The UK may be on track to finally make some real progress in preventing the murder of women.
David Anderson, politician and the interim reviewer of Prevent, will publish a report suggesting that a new anti-violence scheme needs to be considered for individuals who show concerning amounts of violence with no terrorist ideology.
This comes after it was revealed that the Southport attacker, Axel Rudakubana, had been referred three times to Prevent, which is part of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy. Rudakubana was rejected each time as officials didn’t think he was motivated by a clear terrorist ideology.
The first thing that sprang to mind upon hearing about this potential new scheme was, could this finally be the progress for protecting women against dangerous men in the UK that we’ve been waiting for?
Currently, 1.53 (which is more commonly rounded to 2) women are killed by their current or former partners per week in the UK. There has been no improvement in this statistic since 2009, and only in the last few years has there been more awareness surrounding a stark correlation between violence-obsessed men and these killings.
A study surrounding ideological obsession shows that men who show signs of being obsessed with violence also tend to fall into ideological obsession, otherwise known as extremism. Many of these extremist ideologies – often tied to the manosphere – are inherently misogynistic and often see men as ‘above’ women. Depending on the ideology, it may vary how it is framed, often with it being labelled as ‘natural order’ even if this strays from the ideology’s original message.
When people who are obsessed with violence fall into these groups, it validates these feelings and makes them feel as if their thoughts should be acted upon.
As a result, the prevailing issue of people being obsessed with violence becomes deeper than just an obsession or thought; it can become a reality, in which women tend to be the victims of.
There is no current research on how many people who are killing show signs of being obsessed with violence beforehand. However, violent premeditated killings are predominantly carried out by men, and the victims are predominantly women. For example, in 2024, 80 men were found guilty of killing their partner compared to 8 women.
What would the report propose?
Anderson’s report is to be released very soon, but it is said to be designed to tackle and detect people who are obsessed with violence, which is mainly young men.
He highlights that the Prevent criteria is no longer suitable, as many young people show signs of violence and an obsession with violence without any clear ideology behind them.
Similar to the current Prevent set up, it would aim to help and stop those obsessed with violence from committing crimes.
Vicki Evans, who is the senior national coordinator for counter-terrorism, commented that children as young as 10 now have access to a ‘pick and mix of horror’ which pushes them towards violence.
It appears that the scheme would need to contain advice on social media usage in order to help young people avoid this type of content.
There were also reports late last year that young terrorist suspects would avoid prosecution if they agreed to a scheme, which we may now see implemented if the Prevent proposal goes ahead.
What could be potential drawbacks?
The Guardian have reported that there is potentially not enough money within the government currently for this to happen, and that the current Prevent scheme is already under financial strain.
If a new scheme is promoted and pushed out without proper financial backing, it may take funds away from current projects and spread resources too thin.
If it is aimed at men (which is likely based on the aforementioned statistics), it may fuel propaganda from extremist groups. Currently, 56% of millennial and Gen Z men in the UK think we’ve gone ‘too far’ in promoting women’s rights. Therefore, it wouldn’t be outrageous to expect that the gender and cultural divide is widened through this response, potentially villainising this scheme.
As a feminist, what do I think?
From information released so far, I think it is apparent that the current Prevent scheme has not been effective in preventing those obsessed with violence from becoming killers; however, removing certain aspects of the criteria may make this more effective.
Something must be done, particularly to protect women. If this is an approach attempted to tackle that, then I welcome it.
By even discussing it online, it creates a dialogue between men and women, to help end gender based violence, and prevent premeditated killings from happening.
Criminal justice experts have blamed social media, and how easy it is for young people to ‘go down a rabbit hole and into a dark world’, also highlighting the exposure of violent content prevalent online. The scheme must address this as well, and I think we must advocate for women in these spaces who are often the victims.
It is easy to highlight that violence-obsessed people may go on to commit, but it seems to be more difficult to recognise that women are often the victims of these crimes, and that the solution must include women’s voices.
