Search results

Purpose – The author investigates how those who have engaged in political violence in the UK understand Prevent’s preemptive rationality, and how Prevent conceptualizes the trajectory toward “terrorism” in relation to the testimony of those who have engaged in “terrorist” violence and were convicted of terrorism offences.

Methodology/Approach – The author takes the assumptions that Prevent makes about risk (from the Prevent Strategy and other documents), and tests these against the testimony of former combatants from “the Troubles.”

Findings – Despite the trajectory toward violence not being considered to differ fundamentally nor demonstrated through evidence to operate differently from one era to the next, the premise of Prevent’s assumptions of the movement into violence and former combatant testimony are entirely foreign to each other.

Originality/Value – Although militants from “the Troubles” (a conflict ending in 1998) and Prevent (established in 2003) are speaking about the same country and narrating their “truth” within five years of each other, the differences in how former combatants and Prevent understand the trajectory toward violence have not been considered. This has remained a significant omission of terrorism scholarship.