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.