Changing the leopards spots

Throwing money at problems always was a Labour solution, particularly if the problem involved members of a minority or special interest group. They weren't so much as looking for solutions though in my eyes but soundbites and occasionally silencing of the more radical elements of the problem. They did the same with the NHS in their early days but ended up merely bloating the bureaucracy for very little gain, but in the case of security problems caused by radical Islamists, they dispensed with the bureaucracy and simply just threw money at them here and abroad.
All good things come to an end though and it finally looks like the money tree is about to turn over a new leaf and remove funding from the various groups claiming government (taxpayers) money without actually doing something about extremism other than perhaps using the money they got to fund said extremism itself.

BBC.

The government is to publish an updated strategy for tackling extremism and terrorism, on Tuesday afternoon.

The Times newspaper says a review identified serious failings with the existing policy - known as Prevent - set up four years ago.

Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to say some of the £63m annual budget was wasted on overseas projects which have produced no security benefits.

Spending more on countering radicalism in prisons is due to be recommended.

Other recommendations expected include monitoring people convicted of terrorism offences on their release and a renewed focus on the use of the internet, as the government considers a "national blocking list" of violent and unlawful websites.

Prevent was originally launched after the 7 July bombings in 2005 to stop the growth of home-grown terrorism.

A final draft of the new document, to be published in Parliament on Tuesday, was reportedly seen by the Times.

It says it was "possible" Prevent funding had gone to extremist groups promoting hardline beliefs.

Part of the problem though is that the government really don't understand what they are dealing with, they're treating the symptoms, not the disease itself. It's no good trying to deal with violent or extreme Islamists unless you deal with the root of the problem itself which is Islam. These groups are not doing anything new, they are similar in a way to Christian fundamentalists in that they've gone back to a purer more basic form of their religion shorn of the comfort zone of modern civilised values. Whilst the core values of the New Testament are peaceful though, the core values of the Koran and Hadiths are for the most part anything but. I frequently describe Islam as a fascist totalitarian ideology masked in the trappings of a religion, and I'm not exaggerating for effect believe me. The fact that a lot of Muslims are law abiding fairly well adjusted is despite their holy book rather than because of it. Islam in it's purer form is simply incompatible with modern liberal/libertarian values, it does not tolerate freedom of speech, it does not tolerate freedom of thought, it does not tolerate freedom of anything save the rights of Muslims to be Muslims and to hell with the rest of us, we can either convert or live under dhimmi status and pay them protection money on top of any other taxation they want to hit us with and that's on top of rampant misogyny and homophobia.
Yet the review itself states...

"Previous work in this area has made some progress but has not consistently reached the few people who are most susceptible to terrorist propaganda.

"It has failed to recognise the way in which terrorist ideology makes use of ideas espoused by extremist organisations and has not fully understood the implications this should have for the scope for our work.

"It has not effectively engaged with and used the influence and reach of communities and community groups. Previous Prevent work has sometimes given the impression that Muslim communities as a whole are more ‘vulnerable’ to radicalisation than other faith or ethnic groups."

 That's a criticism, yet it's probably the only part of "Prevent" that approached the truth of the matter that Muslims as a whole are more vulnerable because their religion and upbringing within that religion makes them that way.
Radical Christians, Buddhist, Hindu's Jains, Sikhs all cause problems in their own way, but none on the scale of the problems caused by Muslims and Islam. You don't see any others flying planes into buildings, blowing up tube trains and buses, driving cars with gas canisters wrapped in nails and explosives at airport entrances, blowing up disco's or cafe's or cars in Stockholm, (dis)honour killings, blinding or scarring with acid for not wearing a veil, vandalising posters that offend their values, putting up gay free zone stickers, burning poppies etc.
Islam needs to be treat differently because it is different, it's not civilised, though many Muslims are, it breeds fanaticism in a way no other religion does. No other religion says it's ok to kill your enemy, enslave them, rape their women and force them to pay you protection money, every other religion has adapted and improved over the centuries, yet Islam remains the same because it cannot be changed, it's "perfect" according to Muslims at least, though not to anyone who has studied it and its founder who was a pirate, a rapist and a mass murderer who married a 6 year old and consummated the marriage when she was 9 yet he is a man to be emulated and copied by Muslims.
So in the end the government will throw our money at a problem without realising what the problem is and that it can't be changed, simply removed, like cancer before it becomes fatal.

This article at Harry's Place is well worth a look at too.