HE threat from Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Just seen this in the public consultation to the 'Prevent' strategy which is part of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill:

Prevent duty guidance: a consultation For consultation:
Guidance for specified authorities on the duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.


Out-of-school settings supporting children 44. Many children attend a range of out-of-school settings including after school clubs and groups, supplementary schools, and tuition centres to support home education. These settings are not regulated under education law. Local authorities should take steps to understand the range of activity and settings in their areas and ensure that children attending such settings are properly safeguarded (which should include whether there are any risks related to Prevent). In assessing the risks associated with such settings, local authorities should have regard to the whether the settings subscribe to voluntary accreditation schemes and any other evidence about the extent to which the providers are taking steps to safeguard the children in their care. Where safeguarding concerns arise, local authorities should actively consider how to make use of the full range of powers available to them to reduce the risks to children, including planning and health and safety powers.
The whole 'Prevent' strategy is thoroughly creepy. See Peter Hitchens comments:

Don't like the PC mob? Well now that makes YOU a terror threat

In a consultation paper attached to the Bill, all kinds of institutions, from nursery schools (yes really, see paragraph 107) to universities, are warned that they must be on the lookout for ‘extremists’.

. . . Warning must also be given of the topic, ‘sight of any presentations, footage to be broadcast, etc’. A ‘risk assessment’ must be made on whether the meeting should be cancelled altogether, compelled to include an opposing speaker or (even more creepy) ‘someone in the audience to monitor the event’.
Consultation ends this Friday - 2 days time. Worth a response from HE groups before we fall into a monitoring regime via the security argument.
They'll have children reporting their parent's conversations and beliefs to their teachers next.

Not that there's any historical precedent of course.

It's like watching a train crash in slow motion whilst everyone at the station is looking the other way :fear:
As I noted elsewhere, in section 21:
A specified authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism
So we'll have them trying it on in the same way as they do with the need to have due regard to wellbeing (aka S.175).
The consultation is for people who work in the public sector so it doesn't really apply to home educators.

The Prevent strategy is thoroughly creepy although it is something that few home educators appear to know much about if they are not Muslim. We should definitely raise awareness of its horrors amongst the home education community. At the moment home education is outside of the scope of the Prevent strategy, but in reality, it is under the radar of the authorities. Cage Prisoners has carried out comprehensive research into Prevent, and how it impacts on everyday life, culminating in their fantastic but highly distressing report: The Prevent Strategy: A Cradle to Grave Police State. I recomment that every home educator reads it.


Craig Murray (the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan) has also severely criticised the Prevent Strategy.


Act NOW to stop the Counter Terrrorism and Security Bill from becoming law. Sign the petition and write to your MP.

I stuck a few words into the consultation about section 44, suggesting that they make it clear that it should only apply to home education events organised under the auspices of a specified authority and that for the state to intrude on private gatherings without due cause is in itself terrifying.
I stuck a few words into the consultation about section 44, suggesting that they make it clear that it should only apply to home education events organised under the auspices of a specified authority and that for the state to intrude on private gatherings without due cause is in itself terrifying.
Good. Government likes to restrict opinion to public servants but we shouldn't let them get away with that. If it's public policy then we, the public, should comment.

I like this from the Prevent report:

2.5 . . . All societies ought to be able to accommodate alternative political solutions and debate them in a civilised manner without resorting to intimidation or legal sanctions.
Best thing we can do is to keep all debate in the public domain domain. Driving things underground just stokes the problem.
The Herald Scotland has this letter about 'Prevent' today:

As children's groups we find the Terrorism Bill divisive and unnecessary

CHILDREN in Scotland and our co-signatories write to highlight a UK Government consultation about new legal duties that would have serious implications for those working in childminding, nurseries, out-of-school childcare, schools, colleges and universities in Scotland, and those who use these services.

The proposed duties, part of the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill, require public, private and voluntary providers to have regard to the need to prevent people from becoming involved in terrorism and to monitor and report on behaviours. Among many staff caring for and working with children, these duties would fall on, for example, the childminder of a three-year-old and the nursery teacher of a two-year-old.

. . . Scotland already has its own laws and policies to protect children and young people. The approach in Getting It Right For Every Child will help to recognise behavioural changes and to secure appropriate support.

These proposals are divisive. They will distance and alienate certain families and communities from services that are there to help them, not spy on them. The proposals also place service providers in extremely invidious positions.
And what about the Named Person???

Pot calling Kettle Black!!!
I stuck in my submission - mostly relating to medical services.

It disgusts me the way in which the Bill is being fast tracked through Parliament because it does not give the public the time to read into the subject; comprehend its implications; then mobilise and respond to it. The Bill was launched on the 26th November 2014 and could be law by the middle of February 2015 before it has a chance to be lost in the wash up like the HE part of the CSF Bill.

I'm writing to my MP but I expect the same stock answer and faith in Theresa May.
There is a mention of HE in this:

Prevent Duty Guidance: Summary of Responses to the Consultation

26. The importance of working with faith groups and other community partners was highlighted by some respondents at consultation events and email responses. One of these respondents considered that it was critical to consider the socially isolated “hard-to-reach” groups with limited touching points on the public sector.

27. There was also a call from some respondents for reassurance that the duty would not impose an undue burden on bodies given that this duty
would come on top of other strands of work. Whether the duty was being met should be determined in a proportionate way. A number of respondents at the events pointed out that establishing access to out-of-school settings and the home education environment would be a significant challenge.
The consultation does not list the number of submissions from individual members of the public. As far as I am aware this muted little comment does not reflect the concerns expressed by home educators.

This is typical of the way the civil services moves its' programmes on.