Here’s what the BBC doesn’t want you to see following its misreporting in the case of the ten year old ‘terrorist’.….the BBC moved straight in and tried to use the case as evidence to prove the ineffectiveness of the anti-terrorism Prevent programme….something the Muslim ‘radicals’ are desperate to neutralise…..did the MCB feed the BBC the story of the schoolboy in the knowledge that the BBC is a willing accomplice when it comes to publishing stories about Muslims ‘under siege, alienated and marginalised’ and that it would be more than happy to help undermine the anti-terrorism programme?

This report is no longer available from the BBC…….

404 – Page not found

‘Terrorist house’ case raises doubts over Prevent strategy

By Dominic Casciani Home affairs correspondent

• 20 January 2016
• From the section UK

A police investigation into a 10-year-old Muslim schoolboy who wrote that he lived in a “terrorist house” when he meant “terraced house” is the latest in a series of incidents that have raised questions about schools’ obligations to prevent radicalisation.

The relatively new duty on public bodies to prevent people being drawn into terrorism sounds simple in theory, but critics say it’s already proving to be incredibly problematic.

The government’s view is simple: the duty is about protecting people from harm – and schools should come up with guidance that meets the reasonable expectations of the law, just as they must already do to combat sexual or physical abuse.

If a teacher comes across suspected evidence of radicalisation, they must refer it to a senior figure in the school responsible for pupil safety and wellbeing.

They, in turn, must decide whether the matter needs to be referred up to the local authority which chairs a multi-agency team looking at potential cases of extremism. That referral could lead to a visit from the police.

Little experience

Some schools are confident they have come up with plans to identify and confront radicalisation – but have they got the balance right?

One London family is already trying to bring legal action after their son was questioned about the Islamic State militant group. He had talked about “ecoterrorism” in a classroom debate about environmental activism.

The measures have also caused huge controversy in universities. Many of them fought fiercely against the proposals in Parliament, arguing that they would breach free speech and academic inquiry.

Months after the measures were implemented, Staffordshire University apologised to one of its own students, who is studying security and terrorism, after he was questioned about reading a related academic text.

So the advice on the “Prevent duty” – and how to implement it – is entirely new territory for many teachers, lecturers, social workers and educationalists who have little experience of radicalisation and terrorism.

Ministers believe that, given the right support and training, teachers and others can get it right.

But critics – and there are many – say that the “Prevent duty” being applied in education is already causing serious harm to individuals who are being viewed with suspicion.