Lisaji,
The number of mosques in UK is far more than 2x the number of temples in UK. Since the funding is for properties this is down to that. Interestingly the mosques I see are lavish affairs, with far more resources than what temples haave (Iskon types excluded). These were funded by myriad GCC grants - so could afford security on their own….
Indo-UK News & Discussions- June 2017
Re: Indo-UK News & Discussions- June 2017
Ji, respectfully, £40 million is not twice £5 million. Even that £5 million to be shared out.
Re: Indo-UK News & Discussions- June 2017
Just FYI, this is how AI sees it
The disparity in these figures reflects a risk-based approach to government spending. Rather than distributing funds equally across all religious groups based on population size, the Home Office allocates security funding based on assessed threat levels, the nature of the security required, and the historical volume of hate crimes.
Here is a breakdown of why the numbers for Jewish and Muslim communities are significantly higher than those for other faith groups.
1. Threat Assessments and Hate Crime Statistics
The primary driver for security funding is the data provided by the police and intelligence services regarding the risk of targeted attacks.
Disproportionate Targeting: Historically, and particularly since October 2023, there has been a significant and sustained surge in recorded antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents.
Intelligence Monitoring: Organizations like the Community Security Trust (CST) and Tell MAMA provide the government with granular data on threats. When the "threat to life" or risk of terrorism is assessed as higher for specific communities, the funding is scaled to meet that specific danger.
2. Guarding vs. Equipment (Revenue vs. Capital)
One of the biggest reasons for the price gap is what the money pays for.
Jewish and Muslim Schemes: A large portion of the £28.4m and £40m grants goes toward security guards. Human personnel are an "ongoing revenue cost"—they must be paid hourly, every day. This is incredibly expensive compared to one-off costs.
Places of Worship Scheme (Other Faiths): This scheme has traditionally focused on capital grants—physical hardware like CCTV, reinforced doors, and alarms. Once a camera is installed, it doesn't require a monthly salary, which keeps the total budget for this scheme lower.
3. Institutional Density and Vulnerability
The funding is also allocated based on the number of "high-risk" targets within a community.
Scheme Primary Targets Security Intensity
Jewish Community Schools, Synagogues, Centers High (Guard-heavy due to school safety)
Muslim Community Mosques, Schools, Centers High (Increased focus on mosque perimeter security)
Other Faiths Churches, Gurdwaras, Temples Variable (Often focused on preventing theft/vandalism)
Jewish schools, in particular, have required full-time security guards for decades due to the global history of attacks on Jewish educational institutions. This adds a massive recurring cost that other faith schools generally haven't faced to the same degree.
4. The "Uplift" Logic
The text mentions a £10 million uplift for Jewish and Muslim schemes compared to a £1.5 million uplift for others. This is a reactive measure:
Following international conflicts or domestic tensions, the Home Office identifies which communities are most likely to experience "reprisal" attacks or a spike in local harassment.
The government prioritizes the "uplift" where the statistical spike in hate crimes is most acute.
Summary
In short, the funding isn't a reflection of the "value" of one faith over another, but a reflection of the cost of mitigation. Because Jewish and Muslim sites are currently assessed to require physical security personnel (guards) in addition to hardware (CCTV), their budgets are exponentially higher than schemes that primarily fund locks and alarms.
The disparity in these figures reflects a risk-based approach to government spending. Rather than distributing funds equally across all religious groups based on population size, the Home Office allocates security funding based on assessed threat levels, the nature of the security required, and the historical volume of hate crimes.
Here is a breakdown of why the numbers for Jewish and Muslim communities are significantly higher than those for other faith groups.
1. Threat Assessments and Hate Crime Statistics
The primary driver for security funding is the data provided by the police and intelligence services regarding the risk of targeted attacks.
Disproportionate Targeting: Historically, and particularly since October 2023, there has been a significant and sustained surge in recorded antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents.
Intelligence Monitoring: Organizations like the Community Security Trust (CST) and Tell MAMA provide the government with granular data on threats. When the "threat to life" or risk of terrorism is assessed as higher for specific communities, the funding is scaled to meet that specific danger.
2. Guarding vs. Equipment (Revenue vs. Capital)
One of the biggest reasons for the price gap is what the money pays for.
Jewish and Muslim Schemes: A large portion of the £28.4m and £40m grants goes toward security guards. Human personnel are an "ongoing revenue cost"—they must be paid hourly, every day. This is incredibly expensive compared to one-off costs.
Places of Worship Scheme (Other Faiths): This scheme has traditionally focused on capital grants—physical hardware like CCTV, reinforced doors, and alarms. Once a camera is installed, it doesn't require a monthly salary, which keeps the total budget for this scheme lower.
3. Institutional Density and Vulnerability
The funding is also allocated based on the number of "high-risk" targets within a community.
Scheme Primary Targets Security Intensity
Jewish Community Schools, Synagogues, Centers High (Guard-heavy due to school safety)
Muslim Community Mosques, Schools, Centers High (Increased focus on mosque perimeter security)
Other Faiths Churches, Gurdwaras, Temples Variable (Often focused on preventing theft/vandalism)
Jewish schools, in particular, have required full-time security guards for decades due to the global history of attacks on Jewish educational institutions. This adds a massive recurring cost that other faith schools generally haven't faced to the same degree.
4. The "Uplift" Logic
The text mentions a £10 million uplift for Jewish and Muslim schemes compared to a £1.5 million uplift for others. This is a reactive measure:
Following international conflicts or domestic tensions, the Home Office identifies which communities are most likely to experience "reprisal" attacks or a spike in local harassment.
The government prioritizes the "uplift" where the statistical spike in hate crimes is most acute.
Summary
In short, the funding isn't a reflection of the "value" of one faith over another, but a reflection of the cost of mitigation. Because Jewish and Muslim sites are currently assessed to require physical security personnel (guards) in addition to hardware (CCTV), their budgets are exponentially higher than schemes that primarily fund locks and alarms.
Re: Indo-UK News & Discussions- June 2017
Big picture look: the export of the Israel-Palestine conflict has been very costly to every country that accepted the import.