© Stefan Wermuth / ReutersBritain’s Home Secretary Amber Rudd
In an interview with the Rupert Murdoch-owned Sun tabloid, Rudd said the government's counter-terrorism efforts are being "actively undermined" by the critics of the Prevent program, who accuse the government of unnecessarily invasive surveillance methods.
"Stopping people committing appalling acts of terror is something we should all want. It should go without saying," said the Tory Home Secretary.
"Yet there are some who actively seek to undermine the Prevent program without offering any meaningful alternatives. They say it is about spying.
"Prevent has made a significant impact in preventing people being drawn into terrorism and it is here to stay," she added.
Prevent is a chief element of the government's pre-emptive counter-terrorism strategy, as the program seeks to stop people from engaging in terrorist activities.
From April to July, police registered more than 200 referrals to Prevent from within local communities, a spike of 100 percent in comparison with the previous four months.
Since its introduction in 2007, the program has disrupted more than 150 attempted journeys to Syria and Iraq by British extremists.
However, critics of the program point out that its effectiveness should not be exaggerated, especially since the cost to privacy and individual liberties is high.
For instance, two of the attackers who went on a knife rampage on London Bridge and around Borough Market in June had both participated in Prevent, but still went on to commit atrocities.
The British government has encountered further criticism over the program due to its plans to expand Prevent, so it would involve forceful enrollment of suspected radicals.
Opponents of the reform branded it "toxic" and argued that it would negatively affect Muslim communities and erode the public's trust in law enforcement agencies.
However, National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) spokesman for Prevent Simon Cole defended the plans, brushing off criticism as "simply incorrect and borne from misunderstanding."
"This notion of Prevent as a 'toxic' brand is simply incorrect, and is born from misunderstanding.
"What I would like to hear more of is constructive dialogue about how we can all work together to stop innocent people being killed.
"On occasions it feels like people are sniping for the sake of it and that what they're talking about doesn't reflect the reality of local delivery of the voluntary safeguarding that I see going on all across the country."
The police spokesman justified the introduction of forceful enrolment on the basis that UK security forces should be enabled to combat the threat posed by British extremists returning from combat zones in Syria and Iraq.
"What do we do with returnees? Should they automatically have to go on a program?
"There's a bit of me that thinks the fact that this is a voluntary scheme is a good thing.
"But I can accept that there might be some categories of people for whom there is some compulsion and that needs looking into."
Cole, however, failed to specify whether the "very tricky" compulsion element would involve blackmail and handling of sensitive information by Britain's intelligence agencies and what kind of categories of suspects would warrant forceful enrolment.
Is Amber Rudderless being misdirected within a false current-cy?
Counter terrorism uses the media focus in a very specific narrative to operate the transformation of the state and its populace under guise of power to protect.
Corporate and medical terrorism goes unchecked and almost unreported.
The 'trojan' corruptions within our social institutions use politicians, regulatory bodies, media, and every institutional body of influence to align to the agenda of the rich and powerful - or rather those who use wealth and influence as a leverage of manipulation of information, resources, and laws.
So the assertion that accountability and transparency is pro-terrorist is really signifying something to hide. Corruption is what occurs without due diligence and oversight. Steal a kingdom and they call you "King!" - but what of those who are adept in the business of mind-capture?
One way thinking under a dictate is tyranny - no matter what story is woven to support it.
Cultivating a dumb and docile population via a range of means may seem like more 'control' but it works the other way because the more 'control' is imposed the more disorder - and the more 'justifiction' for more control. The alternative to 'control' is a genuine relational communication - as opposed to the dark arts of narrative control (mind-capture).
We do to ourselves the harm that our defences were supposed to protect against. Fear operates a shadow or masked agenda. It also operates via all kinds of proxies of plausible deniability to keep itself protected against feared outcomes - according to ITS sense of fear of losing power, control and the mind-share and revenue streams that divert the public good to private plunder.
If people are not allowed to debate - because "its not ok to think or say anything that does not support the party line (correctness)- then the 'spirit' of fanatical idolatry and obedience is already working from within our own 'mind' under pretext of being 'against evil' and thereby THE defender and protector of the 'Good'. As Jesus so clearly illuminated - this is temptation to self-deceit as a guise by which to hide or 'escape' the sin in our own mind by projecting it on Others - who we are encouraged to 'stone' as if to get rid of our hidden guilt.
Simple narratives of good and evil are manipulative obfuscations over complex distortions of our own fears. Establishing the true from the false is no more than a true witness or accounting - but of course those who benefit from keeping us in darkness have every interest in denying or suppressing the messengers of any other perspective but their own. Of course debate should not allow the false to pass unchallenged or illuminated as false - rather than simply smeared by association with evil for anyone involved. But in the 'post truth' society - the official narrative reality is mandated by making any challenge or critical discussion seem dissonant and an aberration. This is tyranny in flimsy disguise - for everyone knows - but few can articulate and fewer feel comfortable doing so. Social frustrations and angers are however nurtured and channelled into the further disempowerment of the individual to a captured and directed 'collective'.
I deplore the use of terror to effect outcomes upon the minds, and lives of others - as well as the borders and laws of peoples. What goes around comes around. Don't be deceived into hate as if it is righteous power - especially under guise of good intentions.
However, in the main, we are so deceived and so cannot see what such cuckold thinking rules out.