The Home Office is considering allowing teachers to report sexist comments by teenage boys to Prevent, the U.K.’s anti-terrorism programme. The Mail on Sunday has the scoop.
Even comments about a “woman’s place being in the kitchen” could be enough to spark a referral to the unit, sources said last night.
Critics say the move would dilute Prevent’s work in deradicalising potential terrorists at a time of huge global tensions.
The plan – which would place sexism on a par with Islamic extremism – was discussed in high-level meetings between Home Office and Prevent experts in recent weeks. The Home Office is looking at widening the Prevent programme to combat growing misogyny among teenagers, fuelled by vile social media influencers such as Andrew Tate, but some civil servants warn the plans risk reducing the anti-radicalisation unit to becoming “a wing of social services”.
One Prevent source said last night: “Lots of young boys hold extreme sexist views about girls, which teachers will hear and make referrals. This will then overload the system, and Prevent will not be able to concentrate on Islamist or far-Right extremism.”
Last year, a highly-critical Government report accused Prevent of a “loss of focus” and warned the public were increasingly at risk because the body had become distracted by far-Right and mental health cases rather than concentrating on Islamists.
Leading terrorism experts cautioned against the plans last night. …
Lord Carlile of Berriew, the former Independent Reviewer of Counter-Terror Legislation, warned that Prevent should not police misogynistic thoughts. …
“Prevent is not there for every expression of a thought that might be misogynistic. Prevent is a counter-terrorism measure, not a counter-extremism measure, so if cases are going to be referred to Prevent, they have to be of quite a high level.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Does anybody in this country actually do any genuine wealth producing work or is everybody spending their “working days” in bloody committees talking utter shyte?
I’m not even going to formulate a comment, it’s that ridiculous. May as well bring back masks to muzzle the poor kids, they’re apparently that censored in what they can say nowadays. For instance, what if all the fat/ginger/spotty/glasses-wearing etc kids want their classmates reported as terrorists for making mean remarks about them? I mean, there must surely be other categories of ”terrorism”, right? Based on this Clown World retarded ‘logic’. Or that would be discriminatory against the fat/ginger/spotty kids.
I note they omit the two biggest *actual* culprits when it comes to legit misogyny in our society: trans nutters ( sexual predators and those invading females spaces/sports ) and Muslims. Therefore this pillock is triggering me on more than one level, but who knows if this is parody or not?
https://x.com/OliLondonTV/status/1842729310786064640
Two tier again, guess who is exempt?
Increasingly fewer – which is why more money needs to be borrowed, more funny-money printed to pay this growing swarm of parasites and why wealth is being transferred via the tax system and welfare-state from producers to non-producers.
I estimate at least 40% are non-producers. Collapse is inevitable.
Although as Net Zero marches onward it is unlike anyone will be producing anything.
Let me get this right:
”A woman’s place is in the kitchen”: misogyny, extreme right views, report to the authorities.
”Women should cover up completely, only going out when accompanied by a male relative, accept forced, arranged marriages”: not misogyny but vibrant multiculturalism, to be celebrated.
Pointing out the actual sate of affairs (i.e. reality) makes you a terrorist.
What’s bad about “being in the kitchen”, anyway? This means doing some absolutely necessary, serious and even quite dangerous work other people rely on for remaining alive. Who’s to badmouth that?
Here are just two definitions of the noun ‘terrorist’
The Oxford Dictionary
The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear. Terrorism is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
Dictionary.com
And here are two definitions of ‘misogyny’
Dictionary.com
from Greek misos ‘hatred’ + gunē ‘woman
Tower Hamlets Council
Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It can also refer to social systems or environments where women face hostility and hatred because they’re women in a world created by and for men — a historical patriarchy.
It is blatantly clear that misogyny is not terrorism and not liking a particular (or group of) women or even just arguing with a women is not misogyny.
The Anti-white Party (an organisation previously known as the Labour Party) can only succeed in destroying our country and people if it breaks the feedback from reality. To do that it has to prevent anyone saying anything that might be “off message” from the Anti-white Party’s point of view. Part of this is the attempt to abolish men and women as separate social categories. Thus, the Anti-white Party has to prevent talk that points out that women and girls are different from men and boys. Such talk is now called “misogyny”.
Yet curiously, no focus on misandry. When I see young boys and girls in groups there is often a low level of violence, slapping, punching, and the like, going on. Its always the girls as the aggressors though. Boys tend not to engage in this low level violence because they are trying to be ‘nice’ as part of their mating strategy. In any case anyone who just uses Andrew Tate as the exemplar of all misogyny has clearly never heard him speak, but just followed the crowd in yet another character assassination by mob. I don’t think I’d invite him to dinner, but misogynist, not really….
I’ve observed that many times. It’s pretty much expected from young men in a sexual relationship that they accept being punched and kicked all the time. In an extreme case, I’ve seen some “girl-friend” suddenly grabbing her “boy-friend” and hammering him against a shop window pane with sufficient force to make it vibrate all over. One of the reasons why I’m a content perma-single is because I’d never tolerate something like this.
I’ve obviously met the wrong girls over the last 7 decades of never being attacked!
I think there’s a fair amount of this ( see below link ) on here, so they come on and vent their frustrations. It’s between this and cucks, but anyone who routinely posts derogatory and disparaging remarks about women is definitely a toss-up between the two. Because, for the umpteenth time, where are all the posts from women disparaging and slating men in comparison? Seems the grievances are very much one-sided. I guess it’s a big club and I ain’t in it.
The term “incel” was coined in 1993 by a young Canadian woman as a label for her own single status, and as part of an effort to find and connect with similarly lonely people. Today, nearly all incels are men (the majority of whom are white) – and the few women who venture into the community’s online spaces tend to be roundly rejected. Further, the label of incel adopted now describes much more than loneness or singledom, including the subset of incels who are consumed by homicidal rage.”
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/incels-involuntary-celibates
“Romantic success” is surely a really romantic way to put that. This is about sex and nothing else. And so-called incels don’t “blame women” for anything. They’re just convinced that men can be classified into a hierarchy of types of decreasing sexual attractiveness for woman due to female nature and that no amount of character or behaviour can enable someone to escape from his “sexual attractivness caste” and the consequences of that. There are web sites describing the really elaborate theory behind this in great detail, they are easy to find and certainly a better source of information than the hard woke Anti-Defamation League.
I once spent half of a day reading through a lot of this because I was curious and it was sort-of amusing. I think the main problem these people have is that they’re somehow incapable of realizing that the internet can’t deliver physical intimacy and that – in order to get to know people – they have to seek them out first. That women tend to have an incomprehensible (to me, at least) affection for men who are tall, violent and stupid seems to be true. But that’s certainly not exclusive as couples where the woman is taller than the man do exist. They’re just not that common.
Just keep your eyes open outside. Girls/ women kicking or punching their male partners is really quite common. It’s usually taken as sort-of joke because the females in these relationships are relatively much too weak to do any actual damage unless they’d be specifically targetting a vulnerable area, eg, the eyes, which they obviously don’t. But it’s nevertheless a way of exercising (and demonstrating) power.
One of many baffling common human behaviours I don’t really understand and don’t really want to understand, either.
Tate seems to be a convenient ruse for pushing through extreme feminist ideology.
I have yet to see any hard evidence that significant numbers of boys have been turned into misogynists by listening to Tate.
The left rarely deal with hard evidence though because it usually works against them. They like to deal in narratives. That way they can literally make up anything they like.
Quoting one Julie Bindel:
A teacher who discovers a 14-year-old is making extremely sexist comments should not hesitate to collar the boy, explain to him in no uncertain terms the deplorable nature of his behaviour and, in the most severe cases, such as sharing nude images, contact the police. That’s the obvious response.
I think the obvious response to something like this is to suggest to all the Bindel’s out there that they should really try to get professional help to cope with their pathological hatred for men. That’s certainly going to be more effective in helping them than criminalising male 14 year olds for being – well – male 14 year olds who, in the majority of cases, will still be at a stage of personal development were they believe girls to be somehow weird and different and of not much use for anything, as this will change on its own in the next 2 – 3 years.
Julie Bindel writes well, but, sadly, as you say, she hates men and she sees misogyny in everything.
Talented but flawed.
Anybody defending Andrew Tate is obviously outing themselves as a misogynist, because all he’s done for years is incriminate himself all over the internet, such is his gargantuan ego and constant need to brag. Perhaps certain men should read this book;
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/209057928-clown-world
The hilarious thing that boys and men who are gullible enough to fall for his spiel don’t realise, in that they go to the extent of parting with their money, is that he’s also exploiting them. It is these mugs, along with the girls he’s groomed, exploited and pimped, that are the reason he’s attained the lifestyle both he and his brother ( currently on house arrest ) enjoyed ( minus 12 cars now but I guess you don’t need those anyway when you’re under house arrest );
https://x.com/TheMilkBarTV/status/1826989501165789344
What a charmer. But I’m sure certain men wouldn’t mind if their daughter hooked up with him or one of his ‘PHD’ disciples. They can be assured he’d treat her right, at least;
”According to DIICOT, Andrew Tate anally and orally raped a 15 year old girl, while knowing she was 15.
Her age has been confirmed.
Tate later bribed her to lie to DIICOT when she was summoned. DIICOT has the WhatsApp messages.”
https://x.com/CrayonMurders/status/1835810781914599565
And here you go again… Bigoted polarisation…
Tate has more idea of what’s going on in the world than you ever will. He realises the nuances and complexities in this world and that not everything can be seen as black or white…..like most intelligent people do
Sorry Mogwai, but I’m not accepting that. You seem very quick to declare people as this or that on your own assumptions or things you’ve seen on the internet or things they say. I’ve read many pieces about Tate. I’ve heard him speak, and I understand who he is. I have also met people like him, but that in no way makes me the same as him. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so keen to jump on our favourite judgements about others. Such labelling is unhelpful as it stops proper discussion from being possible.
Says the man who told me I could shove my opinion up my arse because it didn’t align with your’s and you spat your dummy out, all because I asked you for a source.
Or is there something wrong with your memory? Because there’s nothing wrong with mine. Perhaps behaving like that also “stops proper discussion”, don’tyou think?
There’s several of you on here that don’t take kindly to being challenged or disagreed with by a woman. Strangely, the very same men that always appear when articles such as this are dropped, so evidently triggered you all are. But I’ve known who the woman-hating Tate fans are for ages now, so thanks for proving me right yet again.
Perhaps learn some respect and it might just be reciprocated if “proper discussion” is what you’re after. Until then, you defend men who treat and talk about women like we’re pieces of shit, then that is exactly how I’ll see you.
Andrew Tate’s rise has been due to his status as an “alpha male”, or at least that perception. The rise of the “alpha male” character has in turn been perpetuated by the emasculation of men in general, and the rise of the “soyboy” type.
Neither is a good role model for young males, but it seems to be one extreme or the other, nothing in between exemplifies strong, decent men with good morals who exhibit respect for their peers of both sexes, who extol the value of a good day’s work and the virtue of being a loving, protective father figure.
You can be a strong, dignified yet caring and respectful man all at the same time, which is what being a man is all about if you ask me.
After all, it takes a strong and secure man to have the capacity for introspection and humility.
Well said and totally agree. Personally I would call it less ”alpha male” and more ”toxic narcissist”, or at least that’s my impression of the human-trafficking, pathologically-lying abusive woman-hater. ‘Alpha male’, to my understanding, does not automatically translate to somebody who demeans, degrades and abuses the opposite sex as a means of exploiting them to get rich, controlling them financially as well as physically, simultaneously ripping off idiot men who think with their d*cks.
I’d be interested if any of the Tate Fan Club are also members of the Epstein Fan Club, because this is where we see double standards off the charts, with hypocrisy to infinity and beyond, quite frankly. You defend and support sexual predators and abusers of females, you therefore are cut from the same cloth as said abusers and predatory men, because you are a threat to the opposite sex as long as you have such a disrespectful and contemptuous attitude towards us.
Just yet more examples of lies upon pathological lies from the egomaniac narcissist. And men seriously fall for this! lol The attention that he coverts so much via the internet is his downfall, receipts all over the place;
”If you support Andrew Tate after watching this, you may be more messed up in the head than he is.
And you don’t have to believe anything people say ABOUT him. Just listen to what came out if his own mouth…that he now lies about.”
https://x.com/HighImpactFlix/status/1828827705900711985
Or maybe his rise in status is part of a Pay-op.
https://miriaf.co.uk/andrew-cobra-tate-another-snake-in-the-matrix/
As far as I know, Tate is a former kickboxer turned pimp and weren’t it for women who seem literally obsessed with him, I wouldn’t even know that this shady non-entity exists. Why not ignore the guy? He certainly doesn’t deserve any attention.
Are schoolgirls and women who say boys have toxic masculinity misandrists and will they be referred to Prevent?
Or does our Two-Tier system prevent that?
Ah yes, speaking of which. You never did get back to me and explain or provide some supporting evidence for your accusation that I’m a “misandrist”.
Anytime this year will do..
Making terrorism out of “Get back be’ind t’sink, woman,” is one step too far. I’d even question whether some Shia kid quoting the hadith “Women are imperfect in intellect and religion” is in any real way a precursor to honour killing or grooming gangs.
But don’t you think they’re bound to end up, in practice, shopping kids for suggesting, “Maybe there are some biological differences between the sexes”? Nowadays it’s easy to envisage a kid excluded from school and demonised for life for reading experimental psychology papers.
A simple solution to ‘deradicalizing’ terrorists is deportation. Between 15% and 25% if the 1.2Bn Muslims worldwide are considered radical. That is between 130 million and 300 million that are radical. It doesn’t matter what methods Prevent use to de-radicalize it is a lost cause because Islam itself encourages radicalism. Islam is incompatible with the modern free world.
Persecuting boys with the power of the state for their opinions about women would be a a form if terrorism in my books. State terrorism to be precise.
“The plan… would place sexism on a par with Islamic extremism”.
That would be a double whammy for Islamists, who are not noted for their feminist sympathies.
They’re exempt because it’s their culture.
My golfing partner always says when being held up by ladies “shouldn’t they be doing the ironing!” Presumably he’s a far right terrorist.
Graffiti on wall of pub (men’s room obviously)
”I love grils”
“It’s girls you fool”
“What about us grils?”
Any more stupid ideas? Prevent is not for this purpose at all!