Having skim read the article (see archive link below) I think the snippet doesn't quite reflect what the supposed recommendations are.
Its to stop this limited approach to terrorism being only seen as being a member of an extreme group. Even Starmer hinted at the fact that the real danger in this country was incels isolated in the bedrooms absorbing celebrations of violence.
After the sentencing of the Southport murderer it was acknowledged that he hadn't been seen as a threat because he wasn't link to any specific group. But as most women and girls know, male violence is a universal threat.
From the article:
The wide-ranging report set out multiple examples of attitudes and behaviour that should be termed “extremist”. This included extreme misogyny, spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories, an interest in “gore or extreme misogyny”, involvement in “online subcultures called the manosphere” and those obsessed with school massacres, as well as anarchists and environmental protesters.
It said extremists could be “opportunistic” by exploiting and twisting topical issues to fit their wider narratives. Examples included grooming gangs, the report said, adding: “Right-wing extremists frequently exploit cases of alleged group-based sexual abuse to promote anti-Muslim sentiment as well as related anti-government and anti-‘political correctness’ narratives.”
The report said the “extreme right wing” was a “fragmented collection of groups, subcultures and leaderless movements” that pushed a range of narratives that are “coded calls for violence rather than explicit threats”.
Archive link to whole article https://archive.is/6LB2i
Not that I think any of this will do any good.
There will only be change when the male political system recognises that the threat in 99.9% of cases is male culture. Trying to link it to sects or political groups is the way men deflect from the fact that it is men who are obsorbed by this admiration of violence.