PREVENT must start to live up to it's name.

I agree those measures could help a lot.

I agree that there is no point in loading more onto Prevent.

This needs a multi-strand approach with one of the strands being support for parents of teenagers. Now.

Another strand being restoration and enhancement of the early years centres and youth services. Now.

A third strand being ensuring that schools are places where young people want to be, so enough teachers and support staff. Now.

As for offenders, I can't see any benefit in custodial sentences for under 16s within the current prison/young offender services. We need a return to something like the former Borstal youth detention centres, renamed schools. With a heavy emphasis on education and training so that boys are released equipped to return to school or take up work.

Of course this needs investment but these measures will contribute in time to 'growing the economy' as much as anything else.

You can only buy knives on line if you are over 18. When they are delivered you have to show ID to show you are, just like in shops. To be honest, the sort of knives that kids are carrying won't normally have been bought online by them.

I guess online includes overseas sites so even if we legislated to make online knives illegl in the UK (not a bad idea) they could still be bought on the internet & port authorities can't survey every package coming in.

Why are any knives allowed to be sold online? There are shops that sell them, DIY stores for the work/trades type knives. Who is buying them can be monitored more closely by an assistant than by an online site.

I thought Idris Elba's suggestion something that could be considered.

NotSpaghetti

Why should one agency be expected to do the work of another?

You wouldn't expect a podiatry department to handle hip surgery.

More focus on CAMHS and youth services (and then youth offending) would help early on.

Prevent has a specified remit.

Maybe if the Prevent programme doesn't do what people want we need another service to fill the gap... If it isn't there? And then they need to work together where necessary.

Don't call the fire service when you have a burglary and expect a successful outcome.

Exactly this. Prevent isn’t aimed at preventing any crime, it’s aimed at terrorism under the current agreement of what constitutes terrorism.
Let’s not spread its remit to the point where it’s spread too thin to be in any way effective

We need services working with children and families properly resourced and trained.

Wyllow3

Tonight, BBC 1 at 9pm

Idris Elba confronts the reality of knife crime, speaking to victims, offenders, police and grieving families, in a quest to uncover how the cycle can be broken.

The actor speaks to King Charles and the Prime Minister about possible solutions, advocating for earlier interventions and highlighting successful initiatives that have had a positive impact

There’s nothing wrong with that but it’s been proven that listening to former gang leaders/ members who have turned their lives round know more about this problem than any actor or King Charles.
No offence meant to either of them but unless you’ve been there you can’t possible understand what drives these children / young men/ women.

This is one man who gets it completely.

www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/essex-knife-crime-ex-gang-6446738

Wyllow, that sounds like a positive development.

Tonight, BBC 1 at 9pm

Idris Elba confronts the reality of knife crime, speaking to victims, offenders, police and grieving families, in a quest to uncover how the cycle can be broken.

The actor speaks to King Charles and the Prime Minister about possible solutions, advocating for earlier interventions and highlighting successful initiatives that have had a positive impact

Indeed icanhandthemback, I agree that people can, and do, change. What matters is that they want to change, and see their previous behaviours as unacceptable.
The Prevent programme can only do so much.

Chocolatelovinggran, even one of the Bulger killers has actually turned his life around so it obviously can be done. Of course there will be failures but children aren't born evil and for quite a few of these youths it is a case of them falling in with a culture they can't escape from.

I don't envy anyone trying to change such an entrenched mindset.

I can't help thinking that any under 18 year old found carrying a knife should be held somewhere they can be assessed for various things like neurodiversity, personality disorders, special educational needs, parental security, addiction etc. Only then can we decide which path is the right path for them. There should be a raft of options for any detainment; education, psychiatric help, etc. There is absolutely no point imprisoning these kids until we know what is driving them.

When my 5 children were growing up and out in town with friends I didn't worry about my 3 girls. They were always in small groups and tended to stick together.

The boys I worried about every time because of potentially looking at someone "wrong" or bumping into someone, or spilling a drink or whatever.

I think adolescent testosterone is a major problem - especially if combined with alcohol or drugs.

One of my boys nearly got a bottle in his face when waiting for a taxi with a friend after closing time. He told me he was actually looking down the road for the taxi - but the young man nearby assumed he was looking at his girlfriend. Whether he was or not I obviously don't know, but I believed him at the time - and even if he was looking his friend shouldn't have needed to step in...

Needless to say in future he walked up to the taxi office and waited inside.

Sadgrandma

I never really worried about my stepsons going out and about when they were teenagers but did worry about my daughter. However, it seems that parents need to worry as much about their boys these days. Knife crime is the equivalent to USA’s gun crimes here now.

It’s always been the same. I know when my son was going into Nottingham at night when he was in his late teens I read that young men were far more likely to be attacked than girls. I think Nottingham city centre was probably even more dangerous back then. I’m now worrying about my grandsons who are now at that age and becoming independent. I worried about my daughter being stabbed when she was a teacher. There seems to be no end to it and it’s heartbreaking.

a custodial sentence would confirm that the young person is troublesome and they might develop that persona further with unhelpful influences in residential care. Much better to give them something useful and employment developing to do like learning a trade. This is before a major crime. Closing so many youth services just gives time for young people to be available for unhelpful influences to take root.

TerriBull

I remember when the London Bridge murders took place, it was thought that the perpetrator had thoroughly duped the programme as to somehow being de-radicalised. I think there was a consensus at that time, Prevent was pretty useless. I believe the main criticism is that it only profiles those who are involved with a radical sect, and not those who operate as lone individuals, who are and have been very much a risk factor.

"I believe the main criticism is that it only profiles those who are involved with a radical sect, and not those who operate as lone individuals, who are and have been very much a risk factor"

Yes indeed TerriBull thats what is being discussed for change as the nature of some terrorism is changing.

This is the MI5 website I referred to above.
www.mi5.gov.uk/what-we-do/countering-terrorism

its a brief summary btw not a long tome.

I remember when the London Bridge murders took place, it was thought that the perpetrator had thoroughly duped the programme as to somehow being de-radicalised. I think there was a consensus at that time, Prevent was pretty useless. I believe the main criticism is that it only profiles those who are involved with a radical sect, and not those who operate as lone individuals, who are and have been very much a risk factor.

I thought, at the very least, that whoever is ultimately in charge would be named. I assume the Home Office is ultimately responsible (but I'm not even sure about that).

My daughter works for the National Crime Agency. For obvious reasons, much of their work isn't in the public domain. Nevertheless, it has a website and senior staff are named. There are some general details about the work they do. I naively thought Prevent would be the same.

MaizieD

NotSpaghetti

Why should one agency be expected to do the work of another?

You wouldn't expect a podiatry department to handle hip surgery.

More focus on CAMHS and youth services (and then youth offending) would help early on.

Prevent has a specified remit.

Maybe if the Prevent programme doesn't do what people want we need another service to fill the gap... If it isn't there? And then they need to work together where necessary.

Don't call the fire service when you have a burglary and expect a successful outcome.

I absolutely agree, NotSpaghetti

I also suspect that a completely new service would attract more funding than would be given to an existing service to extend its remit.

Well said, both of you.

This Mi5 report shows which activities/groups are defined as terrorist and with current threat levels assessed as "substantial" I dont think resources can possibly be stretched to cover all knife crime.

In the report it notes several times that some terrorist groups have changed their way of working from organised groups to individuals accessing information and acting alone.

I think that is what KS is referring to when looking at what Prevent can best spend time on.

It is hard to find information on PREVENT I tried to growstuff but presumably some of it is not in the public domain. Google comes up with

"While Prevent is a part of the UK's overall counter-terrorism strategy and is closely linked to MI5, it is not directly run by MI5; instead, it is a multi-agency program involving various organisations like local authorities, police, and other community groups, all working together to identify and support individuals at risk of radicalization, with MI5 providing intelligence and expertise in the background to inform the programme'

I agree "but there needs to be a total rethink about some kind of integrated service to deal with people who are potentially dangerous. It shouldn't be limited to under 18s"

I realised that I didn't know much about how Prevent works or who is actually involved, so I tried to find out. I must admit I'm not much the wiser. It seems that it's a strategy rather than a service with clearly defined roles and lines of responsibility. If anybody knows any more, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

I agree with others that prevent should stick to terrorism (according to the current definition), but there needs to be a total rethink about some kind of integrated service to deal with people who are potentially dangerous. It shouldn't be limited to under 18s.

NotSpaghetti

Why should one agency be expected to do the work of another?

You wouldn't expect a podiatry department to handle hip surgery.

More focus on CAMHS and youth services (and then youth offending) would help early on.

Prevent has a specified remit.

Maybe if the Prevent programme doesn't do what people want we need another service to fill the gap... If it isn't there? And then they need to work together where necessary.

Don't call the fire service when you have a burglary and expect a successful outcome.

I absolutely agree, NotSpaghetti

I also suspect that a completely new service would attract more funding than would be given to an existing service to extend its remit.