SP35 Accepted

Balancing vulnerability with professional curiosity

Southport Inquiry · The Southport Inquiry Report: Phase 1 · Issued 13 April 2026 · Addressed to: Counter Terrorism Policing

Source — verbatim from the inquiry

Inquiry recommendation

Counter Terrorism Policing Headquarters should review and where necessary strengthen the training that Counter Terrorism officers involved in Prevent already receive to ensure that they understand the importance of balancing concern for an individual’s vulnerability with appropriate professional curiosity and awareness of disguised compliance. The training should:
1. Address cases involving children or individuals with mental health conditions or neurodivergence, where concern for vulnerability may obscure the potential for dangerousness;
2. Equip officers to test and verify accounts, including probing explanations when necessary and comparing accounts with other available evidence, including that provided by the referrer. Counter Terrorism Policing North West should review its own processes in this regard.

Southport Inquiry, The Southport Inquiry Report: Phase 1 · 13 Apr 2026 Source PDF →

Published evidence summary

Publicly available evidence relating to this recommendation:

- The Home Office stated it updated the Prevent National Referral Form in 2024 to request an individual's social media handle, and rolled out the Prevent Assessment Framework in January 2025, in which consideration and recording of online activity features throughout (Government Response to Phase 1 of the Southport Inquiry, CP 1623, Home Office, July 2026).
- The Home Office stated it is supporting Counter Terrorism Policing to make changes in relation to recommendations 32, 33 and 35(2) to improve officers' ability to understand and assess the online activity of individuals referred to Prevent, and that evaluation of the Prevent Assessment Framework is ongoing (Government Response to Phase 1 of the Southport Inquiry, CP 1623, Home Office, July 2026).
How was this evidence gathered?
Evidence searched by claude-opus-4-8 on 02 Jul 2026
Checked data held on this site (government responses, progress updates, independent evidence)

Response — verbatim from government

Home Office

The Home Office is supporting CTP to make changes in relation to recommendations 32, 33 and 35 (2). These changes will improve case officers' ability to understand and assess the online activity of individuals referred to Prevent, including by developing new technical tools to assist with accessing someone's online activity and so CTP can fully understand the risk that they might pose. The Home Office updated the Prevent National Referral Form in 2024 to include a request to provide an individual's social media handle, to support this work. The Home Office also rolled out the new Prevent Assessment Framework (PAF) in January 2025. This is the tool for CTP and Channel panels to assess and case manage people referred to Prevent. Consideration and recording of online activity features throughout the framework so that online behaviours form a key element of assessments and action planning. Evaluation of the PAF is ongoing and any improvements around the online aspects of the tool and accompanying guidance will be considered as part of that process. (Government Response to Phase 1 of the Southport Inquiry, CP 1623, 2 July 2026.)

Home Office · 2 Jul 2026 Written response →

Evidence trail — what's actually happened since

  • 2 Jul 2026 · Home Office Government response published 2 July 2026 (CP 1623). The government agreed with this recommendation and addressed it in the response; the named body's delivery is in progress. Source →

Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.

How this page is built

Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.

This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.