Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Adopting a safeguarding approach to preventing violent extremism


Published on

Adopting a safeguarding approach to preventing violent extremism
Dr Phil Henry, Director of the Multi-faith Centre, Researcher and Sociologist,
University of Derby

Published in: Education
  • What Every Man Is Obsessed Over, But Will Never Tell You. Click Here ♣♣♣
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Adopting a safeguarding approach to preventing violent extremism

  1. 1. Prevent, Safeguarding and the Statutory Duty
  2. 2. Legislation and policy framework Framework for the assessment of children in Need and their families 2000  Every Child Matters 2003  Section 175 of the Education Act 2002  Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act  The Protection of Children in England - Lord Laming’s 58 recommendations  Response to Laming 2009 – 23 recommendations addressed  Section 11,Children Act 2004 – 5 outcomes for children including ‘being safe’  The Common core of skills and knowledge for the Children’s workforce 2010  Working Together to Safeguard Children 2010 – detailed procedural guidance on promoting the welfare of children and families  No Secrets 2000 (Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults)  Safeguarding Adults: Report on the Review of No Secrets 2009  Care Act 2014, HMSO, June 2014.  The CONTEST Strategy for the UK, 2006  Prevent Duty Guidance for England and Wales, 2015, HMSO
  3. 3.  Duties on organisations and individuals to ensure their functions are discharged with regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children  No Secrets and subsequent review – was the definitive guide for anyone working in safeguarding and adult protection. Now superceded by the Care Act 2014.
  4. 4. Victoria Climbie  When she died, aged eight, in February 2000 she weighed just 3st 10lb (24kg) and was found to have 128 separate injuries.  ‘Victoria was known to no less than two …housing authorities, four social services departments, two child protection teams of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), a specialist centre managed by the NSPCC, and she was admitted to two different hospitals because of suspected deliberate harm’ 
  5. 5. Victoria Climbie  Neil Garnham QC in the case listed no fewer than 12 key occasions when the relevant services had the opportunity to successfully intervene in the life of Victoria. As evidence to the Inquiry unfolded, several other opportunities emerged. Not one of these required great skill or would have made heavy demands on time to take some form of action. Sometimes it needed nothing more than a manager doing their job by asking pertinent questions or taking the trouble to look in a case file.
  6. 6. Baby P  Baby P died in August 2007 at the hands of his mother, her abusive boyfriend and their lodger despite being on the at-risk register.  He had suffered more than 50 injuries despite receiving 60 visits from social workers, doctors and police over an eight-month period.
  7. 7. Prevent and Safeguarding  Prevent policy aims to safeguard vulnerable individuals (both adults and children) who may be at risk of being radicalised and of potentially becoming involved in terrorist activities. It also aims to provide support to institutions where this may happen. Strong links to mainstream systems which safeguard vulnerable adults and children should include Prevent.  All frontline staff working directly with people or out and about in communities have a role in helping to spot the early signs of vulnerability to radicalisation and other risks related to terrorism. The CTS Act 2015 now makes that mandatory as a duty under the legislation.
  8. 8. Early Indicators?  There are no profiles  Extreme behavioural change (domination of others?)  Transitional period in life  Changes in Faith or ideology  Secrecy on internet  Narrow / limited religious / political view  Attendance at certain meetings / rallies  “Them” and “Us” language / rhetoric (de-humanisation)  Isolation from usual friends, family or social groups  Possession of propaganda DVD’s, literature or CD’s violent footage on mobile phones other devices  Sudden unexplained foreign travel  A strong sense of anger, grievances about injustice often vocalised powerfully in public
  9. 9. Ideologies?
  10. 10. A case study?  In 2009 Student Andrew Ibrahim was jailed for a minimum of 10 years for plotting to blow himself up using a home- made suicide vest.  He is the son of an NHS consultant and converted to Islam in 2006.  The 20-year-old from Bristol changed his name by deed poll and became obsessed with the politics of the Muslim world.  With the help of extreme material obtained via extreme websites he became radicalised to the point where he became a danger to himself and others.
  11. 11. Case Study continued? • What made this capable, British born man end up in court on charges of terrorism? • Ibrahim developed a "mindset of martyrdom" and was influenced by radical clerics on the internet - people like Abu Hamza al-Masri. • Ibrahim said he admired the 7/7 London suicide bombers - and he told friends the 9/11 attacks on America were a "justified response" for Western aggression. • Described as “a heroin-taking loner”, Ibrahim felt he had found an ideology that echoed his own sense of anger with the world.
  12. 12. As a safeguarding Issue what would we have done?  I would like you to explore two questions:  What are the indicators here that would cause us concern?  Could you have intervened and prevented this from happening, if so how?  VT Presentation – Andrew Ibrahim case study.  Feedback
  13. 13. Recognition, Referral, Channel  Talk to the individual if you have concerns about their position, view, perspective.  Share it with someone (colleague, line manager, HR, Chaplaincy, HE Prevent coordinator in your region)  Internal referral to a Channel Panel  Channel = multi-agency panel, not unlike MAPPA, other C&YP multi-agency panels. They may offer intervention, formally, informally or seek an exit route to other services if necessary.  Responses are OVERT, proportionate, require complete cooperation Prevent only works in a non-criminal space.
  14. 14. Channel 14 Full Vulnerability Assessment Vulnerability Capability Engagement 14.Over-identification with a group or ideology 15.‘Them and us’ thinking 16. Dehumanisation of the enemy 17. Attitudes that justify offending 18. Harmful means to an end 19. Harmful objectives 20. Individual knowledge, skills or competencies 21. Access to networks, funding or equipment 22.Criminal history 1. Feelings of grievance and injustice 2. Feelings under threat 3. A need for identity meaning and belonging 4. A desire for status 5. A desire for excitement and adventure 6. A need for dominance and control of others 7. Susceptibility to indoctrination 8. A desire for political/moral change 9. Opportunistic involvement 10. Family or friends Involvement in extremism 11. Being in transitional time of life 12. Influence and control by others 13. Relevant mental health issues Intent
  15. 15. Prevent and Safeguarding  A Derbyshire example: reporting Concerns in Derbyshire  Keystone for general concerns/information. Picked up by police team. Or call 101  Channel reporting system specifically for concerns about vulnerable individuals  Safeguarding concerns for children and adults – usual routes through Children and Adult‘s Social care services. Derby and Derbyshire Safeguarding policy and procedures.  You can find out more about Prevent and reporting concerns by contacting Dawn Robinson HOS on or 01332 643508  What does your institution have in place?