Thread by @luminatus1

Now it’s worth mentioning that Prevent is one of the most prominent counter-terror strategies from the Home Office.
So the question is this: if Prevent has had over £35m in funding every single year since 2015 (to say nothing of pre-2015),
thecanary.co/investigation/…

So the question is this: if Prevent has had over £35m in funding every single year since 2015 (to say nothing of pre-2015), why is that money producing “nothing of real weight to counter extremism”?

Where is that money going?

When we reached out to the Home Office for comment, a spokesperson told us:

Of course, the CCE is discussing legal stopgaps in relation to counter-extremism strategies. But one striking arm of the government’s counter-extremism strategy has been Prevent.
And the same criticisms that can be levelled at Prevent can be levelled at the CCE’s approach.

As part of our #FactOfTheMatter series, the investigations unit has covered how the government has weaponised free speech debates to quash dissent.

The CCE’s policy document, however, does the same thing

The CCE’s policy document, however, does the same thing. Prevent has already been criticised for being a restriction on freedom of speech. Yet here the CCE expresses concern at the need to give greater powers to police and the criminal justice system:

Prevent has already laid the groundwork to breed suspicion of Muslims. The involvement of free speech debates add fuel to this fire.

This would fly in the face of the CCE’s claim to preserve freedom of speech.

However, these laws have created a market niche where forever expansion of laws, powers and funding is essential to sustain its growth even at the cost of our freedoms