{"id":4818,"date":"2026-04-18T20:00:35","date_gmt":"2026-04-18T19:00:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=4818"},"modified":"2026-04-18T20:00:35","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T19:00:35","slug":"vawg-and-misogyny-everywhere","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=4818","title":{"rendered":"VAWG and Misogyny Everywhere"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image.jpeg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"744\" height=\"483\" src=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image.jpeg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-4819\" srcset=\"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image.jpeg 744w, http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image-300x195.jpeg 300w, http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/image-624x405.jpeg 624w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 744px) 100vw, 744px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center\"><em>(graphic from&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/youthendowmentfund.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/CVV24_R3_Gender.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Youth Endowment Fund 2024<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This government (and the last) are so concerned about violence against women and girls (VAWG) that the matter is being addressed in a bewildering number of different pieces of primary legislation. Here I pull together the recent vehicles used for that purpose. I address the following in turn,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Scottish Misogyny Bill (withdrawn)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Online Safety Act (and Ofcom guidance)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 (and Public Order Act 1986)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Crime &amp; Policing Bill (in progress)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Terrorism Act 2000 (and Prevent)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The actual empirical evidence about harassment and misandry cf misogyny.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The prejudice against men and boys is palpable throughout. Things are now so bad that even The New Statesman has realised that misandry is the real problem: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=dQRKL4BxrEM\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Why do young women hate men?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>1. Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>After extensive consultation, in December 2021 <a href=\"https:\/\/lawcom.gov.uk\/project\/hate-crime\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">the Law Commission recommended<\/a> that sex should not be added as a protected characteristic within hate crime laws. In April 2023 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/law-commission-review-of-hate-crime-legislation\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">the then-Conservative government agreed<\/a>, stating, \u201cThe government agrees with the Law Commission\u2019s recommendation that sex or gender should not be added to the list of protected characteristics for the purposes of aggravated offences and enhanced sentencing\u201d. The Conservative government\u2019s response outlines the practical difficulties inherent in such a ruling. As will be seen below, the current Labour government do not agree and have announced their intention to add sex as an aggravating factor via the Crime &amp; Policing Bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>2. Scottish Misogyny Bill and the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I published an article on the planned <a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=4651\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Scottish Misogyny Bill<\/a> in February 2025. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/articles\/crkx31my24ro\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">It was shelved<\/a> later that year. Ostensibly this was because of the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on the definition of \u201cwoman\u201d. In truth it was an electoral problem for the SNP. In lieu of an explicitly gendered misogyny Act, the Scottish parliament has included sex as a protected characteristic within the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Whether an explicit misogyny Bill returns to Holyrood \u2013 or perhaps to Westminster \u2013 remains to be seen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Meanwhile the Westminster government is determined to stamp out misogyny at its source \u2013 our schools \u2013 by suitable re-education of boys who show signs of dissent \u2013 because, as readers will agree, boys have not been vilified enough yet. <a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=4786\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">I recently published an article<\/a> on this. The graphic which heads that post, and this one, demolishes the government\u2019s position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>3. Online Safety Act and Ofcom\u2019s obligation under VAWG<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I published a long, but nevertheless woefully inadequate, <a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=4514\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">critique of the Online Safety Act<\/a> in December 2023. A few of the highlights (i.e., lowlights) are,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>3.1 Two Tier Law<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 179 says that anyone who \u201csends a message\u201d which they know to be false and which they intended to \u201ccause non-trivial psychological or physical harm\u201d to its recipient(s) commits an offence liable to up to 51 weeks in prison. You may think that isn\u2019t so objectionable, but the kicker is section 180. This makes the mainstream media immune \u2013 they cannot commit an offence under section 179.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So, the rest of us are to be held to rigorous account \u2013 but not a \u201crecognised news publisher\u201d and not a body licenced under the Broadcasting Act. And who acts as the Government\u2019s agent in issuing such licences? Ofcom, i.e., the government itself. The BBC, specifically their subfunction \u201cTV Licencing\u201d, is also involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>You might think that it is more important, rather than less, to enforce rigorous standards on licenced or recognised news sources than upon some blogger with relatively little reach. In other walks of life, being \u201clicenced\u201d suggests a higher standard, not a lower one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In terms of the prohibition on the rest of us plebs, section 182 makes clear that \u201csending a message\u201d can mean anything. It can mean a private letter to one other individual. It can mean just a conversation, with no written form, if it is \u201csent, transmitted or published in electronic form\u201d. It also includes forwarding, in good faith, an article, blog or tweet from another person which is false and which someone, somewhere deems to be harmful, even if you genuinely thought it was correct. The same applies to any hyperlink: you are culpable for what it contains. You may think that this is intended to discourage us plebs from ever writing or saying a word out of fear of the consequences. I couldn\u2019t possibly comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>3.2 Legal But Harmful<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is a masterstroke for the authoritarian. It is apparently oxymoronic. The requirements of primary legislation define the law (at least, the&nbsp;<em>de jure<\/em>&nbsp;law). Yet here we have requirements to suppress behaviours being stipulated in primary legislation which the legislation itself classifies as \u201clegal\u201d. Eh? What?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The concept of \u201clegal but harmful\u201d is a masterstroke. It allows the Government and its chosen advisors (the \u201cusual culprits\u201d) to decide upon what \u201charmful\u201d means (as opposed to a clearly stated law). Moreover, as it is not a criminal offence, due process is bypassed. You are not charged with a criminal offence because you have not committed one, and hence there is no court procedure. Instead these same people declare your \u201charmful\u201d status and shutdown your communications and perhaps impose swinging penalties upon you. All without the bother of any judicial process deciding upon your guilt. This is one of the mechanisms by which authoritarianism is enacted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>3.3 What does \u201charmful\u201d mean?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Who is to define, or rule upon, the crucial issue of whether a communication is \u201charmful\u201d? Section 234 of the Act does not help. It merely states that \u201charm\u201d means physical or psychological harm.&nbsp;But it appears that the relevant Secretary of State has the power, subject to parliamentary approval, to suppress a wide range of speech and media deemed \u201charmful\u201d. And who will the Secretary of State rely upon to advise on whether something is harmful? A clue comes in section 54\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>3.4 Ofcom\u2019s guidance about protecting women and girls<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Act requires Ofcom to produce guidance for providers of services which (quote) \u201cdisproportionately affects women and girls\u201d. The guidance is required to contain advice on best practice for assessing risks of harm to women and girls from online content and advice on reducing such risks. Before producing the guidance the Act required Ofcom to consult (a)the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, (b)the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and (c)such other persons as Ofcom consider appropriate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Ofcom received 104 responses to their consultation on the guidance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses made no response to the consultation, though the \u00a0Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime for Northern Ireland did respond. The <a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/free-speech-union%20response%20to%20Ofcom%20consultation.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Free Speech union<\/a>, the <a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/men-and-boys-coalition-response%20to%20Ofcom%20consultation.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Men and Boys Coalition<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/parity%20response%20to%20Ofcom%20Consultation.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">the charity Parity<\/a> all made responses (the links are to their responses as reformatted by Ofcom).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Responses were also received from Jess Phillips, MP, Refuge, three Women\u2019s Aid federations (England, Wales and N.Ireland), White Ribbon UK, the Mayor of London, LinkedIn and the Chinese social media platform TikTok.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The response from the Men &amp; Boys Coalition stated, \u201cWe fully recognise the disproportionate harm affecting women and girls online and the aims of this guidance\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Parity\u2019s response stated, \u201cThe consultation starts from the presumption that online harms disproportionately affect women and girls. Yet Ofcom\u2019s own data does not support this\u201d (followed by details, which you can find in section 4.2 of <a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/The%20Reality%20Prevalence%20and%20Impact%20of%20Misandry%20on%20Men%20and%20Boys.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">my statement on misandry<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Ofcom\u2019s guidance was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ofcom.org.uk\/online-safety\/illegal-and-harmful-content\/a-safer-life-online-for-women-and-girls\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">published in November 2025<\/a>. It refers to \u201cgender-based harms\u201d. In the matter of \u201cdisproportionately affected\u201d Ofcom wrote,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cAt consultation, we acknowledged that all online harms may have a gendered dynamic in terms of how they manifest, and therefore, we narrowed in on content and activity that represents, enables or reinforces misogyny, sexism and gender-based violence. We proposed that such content and activity has either a disproportionate or a distinct effect on women and girls online.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Choosing to \u201cnarrow\u201d on \u201cmisogyny\u201d will necessarily result in \u201ca disproportionate effect on women\u201d (in fact, 100%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Note that Ofcom have deviated crucially from the requirements of the Act, broadening the stipulation that only issues which \u201cdisproportionately affect women and girls\u201d should be considered to also include \u201ccontent and activity\u201d with a \u201cdistinct effect on women and girls\u201d. The reason, one presumes, is because they know they lack empirical credibility in claiming that exposure to potentially harmful online behaviours \u201cdisproportionately affects women and girls\u201d \u2013 that claim being refuted by their own research (see below).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>4. The Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2023\/47\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023<\/a> established a new criminal offence for public harassment based on sex. It addressed intentional harassment, alarm, or distress caused to individuals in public spaces due to their sex or perceived sex. This Act amends the Public Order Act 1986 by introducing a new offence 4B specifically targeting sex-based harassment in public settings, such as streets, public transport, and venues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The new offence applies if the conditions of offence 4A are met and is carried out \u201cbecause of the relevant person\u2019s sex (or presumed sex)\u201d. The conditions for the 4A offence include,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he (a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or, (b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A charter for snowflakes to criminalise people who disagree with them? Or a provision for an authoritarian State to criminalise and imprison people who disagree with them? Or both?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The new offence, where harassment is deemed as due to sex, increases the maximum sentence from 6 months to 2 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The equal rights charity Parity requested the opportunity to comment on the proposed Statutory Guidance before issue. To that end on 2\/3\/26 <a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/Parity%20Parlimentary%20Briefing%20re%20Adding%20Sex%20Hate%20Crime%20Legislation%20V2.0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Parity sent a polite, informed and well-argued letter<\/a> to 18 Peers. Concern was expressed that the law would not be implemented in a gender-neutral manner because its introduction within a wider policy framework explicitly oriented around misogyny and Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) creates a significant risk of asymmetrical enforcement. Hence there was a very real risk that enforcement structures shaped by sex-specific mandates would produce unequal outcomes. Parity asked to be consulted about what will appear in the Guidance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Parity received no replies to their letter and did not have the opportunity to comment on the all-important Statutory Guidance which decides on how key terms like \u201charassment, alarm or distress\u201d are to be interpreted. It was published on 1\/4\/26. It states,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThe introduction of the new section 4B offence aligns with the Government\u2019s mission to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) in the next decade. Public sexual harassment is prevalent, and women are disproportionately more likely to be victims than men. This makes the 2023 Act an important part of the protection of women in public places.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This confirms Parity\u2019s concerns regarding the skew in likely implementation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The guidance includes this,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cTo determine whether the section 4A or 4B offence has taken place, officers must take into consideration the circumstances of each individual case and engage with the victim to understand the impact on them and gather sufficient evidence\u201d. Here \u201cvictim\u201d should be \u201ccomplainant\u201d. The guidance does not mention engaging with the accused to gather evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The offence requires intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The guidance states, \u201cIntent is inferred from the evidence, including the words used\u2026(<em>amongst other things<\/em>)\u201d. It adds, \u201cA person\u2019s intent does not depend on their own characterisation of their language or behaviour\u201d. This means that a person\u2019s intent can be established by someone else\u2019s characterisation of their language or behaviour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The guidance includes a section \u201cSupporting Victims\u201d stating, \u201cOfficers should refer victims to support within 2 working days of a crime being reported\u2026\u201d. What victim? There is only a complainant. When did police officers become social workers? The accused, who is facing a trial and possibly two years in prison, is not mentioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The guidance contains no explanation of what the key words \u201charassment, alarm or distress\u201d mean. The nearest approach to it is this: \u201cAs the offence requires proof that harassment, alarm or distress was in fact caused, officers should take all reasonable steps to obtain evidence demonstrating the impact of the alleged conduct on the victim directly. Alongside this, there may be available evidence from witnesses who observed the effect of the behaviour\u201d. In the absence of genuinely unbiased witnesses this suggests that \u201charassment, alarm or distress\u201d could be adequately established by the complainant\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>At the risk of stating the obvious, there is no objective criteria for harassment, alarm or distress. Moreover, whether an offence has occurred at all depends upon how sensitive is the person in question. What might cause alarm or distress to one person of fragile demeanour might be water off a duck\u2019s back to many others. Having crimes defined by such subjective features provides an ideal opening for prejudice and authoritarianism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The guidance gives some examples of what behaviours might be indicative of the offence, including \u201cuninvited deliberate touching\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>5. Crime &amp; Policing Bill<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/bills.parliament.uk\/bills\/3938\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Crime &amp; Policing Bill<\/a> was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/crime-and-policing-bill-2025-factsheets\/crime-and-policing-bill-overarching-factsheet\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">advertised by the government<\/a> as being to, \u201ctackle the epidemic of serious violence, child sexual abuse and violence against women and girls that stains our society, equip the police and others with the powers they need to combat antisocial behaviour, crime and terrorism, and to rebuild public confidence in policing and the wider criminal justice system\u201d. The Bill has passed the Committee stage and had its 3<sup>rd<\/sup> reading in both Houses of Parliament and amendments are now (at 18\/4\/26) being considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/crime-and-policing-bill-government-amendments-for-committee\/letter-from-lord-hanson-and-baroness-levitt-to-lord-davies-detailing-government-amendments-for-lords-report-stage-13-february-2026\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The government have published their intention to make amendments to the Bill<\/a> including,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cIn our manifesto we committed to \u201cprotect LGBT+ and disabled people by making all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence\u201d and in response to an amendment tabled at Commons Report stage by Rachel Taylor, the then Minister for Policing and Crime, committed to bring forward an amendment in the Lords to deliver on the manifesto commitment. This new clause does just that. Indeed, it goes further and extends the ambit of the racially and religiously aggravated offences in sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 not just to cover hostility related to disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity but also hostility motivated by a person\u2019s sex. This change will ensure that tackling misogyny is part of the government\u2019s approach to tackling hate crime. It also ensures it can be embedded within the government\u2019s mission to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Bill also addresses the protocols required for recording non-crime hate incidents, another instance of addressing in primary legislation things which are not crimes \u2013 and so giving the imprimatur of primary legislation to a pejorative label attached to an individual without any mechanism for his defence. The use of the police in this manner is again a mechanism of authoritarianism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Bill also addresses aspects of terrorism, stating that the Secretary of State may by regulations designate a group as an Extreme Criminal Protest Group (\u201cECPG\u201d) where the Secretary of State reasonably believes that they intend to carry out or promote violence, riot, damage to property or interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The terrorism part of the Bill may have a gender aspect also, by virtue of\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>6. The Terrorism Act 2000<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Originally, terrorism was defined as \u201cthe use of violence for political ends and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The<a href=\"https:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2000\/11\/contents\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"> 2000 Terrorism Act<\/a> (plus the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Act) made the definition of terrorism far broader, thus: \u201can action or threat which is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause AND involves violence, or serious damage to property, or endangers life, or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Under this definition, hackers might be prosecuted as terrorists though that would require a political, religious, racial or ideological motivation to be demonstrated. Of more concern is the potential for people holding anti-feminist views to be prosecuted as terrorists, because anti-feminism is often conflated with misogyny and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thelondoneconomic.com\/politics\/extreme-misogyny-to-be-treated-as-terrorism-under-new-government-plans-381387\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">\u201cextreme misogyny\u201d (whatever that is) has been suggested to fall within this broad definition<\/a> (presumably because it is deemed as representing a risk to the safety of women). However to-date (17\/4\/26) no one in the UK has been prosecuted for misogyny under the terrorism laws (though they have in Canada, so this may be the ultimate direction of travel). Foreign Secretary and then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/articles\/c15gn0lq7p5o\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">originally appeared to favour categorising misogyny as extremism<\/a>, but later <a href=\"https:\/\/www.independent.co.uk\/news\/uk\/politics\/yvette-cooper-misogyny-extremism-crime-b2687531.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">backed away from the idea<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The concern that anti-terrorism laws could be used against people who are critical of feminism is not entirely fanciful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>6.1 Prevent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The purpose of the Prevent programme is to prevent terrorism in the UK. In his 2023 report, <a href=\"https:\/\/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk\/media\/63e26968d3bf7f17385a3421\/Independent_Review_of_Prevent.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">William Shawcross advised<\/a> that,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cPrevent must return to its core mission \u2013 countering all those ideologies that can lead people to committing or supporting acts of terrorism. &#8230; It is correct for Prevent to be increasingly concerned about the growing threat from the Extreme Right. But the facts clearly demonstrate that the most lethal threat in the last 20 years has come from Islamism, and this threat continues\u201d. He then itemised the six terrorist attacks which occurred in the previous three years \u2013 all Islamist. Shawcross also emphasised that \u201cPrevent was not doing enough to counter non-violent Islamic extremism\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Shawcross observed that, \u201cAt present, 80% of the Counter Terrorism Police network\u2019s live investigations are Islamist while 10% are Extreme Right-Wing. The fact that only 22% of Prevent referrals for the year 2020-21 concerned Islamism suggests a loss of focus and failure to identify warning signs\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Shawcross did not consider it appropriate to refer incels to Prevent. He was also critical of the fact that some fairly mainstream conservative commentators and journalists were being referred to Prevent, apparently because being \u201cactively patriotic and proud\u201d or a supporter of Brexit (i.e., most people) was deemed by those making referrals to be sufficient to be labelled &nbsp;\u201cassociated with the far-right\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In his <a href=\"https:\/\/assets.publishing.service.gov.uk\/media\/68907502486754ec2887839f\/Lessons_for_Prevent_13_July.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">July 2025 review of Prevent<\/a>, Lord Anderson had a different view on incels, though his report notes that only 1% of Prevent referrals were incels. Lord Anderson also notes that in 2023\/24 only 13% of referrals to Prevent were Islamists, an even lower percentage than Shawcross identified and of which he was so critical. Consequently, Shawcross\u2019s concern about Prevent\u2019s loss of focus remains valid. In contrast, 19% of referrals were classed as \u201cextreme right-wing\u201d. And yet the empirical evidence, based on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.poolre.co.uk\/terrorism-threat-publications\/home-office-statistics-reveal-increase-in-terrorist-related-arrests\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Home Office Statistics on Terrorist-Related Arrests<\/a>, is that,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol style=\"list-style-type:lower-roman\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>It is highly likely Extreme Islamist Terrorism will remain the predominant terrorist threat to the UK and makes up the majority of terrorism related prisoners in the previous year. Figures published by the Home Office in September 2023 indicated that operations to counter Extreme Islamist Terrorism accounted for approximately three quarters of MI5\u2019s case work between 2018 and 2023.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The majority (63%) of those in custody (for terrorist offences) were categorised as holding Extreme Islamist ideologies, while a further 28% were aligned with Extreme Right-Wing ideologies.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The government list 84 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2\/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">proscribed terrorist groups or organisations<\/a> (not including Northern Ireland) of which 63 (75%) are Islamist, 10 (12%) are left-wing extremist, 9 (11%) are right-wing extremist and 2 (2%) are Sikh groups. Of the right-wing extremist groups, 2 are based in the USA, 2 in Russia, 1 in Germany, 1 in the UK, and 3 unclear\/transnational.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>I mention these rather off-topic issues to indicate that Prevent is still not working to meet its actual purpose and that there are voices arguing to extend its remit beyond that initial purpose, as follows,.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Lord Anderson\u2019s report focus\u2019s on two recent cases, (i) Ali Harbi Ali, the Islamist terrorist who murdered Sir David Amess MP in October 2021 and had been referred to Prevent by his school in 2014, and, (ii) Axel Rudakubana who killed three young girls and injured many other people in a dance workshop in Southport in July 2024, when he was 17. He was not sentenced as a terrorist but had been referred to Prevent by his school three times between 2019 and 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Anderson uses the Rudakubana case to argue for an extension of Prevent\u2019s remit beyond those with an ideology. He wrote, \u201cLinked to the case of Rudakubana is a policy issue of considerable importance for the future: whether \u201cviolence-fascinated individuals\u201d or VFIs, who have no particular ideology but may have the potential to commit crimes with strong similarities to acts of terrorism should continue to be accommodated within Prevent. I explore this issue at 5.4-5.29, and conclude that they should.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That might be so, but my concern would then be where the line would be drawn, and this is my purpose in raising these matters. There are concerning elements in Anderson\u2019s report which are relevant to this post. He wrote, \u201cMale-on-female attacks are motivated in often unknowable proportions by violent pornography, normalised misogyny, incel ideology, family dynamics and personal rejection\u201d. Here there is a footnote which one hopes would provide empirical evidence for those claims, but unfortunately we read this,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cMany of these themes feature in the fictional <a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=4666\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">2025 Netflix series Adolescence<\/a>. The series has increased adult awareness but seemed behind the curve to a CSO representative conducting school outreach around the country, who commented to me: \u201cYouth are buying Airbnbs from the proceeds of money muling \u2026 creating horrible AI porn. They will not wait around while adults learn about incels and become social media literate\u201d. \u201cWe are probably bitter and twisted\u201d, she added, \u201cbut this is an epidemic.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I will resist the temptation to comment further. I will just add that I am personally far more worried about the views implicit in the above \u2013 the establishment perspective \u2013 than I am about terrorism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Empirical evidence on harassment and misandry cf misogyny<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/The%20Reality%20Prevalence%20and%20Impact%20of%20Misandry%20on%20Men%20and%20Boys.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">My own personal statement on misandry<\/a> includes data from many surveys on harassment, domestic abuse and sexual assault by sex, as well as academic publications on misandric and misogynistic attitudes among adults and children of both sexes. Importantly, the impact of misandry on men and boys is also addressed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is augmented by an even more <a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/Bibliography%20on%20in_group%20preference%20gamma%20bias%20false%20misogyny%20messaging%20etc.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">extensive set of relevant academic publications<\/a> relating to the above issues and including in-group versus out-group preference, gender attitudes and typecasting as villains or victims (gamma bias)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I cannot summarise those links due to their shear volume \u2013 and that is part of the message. I would urge you to flick through them, especially <a href=\"https:\/\/empathygap.uk\/Bibliography%20on%20in_group%20preference%20gamma%20bias%20false%20misogyny%20messaging%20etc.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">the second<\/a>. As noted above, Ofcom\u2019s own surveys are inconsistent with their claim that exposure to potentially harmful content online \u201cdisproportionately affects women and girls\u201d. Ofcom reports from 2022 and 2024 both conclude that men were more likely than women to have experienced potentially harmful online behaviour or content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The studies show the same broad tendencies in children and adolescents as is found for adults, i.e., women\/girls tend to have a negative attitude towards men\/boys whereas men\/boys tend not to have a negative attitude towards women\/girls. The graphic which heads this post suggests that boys may be subject to more controlling behaviours in their relationships than are girls. Data from the USA indicates that boys and girls experience similar rates of potentially harmful sexual material, behaviours and exploitation online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As I noted at the start, things are now so bad that even The New Statesman has realised that misandry is the real problem: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=dQRKL4BxrEM\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Why do young women hate men?<\/a> In April 2025 Erica Coppolillo published an article in Nature\u2019s Scientific Reports \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/articles\/s41598-024-81567-9#author-information\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Women who hate men: a comparative analysis across extremist Reddit communities<\/a>\u201d. Her conclusion: \u201cThe performed analyses reveal that no systematic differences can be devised across the misogynistic and misandric communities\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>All these findings, on children and adults, are opposite to the dominant sociopolitical narrative. The academic papers also shed light on the psychological reasons why the government and their advisors are inclined to focus concern and protection on women and girls but only condemnation on men and boys, despite this being in conflict with the evidence. The reason is <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=tb6ABKZ1xUE\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">gamma bias<\/a>&#8230;or the empathy gap, if you prefer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>(graphic from&nbsp;Youth Endowment Fund 2024) This government (and the last) are so concerned about violence against women and girls (VAWG) that the matter is being addressed in a bewildering number of different pieces of primary legislation. Here I pull together the recent vehicles used for that purpose. I address the following in turn, The prejudice [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4818","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-misandry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4818","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4818"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4818\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4824,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4818\/revisions\/4824"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4818"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4818"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4818"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}