There’s a difference between learning about faiths and practising them in class — and we’re allowed to ask which is happening.

You may have seen articles on ITV, the BBC and local Leicestershire media that has caused concern and outrage on many levels:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/reform-councillors-mus

But, what’s happened here is a perfect case study in how grown-ups are supposed to talk about safeguarding, integration and education — and how our politics now prefers a quick pile-on, a cheap label, and a moral tantrum.

Councillor Carl Abbott raised a concern in a counter-terrorism/Prevent-style setting about reports of very young children being “taught to pray the Muslim way” in primary schools, and he asked whether this could be a pathway to radicalisation and later offending. That’s the line that’s sparked outrage. The footage itself appears to have been taken from an internal virtual briefing hosted by the council and police, and has then been obtained and published externally. 

Now, let’s separate two things that are being deliberately conflated.

First: Britain’s constitutional settlement. We are a country with an established church. In England, schools are also still wrapped in a legal framework that assumes a broadly Christian default: pupils in many state-funded settings are required to take part in a daily act of collective worship unless parents withdraw them (and in sixth form, pupils can withdraw themselves).  That’s not “bigotry”; it’s simply how the system has been built.

Second: what is actually happening in schools. There is a world of difference between children learning about how Muslims pray (as part of religious education / cultural literacy), versus children being instructed to perform prayer as an act of worship, especially if it’s presented as expected, normalised, or compulsory.

Those are not the same thing. If the complaint is about the second scenario, it is entirely legitimate for an elected councillor to ask: “Is that happening? Under what authority? With what consent? With what opt-out process? With what safeguarding oversight?” And yes — it is also legitimate to ask whether certain practices, in certain settings, can be exploited by extremists. Prevent exists precisely because grooming and radicalisation can happen through normal-looking channels, and it is framed as a safeguarding approach. 

So where did this go wrong? Cllr. Abbott’s clumsy language. Tying “Muslim prayer” in general to “crime” is very sloppy — because most Muslim families are law-abiding, decent, and want the exact same thing as everyone else: safe kids, good schools, strong communities. But his phrasing of this is not the same as hatred, and it shouldn’t be treated as a hanging offence.

And that brings me to the Labour and Liberal Democrat familiar playbook: “I don’t like what you’ve said, therefore you must be prejudiced.” That’s not anti-racism, it’s anti-debate. It shuts down scrutiny, and it actively harms community cohesion because it leaves legitimate concerns to fester in the dark where the real extremists thrive. It’s why we have many of the community issues we have today.

On the education point specifically, the “why mosques?” question deserves an adult answer. Many schools do visit churches (especially at Christmas/Easter) and some don’t. Many schools also visit mosques, gurdwaras and mandirs as part of RE and community understanding — and that can be positive when it’s clearly educational and genuinely pluralistic. But if schools are drifting from “learning about religions” into “practising religion”, that’s a different category altogether and it absolutely merits transparency and parental choice. The law already recognises that parents can withdraw children from collective worship and RE. 

Now to the bit that should outrage everyone, regardless of party: the breach of privacy and trust. This was an internal counter-terrorism training/briefing environment. Those sessions exist so councillors like me can ask naïve questions, challenge assumptions, and learn — including learning when their own wording is unhelpful. If in future we believe everything will be clipped, leaked, and weaponised for party advantage, we will stop speaking candidly, and the training becomes a box-ticking farce. ITV report that footage of the meeting was obtained and used; that alone should trigger a serious review of recording/meeting controls and conduct expectations. 

If this leak was done to embarrass a political opponent (and I’m not asserting who did it — only that it’s a plausible motive in modern politics), it is shameful. Leicestershire County Council should establish who recorded, under what authority, who circulated it, and whether any rules were broken — then act accordingly. That’s basic governance.

For me, Cllr. Abbott had the right to raise a constituent concern and ask hard questions without being smeared as a racist by default. And his critics had the right to challenge his wording and demand evidence but without turning this into a performative denunciation and labelling him a racist.

The grown-up response is simple, clarify what is happening in schools, re-state the difference between education and worship, protect safeguarding, and stop turning every uncomfortable question into a morality trial.