6 November — Thursday evening at six o’clock, a community of peers and a network of diverse professionals with shared values met at Friends House on Euston Road, London, to attend the Prevent Watch Update 2025.
The year nearing its end, it was an unusual warmish, dry winter’s night. Construction hoardings outside Euston Station blocked visibility from the street. On the road, vehicles crawled almost bumper-to-bumper, while pedestrians on either side moved hastily and hollow along the pavements, occasionally pausing at the crossing in anticipation for the green light to appear.
We’d been told to come along to the annual gathering, to hear PW’s account of the nation’s pre-crime strategy called Prevent (legislatively enforced on public service sectors in 2015 to predict and prevent crimes that might result from radical behaviour). We were also invited to learn about the organisation’s campaign initiatives taken in response to the controversial scheme fuelling social disorder within civic institutions and homes up and down the country.
The night felt almost theatrical, in a tragic modern way. As though a curtain drawn back, the occasion resembled a politicised spoken-word session, the audience invited to witness stories of fellow members of the public judged and persecuted for allegedly harbouring bad intentions.
The Founder and Project Manager of Prevent Watch, Mohammad Khan, marked the start of the event by citing numerous law firms, charities, media outlets, and affiliate NGOs who have supported or partnered through litigation and other strategic means during its 11+ years of existence.
At the start, Khan said,
We very much focused on being a helpline,”
…as he stood looking out at the crowded room gathered on either side of a long banquet table lined with refreshments and a generous array of finger food.
We realised when Prevent became statutory, lots of people were going to be impacted. It was a taboo subject.
Those affected would often not tell their friends or family. And therefore, they had nowhere to go. And having a free helpline they could turn to, meant so much to them. That was the core of our work and it is still the core of our work.”
Dr. Layla Aitlhadj, who joined PW as its Director in 2018 after resigning as Managing Director at CAGE, followed the introduction by acknowledging the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Their generous funding, during “the last year and a half”, she informed the audience, had enabled PW to continue its outreach strategy of alliance-building.
Just on Tuesday I was up in Bradford for the Islamophobia Awareness Month launch, which was organised by REN and MEND,”
…Aitlhadj commented, standing at the podium holding the mic.
You had many people there from the local council, to police officers, to Prevent officers.”
The idea was,
…engagement, in terms of helping people understand a bit more of what we see at Prevent Watch in terms of Prevent cases. When we talk about the outreach work, we’re talking about a broad spectrum of different things, from contributing to the Islamophobia report that was published by Runnymede last year, to placing submissions at various [like-minded entities] and submitting them to different rapporteurs, including the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Special Rapporteur’s report that was recently on the right to [be safe in] education.”
The organisation’s body of work appeared extensive, which Aitlhadj suggested could be found on the Prevent Watch website.
Up next, a client of PW — whose 15-year-old daughter last September experienced mistreatment by the administration of a London private school for uttering “Free Palestine” to her friends on the playground — gallantly came forward to give her testimonial.
I’m originally Iraqi… We have a lot of family and friends living in both Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine — namely Gaza and the West Bank,”
…the mother said, providing context in light of her association to the region darkened by rising Zionist power. She was seven when her family fled to escape the fighting.
We left in 76, came over due to the civil war in Lebanon.”
The mother recounted how the absurd chain of events had been triggered by a group of girls who had overheard her daughter’s comments and to all outward appearances interpreted them as anti-Semitic. The girls alerted staff members of what they seemingly understood to be an act of criminal behaviour. Because, of course, through the country’s policies and recent record of opposing pro-Palestine activism, as well as conventional media’s normalisation of the British state’s entanglement and participation in the Gaza Genocide (2023-25), this had stirred a strange sense of national pride (and duty) in people genuinely believing their country to be under attack and in need of civic protection.
The charged political climate, together with the emergency Prevent service, influenced and made it simple for the young ladies to form an unfavourable view and in a hurry come forward with their naïve accusations.
Back at school the next morning, the 15-year-old hadn’t even warmed her seat before staff pulled her from class and called the police, all without the mother being informed. In a heartbeat — nerve-wracking moments before law enforcement officers were expected to arrive and investigate the alleged offence — the adolescent’s belongings, including her bag and phone, were taken from her.
In a process that seemed more improvised vigilante justice than official procedure, the child was taken to a teeny weenie windowless room and told to stay put while the institution of education prepared to inquire into what drove her actions. The school’s inquisition to uncover the girl’s motives and ideological convictions which had lasted around 20 minutes, the mother explained, was conducted by a staff member acting in a “pastoral care” capacity.
However, as the minutes and hours wore on, it turned out that the police would not come to the school to respond to such an incident, and as the day drew to a close, the accused had remained the entire time in the confined space, completing around seven hours in isolation. The experience had broken the schoolgirl’s confidence. And yet, without restraint, as if the school could never be held accountable, further harassment and torment awaited the 15-year-old.
Only later did the news reach the family. But it was too late. By the time those running the school had made the mother aware that they had reported her daughter to the police, questioned her themselves, and come to the decision to suspend her for extreme misbehaviour, the opportunity to reason with the academy had already passed. The police, Prevent, and CST were informed of the incident and eventually all confirmed the incident fell short of being considered a hate crime.
Firm in their decision to achieve justice regardless of method, the school still tried to use the situation as leverage to support the decision to expel the child. There was never a reason for concern in the first place. But the school refused to leave it be, and following the rejection of its referrals — the said-to-be prestigious institution — reacted to the dismissals by adding details to the story. In the school’s relentless pursuit of trying to reverse the initial judgment, the crazy affair was progressing from ridiculous to utterly absurd.
As the mother expressed,
They added bits to it that never happened, even despite their own investigation report vindicating [my daughter]. But they still lied to them. And we obviously know this through the Subject Access Request. Till this day, CST and Prevent have not given us Subject Access.”
To cut a long story short, we were really lost. We didn’t know what to do, and then a friend told me to call Prevent Watch. The headmistress [had been] trying to force us to apply to other schools. So many of the schools refused to even meet us. [My daughter] sat two entrance exams, she failed them. And John [Holmwood] showed us how to appeal. He kindly wrote the letter out, we appealed and we met with a panel of Governors, and eventually she was reinstated, after missing a whole term of her Year Ten.”
The PW client who spoke next was a National Health Service paramedic. The young Bangladeshi man, confidently stepped forward and greeted the audience.
Good evening, everyone,”
…he said.
And then he introduced himself.
Taken aback by the account he’d just heard, the medic remarked that this was the first time he had heard the recounting of someone else’s Prevent story, and was amazed to discover that the same culture of spite and suspicion existed within both institutions.
His reflection was thought-provoking. Perceptive. Even though the education and healthcare sectors were worlds apart, his words implied, the resentful tactics of plotting and scheming from public service workers, operating within two separate social institutions, carried in their infected behaviour the exact same pattern of misconduct.
It was an insightful evaluation, and yet the NHS emergency responder hadn’t even begun narrating his own story:
The ambulance service that I work at, has a bit of a code of silence type culture. So if you see something that’s a bit wrong or unethical, you can’t really say anything about it. If you do, you’re gonna be next on the chopping block, that kind of thing. I don’t really stay quiet, particularly on patients and inequality, and that’s burned a lot of bridges over the years. I’ve pretty much always gotten blowback every time I call it out. And I’ve been able to beat the blowback every time, but this time I wasn’t able to get away with it, so to speak.
[It began] with a work colleague. There was a clear case — I can’t say too much — there was a clear case of double standards in her patient treatment. I approached it, you know, sensitively. She didn’t appreciate it. Lo and behold, a few weeks later, I’m called in for an emergency meeting. And they laid it on me. They said, ‘Hey, you’ve been reported for extremism, radical hate views, talking about patient inequality.’
So that’s how it started. I was pulled into that meeting. They had told me that I’d been referred to the police, Prevent, and safeguarding, and that they’d like to ask me some questions. So naturally I asked the manager: ‘OK, what is it that I’m being accused of specifically?’ And he wouldn’t tell. He absolutely refused to tell me, but he wanted to ask me some questions. Later on, I found out the reason they wouldn’t tell me is because they deem me such a threat that I would take vengeance on the person who accused me, if I was to find out her identity.”
Right, so they couldn’t risk me knowing anything — according to them. Two hours of questioning by multiple managers, without knowing what I’m being accused of. And at the end of that, they then told me, ‘OK, in the interest of public safety, you are suspended pending investigation until facts can be verified.’ So I was pretty upset, but I managed to keep my cool in the moment, and I said to him, ‘Look, that kind of sounds like: guilty until proven innocent.’ And he didn’t even like give his own opinion or acknowledgement of that, he just repeated the words verbatim, like it was a script. It was really, really, weird.
Yeah, so I was suspended after that, and this dragged on for several months, because they kept requesting that I attend an interview, but I kept refusing until they gave me the allegations — because I don’t want to engage in that kind of discussion without knowing how I can defend myself.
So this kept dragging on. And fast forward, eventually I received a random phone call from another two paramedics who had nothing to do with the case and were calling to check in. And they told me, ‘Just so you know, so-and-so at work has been bragging about how they’ve gotten you suspended because you are, quote: ‘Brown, Muslim, pro-Palestine’ and [she said] ‘We got to be extra careful with his kind of people.’ So from that point I was able to deduce, or sort of piece together the puzzle, where the allegations were coming from. You know, the context around it and how I can beat them.
[I eventually] agreed to be interviewed. I disproved these allegations and a few days after that, I was called in… and told I can come back to work. Now in that whole process, regarding the Prevent referral, I didn’t know what to do. I kind of felt quite helpless, like isolated. So I don’t know the allegation, so I can’t even use basic, my own sort of common sense and rationale against them, and I don’t know much about Prevent. I don’t know what to do.
Eventually, I came across Prevent Watch, and Layla Aitlhadj was assigned to be my case worker. And she helped me navigate the process. She explained my rights and how I should proceed. One of those things being: I don’t actually have to engage with the Prevent officer, I don’t have to meet with her. I didn’t know that, but once she informed me of that, I thought, ‘OK, you know I’m not gonna do it.’
[At work] I told them I’m not happy with this, what’s gonna happen to this accuser of mine, given what she said? And they wouldn’t tell me, so I had to pry it out of ’em, and eventually I found out she’s just gonna get a warning. But that warning isn’t for the contents of what she said, they didn’t take issue. The only thing they took issue with was the fact that she spoke about it out in the open.
She [was] supposed to keep it confidential. So once I realised she’s not [going to be held to account], that’s when I realised I’m not going to get justice, I have to actually fight for it myself… I was broke, I can’t afford a lawyer, so the only other choice was to start an employment tribunal as a litigant in person. But I didn’t know how to do that either. I started it anyway, I kinda sort of winged it, and they quite soon gave me a date, two years beyond my application date.
[During the] litigation process, initially they rejected my [Subject Access Request]. Again, Layla helped me navigate through that. It took me just under a year to finally get it. But even when I got that data, I was thinking this can’t be everything, because, like imagine you’re watching a movie right, and it’s the first time you’re watching this movie, and someone cut out twenty minutes of it, like you’re gonna notice some plot lines are missing, right?
So I’m thinking how did we go from July all the way to December, like what happened in between them. So, I did tell the judge at the preliminary hearing, I still think these guys are not being transparent, which is the reoccurring theme. So, the judge made sure to order mutual disclosure. I was finally given disclosure a few months late. Yeah, so I found out a few more things, which again goes to the mentality that Prevent creates.
So as it turns out [from disclosure], they tried to suspend me after I came back to work. They tried, by my count, four times back-to-back. And it was the rationale behind those attempts that was really concerning to me. Essentially, because I kept talking about the same topics at work, I kept talking patient inequality… From what I can see on the transcript, they decided, ‘OK, we need to suspend this guy.’
They had four meetings… first meeting they decided [for me] to be suspended. To put it short, they were [stuck]. They couldn’t be the ones to suspend me, because I’m going against them: there’s a conflict of interest, they had to find an external source of validation.
So who do you think they went to, as their first source of external validation? The same Prevent officer who was previously assigned to me. They reached out to her and they said, ‘Hey, this guy… apparently he said Prevent is evil.’ — I don’t deny that allegation. And I think they appreciated that I didn’t deny it either, because they did call me in for that. I said ‘Yeah I did, so what?’ But to the Prevent officer’s credit, she replied saying, ‘That doesn’t make X a dangerous person, that’s not Prevent-worthy.’ So, again, in my case it wasn’t Prevent that was the issue, it was the mentality [of those under its influence].
So after that, we had a second meeting, and in that meeting they decided, ‘OK, so the Prevent officer has said it doesn’t meet the threshold, we just want to find more on him, to make him reach that threshold.’
Similar to your case [signalling to the Iraqi mother], they were artificially inflating my risk profile. So in the end, I think they came up with eight total concerns. They relayed that back to the officer a second time, and that time the officer sent quite a long essay-style response disputing each concern and explaining why they don’t actually make me dangerous. You may disagree with X’s actions, but it doesn’t make X dangerous. And at the end of their last attempt, on the transcript it said, ‘Unfortunately, we have been unable to suspend X, we must take a risk and let him come back to work.’
And it was that line that sort of sticks out to me, that ought to show you it’s not about safeguarding. It’s about control and fearmongering.” [audience applause]
Prevent Watch collaborator and author of The People’s Review of Prevent, Professor John Holmwood, concluded the evening by explaining the pre-crime thinking behind what is known in legalistic and patriotic terms as the Prevent Duty.
Some of you will probably be aware that there was new Prevent data issued today which showed an increase in Prevent referrals,”
…he said, partly referring to Home Office sources having earlier released to the media the latest performance review (if you will) of Prevent.
Holmwood remarked sardonically,
The public presentation in the media today was: increase in Prevent referrals.
Well, of course, an increase of Prevent referrals is not an increase in the number of people judged to be at risk of radicalisation, it’s people in a process of evaluation.”
In some measure, the new presented evidence confirms that the majority of cases referred to Prevent within the last year were people thought to be ideologically neutral. Individuals seen as posing no threat and considered fit to participate in society without the need to be monitored. In effect, what this means — other than a tragedy tucked behind failed policy — is that from 2024-25, close to the impressive number of 5,000 cases were incorrectly reported to Prevent.
These referrals were said to be cases of mistaken identity. Persons of neither religious nor political background, who had been reported as a direct consequence of the UK’s dysfunctional counter-terrorism methods. And in all likelihood, they had been snitched on by members of the public, using Prevent as a weapon to pursue personal vendettas and get payback for their socio-political grievances. Unmistakable signs of a provoked and panicked society turning on itself.
However, the 29 July 2024 Southport killer himself was reported on, referred to Prevent more than once, actually three times, way before he went on to murder three kids last summer. Reporting him to Prevent was warranted. It was the correct call. A-ha… But wait for it. It also came to light that it was Prevent officers who had come to the conclusion to prematurely close the case. Most unhelpfully, officers had previously logged a referral with a spelling mistake in his surname. [1]
And he was foolishly categorised under pre-crime Prevent philosophy as a person of no consistent ideology back in 2021 — two years after initially coming to their attention. But in a twist of fate, Prevent had failed to prevent the very harm it claimed to safeguard against, the very thing it was supposed to solve. [1]
The week-long breakout of far-right hooligan violence, which followed across England that summer, was in effect a direct result of Prevent, again due to an inability to spot the signs of radicalism within their mounting case files. But even as the crime they failed to prevent caused widespread civil unrest — throwing the nation into anarchy and devastation — all they received from a mock inquiry was a slap on the wrist.
And when social media and broadcast news spread far-right tales (reporting that the Southport offender was a Muslim who had conquered the Channel on a dinghy, claimed the spoils of asylum, and proceeded to commit the savage murders), they did so, also confident that no consequences awaited them.
But it’s only a matter of time before Prevent is shut down and a Mr Bates vs The Post Office type drama is made, depicting the impact of a defective state surveillance system, similarly responsible for causing members of the public to be unjustly blamed for crimes not committed. Expecting a visual dramatisation of sorts while such a policy is active would be disastrous for No. 10 and unrealistic for a number of reasons, not least because of political and institutional pressure to suppress activities viewed as compromising British national security.
And as for getting a government to terminate a controversial policy altogether, like in the late 1980s-90s “poll tax” campaign, it would require a strain of public pressure at a much the same exceptionally high counterculture level to force the establishment (mid-term) to push through major legal reforms to abolish Prevent.
Regardless of how long lawmakers keep rotating through government and dodging the subject, performing their bureaucratic waltz, dancing around the truth to delay confronting the UK’s irrational security strategy — eventually there will be some hungry actors pursuing authority. Through democratic means, they will pander to voters and tactically repeal the outdated draconian law, while all along pretentiously claiming the glory of defending the country from the real enemy within.
The Prevent anti-abolitionists, who fear the ruin of their reputation and career if the programme financed by public funds were to reach its malfunctioning end, continue to assert and re-assert their commitment to protect their interests by manufacturing “rational” and “moral” arguments.
The Report of the Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice (11 November 2025) provides a clear illustration of what opponents of abolition have to say in preservation of their economic security. The 319-page document claims to hold solutions that will repair and ensure the longevity of Prevent. The document presented as independent and contributed to by over 200 stakeholders — emerging after a staggering 36 months — insists that the troubles are not beyond repair, according to its expert analysis. [2]
Flawed and fantastically positive, it proclaims the implementation of a jaw-dropping 113 recommendations that would put right the hazardous policy. In actuality, the absurd three-year production period it had taken for the “mend Prevent” document to manifest, if anything, indicates what is in the report is liable to be unwise advice: concerning matters of imminent threat.
In summary, what is contained within the Bingham Centre document is a load of pseudo-guidance and feel-good jargon that gives No. 10 a false sense about establishing a framework on which to supposedly improve operational effectives, reinforce scrutiny, and… Oh yeah, of course, uphold the important fundamentals of transparency and accountability, upon which public confidence can be renewed “in the UK’s counter-terrorism system”.
Elsewhere in its theoretical evaluation, it states,
The Commission’s recommendations seek to recalibrate the balance between security and liberty, ensuring that exceptional powers remain clearly defined, effectively overseen, and firmly grounded in democratic principles. By strengthening oversight, embedding transparency, and aligning counter-terrorism measures with the Rule of Law, the UK can enhance both national security and public trust — the twin foundations of a resilient and legitimate counter-terrorism system.” [2]
In its 12 November response, Prevent Watch wrote that it had acknowledged its findings, although with much caution. It noted it will, however, maintain its campaign to seek the end of Prevent, regardless of cosmetic language used to mask the rot beneath. The public must retain their civil norms and remain at liberty to express lawful opinions, without state interference, the watchdog made clear. [3]
In the same way, PW is uneasy about the report’s optimistic outlook. The recommendations that are presented as solutions to resolve a decade of repeated failures, it said, were more like advice dressed up to help further embed state control over public institutions. As Dr. Layla Aitlhadj explained, the reality of putting the report into practice would not fix the crisis, which originates from Prevent itself.
We urge caution that this report does not become an additional step towards a more expansive and vague pre-criminal regime.
Real change means moving beyond Prevent altogether. We will continue to support those impacted by Prevent and advocate for a healthy society that build trust, uphold rights, and genuinely keeps people safe.”
Holmwood, meanwhile, went on to say much the same of what is available on the Prevent Watch website — pointing out the facts, contradictions, inconsistencies, and picking apart Prevent in technical terms. He was and is virtually “defending the realm” via his academic profession, more proactively than most of his patriotic adversaries might care to admit. Government should listen to their fellow natives who act only to prevent their kind from marching ahead to the same old tune of fascist logic that demands the impossible.
The professor’s presentation pretty much drove home the notion that Prevent is nothing but a tool for settling personal animosities and amplifying reactive and emotional behaviour. Working counter to its objections, it functions as a vehicle, body, agency that drives the “homeland security” system beyond capacity and causes both high-risk and harmless cases to be handled improperly.
Having paid no attention to such prominent authorities, as a result, the nation is in effect blindly unaware of the dystopian outcome its leaders have themselves created and are inching society toward. The country is experiencing a policing crisis inherited by officials constrained in their capacity to articulate critical perspectives, self-absorbed imbeciles incapable of reason, who do not have the soundness or the ability to manage a transition away from the destructive entanglements of transnational alliances. Never mind getting around to back efforts to liberate No. 10 and ensure the country recovers control over its own affairs so it can function independent of Zionism, for example, and remain clear of its looming disaster.
Having fallen prey to its own geopolitical, politicking past, as long as the UK continues to prioritise foreign policy and milk it to a radical extreme, the escalating tensions at home won’t resolve themselves unless opportunism gives way to forward-thinking.
Support Prevent Watch
The watchdog, led by a devoted staff spearheading the resistance against intrusive governance, has to date assisted over seven hundred complainants and, within its range of services, offers free private and confidential support for those caught up in the country’s hostile surveillance policy.
People affected by Prevent are urged by Prevent Watch to get in contact to protect their citizen rights and help preserve public welfare.
Source: Islam21c
Notes
