Thread · HN Continuity

There is a sibling comment that makes some valid points, which are unfortunately undermined by the commenter's decision to wrap them in bizarre far-right dogwhistles.

I am as critical of the British government as anyone, and think Prevent is a civil rights-assaulting boondoggle that does a rather poor job of preventing anything.[0]

At the same time, this article is clearly some pretty thin gruel. The contention is that the body responsible for handling complaints about the programme also took it upon itself to consider 'open source' complaints, which were published openly either online or in print.

The only real complaint here seems to be that this amounts to the government putting critics on 'a list'. Yes, it does, but those same critics (along with everybody else) are also on government lists for taxation, healthcare, etc.; this RSI group will now be on a list of FoI requests. The issue is not the presence of a name inside a data structure (without which no function of government would be possible), but what the government does with those names. There is no indication that private complaints were monitored, or even that those who complained publicly were contacted, surveilled or pursued in any way.

Absent any additional evidence of misdeeds, this seems like an organ of state self-scrutiny performing its task in an admirably proactive way.

[0]: <a href="https://bylinetimes.com/2026/09/11/from-9-11-to-southport-the-deadly-blind-spots-in-britains-counter-terror-system/#h-the-post-9-11-legacy:~:text=From%20its%20inception%2C%20Prevent%20focused%20exclusively%20on%20Islamist%20terrorism%2C%20with%20early%20local%20authority%20funding%20allocated%20according%20to%20the%20size%20of%20the%20local%20Muslim%20population%2E%20Its%20remit%20was%20broadened%20in%202011%20to%20include%20all%20forms%20of%20terrorism%2E" rel="nofollow">https://bylinetimes.com/2026/09/11/from-9-11-to-southport-th...