London – A Home Office document titled ‘Local Delivery Best Practice Catalogue’ leaked by Public Interest Investigations highlights in full organisations and projects vetted and funded by the government to deliver the controversial PREVENT strategy nationally. Produced by the OSCT (Office for Security and Counter Terrorism), the document reveals:
– The OSCT’s admission that Faith on the Frontline; FAST, #MakingAStand (delivered by Inspire) and A Tale of Two Cities (film) are all ‘products’ of the Home Office’s Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU).
– The direct relationship between the OSCT and ‘third party provider’ organisations.
– The costs associated with these programmes and the specific locations it targeted at.
– The names of the ‘grass-roots’ organisations delivering government vetted projects.
Most notably the document refers to amongst many:
- Faith Associates (Imams Online being one of their flagship projects),
- Upstanding Neighbourhoods,
- Families Against Stress and Trauma (FAST),
- Active Change Foundation (ACF)
- and London Tigers.
Despite being dated March 2015, the document highlights that the projects will be used to produce a best practice catalogue once the evaluation period is completed in March 2016.
Asim Qureshi, CAGE Research Director, said:
“These revelations call for a serious dialogue within the Muslim community on the legitimacy of government sanctioned activism. It also highlights the government’s deceptive approach in engaging with Muslim communities and again calls into question the failing PREVENT policy and its shadow, the global CVE campaign.”
“This document also conclusively demonstrates the relationship and oversight the Home Office has over ostensibly community led projects. CAGE’s earlier report “We are completely independent” and The Guardian revelations, have previously highlighted these points and demonstrated how RICU was in effect directing and attempting to manufacture consent for PREVENT amongst Muslim communities.”
CC image courtesy of George Olcott on Flickr
(NOTE: CAGE represents cases of individuals based on the remit of our work. Supporting a case does not mean we agree with the views or actions of the individual. Content published on CAGE may not reflect the official position of our organisation.)