It is difficult to frame Natalie James’ response to my original article avoiding as it does the very heart of the matter, that there are increasing numbers of young people for whom ideology is a fluid concept and less a ferocious driver for explaining grievances, but a justification - and in some cases a blueprint - for enacting horrific acts of violence. I will take at face value then that Natalie agrees we should be offering the same social and psychological support to these individuals to reduce the risk of harm as we do with those for whom the ideological transmission of a violent ideology has become inseparable from their identity.
Natalie instead raises two other points of discussion: a need to support people who have ‘referred’ a vulnerable person for help and those for whom the very existence of a preventative strategy for counter-terrorism causes anxiety.
On her first point and the case study of ‘Rebecca’, I not only have a degree of empathy but a personal example that might help to explore this issue. After visiting a neighbour’s house, both myself and my partner came away with a palpable sense that the father of the family was sexually abusing his three year old daughter. That we had both come to the same conclusion independently of each other gave additional credence to our concerns. We both agreed that we should tell either the Police or social services. As I worked close to the offices of the Police’s Child Abuse Investigation Unit it fell to me to make that call.
