Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammi
…it fell under the jurisdiction of concerning actions and behaviours being reported on three occasions and the whole premise of the scheme is an attempted intervention to prevent, which didn’t happen on any of those occasion's so far as is being reported…wasn’t it the whole thing of Prevent to reinforce that it’s everyone’s ’jurisdiction’ to report any concerning behaviour that someone is displaying which may indicate an intention to harm others in any type of attack…and if something doesn’t fall under ‘one jurisdiction’ then it’s the sharing of that information to the agency/organisation and all agency/organisations involved which is something that doesn’t always happen….there is no doubt that those children were butchered in an act of terrorism and there seems no doubt also that concerning behaviours were reported before the event so there is a broken system that needs to be addressed and that needs to be answerable to those parents…
|
I do what you're saying, and potential terrorism is, like safeguarding, everyone's business... I don't know why I'm simping for Prevent tbh
it was absolutely their (and many others) failure ... but I gather the excuse is that they deal with radicalisation, and he didn't seem radicalised into any single ideology, and was just generally a violent psycho? In which case they should have passed his case on, rather than dismissing him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray.
Wasn't it reported that he had some sort of a terrorist guidebook downloaded or something?
Not that it takes much planning or strategic genius to simply walk into a class and stab a bunch of helpless children, but still.
|
I think that was since his referrals? Either way, trying to paint it as anything but terrorism is daft.