Warning of lack of support for young people fixated on violence

[IwantToRetire]

The Children’s Commissioner for England has warned that many teachers find “closed doors and dead ends” when they refer young people to the Government’s anti-terror programme.

Referrals to Prevent involving children have risen over 60% in the past decade, from 2,918 in 2016-17 to 4,715 in 2024-25.

Newspaper article https://www.hellorayo.co.uk/hits-radio-00s/uk/news/lack-of-support-for-young-people-fixated-on-violence

Children referred to the Prevent programme
Children Commissoner's Report
https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/resource/children-referred-to-the-prevent-programme/

Have added this as Prevent has come up on a number of threads, eg its use in school, and also in a number of court cases where the person (usually male) convicted of acts of violence.

Yes, we refer a lot of children to Prevent, simply because there isnt anything else, knowing the referral will be rejected. This is in social care. There isnt any other intervention for children like this.

Just a quick response is to the news paper article which talks about "fixated by violence" as part of me thinks this is the prime issue.

The fact that later this violence is, but not always, linked to a set of beliefs means that too many slip through the net.

The issue is why there are some or too many attracted to violence.

Does it ever do any good?

Yes, I have had a great deal of success from Prevent for children who are threats to the government/terrorism recruits, poor MH which is leading into terrorist actions which can be treated by medication. Mainly because of the work around reframing personal gripes about 'others' and how to feel better about yourself so that you dont want to attack society. Prevent have also been instrumental in getting CAMHS on board and forcing them into working with the YP and giving them proper treatment.

However those kids met the criteria for Prevent accurately

The vast majority of children we are worried about have generalised fixations of violence, there is no terror or radical threat from them, they are just generally hateful of women and other cultures/ethnicities. Obsessed with talking about and watching and thinking about stabbings/shootings/violence/sexual harm etc etc

No diagnosable MH issues, so no 'treatment' is possible. No link to specific ideologies or terrorist actions.

So no role for Prevent. That is correct. We know this. Schools are always insisting on children being referred and we say 'they wont be accepted, they dont meet the threshold. Refer if you like'. So they do, and the referral gets closed down.

We also make pointless referrals so I understand it. We have to show we have done all we can.

Thanks. That's really useful. From newspaper reports there is an implication that they dont even pick up on more overt interests in terrorism.

But shows there is a gap in terms of those who are maybe more a product or conform to what seems the growth of incel culture - and disrespect for women and girls.

Prevent is aware of and hopefully adjusting for young people with violence fixation and nihilistic and misanthropic attitudes. Had some Prevent training on this just this week. Very scary stuff. At least if there is an underlying ideology there is something to work with; but when they are just drawn into extreme violence fixation with no specific belief system, how do you change that?

Have you made many referrals for that cohort?

I do realise that there are many other factors here but huge numbers of children are growing up with violent images being part of their everyday from a very young age. The dominance of the pornography industry in our culture must be addressed as part of this. It is everywhere from advertising to music videos to the gaming industry. You can buy 'STEAM' gift cards in lots of shops in UK and it is hard to avoid porn on STEAM. Until recently they had simulated rape games. Were removed because of a campaign by an Australian Group called Collective Shout. Anyway, as I said, not the only issue here but it certainly isn't helping!

NB!!! Worth reading the Commissioner's comment eg:

Since it was established Prevent has seen a substantial rise in referrals for children, growing from under 3,000 a year in 2016 to over 4,700 last year. More than half of all referrals last year were for children.

The majority of those, almost three quarters of referrals for children in 2024-25, were not about radicalisation in the way we traditionally think – being a right wing, left wing, or Islamist extremist. They were where children had no clear ideology identified in the referral, but many had a fascination with extreme violence or mass casualty attacks.

These terms can distract from the seriousness of what we’re talking about. So, let me give some examples. This group of children might be frequently talking about weapons, idolising ‘famous’ attackers, or sharing videos of violence (such as beheadings or suicides). They may be sharing extreme pornography with peers, encouraging others to join dangerous online communities or to self-harm.

Bold emphasis is mine.

Not saying some aren't "radicalised" but it is clear that just as there is an increase material promoting acts of violence against women, there is a huge amount of promoting acts of violence.

And whilst I am sure not just by social media, but SM means that many young people are seeing acts of violence most adults would never have seen - or dreamed of.

So if Prevent focuses on those radicalised by politics, what are we going to do abour the children radicalised by social media?

Its worth remembering that Meta is on trial:

• Meta's business model focuses on making sure children spend as much time and attention on Facebook and Instagram as possible.
• Meta deceived the public by creating "harmful and psychologically manipulative" product features that encouraged "compulsive and extensive" app use while saying those features were safe.
• Meta published "profoundly misleading reports" that showed very low rates of bad experiences on Instagram and Facebook to reduce concerns about children using its platforms.
• Meta "refuses to abandon its use of known harmful features" and is instead doubling down on its efforts to "to misrepresent, conceal, and downplay" those features.

Dont want to derail discussion about Prevent, but there must be links to this "business" practice.

I just read this stuff and surely the glaring question is: Why isn't misogyny, or hatred of women and girls, considered an Ideology? Surely it has caused more human misery than any other Ideology over time? There are crimes committed on this basis all over the globe, all day every day. It costs law enforcement, the justice, penal and health systems billions of dollars, it is all over the internet and traditional media. And yet it cannot be named. It is "invisible" to those who don't feel any personal impact from it, and even when some people are personally impacted, they still don't see it. It is the raging, fluorescent, dancing and singing elephant in the room.

Why does the UK not agree to have misogyny as a hate crime?

Exactly, I mean, you thought your jails were full now right? Besides, it the founding principle of the internet, they'd have to shut the whole thing down.

Should all the references to 'children' upthread actually refer to 'boys'? What percentage of Prevent referrals are girls?

The statistic I found from Gov.uk website was a 90% male, 10% female but that's the general Prevent data rather than school referrals.

This is an AI analysis of the Children's Commissioner's Report (which I admit I haven't read in full - just her statement) but had assumed most referrals were boys. They seem to not want to be too explicit about what these boys are getting obsessed with, so a bit vague.

Official UK statistics do not provide a direct exact split of boys versus girls specifically for school pupil Prevent referrals in the latest August 2026 Children’s Commissioner report, and the exact counts for specific terrorist-group or violence-fixation sub-categories are quantified as 71% lacking a clear ideology rather than rigid standalone totals. 1, 2]

Referral Breakdown and Context

• Total Child Referrals: Prevent referrals involving children rose to 4,715 in 2024–25. 1]
• Lacking Clear Ideology / Violence Fixation: The Children’s Commissioner for England (Dame Rachel de Souza) reported that 71% of children referred to Prevent do not have a clear extremist ideology. 1, 2]
• Fascination with Violence: Within that broader group without a traditional single ideology, specific subclassifications like a fascination/fixation with violence make up a distinct portion (with reports noting approximately 8% specifically tracked as a standalone violence-fascination category in certain analytical breakdowns, among wider mixed vulnerabilities). 1]
• Identifying with Terrorist Groups: Exact numbers for children explicitly identifying with active terrorist groups are not published as a discrete overarching metric by the Commissioner, as most referred cases involve general online radicalisation, mixed/unclear ideologies, or behavioral fixation rather than formal group membership. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• Gender Split: National data historically shows that a large majority of Prevent referrals are male (frequently upwards of 75–80% across general scheme data), but a precise real-time public breakdown for the exact boys-to-girls ratio in the latest Commissioner's cohort release is not specified in the headline findings. 1, 2]

(excuse use of the word gender, as AI like much else in tech is not exactly interested in sex based rights!)

As per PP figures from .gov.uk here is the breakdown, or lack of it, for adults:

The Home Office Prevent Official Statistics provide comprehensive data across England and Wales. However, the UK government does not publish separate categorical breakdowns by sex specifically isolated for adults; instead, all demographic datasets are provided on an all-age or combined basis. 1, 2]
The total dataset up to September 2025 shows a record-high 10,293 total referrals across all demographics. 1]

Gender/Sex Breakdown

Across all recorded Prevent cases where sex was specified, the data remains heavily skewed: 1, 2]

• Males: 9,002 referrals (90%).
• Females: Approximately 1,014 referrals (10%). 1]

Adults over 18 make up roughly 35% of all total referrals, while minors aged 11–17 make up the largest proportion (49%). [, 2, 3]

Ideology and Type of Threat Breakdown

The official Home Office records do not cross-reference gender specifically against ideology or violence sub-types, but the total distribution across the programme includes: 1]

Category / Extremist Threat ProfilePercentage of Total Referrals
No Identified/Clear Ideology (Vulnerable / No formal group) 56%
Extreme Right-Wing Ideology 20%
Fascination with Extreme Violence / Mass Casualty 8%
Islamist Extremism 8%
Incel (Involuntary Celibate) Extremism 1%
Left-Wing Extremism 0.3%

Linking to Terrorist Groups vs. Obsession with Violence

• Terrorist Groups: Direct affiliation with a proscribed terrorist group represents a very small portion of initial referrals. Most referrals are designated by ideological categories (Extreme Right-Wing or Islamist) due to individual online radicalisation paths or "hybridised/conflicted" frameworks rather than formal group membership. 1, 2, 3]
• Obsession with Extreme Violence: A dedicated sub-classification tracking individuals specifically for an obsession with extreme violence or mass casualty attacks makes up 8% of the national total. 1]

Violence Against Women & "Incel" Extremism

The official statistics do not feature a metric explicitly named "violence against women." Instead, misogynistic extremism and targeted anti-female threats are officially classified under Incel Extremism or wrapped inside the broader "Mixed, Unclear, or Unstable Ideology" bracket. 1, 2]

• Incel Referrals: Incel cases account for roughly 1% of all total referrals (amounting to roughly 70 to 100 individuals annually). 1, 2, 3]
• Demographics: Security reports state that the Incel subculture is an overwhelmingly male online community. While specific sex breakdowns are withheld for this 1%, case studies suggest nearly all individuals referred under this classification are young men or adult males. 1, 2]
• Aggression Context: In-depth research published via the Gov.uk Incel Harm Report highlights that individuals flag to the system because they express rape myth acceptance, hostile sexism, or justify violence against those they blame for their social isolation. 1]

(I think it is clear that neither .gov.uk or AI think the same as those of use who belief in women's sex based rights!)

So just digesting some of this.

That there are more referrals for young people (boys) to Prevent than adults?

That the majority of referrals to Prevent are not about the growth in groups with radical, extremist politics, and of those that are, are predominantly right wing groups.

Sort of blows the myth puffed out by the red tops and indeed the Telegraph.

And no need to assume some mass violent takeover by lefties!

Sorry, I know this is serious, but these figures in no way match up to the incidents that get picked up by the media.

As a society we should be properly informed of where harms or manipulation of our children is likely to happen.

(Ironically saw a recent headline by one of the Red Tops attacking the Children's Commissioner for her report saying "This isn't what Prevent was set up for" rather than the more obvious response is that a politicised programme like Prevent may not be the best tool to help the groups most in need of being helped. Young men and boys.)

It would be interesting to know more about that 56% with "no clear ideology". It seems rather a large number. What takes them over the threshold for a Prevent referral in the first place, and what the criteria would have to be to place them in one of the defined groups rather than being classified as "undefined".

That is what is so strange. Assuming these statistics are not a sudden change why isn't there more clarity about what it is these boys have done that moves them out of the category of someone who disrupts classes or whatever, into something serious enough for them to be referred to a programme set up to deal with potential terrorist recruits.

I was wondering if it was gang related behaviour but then I just noticed (ie registered) that in brackets beside that majority group is says vulnerable.

So are they being referred because someone thinks they could be manipulated to become part of some group of extremists?

In the official Home Office release covering recent figures up to September 2025, ethnicity was known for about 52% of total referrals.

Where ethnicity was specified (N = 5,315), the breakdown was: 1]

• White: 68% (3,600 individuals)
• Asian: 18% (949 individuals)
• Black: 8% (401 individuals)
• Other: 7% (365 individuals) 1]

The term "No Identified/Clear Ideology" (formerly categorized as "Mixed, Unclear, or Unstable" ideologies) means a person is showing signs of vulnerability to radicalisation, but their fixation does not align with a single established terrorist movement like Extreme Right-Wing or Islamist terrorism [1, 2].

Instead, these individuals—disproportionately young males—often combine fragments of different online conspiracy theories, school shooter obsessions, violent gaming cultures, or intense personal grievances [1].

The Type of Individuals in This Category

Many of these referrals do involve young boys struggling socially, but they differ significantly from standard school behavioral issues or localized gang vulnerability:

• The "Mish-Mash" Ideology: They might exhibit a fluctuating mix of extreme misogyny (Incel culture), satanism, white supremacist memes, and anti-establishment views without understanding or belonging to a real-world political group [1].
• Mental Health and Neurodiversity: A very high proportion of individuals in this category have underlying neurodivergent traits (such as Autism Spectrum Conditions) or severe mental health vulnerabilities [1].
• The Distinction from Gangs: While urban street gangs exploit vulnerable youths for financial profit and criminal operations (like county lines drug running), Prevent focuses exclusively on ideological radicalisation, mass violence, or severe self-harm driven by extreme online subcultures.

What Tips Them Over into Prevent?

A child moves from being merely "disruptive at school" or "vulnerable to gangs" into a Prevent referral when their behavior shows a specific pathway toward ideologically motivated violence or extremist fixation. Key triggers include:

• Searching for Mass Violence Material: Moving from regular video games to actively downloading bomb-making manuals, researching school shooters, or studying execution videos.
• Escalating Rhetoric: Shifting from casual playground misbehavior to repeating specific, dangerous extremist manifestos or threatening targeted mass violence against groups of people.
• Fixation on Martyrs/Killers: Expressing an intense desire to emulate mass killers or treating internet trolls who committed acts of violence as "heroes."
• Extreme Online Isolation: Spending massive amounts of time in unmoderated, highly radicalized chat rooms (like specific Discord servers or Telegram channels) coupled with sudden, drastic changes in real-world behavior and withdrawal from family.

Both this post and the previous one are AI generated.

From my understanding, Prevent was set up to tackle Islamist terrorism in Britain after 9/11 and War on Terror and they later expanded to address far-right extremism. But violence without any ideological motivation isn't really within its remit. Should it be? Would dealing with non-ideological criminality impair their ability to detect and prevent terrorism? Maybe we need a separate organisation to deal with youth who express an interest in violence and criminality but are not affiliated with terrorist ideology.

I think this is what the Children's Commissioner is highlighting by warning of lack of support for young people fixated on violence

I haven't followed up on that statement being published, but would hope she - if anybody - could say to the Government look at these figures. Doesn't that imply the Government needs to have a different more focused programme for young people (mainly boys) who are fixated on violence.

At the moment the wild west of social media means they can spend all day on sites promoting violence as well as abuse of women.