´óÏó´«Ã½

Commentators react to the review of Prevent, the Home Office's strategy for combating radicalism and terrorism, which is withdrawing support from extremist groups - even non-violent ones - and cutting off funding to those opposed to what the government calls "fundamental and universal" British values.

The what exactly are these non-British values the Prevent review is talking about:

"The review suggests that one way to do this is for the government to cut its support for groups that espouse "non-British" values. Some of these are obvious. No one would object to excluding those that championed the killing of British servicemen overseas or freedom of speech. But it becomes harder if one has to adjudicate on whether a group should be excluded because of its views on, say, the rights of women or the state of Israel.
Ìý
"The government has done the easy bit in articulating the broad principle. But to make the policy work will require specific definitions on where the line of acceptability lies. In defining this the government must take care not to undermine the purpose of Prevent"

The that breaking off contact with all groups that hold unpleasant views is "not sensible":

"It is plainly foolish for the state to be funding groups that promote intolerance. And the previous government's belief that radical groups could be used to steer individuals away from violence was indeed naïve. But breaking off contact with all groups that expound unpalatable views (and stigmatising the forums in which they, and other groups, might speak) is not sensible either. The way to deal with intolerant views is by confronting them in open debate, not silencing them."

The against what it sees as the values behind the review:

"And at its heart is an illiberal intolerance of ideas that amounts to a new curtailment on freedom of speech - one that will do nothing to end, among law-abiding communities, Muslim or otherwise, a damaging sense of exclusion."

Whereas the institutions such as the police and local government should stop feeling guilty. It expresses surprise at the previous funding of community groups in the first place:

"Extremism is best tackled not by throwing money at groups who we fear might otherwise produce terrorists but by unapologetically challenging everything they stand for. We should not need a strategy for that."

The there was something else at odds with funding community groups - the gains were immeasurable:

"It has been impossible to quantify the benefit that has accrued for the millions spent on various projects and organisations. An accountancy of hope rather than rigour has been applied to the problem, and as a result a great deal of money has been wasted - money that could have been spent far more effectively. We take reassurance from the Government's promise that, in future, we will know exactly how this money has been deployed and to what effect. The time of soft subsidies for dodgy sectlets is over."

In the blogs, focus is on who will oversee the new strategy. :

"With a Coalition partner opposed to key elements of the policy, some senior Conservative Ministers in their company, and resistant senior civil servants, the harsh truth is that the new Prevent policy will come to nothing if Cameron doesn't continue to keep his eye on the ball. And since both his eyes must usually be elsewhere, he needs someone in Downing Street to keep a watching brief for him - to plan and help execute the policy's strategic implementation across the Departments.
Ìý
"Such a person should ideally be an insider (an outsider would be outfoxed by the Whitehall elements who think the policy's wrong) and a politician (a non-politician wouldn't carry the necessary weight). I hereby nominate Lord Carlile (pictured above), the independent reviewer of anti-terror laws, who has the added advantage of having been involved in the drafting of the Prevent Review. And if I can say so on a Conservative site, being a Liberal Democrat isn't a disadvatage in this context, either - the opposite, if anything."