Safeguarding podcast – the online grooming of Shamima Begum with Dal Babu

In this safeguarding podcast we discuss the online grooming of Shamima Begum with Dal Babu, former Chief Superintendent of the Met police. Was Shamima a terrorist, or was she a victim of online radicalisation and a failed safeguarding system? Did the UK’s Home Secretary Sajid Javid break UK law? What part does austerity-driven hunger lead to the radicalisation of children? All this and more in a fascinating discussion.

The full transcript is below for those hard of hearing or that simply prefer to read:

Neil Fairbrother

Welcome to another edition of the SafeToNet Foundation’s safeguarding podcast where we talk about all things to do with safeguarding children in the digital context.

The EU Kids Online project has defined a framework of online harms faced by children, one of which is Ideological Persuasion, one such type being Radicalisation, which the NSPCC defines as “a belief in or support of extreme views”. They also say that “…someone who has been radicalised might believe that sexual, religious or racial violence is okay and they might have links to extreme bodies such as DAESH, also known as ISIS or IS

Shamima Begun has become the almost literal poster child for radicalization and for what can happen in the real offline world as a result.

Today’s guest holds strong views about this topic in general and in this case specifically and to guide us through what may happen to children as a result of radicalisation is Dal Babu, former Chief Superintendent of the Met Police. Welcome to the podcast.

Can you give us a resume of your career with the Met please?

Dal Babu

I joined in 1983 as a PC. I worked across London in various Boroughs. I started off in Tottenham, went to Islington, Camden, Redbridge South London. And then as I got promoted, I moved to various parts and took on some specialist roles, so I was a Gold Firearms Commander and I ended up my career as a Borough Commander in North London. A Borough Commander is an individual who runs one of the London Boroughs.

Neil Fairbrother

Thank you for that. Now the UK Government famously said that it wants the UK to be the safest place for people, children in particular, to go online. I think David Cameron started this off and it’s been carried on by Theresa May. As a result of this, it set up an anti-terror strategy called Prevent. What is that? What is Prevent, what does it entail?

Dal Babu

There are four strands to the Government’s strategy and Prevent is one of them. Prevent is about stopping individuals becoming radicalized, which in itself seems very sensible, but unfortunately, if you put in the word “toxic brand” into Google, the first thing that comes up is the Government’s Prevent strategy. Before the Prevent strategy, the first thing that used to come up was Donald Trump.

So something’s gone badly wrong for the Government’s Prevent strategy. And I think the key thing with any strategy is that you have the involvement of the community that it’s going to impact, and at the time the key communities that were being radicalized, were the small number of Islamist individuals. Now actually we’ve seen radicalization extended to the Far Right.

So, probably the biggest threats that we have in Britain at the moment, are Islamist groups, the Far Right, but we’ve also seen a significant amount of activity with the Provisional IRA in Ireland. Interestingly enough, the only place in the United Kingdom where Prevent isn’t used is Northern Ireland, and that’s where we’ve seen a lot of bomb blasts. We’ve unfortunately had the appalling death of Lyra [McKee], who was a young journalist who was observing a demonstration and she was shot dead. That investigation is still ongoing.

Neil Fairbrother

Okay. And you call it a toxic brand because…?

Dal Babu

Well I think that’s how people perceive it. I think it hasn’t got the engagement of the community. I think the bottom line with Prevent was that it was supposed to be engaged in trying to have the confidence of the community to try and ensure that young people who are at risk of being radicalised, and the concept is for the Far Right and the Islamist groups, that’s the key groups that are being radicalised at the moment, the idea is that those individuals would be de-radicalized.

And I think what’s actually happened is that people don’t trust it. There have been some spectacular own goals by the police and the Home Office in how they’ve developed Prevent. For example, there was a young lad who was writing an essay, couldn’t spell the word “terraced”, as in a terraced house, as in a row of houses, and put the word “terrorist house”. And he was then visited by the police, the Prevent team.

You had a young child, at a nursery who couldn’t say “cucumber” and talked about a “cooker bomb” and then, you can’t make this up, he then had the Prevent police turning up and asking him questions. You’ve had a case of two young boys, two Asian young boys who were playing guns, cops and robbers. I mean, I spent a lot of my time playing cops and robbers, and I think what happened was the police were called to speak to these boys on their own in a separate room about radicalisation. Interestingly enough, their parents subsequently sued the council and won substantial damages.

I could go on, you know, there are numerous cases. I think probably in terms of community when the prevent funding was first provided, an area called Alum Rock[1]in the West Midlands, the police instead of engaging with individuals, used that funding for CCTV that observed people going in and out of mosques.

Neil Fairbrother

So an inappropriate use of funds perhaps?

Dal Babu

Yes, inappropriate. But also, you know, I’ve just mentioned a few things that have happened around Prevent and I think to be honest, that’s why it’s got this toxic brand reputation and that’s why it comes up first on Google search when you put “toxic brand” in.

Neil Fairbrother

Okay. I notice that Ben Wallace, the Security Minister in January this year announced an independent review of Prevent. Are you confident that this might address these kinds of issues?

Dal Babu

Well, I’ve been asking for an independent review for a number of years and the Government has always said, “No, we don’t need one”. I think they’ve been pressurised into providing an independent review, I think they were likely to lose a vote in the House of Lords [on the issue], and so they decided to have an independent review. They just put the advert out for the person who will coordinate it. I’m not sure when it will happen, but ultimately, I hope the Government will be open, transparent and clear around the challenges around Prevent.

Ultimately this should all be about safeguarding. This should be about keeping us safe. And I’m afraid it’s got such a poor reputation, people just see Prevent as being spying on the community.

Neil Fairbrother

What is Channel?

Dal Babu

Channel is an individual project run by Local Authorities in conjunction with the Home Office where individuals who people believe are being radicalised may be identified by a Prevent team, or a Prevent officer.

They are then given the opportunity to go through a de-radicalisation process with Channel. Now again, I talked about transparency; we don’t know who the Channel providers are. I think there’s a list that’s been provided very recently, but for years we had no idea who the Channel providers are. And actually, when you look on the Internet around individuals who have been on various Channel projects, you know, they’d been playing pool, they’d been out playing football.

Now a lot of this just appears to be youth work, engaging with young people. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, but I don’t know why it has to go through a separate door in terms of Channel. And if we’re looking at the issues about safeguarding, what we should do, regardless of whether you were involved in drugs, gangs, knife crime, radicalisation, you should be going through the same front door, and then a team of individuals, youth workers, police officers, social workers, and the Third sector, then look at the most appropriate way of helping that individual.

But what happens if you’re doing knives, gangs, drugs, any of those, shoplifting, anything like that, you go through one door, and if they believe you’ve been radicalised, you go through a separate door and the community just don’t have that confidence.

The other factor is this is all voluntary. So, you can say to somebody, “You need to go through the Channel project”, and that individual says, “Well, no, I’m not going”. And there’s nothing that Government can do.

Neil Fairbrother

But nonetheless, according to the Home Office, they’ve had something like 1200 people who have gone through Channel, 394 of which or 45% according to these numbers in 2017 and 2018 had been referred for concerns related to Islamist Extremism, and 174 or 44% for concerns relating to right wing extremism. So, despite these shortcomings, those numbers are actually quite high, I think, and there’s an element there of success perhaps?

Dal Babu

Well, I think you need to disaggregate the figures. How many of those individuals were given a Channel recommendation? In the past over 80% of the individuals who were put forward for Channel, the authorities deemed there was no further action, so I would say on the contrary.

You have a lot of people who the Government have put a duty on to say if they’ve got concerns about individuals. So, you have a lot of people who the authorities, wherever they come from, whether it’s schools, youth clubs, hospitals, and people say “We’ve got concerns about these individuals”, and of the 80% that are recommended for Channel, over 80% are disregarded, there’s no further action.

So, I think this explains why people think it’s toxic. You have this huge number, but even the ones that you have concerns about, it’s less than 20%.

And actually, these are very, very nebulous figures. We don’t know exactly what they’ve done. We don’t know who’s made the decision. We don’t know what the concerns are, other than now the Government is saying there’s almost parity between the Far Right and Islamist groups. But what we don’t know are the details.

Neil Fairbrother

Okay. So it comes back to the transparency issue?

Dal Babu

Yes. And there is a complete lack of transparency because you have no idea what’s happening and what you’ve actually done in schools. I mean, one of the standing jokes at my daughters’ school when the girls were having to go at each other was saying, “Be careful. I’m gonna report you to Prevent!”. So you actually stop discussions and people just see it as a bit of a joke.

Neil Fairbrother

What is the Radicalization Awareness Network?

Dal Babu

Well, again, it lacks transparency, but you have a lot of people making money, and if you’re a Channel provider you’ll be part of these networks within the Home Office and they will be basically saying, we can provide you with an opportunity to de-radicalize. Again, we don’t know the details of what they’re trying to provide and we don’t fully know the full network, the details of who these individuals are.

Let me give you an example. Tommy Robinson, or Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as his correct name is, set up the English Defence League, a Far-Right organization, and he’s now I understand, a UKIP candidate in the upcoming [EU] elections[2]. Now he was on a Channel de-radicalisation project setup by Quilliam Foundation. They made a documentary about it, about de-radicalising Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. He then says, “Well, I got [given] a lot of money and it’s all rubbish, [it’s] all on the internet”. So that’s an example of a Channel project and an example of the kind of individuals that are in these kind of networks.

Neil Fairbrother

Now I understand that the Radicalisation Awareness Network is at least part funded by the EU. What impact would Brexit have on that, or any other anti-radicalization programs or organizations that are in place?

Dal Babu

Well, I think there’s two issues. We don’t have the bandwidth to discuss anything in detail other than Brexit at the moment [in Government]. So at the moment, anything else, no matter how important, just doesn’t get a look in.

Parliament is paralyzed by Brexit. It’s been three years since the vote was conducted. We’re seeing more and more evidence that there’s a huge disparity between what we were told was going to happen, the most famous one saying £50 million per week going to the NHS, which now people say well, okay, it’s painted on the bus but it won’t happen if we have Brexit. So, we don’t have that kind of discussion.

I think that the European Union has provided a lot of funding for working on de-radicalisation. A lot of that money will go under Brexit. We won’t have the network, the exchange of information will also be limited.

I’m not entirely sure how much we learn because radicalization is different depending on which country you go to and depending on what the context is. So in this country, Shamima Begum is the classic example of that. We had a lot of children and vulnerable individuals who have been targeted by DAESH or Islamic State as they were known more commonly and basically, individuals were doing it over the Internet.

It was a classic marketing campaign where they identified individuals who were vulnerable, whether it’s through a nomination from somebody else saying “Go and have a look at this individual”, whether it’s through them monitoring individuals who are having Twitter exchanges, whether it’s comments that were being made on Facebook, they were able to identify these individuals and then they were able to home in on those individuals, in privacy. So, they’d been groomed in the same way as individuals were groomed by paedophiles, by gangs. It’s the same concept.

Neil Fairbrother

Yes. Child grooming is, I think, defined as “the act of befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, and sometimes the family, the child’s family, to lower the child’s inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse”. CEOP have extended this to include “actions in which gangs groom neighbourhood victims”. And what you’re saying is that radicalisation is another form of grooming. It’s the same thing, different purpose, different end result, but it’s the same process?

Dal Babu

Precisely. The processes are the same. It’s about identifying individuals that are vulnerable. So, whether it’s a paedophile who does that, whether it’s a gang member who does that, or whether it’s a radicaliser there’ll some sort of vulnerabilities, some vulnerabilities will be the same, but they will identify those vulnerabilities. They will then engage with that individual. Then they will provide them with attention, provide them with in a perverted, twisted way what they might call “love”, a sense of belonging. And from there they’re able to manipulate those individuals.

If you were a paedophile and you were looking to invent a system for abusing children, identifying them, grooming them, being able to meet them where your safety was guaranteed to carry out acts for your sexual gratification, you’d invent the internet.  And that’s precisely what paedophiles are doing. [They use] that anonymity, they identify a victim, they then befriend that victim. They then may be able to give them gifts which will not be traceable through cryptocurrency, paying for things that go directly to those individuals. They eventually build up that trust and confidence in that individual, they give given some kind of twisted view of what reality is, and then that victim is then abused by the paedophile.

Neil Fairbrother

The comment you made just a moment ago about it being a marketing exercise might shock quite a few people, particularly marketers. I am a marketer, or I have made a marketer in the past. Where is the similarity between marketing and grooming?

Dal Babu

Well, obviously marketing people do marketing for legitimate reasons, but essentially marketing, as is a lot on the Internet, is about selling and buying things, not exclusively, but a lot of it is. And so, in terms of marketing, you will look at individuals who are your customers. So, for example, you might get a phone call or you might be asked to complete survey by an individual who is collating information in order to determine what you’re likely to buy and then sell that information on. So, quite legitimate marketing, it might be a bit annoying, but nevertheless legitimate.

I think what the paedophiles, the radicalizers, the gang members do is they will be on Twitter [for example], they will see exchanges from vulnerable individuals. That individual’s address, that Twitter name and address will be visible to them. They will then have an opportunity to monitor that and then identify those individuals that are likely to be susceptible to grooming, in their eyes.

Whether it’s about radicalisation, whether it’s about gang membership, whether it’s about grooming for any other purpose, for sex, gangs, and radicalisation, I think that’s the initial process. If I had a Twitter account and I was saying a few things, as a middle-aged man, I would not be the person that they would perhaps want to identify. But if I was displaying signs of mental unwellness, that may be something that they might want to exploit.

If I was a child, if I was a vulnerable child, particularly it could be a looked after child, or a child that’s going through some crisis, might be a break up of a family at home, there could be a whole range of reasons. And I think those individuals then look for those people…

Neil Fairbrother

…they could then use the same tools and techniques that marketers use for their purposes, for the perversion of young people for whatever end.

Dal Babu

Exactly. And I think not only do they identify them, they are then able to have a conversation in that child’s bedroom, on a device, a smartphone. It will be making sure that they build up that system where that child will not tell other people about what’s happening. It will be about saying, “look, this is our secret, don’t let me down” and sending them a gift, grooming them in whatever way they want to.

Certainly, with Shamima Begum, I think her latest interviews talks about how she was tricked. I think she’s probably the most hated women in Britain, but actually if you look at her as a 14 and 15-year old girl…

Neil Fairbrother

… I was literally about to ask you a little bit about Shamima Begum, because the narrative in the press is that she was radicalized at 15 and left home to go and join ISIS. Now that’s fine. But when you think about it, it’s an incredible thing for someone to do, particularly for a 15-year old. A 15-year old has left home. That’s one thing, but not only has she left home, she’s gone to another country, that’s another thing. But it’s not just another country, it was obviously a very violent and very dangerous place. And that’s another thing.

So how is it possible? How is it possible that someone can be so manipulated by persons unknown online to go and do something as incredible as that? I should just point out though, I have emailed her solicitor, Tasnime Akunjee, but so far I haven’t received a response, but I don’t think we’re impinging on any legal proceedings that might take place in all of this. But that seems like an amazing thing for someone to achieve, to persuade someone to take such an amazing step.

Dal Babu

Yes. Just in terms of the back-story, I’d retired from the police and I was brought in at the request of the families [of the three girls that went to Syria] and Tasmine Akunjee the solicitor spoke to me. And basically they’d [the families] discovered that the girls, before they’d gone from Bethnal Green to Syria, discovered that the police were aware that they were being radicalized, the counter-terrorism police. The local authority, the families’ social workers and the school, Bethnal Green Academy, were aware and they [the families] were very, very angry because they subsequently discovered that none of that information had been shared with the families. So that was the backdrop. I’ve never met Shamima Begum, but I’ve worked with the families.

What’s really struck me about this, was that she was a young girl, she hadn’t even got a passport, hadn’t been out of the country, she stole her sister’s passport in order to travel. She wasn’t even a practicing Muslim before, she got radicalized and then became a practicing [Muslim]. And I’ve seen pictures of her, she’s just like a normal youngster, doesn’t wear head covering or anything [like a] niqab. She’s just wearing normal western clothes. And then as time’s gone by, she’s been radicalized and has started practicing the faith.

So, it just really struck me that people had a lot more understanding of young girls, in particular young women, who had been groomed on the Internet and sexually exploited; they found it very, very difficult to understand how somebody could be groomed on the Internet [for radicalisation]. I think that’s probably a sobering lesson for for all of us to understand, the power of groomers.

Neil Fairbrother

Yes. Now how long does the radicalisation, or the grooming for radicalisation, process take? Because the press say that she was 15, that’s the age they’ve jumped on because that’s the age she was when she left. But she may have just turned 15 and she may have actually been 14 or even younger if this process takes weeks or months.

Dal Abu

Yes. I think she was 14 when the interaction first started. It goes back to my point about marketing. They will have an individual who is identified to them, by the first girl, then that radicaliser, that groomer, looks at the vulnerabilities of this young woman, this child, and then exploits those.

She’s looked at, in terms of curiosity, she’s looked at things like terrorist events that are happening. She looked at beheadings that are happening that are shown online by the Internet companies, so there’s some responsibility for Twitter, Facebook and Google for all these companies to be more responsible. But she had access to those images and this individual who was grooming her was aware of that, and he used that as a way of making her radicalized.

You’re absolutely right. Why would you go from a stable democracy, the fifth richest country in the world, with all the opportunities that this country offers to people in the United Kingdom? Why would you go from there to a war-torn country? It just makes no sense whatsoever. I think you’d only do that if you’d been radicalized because there’s no logical reason for doing that.

Neil Fairbrother

Okay. Now you’ve mentioned a few things about this, but obviously the radicalization was principally taking place online as far as we understand it, but she changed. Her nature changed. She went from being a westernized young girl to being a radicalised girl and some of her dress changed, for example. What are the signs in the offline world to look for if someone is being radicalised in this way?

Dal Babu

Well I don’t think there are any definitive answers to that question, but if somebody starts having a strict adherence to her faith, then I think it’s right and proper that parents, carers, ask questions around that. You may have a situation where people have gifts given to them and they might have clothing, they might become much more of an introvert, they could be more glued to their phones than normal, mood swings, changes. They may need money for whatever the radicalisers are asking them to do. There’s a whole of things that could be happening.

I think it’s difficult to say it’s definitely this one, but I think it’s just that nature… if you’re the parent or the carer, you would have an understanding. But I think it’s also about other individuals who have links with that child, who may see that child on a regular basis, if they’ve got any concerns. And it’s important that they raise those issues. But principally it’s about parents and carers.

Neil Fairbrother

Moving away from Shamima Begum for a moment, you mentioned earlier in a previous discussion that in the offline world, in the real world, children can be approached, vulnerable children can be approached, for example, a child who has not had a regular school meal may get approached, maybe bought a meal from a fried chicken shop for example, and then another one and another one and after a few days, then the payback starts. I think that’s what you are saying?

Dal Babu

Yes, essentially, we have a situation where some young people will go hungry, so they’ll go to a chicken shop, won’t be able to afford to pay the money for food in the chicken shop. But you might have individuals, again, this goes back to marketing and individuals identifying individuals. So this was more in the real world as opposed to the online world and they would say to an individual, “Here you are, I’ll buy your chicken and chips”. So this child who’s very hungry, this young person is hungry, will take up that offer. That might be bought chicken and chips again. And then after [the child] had been bought chicken and chips a couple of times, then the individual might then turn and say, “Well actually, I’ve done this for you. You need to take this package and take it to this place”.

You can see how that grooming happens in terms of food, but very, very quickly that that child is then hooked. So it may be taking a gun to a particular place, maybe carrying a knife for somebody, maybe selling drugs.

Neil Fairbrother

And they might be given a smartphone?

Dal Babu

Yes. And you may have the original phone, but actually, if somebody has a smartphone, this is the number. This is a really nice phone. This is just between me and you. And actually, there’s something in Britain, it’s been quite extensive, [called] County Lines where individuals from metropolitan areas then identify young people to be their drug runners and give them a dedicated telephone to sell drugs from.

Neil Fairbrother

Now as with all things to do with safeguarding children in the digital context, there’s a tangled web of laws and regulations that can be brought to bear on the matter and the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, used Section 40[2] of the British Nationality Act of 1981 to revoke Shamima Begum’s UK citizenship. Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality”.

And at the time of Sajid Javid’s decision, Shamima Begum’s third child, Jarrah, was still alive and the Home Secretary was required to have “due regard to his best interest” under Section S55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. So you’ve got this almost triple lock of laws bearing on this issue, but in revoking her British citizenship, he appears to have made her stateless. And if he’s done that, that in itself is an illegal act. Is this true? Is this correct?

Dal Babu

Yes, I mean this matter’s going before the courts at the moment, but under international law, you can’t make somebody stateless. I think the Home Secretary was a little naive and actually was playing to the gallery, because Shamima Begum was this hate figure. He immediately says, “I’m revoking your British citizenship” and by doing that, he’s made the stateless. She’s never been to Bangladesh. She didn’t have a passport, she hadn’t travelled and she just happened to be a British citizen who was brown. And I think his decision has made her stateless.

Neil Fairbrother

Yes. If she had had access to a pathway to get her a Bangladeshi passport, that [decision to revoke] would have been fine?

Dal Babu

Well, he should have made that inquiry beforehand. If she had dual citizenship, then she would not have been stateless. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She can’t speak Bengali. Her family come from a tiny region called Sylhet, she speaks a local dialect very, very poorly. So, the reality of the situation is that he has made her stateless and actually more recently, the Bengali Government have said that if she comes to Bangladesh, that she would be executed.

So, it just makes no sense whatsoever. And actually, the true innocent in all of this is Jarrah, the son, who’s death could be perfectly preventable. It was perfectly foreseeable, if you have a child living in a refugee camp, but the temperature falls to four degrees at night, that that is not the appropriate place for a newly born child.

Neil Fairbrother

Yes. I understand that Tasmine Akunjee has tried to make contact with her, but has been turned back. He hasn’t been able to get in touch. Do you have any further insight on that?

Dal Babu

Yes, Tasmine went there and was denied access. So, what we have had is the press have been… this is a deeply traumatized young woman. I think she’s got severe mental health challenges. She’s lost three children, but the press had been interviewing her.

Neil Fairbrother

There is a view that says that Shamima Begum has been a victim several times over, because first of all she has been the victim of online grooming and radicalization. She’s been a victim of what appears to be a failed safeguarding process with the police and others not communicating with her. And I think the former head of the Metropolitan Police, Bernard Hogan-Howe, he’s actually apologized for what happened…

Dal Babu

..what happened was the police Prevent officers, when they were investigating this along with the local authority and the social workers, decided to give a letter to the girls. And in that letter they basically said they got concerns about these girls and they asked the girls to give the letter to the parents.

Neil Fairbrother

But we all know what teenagers do with letters sent home from school.

Dal Babu

Exactly. It’s not rocket science. So unsurprisingly the letter was found in the girl’s school bag after they’d left to go Syria.

Neil Fairbrother

She [Shamima Begum] has been a victim of a child rape, it would seem because she was under age, I think, when she first became pregnant. She also seems to have been a victim of mismanagement by the Home Secretary as we just talked about, and the press narrative as you’ve said, has hardly been understanding and many of the comments made by the public on social media have been judgmental to say the least. Even the US president, Donald Trump has tweeted that the UK should take back all ISIS fighters captured in Syria and put them on trial. So can she ever expect a fair trial? I mean, if she broke UK law, should she not be tried by UK law?

Dal Babu

Well, I don’t know what she did out there, I’ve never met her, but she has to go through due process, the legal process. And if that means that she is put on trial then that may be something that will happen. And I don’t know what evidence the authorities have, but what I do know is that as a 15-year old child, we failed her in the sense that we were aware she was being radicalised on the Internet online via her smartphone, and yet the authorities didn’t tell the parents about what was happening. So ultimately it will be a matter for the law on what happens to her, but I think there’s been such significant failures in safeguarding and we need to take that into account.

Neil Fairbrother

One of the reasons that she’s become this reviled figure is that she’s reported as saying that she has no regrets about her actions. But she is still in a place full of dangerous people. The caliphate may have been defeated, but the ideology hasn’t and surely, she has be careful in what she says, particularly publicly, for her own safety?

Dal Babu

Absolutely. I mean, she’s surrounded by ISIS fighters, DAESH fighters, so if she says the wrong thing she’ll have her throat cut. The most sensible thing would have been for her not to speak. So there’s some responsibilities on the journalists that have been knocking on her door. She did say, even as she was giving birth, there were people outside waiting to interview her and she had barely given birth and people were on knocking on the door.

Some of the things she said have shocked me, I’ve been very surprised, when she talks about seeing severed heads in bins and not being phased. I was a police officer for 30 years, I never got used to seeing dead bodies, I never got used to moving dead bodies, it was always a thoroughly, thoroughly unpleasant experience. I just cannot see how somebody wouldn’t be phased by seeing a dead body. For those of us who’ve seen that, and I’m afraid I’ve lost count of the number of dead bodies I’ve seen, it is a shocking, awful experience. So for her to say she wasn’t phased really surprised me.

Neil Fairbrother

Okay. We are running out of time, so just one final point. There seems to have been some systemic failures which could have happened to almost any child really. Have these failures being tightened up as a result, do you know? Have we learned anything from this case and applied these learnings so this couldn’t happen to another child?

Dal Babu

Well, I’ve asked for a Serious Case Review because I think it’s very, very clear that mistakes were made. Mistakes were made by the counter-terrorism police around sharing intelligence, informing the parents of what was happening, sending the letters by the girls to their parents. Mistakes were made by the social workers around their intervention, the engagement with parents. I mean, these are all lessons that came from Victoria Climbié and “Baby P” where Serious Case Reviews were held.

I think mistakes were made by the school because some of the radicalication, although most of it was online, these girls were in their friendship group that would have been talking to each other, and the school on one occasion decided to be the “appropriate adult”. If you speak to a child under 18, you’re obliged to have an adult there, and the school made the decision that they will be the appropriate adult. So the mistakes were made by a whole range of individuals. And what I would like to see is a Serious Case Review that looks at the lessons that we can learn, sees the impact of the Internet in radicalising these young people and seeing how we can stop it.

Neil Fairbrother

Okay. Babu thank you so much for your time, a fascinating discussion.

 

[1]Alum Rock was in fact the location of a shooting, the areas affected by the CCTV cameras were Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook

[2]Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson, won 2.2% of the vote and lost his £5,000

deposit

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top