Matt Dryden

Arrests for terrorist-related activity give a worrying insight into the rate at which young people are being targeted and radicalised. All age groups witnessed a fall in terror-related arrests for the year ending September 2020, except for one: those under eighteen, which doubled to account for eight (and subsequently 10) per cent of all such arrests. This is the highest proportion ever seen in any annual period to date. We also know that, all too often, the friends and relatives of those who are in danger of becoming radicalised are failing to act on their concerns. Referrals to Prevent, which aims to 'stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism', saw an overall increase of 10 per cent in the year to March 2020.

Isis supporter Sahayb Abu has been convicted of plotting a sword attack on the streets of Britain. But the 27-year-old isn't the only member of his family who has succumbed to extremist ideology. In 2015, two of Abu’s half-brothers joined Isis in Syria; both are believed to have died in the fighting. In 2018, another half-brother Ahmed Aweys and half-sister Asma Aweys and her partner were jailed for terror offences, including sharing Isis material in a family chat group The case of Abu is just one of a number in the UK in recent years which have seen multiple family members committing terrorist offences together, or who have committed separate terror offences over time. So what do these – and other recent cases involving family connections – tell us?

Far-right and Islamist extremism are both cause for concern in Britain today. But there's another threat which all too often slips under the radar.  Referrals to the UK government’s Prevent programme in 2019/20 presenting a ‘Mixed, Unstable or Unclear’ ideology accounted for 51 per cent of all referrals ‒ up from just 11 per cent in 2016/17. This represents a significant rise for the third consecutive year. Despite this, emerging ideologies – especially Inceldom – still aren’t receiving the attention they warrant.

Today's decision by the Supreme Court to prevent Shamima Begum from returning to the UK and mounting a legal challenge to the removal of her citizenship sends a strong message to other hopeful Isis returnees. But it might not be a victory in every sense. Begum’s return to the UK was described by the Home Office as a move that would create 'significant national security risks'. The government argued that it would expose the British public to an 'increased risk of terrorism'. They're right to do so. We know that just one in ten Isis returnees have faced prosecution. The challenges faced by authorities investigating offences committed in overseas conflict zones, such as Syria, could have rendered any realistic prospect of prosecution unlikely.