those where the service exists but is overloaded.

Many, many children unsuited to mainstream schooling, for example, and with extreme levels of need, may fall outside the groups served by the local range of special schools and thus end up in mainstream.

Yes and furthermore there's there's a real reluctance to hospitalise or imprison ND youngsters - they rapidly become institutionalised and are particularly vulnerable to bullying

50-60 yrs ago they were admitted to 'Mental Handicap Hospitals' and stayed there for life - out of sight out of mind - care in community hasn't really provided alternative provision

Some young people do go to specialist foster placements or hostels with 2 to 1 care eg Jonty Bravery but even that level of care didn't prevent him attacking the little boy at the Tate Modern

There's also a tiny amount of provision in the secure hospital estate/special units in regular prisons

They need a lot of intensive expensive dedicated care

Our local specialist foster placements disappeared about 10 years

On the topic of mental health disorders and sectioning, bear in mind that he didn't try to use a defence of diminished responsibility. Which indicates that he doesn't have a mental health disorder of sufficient magnitude to use it as a defence, and therefore presumably he wouldn't have been eligible for sectioning either.

So obviously with initial detention under the mental health act there would be no way of eg a police officer knowing that someone had a treatable mental health disorder. I'm assuming that it's after this when assessed by psychiatrists that they would decide on keeping someone detained. Presumably anyone threatening to harm themselves or others would have some form of mental health issues. There is surely no way that they could assess someone saying "I want to kill people" and be like "nope, 100% sane, see ya" This is incomprehensible.

Why does wanting to kill peope mean a person must be insane? Some people take pleasure from gardening or crochet. Some people take pleasure from inflicting violence and pain upon others.

I have taught at least 2 children - out of the 400 or so I have taught as a primary teacher - openly obsessed by killing and violence to a degree that is far outside the norm. If you start putting every one of those children into hospital or detention from KS2 age for life, that’s a LOT of young people…

The police can detain someone in a public place under Section 136 and take them to a designated 'place of safety' to be assessed by a psychiatrist - it only lasts 72 hours.
The police are pretty good at choosing the right people to detain

They can't detain people in their own homes without a warrant from a magistrate under a different section - so rare

People can be detained for 28 days under a Section 2 - treatment is voluntary and can't be compelled

A Section 2 can be converted to a Section 3 for Treatment lasting up to 6 months - treatment can be given against a persons wishes

Each step involves assessment by at least one specially trained psychiatrist and a Social Worker

If at any stage the risk goes away the Section cannot continue and the person can leave if they want to

Longer sections have a right of appeal and NOK have the right to oppose shorter sections

That's the short version

I agree with this 100%.

I also feel there must have been a large Incel factor with Rudakubana. Going into puberty he had huge problems with rejection and bullying at school.

He chose young girls for his attack.

Not all criminal violence is because of mental illness and that’s the case for young adults too.

I think it boils down to this.
So many referrals, red flags, the family reporting him...
But no removal from society to check what was going on in the depths of his mind.
It is not even retrospective. The signs were there, all along.
We do need a better mental health service. And if teens and youths most likely need their own branch.

Agree re the black hole in services.
This black hole is not about the dire lack of funding for CAMHS or adult mental health services - it is that personality disorder and ASD are not 'mental illness'; they are not treatable conditions.

Does the law need changing so that anyone deemed to be a serious risk to others can be detained, even though they are not mentally ill? Is that a step too far in a democracy?

Prisons have tons of people with personality disorders in them. It’s not illness but something fundamental in who a person is and the vast majority of criminal behaviour from these people is dealt with like any other criminals. Forensic units are incredibly expensive.

I personally think he should have been in the criminal justice system to some degree given it is a crime to threaten to carry out acts of violence.

This may be the answer. Instead of waiting for the violence to happen, there need to be more imprisonments for threatening violence.

So the failure was with the police and CPS? Not wanting to imprison a "vulnerable" teenager under age 18. (Again, ignoring funding issues in this analysis)

He was on the roll of two specialist schools but never attended.
My son is in a specialist school and has 100% attendance but so many don't

It depends if any of his violent behaviour or threats of violence were reported to the police. I don’t think the father reported having had to prevent him carrying out a knife attack a few days before did he?

Childline reported his threats.

Do you know if it is a criminal offence to fail to report to the police when someone else seriously threatens violence? Genuine question.

If so, that does sound extreme, and open to misapplication.

With hindsight the father was unwise, but who can blame him? Would anyone report their own son in the circumstances?

Teachers and schools have a stat duty to report any safeguarding concerns to relevant authorities but not to report criminal behaviour. I think that needs to change and all serious assaults, having a weapon or credible threats should have to be reported to the police.

Sounds like the only answer.
With 'special prisons' for young people found guilty of threats of serious violence (having no mental illness), for both under 18's and separately for 18-25's.

Because waiting until after the violence occurs, as happens now, is not an acceptable policy.

Obviously specialist officers and approach but at the very least sitting down with the child and parents. If there’s a pattern or escalation the police are then aware and can decide when to escalate their response eg press charges and refer to youth offenders team.

No public service is 'set up to deal with someone who wants to kill people'. They are too busy saying 'it's not us because of x, y, z'.
Need a complete overhaul of children's services, root and branch.
In my opinion this individual should have been sectioned to protect others - he was clearly a dangerous person.

But dangerous doesn’t equal mental illness. You can be dangerous and malevolent without being ill. Then it’s about protecting the public which is part of the remit of the police and criminal justice system, not the nhs.

@Maddy70 · Today 15:12

‘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’

I thought you lived in Spain, that’s what you said recently anyway. Are these expat children?

The young man in Southport was referred to YOT - he chose not to attend - it's voluntary so.............