Prevent is falsely being masked around the language of ‘safeguarding’:
- Safeguarding experts and social workers have criticised the Prevent duty stating it is not the role of social workers to do the police’s work, and that the 2-hour Prevent training is inadequate and flawed.
- We know social workers have become involved in families due to alleged ‘radicalisation’ concerns, but have based assessments mainly on families religiosity and Islamophobic judgments rather than any genuine concerns over children’s welfare.
- Existing safeguarding policies adequate to deal with genuine safeguarding concerns
- Prevent is not safeguarding but an abuse of existing safeguarding policies and children’s welfare
- Criticism has been made by professionals in the field of safeguarding, including social workers, about blurring the lines between social work and that of counter terrorism and policing, what is your response to this?
- Why are existing (safeguarding) policies not adequate to deal with any genuine concerns?
- Through out the course of assessments made by social workers, families are viewed through a securitised lens. How would you respond to criticism that social workers basing their assessments on families religiosity rather than any genuine concerns around welfare of children?