In 2005, when Jamie Oliver exposed what really went into chicken nuggets on his School Dinners series, parents were horrified. What they thought was a proper hot meal turned out to be processed scraps, stripped of nutrition and bulked out with additives. The same reaction should meet the Channel programme. Promoted as safeguarding against radicalisation, it is in reality a highly processed product: stripped of genuine social care and support, repackaged with the additives of counter-terrorism, and sold back to us as if it were the nourishment required for a healthy society.
According to the Home Office statistics, 5,014 individuals have been referred to Channel for ‘de-radicalisation’ since 2015. A Channel intervention is linked to the Prevent strategy in the UK. Out of a total number (58,127) of Prevent referrals as a result of the strategy, just 8.6% are deemed to be at risk of ‘radicalisation’ and deemed suitable for a Channel panel intervention.
Even this small number have not committed criminal offences or even expressed any intention to do so. They are individuals judged against a vague and contested set of extremism risk indicators designed to indicate a “susceptibility to radicalisation”.
This is not even a susceptibility to commit acts of terrorism, but an indication that they may go on to develop unpalatable views.
Most of the 800 or so people we have supported at Prevent Watch are not adopted into Channel. Of those who are, many refuse to participate, with families often describing Channel as “voluntary in name only”, with pressure to comply and the constant fear of what refusal of Channel ‘de-radicalisation’ might trigger in their children’s lives.
Our pool of Channel cases and evidence is therefore relatively small. If Channel achieves successful “life changing” work, as the Home Office contends, then surely, they have a pool of 5,014 individuals from which they could draw evidence of its success.
Until recently, this evidence has never been put forward. Instead, advocates of Prevent expected us to take their word that Channel is doing great work. They portray it as a life-saving programme that is rescuing both individuals from the path of terrorism, as well as protecting society from these individuals committing terror attacks.
So it was with this in mind that we decided to take a closer look at any publicly available Channel cases or references to them.
The ‘successes’ attributed to Channel
We noted back in 2023 that the Home Office had seemed to take inspiration from our People’s Review of Prevent (2022), despite failing to respond to the report – by humanising the stories of those who go on to the Channel programme.
In terms of public documentation we found 38 Channel case studies on the Home Office website and several reports on Prevent.
The common theme is that these were not hardened ideologues determined to “blow up the city”. Rather they were children bullied at school, people fleeing domestic abuse, teenagers struggling with autism, trauma, or grief.
Please donate now to keep Prevent Watch going – we are entirely funded by you!
Furthermore, the interventions that “worked” and were described as a “success” were not specific to counter-terrorism work – rather these cases depended on mentoring, counselling, youth clubs, housing support, and mental health care.
In other words, Prevent has become the substitute for services gutted by austerity in 2015, the same year that Prevent became a statutory duty.
The government’s own Independent Reviewer of Prevent, Lord David Anderson, in his recent report, Lessons for Prevent, acknowledges that many Channel cases are really about social vulnerabilities, not ideology.
Yet the recommendations appear to indicate the need for Prevent to be expanded further into the realm of social problems.
A closer look at some Channel cases
Take one of the graver cases highlighted in Lessons for Prevent. A young adult was referred after looking up weapons and school shootings online. He was referred to Prevent and deemed suitable for Channel.
When this case was explored, it became clear that he had long-term mental health difficulties, was awaiting an autism assessment, and needed help to broaden his social inclusion and find work. The “interventions” that resolved the situation were mental health support, social care, and local services.
Another case, promoted by the government, involves Abdu, a 12-year-old boy who had lost his grandmother, was being bullied, and spent much of his time online. Some of his internet activity was flagged as concerning, including watching violent videos, and he made provocative comments at school.
On paper, this was presented as a case of “Islamist radicalisation”. But the interventions that made the difference were youth clubs, family support, and school engagement.
In other words, the role of Channel was that of a securitised middle man for services that should be routinely available in a strong welfare system.
What people tell us about their experiences of Channel
Our own experience of Channel cases is similar. One parent we supported, recounted how, after converting to Islam and making some troubling comments at school, her autistic child was referred to Prevent and deemed suitable for Channel.
She told us: “When I heard they were putting my son into Channel, I was petrified. He was only a child and none of this was about him becoming a terrorist. The whole experience made him see himself as ‘dangerous,’ and it left us more stigmatised and isolated than before.”
She added: “There were so many professionals involved through Channel, but none of them ever gave my son the support he actually needed. It just felt like people circling around him without really helping.”
More specifically, she said, the main issue was his online activity, yet, “There was nobody on the Channel panel who could help us as parents negotiate this persistent influence. It’s only because of my partner being techy that we have managed this on our own.”
And it is not just parents of children referred to Channel who have questioned its utility but those working within Channel panels have also come forward to explain their experience to us.
Please donate now to keep Prevent Watch going – we are entirely funded by you!
One experienced social worker who has sat on over 40 Channel panels reflected: “If there were safeguarding concerns, there were already services to deal with them. Channel just added a layer of security language and suspicion.”
They went on: “Most of the time the young person needed mentoring or CAMHS, not a so-called ‘deradicalisation provider.’ The label of Channel made it harder, not easier, to get the right support.”
And perhaps most tellingly: “In all the years I sat on panels, I can’t think of one case that was genuinely about terrorism. They were all social needs dressed up as extremism risk.”
Despite Channel being heralded as a success, its own case studies show exactly what Prevent Watch, civil society organisations like Amnesty UK, Children’s Rights International Network (CRIN) and the Open Rights Group (ORG), as well as several UN Special Rapporteurs with a mandate to uphold human rights, and especially children’s rights, have long argued: genuine safety lies in rebuilding the welfare net, not expanding Prevent.
Yet these very examples are still presented as reasons for more Prevent – a bit like diagnosing malnutrition and prescribing fortified junk food rather than restoring access to real nourishment.
Photo by Brian Chan on Unsplash
Related…
The People’s Review of Prevent (Report, 2022)
