New policy exposes how the government exploits mental health patients by incentivising referrals to its toxic PREVENT programme

London – New counter-terrorism rules that will give doctors incentives to refer individuals with mental health issues to PREVENT shows that the government is exploiting the doctor-patient care responsibility in an attempt to increase subscription to its toxic PREVENT programme.

The rules stipulate that urgent psychiatric care will now be provided by mental health trusts to those people with psychological problems who are referred to Prevent. This will influence doctors to refer patients to PREVENT in order to speed up treatment times.

Dr Adnan Siddiqui, CAGE Director and GP said:

“This latest move highlights the government’s determination to further the toxic PREVENT agenda under the guise of safeguarding even if it is as the expense of the wellbeing of societies most vulnerable people.”

“The government is effectively channelling psychiatric cases into a securitised policy that has been proven to damage individuals and families. The effect on doctor-patient trust and patient health will be devastating.”

“Safeguarding and public sector ethics rely on trust, and making public sector workers the handmaidens of the state, not only erodes that trust but has made no tangible improvement to national security.”


CC image courtesy of Vic on Flikr

NOTE: CAGE represents cases of individuals based on the remit of our work. Supporting a case does not mean we agree with the views or actions of the individual. Content published on CAGE may not reflect the official position of our organisation.

PREVENT is about Policing Dissent not Safeguarding

Anti-war, Fracking, Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Austerity, Animal Rights; Aid Convoys – these have all been identified as “threats” under PREVENT.

Security and safety of people is a duty of the state, but it is also a responsibility of all citizens to report anyone they believe is about to carry out a criminal act. However, the responsibility of citizens duty extends to hold the state to account ensuring it does not go beyond the law and its role.

This can happen through the unnecessary targeting of individuals and the intrusion into people’s lawful expression of beliefs and practices, and the disruptions of their right to oppose to state policies.

Therefore, any opposition to state policies, such as PREVENT, must be seen within the framework of lawful expression and debate and not a reason to invoke ‘national security’ to silence dissent and smear dissenters as “extremists”.  

Prevent has had four major reviews. Each time the strategy has been rebranded as a public relations exercise, without changing its fundamental remit which remains the policing political dissent and religious beliefs.  

In the first stage, it was presented as a community-based solution to violent extremism and community cohesion. In the most recent review or rebranding, Prevent has been retrospectively marketed as Safeguarding. However, if it was safeguarding as defined under the Children’s Acts, then it would have been presented as such from the outset over 10 years ago.

Read more: PREVENT Myth Busters

Rather, this rebranding has happened in the last 2 years as the CTS Act has been rolled out into schools and universities where safeguarding is an existing legal requirement. Many professionals have spoken about this miss-fit and the subsequent fallout that has impacted thousands of children.

Now, new information seen by CAGE about the existence of Counter Terrorism Local Profiles (CTLPs) makes it clear that PREVENT is a policing responsibility and the outcome of it is the criminalisation of dissent.   

This new evidence shows that public sector workers are being expected to be intelligence gathering agents and managers of religious and political views and dissent, in the same way as they were expected to do so under the communist regimes of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, run by the KGB and Stasi.

Amber Rudd, Home Secretary, confirmed as much in a Question Time panel debate about police numbers. Rudd insisted that the majority of low-level intelligence came from community leaders operating within the Prevent counter-terrorism programme, rather than from police officers on the street.

What are the CTLPs?

CAGE has recently seen a questionnaire upon which a CTLP is developed, and a summary CTLP document provided to a local authority. This provides some insight into the way the security services and police have been using Prevent to monitor, not just Muslim activism and charitable work, but dissent and “subversive activities” that go way beyond ideologies that “draw people into terrorism”. In other words, Prevent is going beyond the S26 Terrorism Duty in the CTS Act 2015.

Thus far Prevent analysts have paid little attention to this document which is drawn up by senior security services officers, with an intelligence analysis team. This makes it an “intelligence product”.  

Sussex CTLP Summary Document (click to enlarge)
Surrey CTLP Summary Document (click to enlarge)

A full CTLP document is prepared for each local Prevent area and a summary shared with the Chief Executive of a local authority in order to identify “extremist” ideologies and threats. The CTLP is not available to all the public sector or even to Prevent officers.  Nor is it available to the public.

The information CAGE has seen as part of a CTLP process includes the following questions: –

“Is there any information regarding humanitarian aid convoys?”

“Are there any groups, individuals or organisations which are fundraising for Syria?”

“Is there any information regarding anti-war protests as pressure grows on the British government to widen the scope of drone strikes.”

“Is there any information regarding individuals or groups who are engaged in fracking protests which have the potential to become more radical and disruptive in nature?”

Are there any emerging issues around communities, groups and individuals involved in:

  •    Anti-Israeli/ Pro-Palestinian activity
  •    Anti-Austerity protests
  •    Anti-war protests
  •    Other animal rights protests against zoos, sea life centres, abattoirs etc.”

This type of information is then reflected in the summary CTLP document CAGE has seen.  For example, identified under “priority themes” are: –

  •    “Controversial/extremist speakers”
  •    Child Sexual Exploitation Radicalisation (CSE) Concerns
  •    “Pro -Palestinian Protests”

Why were CTLPs implemented?

In attempting to answer the question of how public sector workers could perform a policing function, Charles Farr – serving as the director of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, Home Office, at the time – in a record of the Communities and Local Government Committee on Preventing Violent Extremism in 2010, admitted “local authorities had neither the skills nor the confidence to accurately identify individuals who may be a cause for concern”.

Farr went onto explain that the purpose of the Counter-Terrorism Local Profile (CTLP) was to bridge that gap in knowledge and intelligence amongst public sector staff, and that “every chief executive in areas receiving significant Prevent funding has already got one”.

Read more: PREVENT, like Schedule 7, just another intelligence gathering operation

He went on to describe the CTLP as an “intelligence product” that would “improve over the next year”. Not only that, but he said that “chief executives and elected councillors, wherever possible, need to have that information”.

Farr said that feedback from local authorities in some areas like Luton show that CTLPs had “transformed the way they are doing Prevent“.

“Counter-Terrorism Local Profiles [184] are still in early stages of development,” he said. “However, we see them as being vital to effective local delivery of Prevent programme.”

In the recent case of Dr Salman Butt vs Home Office, Justice Ousley also identified the CTLP as the key link between “extremism” and the S26 Terrorism Duty. In other words, the CTLP facilitates and furthers the government’s highly disputable narrative that “extremist” ideas lead to “terrorism”.

The implications of the CTLPs

The use of CTLPs explains a great deal about the behaviour of local authorities, Universities, and the Charity Commission when dealing with Muslim communities and speakers deemed controversial, charities, and Prevent referrals. It is likely that the full secret CTLP document contains actual names of individuals and organisations.  

This is something CAGE and many Muslim groups have suspected for some time. It is also likely that the disruption of the work of Muslim charities and their staff, such as monitoring inspections, closures of bank accounts, seizure of cash at airports and denial of travel visas, is linked to CTLP defined “threats”.

The media often highlight excessive or inexplicable stories of Prevent Related Incidents (PRI’s), or Channel related referrals, and attribute them to overzealous application of the policy by public sector workers. However, this may not be strictly true, since there is the very real possibility that the nature of Prevent Interventions is directed from the CTLP information supplied by the security services to the public sector.  

Read more: Is the government’s PREVENT ‘science’ really peer-reviewed?

The existence of CTLPs explains Prevent referral cases such as the Palestinian activist Rehman Mohammadi. This appears not to be the consequence of an overzealous school teacher or policy, rather the consequence of guidance from the intelligence services, via the CTLP.   

It also explains the behaviour of local authorities and Prevent Officers in relation to pressurising venues to cancel events with “controversial speakers”, since this information is being pushed by the security services through CTLPs. It may also explain the plethora of stories published in the mainstream media about Muslim “extremism”.

This new evidence makes it absolutely clear that the CTLP and Prevent implementation go well beyond preventing political violence, and into the realm of pre-crime and the criminalisation of dissent and political and/or religious activism. This is beyond the S26 Terrorism Duty in the CTS Act 2015.

The CTLPs feed into an unjust system

Presenting Prevent as a safeguarding project is a public relations exercise. The CTLP makes it clear that PREVENT draws public sector workers into becoming intelligence gathering agents.

Not only does this destroy the credibility of public service providers, but they are not trained to be intelligence operatives or carry out detective work. It also puts citizens at risk of being sanctioned and investigated for lawful activities. The end result is the erosion of trust in society.

Moreover, under PREVENT, people can be questioned/interrogated without the normal safeguards of due process, such as the right to remain silent or to have a lawyer present.   

The CTLP document is secretive, and those groups and individuals who are highlighted as a risk or threat or even “extremists” have no recourse to challenge the information which is subsequently supplied to public authorities.  

This puts public sector staff in the difficult situation of having to defend decisions which are clearly based on information supplied by the intelligence services. They are not allowed to reveal such information, yet at the same time they have to defend their decisions in a tribunal or court if necessary.

The individual affected by Prevent is then also denied access to information about them and the process, on the basis of “secrecy”.

The number of Prevent referrals and Interventions is huge and goes beyond anything that can be called safeguarding.  There have been 6,300 prevent referrals in 2017 so far, and 7,500 in 2016, but the volume actually being assessed for Channel intervention is 1,000 since 2012.  

The fact that the State refuses to provide any monitoring information about the reasons for referrals since 2007, or discuss them shows that Prevent cannot be considered safeguarding but is rather mass surveillance.

Report: Blacklisted – The secretive Home Office Unit silencing voices of dissent

The entire exercise of co-opting public-sector workers to perform a policing role for which they are ill equipped marks the erosion of the spirit of public service and a move towards a Soviet style policing bureaucracy.  It is also a complete abuse of due process and a dire threat to civil society.

This constitutes a direct violation of Equality Duties to which all public-sector workers subscribe. Namely, that discriminating against a person on the grounds of their religious and political beliefs and activities is considered discrimination, harassment and victimisation.  

For these reasons amongst others CAGE continues to call for the abolishment of PREVENT and a return to due process and equal justice.
CC image courtesy of Joe Cross on Flikr

NOTE: CAGE represents cases of individuals based on the remit of our work. Supporting a case does not mean we agree with the views or actions of the individual. Content published on CAGE may not reflect the official position of our organisation.

PREVENT Mythbusters

The pro-PREVENT lobby has been perpetuating several myths about this failed policy in an effort to keep it alive or to engineer a “review” or overhaul and relaunch. We look at these myths and confront them with the facts in order to direct the conversation towards solutions.

Myth 1: PREVENT is community led by Muslim organisations

Ben Wallace, security minister, claimed that “Civil society groups supported by Prevent ran 130 projects last year, reaching more than 25,000 people and countering radicalisation in numerous communities.”

However, an FOI request sent to obtain further details of these claims was refused and the Government avoided providing any details. Details of the FOI request are here.

Research by CAGE revealed last year that many of the so-called ‘grassroots’ organisations supporting PREVENT were in fact funded by the government and directed by the government’s secretive domestic PR arm known as the Research Information and Communications Unit (RICU), responsible for ‘hearts and minds’ propaganda directed at its Muslim citizens.

Myth 2: Saying the government can take your children away is fear-mongering

When CAGE warned that children would be taken away from families as a result of PREVENT we were accused of ‘fear-mongering’.

In April 2015, Asim Qureshi warned of the hidden powers of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act, saying that the small print gave the government power to ‘consider models from health and social services’ should parents not give consent for their children to participate in PREVENT.

Today, CAGE has seen numerous cases where children are under the threat of being removed from their families under broad and politically charged definitions of ‘extremism’ and “radicalisation.”

In one case, an investigation was conducted to assess a family and was subsequently closed by the local authority since the children were being properly looked after.The mother was deemed to have provided all of the physical needs and “emotional warmth” for her children.

However, the authority decided to do a reassessment since the initial assessment was judged as inadequate because it did not take into account the impact of the supposed “radical extremism” of the father. This constant monitoring of family life and the threat of removing children results in severe stress, particularly on the young.  

Aside from this, referrals have real life consequences for families. In the latest Cafcass report on cases involving “radicalisation”, 54 cases involving 128 children were reported as having radicalisation as a known feature between July to December 2015. A total of 15 wardship applications were made in relation to alleged ‘radicalisation’ involving 23 children.

Through our research and case studies, we’ve recognised that due to the vague terms, and the opaque nature of the ‘science’ underpinning theories of radicalisation, there will have resulted a great number of miscarriages of justice. This is particularly true where children have been made ‘wards of court’, seemingly for their own protection.

In one particular case, even though the judge accepted there was a low risk that several home schooled – by the state’s definition ‘socially isolated’ – children would attempt to travel to Syria, he still invited the local authority to apply for wardship over them.

The conflation of traditional religious values and practices and ‘radicalisation’ means that increasing case studies show that the situation has reached a point where in many cases parents are being forced to choose between co-operating with the government’s attempts to interfere in their faith and define what is acceptable worship for them and their children, or losing their children.

Myth 3: PREVENT is voluntary

Although parents are told that engagement with Prevent is voluntary, coercive tactics are used to compel families into engaging. Prevent officials are known to turn up at meetings between parents and social services. In one case, PREVENT officials threatened a mother that if she didn’t co-operate with them, then her family care plan would change, potentially risking her guardianship over her children.

In another case, engaging with Prevent meant avoiding jail for a mother-of-three.  

These sorts of intimidation tactics mean PREVENT isn’t voluntary and it isn’t optional, in spite of their claims, since there is always the overarching threat of parents losing access to their children.

Myth 4: Prevent has had some early training issues

While Prevent only became a statutory duty in 2015, as a policy it has existed for a decade. Therefore it’s incorrect to disregard its failings as simple ‘teething issues’ to conceal the more fundamental flaws within it.

Moreover, there have been 7500 referrals in the year 2015-2016 of which 90% were false and led to no action at all. This figure led to the policy being labeled a failure by leaders in the teaching profession.

This is even more devastating when one considers that nearly 10% of those referred are under 10 and over 40% are under the age of 18. In addition the majority of referrals have been for ‘Islamic extremism’, which only serves to further the substantiate the belief that PREVENT targets Muslim beliefs and behaviour.  

Myth 5: The ‘terrorist house’ case had nothing to do with PREVENT

When a 10-year-old boy misspelt ‘terraced’ house as ‘terrorist’ house, teachers reported the issue and the next day a social worker and police officer visited the house.

When the BBC broke the story, police criticised their approach, saying the case had nothing to do with terrorism and was rather a reaction to an allegation by the boy that he was being assaulted by his uncle. This story was repeated in the media.

However, both a police officer and a social worker attended the house and most questions were being asked by the police officer not the social worker. Furthermore, all the questions, approximately 9, were related to ‘terrorism’ and 1 question was about his uncle. This line of enquiry has become standard, only through the normalisation of PREVENT and the subsequent entrenching of the security focus on Muslims.

You can get a deeper understanding of what really happened in this interview with the boy, here.

Myth 6: PREVENT is about safeguarding

PREVENT is not about safeguarding. The definitions of “extremism” and “radicalisation” are not fit for purpose and do not hold up to scrutiny. While safeguarding is supposed to be about protecting vulnerable people from harm, the linking of faith to radicalisation gives the perception that people are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

Moreover, the ERG22+ framework underpinning PREVENT and the government’s understanding of how ‘radicalisation’ occurs are deeply flawed and can by no means serve as a basis for safeguarding. There is no evidence to suggest that the ERG 22+ can either work within the safeguarding context nor are they even applicable, since the original study was developed using prisoners and the scientists who ran the study themselves said it lacked demonstrable reliability and validity.

Additionally, safeguarding is supposed to be a collaborative approach between stakeholders such as parents, teachers and social workers. However, PREVENT as a safeguarding tool is counter-productive, as parents have a deep mistrust of it.

There is also a real risk of ‘mission creep’ if PREVENT is used as a safeguarding tool. Ultimately, PREVENT seeks to set the parameters of acceptable thoughts and beliefs, which is extremely dangerous and politicised grounds for safeguarding work.

It is perhaps unsurprising then that the UK has plummeted from a ranking of 11 to 156 in global children’s rights rankings. According to reports, data from Unicef and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) “[raise] serious concerns … about structural discrimination in the UK, including Muslim children facing increased discrimination following recent anti-terrorism measures, and a rise in discrimination against gypsy and refugee children in recent years.”  

Myth 7: PREVENT has stopped 50 children from joining ISIS. It’s a success.

The supporters of Prevent claim that the programme has stopped 150 people travelling to Syria – including 50 children. Whilst that may seem commendable on the face of it, the fundamental question requiring answers is: how many times have Prevent-based interventions directly saved lives in Britain?

Due to the lack of transparency, it is difficult to assess the veracity of these claims coming from the pro-PREVENT lobby or to conclude whether PREVENT was at all necessary to the process.

Moreover, stopping people from travelling to Syria to join a proscribed group is already a matter for the police. Therefore, at best, the role of PREVENT here is to duplicate the work of the police. At worst, it’s a deliberate attempt to distort the true role of PREVENT.

Our evidence proves that PREVENT is mainly about intelligence gathering and bullying dissenting voices or voices that raise social justice and accountability issues with the government.

On top of this, PREVENT has been said to have a counterproductive effect. The UN special rapporteur Maina Kiai said “by dividing, stigmatising and alienating segments of the population, Prevent could end up promoting extremism, rather than countering it”.

We therefore believe PREVENT is unnecessary and counter-productive.

Myth 8: Radicalisation is ‘a major problem’

In an attempt to support Britain’s discriminatory de-radicalisation programmes it is often stated that 700-800 people have left to go to Syria. This represents approximately 0.03% of the total British Muslim population.

However, there are no reliable figures that list the number of individuals who have left the UK to join British-backed groups, Kurdish forces or to fight alongside the militias of Bashar Al-Assad; let alone any consideration as to how many have left as part of aid efforts – with the frequent blurring between the two resulting in the criminalisation of aid workers.

The lack of evidence is an endemic problem within PREVENT, and impacts the way the PREVENT lobby perceive reality.

Myth 9: PREVENT is not racist or divisive as it tackles right-wing extremism too

PREVENT pundits constantly refer to the increasing numbers of far-right extremists being referred to the programme. However it clearly played no role in identifying or stopping the worst atrocity committed on British soil in several decades against a serving British MP by a far-right criminal.

The Prevent narrative criminalising religious practice has in fact emboldened the far right: statistics, in fact, show one in three terrorism suspects arrested last year were white. Arrests of far-right extremists doubled in 2016, after the killing of Jo Cox. However, Muslims are 50 times more likely to be referred to PREVENT than people from the far-right.

Shockingly, only 10% of PREVENT referrals required further support, suggesting mass overreporting, spying and intimidation of innocent people, many of them under the age of 18. This has created an atmosphere of deep mistrust.

It is unsurprising that PREVENT predominantly targets Muslims because the training material and research basis – which has been discredited as a source for broad application even by the academics that did the studies – are Islamophobic and target Islamic behaviour and beliefs.

Myth 10: PREVENT is not about targeting religiosity and it is not based on a conveyer belt model

Proponents of PREVENT often deny that it is based on a conveyor belt model and instead claim they rely on a “multi-factor” approach. However, we know that the multi-factor approach is actually based on the discredited ERG 22+ factors.

But even with a multi-factor approach, it rests upon the idea of a linear path that takes an individual from ideas to potential future violent action. These models are simplistic and do not convey the real ways in which both ‘push and pull’ factors lead to violence.

The Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, in its latest review of the UK “counter-extremism” strategy, found:

“The Government’s proposals rest on the assumption that there is an escalator which starts with religious conservatism and ends with support for violent jihadism, and that violence is therefore best tackled by curtailing or placing restrictions on religious conservatism. However, it is by no means proven or agreed that religious conservatism in itself correlates with support for violent jihadism. The aim should be to tackle extremism that leads to violence, not suppress views with which the Government disagrees.”

Myth 11: PREVENT is providing the best practice example for CVE across the globe, so it really is a success intra state

CVE, or Countering Violent Extremism, is the latest trend in the global counter-terrorism market. The UK makes no apologies for the role it has played in shaping these policies – in fact, the UK prides itself on its leadership in paving the way. CVE thinking rests on the very same discredited theories of ‘radicalisation’, which created PREVENT and therefore focus largely on the role of ideology.  

PREVENT is not merely a domestic product but is seen as a high value export product. Attempts to gain public access to the ERG22+ risk assessment tool on which PREVENT is based were refused as government said it would “allow for the production of a competing product to the market, prejudicing the commercial interests of the department and allowing us to get best value for money.” This is evidence of a profit motive.

As a result, we are seeing global CVE policies, which have been largely modelled after PREVENT, being perpetuated around the globe by UK and US-backed organisations. Since there is little if any acknowledgement of the disastrous effect PREVENT has had in the UK, the prospect of an honest and realistic account of PREVENT outside the UK is unlikely.

However, it is entirely irresponsible to export a policy that has failed so miserably in the UK. Furthermore, it is outright deceitful to attach any type of success to PREVENT when in fact, hundreds of cases to date prove otherwise and large parts of society have actively called for the strategy to be scrapped.

CVE policies in the US, which are largely modelled on PREVENT, have been actively resisted by not only the very communities they target but also a growing list of NGO’s and other civil society actors, many of whom cite PREVENT as a warning rather than an inspiration.

Myth 12: Those opposing PREVENT are ‘Islamists’ who give oxygen to violent ideologies

CAGE’s opposition to PREVENT and calls for it to be scrapped stem from a well-founded concern of its discriminatory underpinnings and that its end result is to redraw boundaries of acceptable Muslim behaviour. This tool could then be extended to other communities until Britain resembles a police state.

Our concerns have been echoed across a broad spectrum of society, by individuals and organisations who also see the damaging effects of PREVENT and its potential to be applied to those who challenge power.

Hundreds of psychologists and academics have spoken out against PREVENT including Karen Armstrong OBE, Prof. Tariq Ramadan, Prof. Baroness Ruth Lister, Ken Macdonald QC, former director of public prosecutions and Prof Maureen Baker, former Chair of Royal College of General Practitioners, also oppose the policy.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, Maina Kiai has said that “By dividing, stigmatising and alienating segments of the population, Prevent could end up promoting extremism, rather than countering it.”

The “science” underpinning PREVENT, the Extremism Risk Guidance 22+ (ERG22+) framework, which is used to assess the risk of ‘radicalisation’ and influence referrals to the CHANNEL programme, is fundamentally flawed. The framework has been criticised by over 150 leading academics and psychologists including Professors Noam Chomsky and Marc Sageman.

The opposition to Prevent includes a formidable group of individuals and organisations, from a variety of theological and political persuasions as well as those in civil society including the Open Society Foundation, Rights Watch UK, NUT and the NUS.

To claim otherwise would be a deliberate attempt to distort the truth.

NOTE: CAGE represents cases of individuals based on the remit of our work. Supporting a case does not mean we agree with the views or actions of the individual. Content published on CAGE may not reflect the official position of our organisation.

Revealed: When PREVENT really put BOOTS on the ground

Boots, the UK’s leading pharmacy-led health and beauty retailer is peddling the Government’s highly divisive Prevent programme by instructing its employees to take ‘notice’ of their colleagues’ changes in behaviour.

A ‘Safeguarding and Prevent’ guidance poster displayed on the walls of its branches as well as a PDF form in the Corporate Responsibility section of the Boots website make implementing Prevent a collective responsibility.

The company instructs staff on how to spot the signs of ‘vulnerability’ which are devastatingly broad and include changes in mood, changes in eating habits and even a change in appearance. This approach in itself is unprecedented; many of these so-called signs are not even found in the highly disputed ERG 22+ factors that form the basis of Prevent.

The misinformed policy of Boots fails to accurately identify the official aim of Prevent, “to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”, but rather sets out their aim as ensuring staff “are not drawn towards extremism”. This sweeping company policy has also extended the duty to a corporate setting where it is “everybody’s responsibility”.

This guidance to Boots staff will only serve to generate mistrust, suspicion and facilitate for a toxic programme and its harmful effects to be extended to the private sector and amongst employees on the high street.

Moazzam Begg, Outreach Director for CAGE, said:

“I was made aware of this particular application of Prevent guidance by a former university lecturer who’d been out shopping at his local branch of Boots, who said:

‘I was gobsmacked. It was in public view. I don’t work in there, I was just going in to get my prescription and just saw it in front of me; above a notice for prescription charges. Anyone could have seen this. I’m not sure whether they are informing on their staff or whether it is customers as well’.

“The disturbing part about this is that Prevent has not just encroached upon the relationship of trust between teacher and pupil, doctor and patient and colleagues at work but, some customers clearly believe that it may now potentially seek to extend its reach to cashiers and paying customers. The cumulative effect of this can only sow the seeds of mistrust and discord.

“If a highly respectable high street retailer like Boots has entered the business of policing its staff, then the public needs to know. They also need to know which other companies are following suit.”


CC image courtesy of R/DV/RS on Flikr


NOTE: CAGE represents cases of individuals based on the remit of our work. Supporting a case does not mean we agree with the views or actions of the individual. Content published on CAGE may not reflect the official position of our organisation.