Is the nature of violence and extremism in the UK changing?

What do you picture when you hear the word ‘extremism’? Clear ideologies, organised groups, anti-democratic chants? Perhaps it’s something similar to the upsetting sight I witnessed in Hyde Park recently: Nazi swastikas, and the words ‘Britishness is Whiteness’, proudly displayed on protest placards. 

Long-standing forms of extremism clearly persist and must remain a central focus of national security. But a report by the Home Affairs Committee, published last month, paints a more varied picture. It suggests new trends in extremism are emerging – ones which are harder to categorises, more online and involve significant numbers of young people.

Extremism in the UK is evolving

The evidence gathered by the Committee highlights the following trends. 

• There continues to be a significant percentage of young people at risk of being drawn into extremism. In the year ending March 2025, 11-15 year-olds made up 39% of all cases referred to ‘Channel’ – a multi-agency structure designed to provide support to those assessed at genuine risk of radicalisation. This is not just the case in the UK: in the EU, a third arrested for terrorism-related offences in 2024 were aged between 12 and 20.
• Online spaces are the engine room. Legal-but-harmful extremist content is often coded as empowerment, self-improvement or social critique, making it hard to detect. Misogyny is a “persistent and pervasive” feature of harmful online content.
• Neurodivergent people, or those with mental health conditions are significantly overrepresented in referrals to Prevent, the Government’s counter-terrorism programme. Those with autism accounted for 14% of all referrals in the year ending March 2025, despite 1% of the general population being on the autism spectrum. 
• Rather than single fixed ideologies, there is a growing number of people with fluid or hybrid ideological frameworks, including people fascinated by violence in and of itself. This includes ‘com networks’ – loose, decentralised online groups of predominantly teenage boys – driven less by ideological motivation and more by a desire for acceptance amongst peers.

Some of these trends show up in the evidence we have gathered at the Youth Endowment Fund

Every year, we publish the Children, Violence and Vulnerability report, which surveys 11000 children aged 13–17 in England and Wales about their experiences of violence.  

Last year, against the backdrop of the Southport attack and 2024 summer riots, we wanted to understand whether discussions about harming groups based on characteristics such as race, gender or religion are appearing in what teenage children see online. More than four in five 13-17-year-olds had seen conversations online about hurting (physically or emotionally) specific groups and over a third said they’d taken part in these conversations, either to support or challenge those opinions. 

This year’s survey also found that children who had perpetrated serious violence were over three times as likely to have high levels of mental health difficulties and over four times as likely to have a diagnosed mental health or neurodevelopmental condition (including anxiety, depression, conduct disorder, ADHD, autism), compared to those who hand’t been involved in violence. They were also more likely to have participated in online discussions about harming specific groups than average. 

Is this the ‘big picture’ to Southport? 

Many of these new trends have echoes in Phase 1 of the Southport Inquiry, also pubished last month, This examined the events leading up to the horrific stabbings by Axel Rudakabana on 29^th July 2024. We now know that: 

• Axel Rudakabana was not motivated by a single ideology, and this was a significant factor for why he was deemed unsuitable for support via Prevent;
• he was diagnosed with autism, which was sometimes used to excise his dangerous behaviour. There was no clear understanding about whether or how to appropriately factor neurodiversity into engagement with him; 
• there was minimal examination of his online behaviour by agencies, meaning vital clues were missed. Axel Rudakabana had downloaded ‘vile and disturbing’ imagery, ordered an ‘arsenal of weapons’, and exposed himself to ‘degrading, violence and misogynistic content’ which fed his fascination with violence. 

The major conclusion of Phase 1 was that the attack was foreseeable and avoidable.  

At the Youth Endowment Fund, we have long held the belief that no violence is inevitable, and that we have a duty to do what’s in our power to prevent it.   

How should we respond to emerging trends?  

The scale, prevalence and drivers of these emerging trends is unknown, and there is rightly debate over whether they can be categorised as new forms of extremism. But a clear message from both the Home Affairs Committee and the Southport Inquiry is that there is a risk the current system for responding is being outpaced. 

Both reports raise challenging questions: should there be a single agency (new or existing) responsible for dealing with children at risk of causing harm to others? What is the role of agencies in examining the online life of children at risk of committing violence? How should neurodivergence be factored into any response?

At the Youth Endowment Fund, we exist to find what works. There is lots we don’t know about these emerging trends yet, but we would be wise to start probing at these questions, alongside government and partners across our seven sectors.  

In the coming months, we will be diving deeper into the link between online harms and offline behaviour. We will be conducting new research into violence against women and girls, building on the commitments in the UK Government’s Strategy. Through our Area Leaders Programme, we are also supporting local areas to strengthen multi-agency working and to commission evidence-based interventions that tackle the root causes of serious youth violence. 

If you are interested in discussing the themes raised in this blog, please reach out: hello@youtheendowmentfund.org.uk.