User talk:Gang O' Shadow Wizards
🧙♂️|__________________________________________________________𝕬𝖇𝖗𝖆 𝕮𝖆𝖉𝖆𝖇𝖗𝖆 𝕬𝖑𝖆𝖐𝖆𝖟𝖆𝖒!___________________________________________________________|🧙♂️
I have 3 questions.
1.)Prevent appears to be the process in which individuals are identified as vulnerable to extremist ideologies. Following this, individuals are referred to a Channel panel to asses them and see if treatment/support is recommended. What occurs during "treatment"? I've never been able to find a straightforward answer on how individuals are swayed away from ideologies.
I don’t know, but I would probably gather a minder or a social worker, or be put on a program of de-radicalisation depending on the person. I believe it has to be tailored to the individual and created for that person. The idea is prevention before it gets out of hand.
An example would be a teenager in class saying something racist that based on what they found online, the teacher would notify Prevent. Prevent would suggest a visit from a social worker. The teenager would see a social worker and the teenager would get advice explaining why that was wrong.
2.)Am I correct with my understanding of Prevent and Channel as outlined above?
3.)As a resident of the UK, how do the programs impact daily life? Very little, it is more based on a duty of care issue by police and social services.
- Given the human rights issues and potential to suppress dissident movements, to suggest it's just a "Duty of Care" issue seems a little disingenuous. To quote @KarmaPolice:
Prevent's remit is to 'combat extremism' and lots of that is down to who defines that? Various Tory ghouls have repeatedly cried 'censorship' and other crap over Prevent's survellience of the far-right [which they see as 'fellow conservatives' in their now very warped worldview]. There's also free speech issues here, because Prevent firmly draws an official Overton Window which effectively bans discussion of in schools etc [which makes the XR listing particulary dangerous, as the document made it a statuary duty for teachers to report on pupils doing such bad things like 'going on environmental protests' and circulating petitions.]
- With all this in mind, I feel that there's a genuine angle of missionality to cover here. Carthage (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I see it as mission creep unfortunately, what could be a sensible policy for intelligence gathering and crime prevention is turning into a which hunt and I think that is where is coming to. It is not helped by having home secretaries are authoritarian and are pandering to the tabloid press. Euromec (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Please place all messages above this line.
- Ok Gang O' Shadow Wizards 🧙♂️Bore me 21:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Plutocow What about junk edits that abuse <div> tags to interfere with sidebar buttons (including navigating through page history) and/or hurt the reader's eyes? --Luigifan18 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
You might like The Conversation
You recently asked for a good news source in the Saloon and there is one that no one mentioned.
The Conversation isn't like other outlets. The first thing you will notice is that it doesn't run ads. It's fully independent and runs on donations. It has no shareholders; it is ran as a collective non-profit, made up of creditable universities from around the world. Thus, unlike some of the other sources you were recommended it doesn't have to answer to any corporate overlords.
The second thing you will notice is that all the articles are written by academics. Grabbing this one as a random example, you will see that it was written by Shae McCrystal, a professor of Labour Law at the University of Sydney. There is a little segment underneath where the author will disclose their conflicts of interest, if they have any. By contrast, most of what you will read on other websites is written by people who are not experts in anything besides making clickbait.
Also, legalise nuclear bombs!!!