Dear friends & colleagues,
Though I have very much been supportive of countering extremism in all its form in an endeavour to keep Sandwell and its residents safe, also working tirelessly to promote community cohesion, it saddens me that my family and I have become innocent victims of Prevent’s web.
Initially Prevent served a meaningful purpose but now it has expanded and morphed into a form of terror to all Muslims impacting negatively in all aspects of their life. We can either work together to counteract all forms of violent extremism which originally prevent was tasked with or destroy all the good work in keeping our borough safe and cohesive because we blindly follow a now misguided prevent agenda
I have decided to share with you my story as a case study to enable you to understand how ridiculous Prevent has become:
IM is a 9 year old boy attending a Sandwell Primary School who was referred to both Safeguarding and prevent because of (in the words of the head teacher in her email) “a joke of the type a naïve 10 year old may make rather than any sign of radicalisation” (though IM is actually 9 not 10 years old)
Back ground History:
IM’s parent has had a 15 year relationship with the school, with their 20 and 14 year old attending the school since reception years and no concerns has ever been raised about their behaviour or their comments.
IM has been attending the very same school for the last 6 years. IM attends school from 8am until 5.30pm and recently attended a 5 days residential with the school. Therefore the school has had access to IM (his expression, language both verbally and written, his play, his relationships with children and teachers) quiet extensively and have never raised any concerns.
In addition IM mother has had a long and very good relationship with the school (again in the heads own words in her email)
“Whom we have a long standing relationship. She has been extremely helpful in working with us to develop more open mindedness in our wider community towards people of Muslim faith and has helped us access Prevent funding for trips to the Mosque. She has presented assemblies and at multi-faith events on Islam as religion of peace and is extremely happy that her children are in a school with similar values and morals to her own religion. We have had many conversations about the negative image of both of our religions that are presented in the media, sometimes because of the actions of a few”
Events:
On Thursday 28/1/16 IM’s mum was requested to see the head when she was collecting IM. She was expecting the head to ask whether she would be available at all to do another presentation.
When IM’s mother was seen by the head and co-head she was told that her son had made some inappropriate comments about the school prom and that he had said, “he couldn’t go to the prom because of his religion and that he was going to bomb everyone and kill them because of Islam”
Of course IM’s mother was in utter shock and dismay that her son would have said those words and kept on asking “IM said that”, “I am shocked” “I can’t believe he said that”
They went on to describe how he had confirmed to a Teaching Assistant (TA) what he had said and further repeated it to them (according to the email from the head “He repeated the same thing barring mentioning the religion – he referred to “his country”). They said that IM had described he could get weapons from the Yemen, that they use guns for target practice and that his cousins had recently been there.
IM’s mum confirmed that guns where very much the culture of Yemen but however IM himself had never travelled to the Yemen therefore never been exposed to the gun culture there but yes his young cousins had travelled there a few years ago and maybe it was a conversation he has had with them.
IM’s mother was asked if anyone else may have access to IM to put these thoughts in his mind to which IM’s mother described in the negative stating that IM only attends a mosque and Arabic schools that his parents had helped to set up and knew all the Safeguarding precautions were in place at these facilities. IM’s mum could only think of access to maybe unsuitable play station games which she would stop him playing on.
IM’s mum told the head and co-head that IM may have been worried about the recent bomb scares at secondary schools and he had been asking questions but his mum had been playing them down as not to frighten IM. IM’s mother also informed the head and co-head, of a recent incident with another child (Child A) in his class who had told IM that the recent school bomb hoax were from Muslims, and that IM had asked his mum if this was true.
The co-head stated that as IM (supposedly) had said that “this is from Islam” and had used the words “bombing and killing” they needed to seek further advise from safeguarding and prevent (where on the day they were not available), however said that after speaking to IM’s mother and historical relationship were under the impression it was a “inappropriate Joke” in which IM had been “spoken to about”
It was agreed that IM’s mother would talk to IM and if she had any further information that would be helpful would relay this back to the school.
On talking to IM within a trusted and safe environment (home with his family) IM disclosed that the following had happened:
There was a small group of boys (including IM and Child A) laughing and joking about the prom. They were talking about an imaginary limousine and imaginary chocolate in this limousine. One of the other children in the small group told IM that IM couldn’t attend the prom because of his religion and therefore IM couldn’t come in the limousine or have the chocolate. IM in banter stated to get to the chocolate he would use bombs and guns, to which IM reported his friends were all laughing about.
Child A (mentioned above), went on to tell another child, Child B (who wasn’t present during the banter) that IM said that he was “going to use bombs and kill them at the prom and that it comes from Islam”. Child B was scared and went on to tell the TA what had allegedly been said by IM and apparently this was confirmed by 3 children (including Child B who wasn’t actually present during IM’s supposed outburst and Child B – who already believes bombs are by Muslims because his mum had told him this).
IM denied that he had mentioned the word “Islam” or “Muslim” in his banter. He described questioning from teachers about “if he has possession of weapons” and “where would he get weapons from if he wanted to” and this is how IM went on to describe the gun culture in Yemen. IM describes crying when he was recounting what he had said to the TA and feeling panicked. In IM’s own words “I felt threatened” when the teachers were questioning him and “thinking oh this is serious when they took me into their office to ask me questions”
IM’s mother decided not to take her son to school the next day as IM’s recount of events were different to the account given to her on the 28/1/16.
The next day (29/1/16) IM mother arranged to speak to the head about the events. IM’s mother asked the head and co-head to recall exactly what IM had allegedly said as IM version differed to what the teachers had told her on the 28/1/16. IM’s mother told them about IM’s recount of a limousine and chocolate and when this joke was taking place there were no teachers present and therefore IM’s mum was concerned that the account of 3rd parties were taken into consideration therefore the actual conversation had already been distorted. The head offered to call the TA who had initially reported the conversation to recount what IM had said.
When the TA was present in front of IM mother she could not recount IM’s exact words apart from:
“Talking about the prom”, “talk of a limousine”, “bombs” and “something about Islam” “his cousins going to the Yemen and using guns.” The TA repeatedly asked the head to see what she had wrote on her statement (It appears a child could recall the conversation he had however the adult required their written statement to recall the conversation less than 24 hours after the alleged conversation), which is concerning in such a serious allegation.
IM’s mother enquired if the TA was present during the ‘banter’ amongst the boys or had she directly heard the conversation and the TA replied she had not and it was Child B, Child A and another boy who had confirmed what IM had said and allegedly IM confirmed to her he had said these words. IM’s mother enquired if during IM’s confirmation of what he had said if he was crying and she confirmed that indeed IM was crying and kept apologising during the recount. The TA stated that another TA entered area during this recount and heard the end of IM recount about weapons in the Yemen.
IM mother informed the head, co-head and TA that the alleged conversation was completely different to the account given to her on 28/1/16 and as there was no adult directly present during the original ‘banter’ that what was actually said by IM had been distorted as it had been heard/said second hand (like Chinese whispers) things added on and inferred. In addition IM stated that IM’s alleged recount to the TA, Head and co-head was unreliable as he was already distressed and words were put into his mouth.
IM’s mum asked the head if IM being a Muslim and mentioning the word bombs and guns were the reason why they had taken the action they had with IM, with reference to referring IM to Safeguarding and Prevent and the head confirmed because of the prevent agenda that it was.
The head and co-head tried to reassure IM’s mother that they did not think any further action need be taken as they accept it was an “in appropriate joke” and as the school knew IM’s mum, they were happy to leave it at that and did not require referral to prevent. Obviously IM’s mum was initially relieved that the school was not taking this further.
However the school HAD already taken it further, and by making contact with the safeguarding and prevent leads had already indeed escalated it to this level. The conclusion in their email detailing the events to Safeguarding and Prevent leads was:
>> “In the light of this, we do not feel any further action is needed and would like your confirmation of this”
However the damage and Referral process had already been initiated as well as IM school records being tarnished with these allegations, which will follow him throughout his school years.
The above incident has had wider consequences to the health of IM’s family, with his father requiring overnight admission to Sandwell hospital with Angina brought on by stress and IM’s mother suffering emotional ill health requiring GP support and medication. IM himself described feeling “worried” about attending school incase “children and teachers treated me differently” IM required a lot of reassurance and today IM told his mother he was “a lot calmer in school now” (which translates as I watch what I say, I am cautious, I don’t talk too much and am lot quieter). IM’s older brothers are upset about IM’s treatment and have asked their parents to no longer work with Prevent. Therefore the impact of the above events are much wider and if common sense had prevailed at the point when the school had accepted it was a joke (before they spoke to IM’s mum on the actual day of the ‘banter’), and a mere “Mrs M can you talk to IM that we don’t joke using these words in the current climate” would have been a more appropriate conclusion.
In addition IM’s parents are concerned that it was too much of a coincidence that since Ofsted made it a statutory duty (July 2015) for schools to demonstrate how it implements Prevent, that after 15 years of an unremarkable relationship that IM was singled out as only 1 of a handful of Muslims in a predominantly catholic school to demonstrate the implementation of prevent. Therefore safeguarding their Ofsted rating, not risking receiving an automatic ‘inadequate rating’ because it could not demonstrate how it implemented Prevent in their school.
Friends and colleagues, though my family are well equipped to challenge and to take our concerns further, it has left us exhausted, scarred and for a short while questioning our belonging and acceptance in society as British Muslims.
The Chief executive of Sandwell council was kind enough to meet with my wife and I to discuss not only this case but how prevent is implemented in primary schools. Though we felt the meeting went well with a few suggestions for moving forward we are awaiting a confirmation of what was discussed and agreed.
However having an understanding of what prevent was originally about I am determined, not to allow another family to go through a similar experience and to ensure Prevent is steered in the direction where it does not discriminate all Muslims and focuses on the few whom it was meant to focus on in the first place.
