Rightwing extremists increasingly likely to consider terrorist attacks, MI5 chief says

MI5 chief Ken McCallum warned that extreme versions of anti-immigration and anti-Muslim grievance are increasingly turning into terrorist intent. The concern is not simply offensive opinions or angry rhetoric. It is the movement towards planning violence against migrants, Muslims, immigration centres, or asylum hotels. McCallum called this the most marked trend in MI5’s caseload over the past year.

The warning reflects a change from radicalised rightwing sentiment to possible real-world attacks. The article gives examples of aggressive anti-migrant protests by the far-right Patriot Platform in Portsmouth and Dover. It also reports a 16-year-old’s guilty plea to planning mass murder by firebombing a Muslim centre in Greenock. These cases show how grievance can become preparation for violence.

The wider context is serious. Racially and religiously motivated offences are at record levels, and the UK terror threat level has risen. MI5 is also investigating a radicalised 13-year-old. McCallum warned of violence against political figures, religious groups, and communities, making early intervention and disruption increasingly important.

Extreme rightwing views are beliefs or grievances, often involving hostility towards immigrants, Muslims, or other groups. They may be hateful and dangerous, but the article distinguishes them from terrorist intent. Terrorist intent means a person is considering, preparing, or planning violence to intimidate, punish, or target civilians or communities. This distinction matters because beliefs, intent, and action represent different stages of risk.

A terrorist attack is the completed or attempted act of violence. The article describes the alleged planning of mass murder by firebombing a Muslim centre in Greenock as terrorist planning, rather than merely extreme speech. It also refers to possible plans targeting migrants and Muslims. In each case, the key change is movement from grievance or propaganda towards a deliberate violent objective.

These categories can overlap, but they are not identical. Someone may express extreme views without planning an attack. Someone with terrorist intent may be stopped before acting. The article’s warning focuses on that dangerous transition, because security services can potentially intervene before plans become violence.

The article describes a progression from extremist grievance to terrorist intent. People may begin with anti-immigration or anti-Muslim beliefs, then adopt violent narratives that portray migrants or Muslims as enemies. The critical step is when those beliefs become plans to attack real people or places. That is why immigration centres, asylum hotels, migrants, and Muslim communities are treated as specific risks.

The clearest example is a 16-year-old from Inverclyde who pleaded guilty to planning mass murder by firebombing a Muslim centre in Greenock. The article also reports that some extremists were considering attacks on migrants and Muslims, while anti-migrant protests were held in Portsmouth and Dover. The mechanism is the conversion of grievance into a target, a method, and an intended act.

The current concern is that this transition may be accelerating. McCallum said the movement from radicalised rightwing sentiment to violence was MI5’s most marked trend. Racially and religiously motivated offences are at record levels, so investigators are watching for signs that propaganda or hostility is becoming organised preparation for attacks.

The article presents a widening threat rather than a single statistic. The overall UK terror threat level has risen, and McCallum identified rightwing violence as MI5’s most marked trend. Racially and religiously motivated offences are also running at record levels. Together, these indicators suggest that extremist hostility is affecting both national security assessments and everyday community safety.

The youth figures are striking but limited. MI5 was investigating a radicalised 13-year-old in the UK. Separately, a 16-year-old from Inverclyde received a 10-year prison sentence after admitting a plan to firebomb a Muslim centre in Greenock. The article does not state how many young people in total are under investigation, so the precise scale cannot be calculated from this information.

The threat also includes violence against political figures, religious groups, and communities. The article links this concern to anti-migrant protests, planned attacks, and record hate-related offences. It therefore describes a serious and changing threat, but not a complete numerical picture of all cases or perpetrators.

Young people may be especially vulnerable because they can encounter persuasive extremist communities before they have the experience to assess manipulation, grievance, or violent claims. This is general background knowledge, not a specific explanation provided by the article. The article’s clear point is that young people are particularly likely to gravitate towards extreme rightwing terrorism.

The examples are severe. MI5 was investigating a radicalised 13-year-old in the UK. A year earlier, a 16-year-old from Inverclyde pleaded guilty to planning mass murder by firebombing a Muslim centre in Greenock and received a 10-year prison sentence. These cases show that extremist involvement can reach teenagers and can involve concrete plans for mass violence.

The article also warns that AI could produce propaganda and radicalising material tailored to individuals. That could make recruitment messages more personal and persuasive, although the article does not say that AI was used in either teenager’s case. The stated implication is that security services must identify risk early and respond before beliefs become violent plans.

Governments and security services can reduce risk by spotting warning signs early, challenging extremist propaganda, and supporting people before violent intent develops. They can combine intelligence, education, mental-health and safeguarding support, community partnerships, and proportionate law enforcement. The article does not set out a complete prevention programme, so these measures draw on established counter-extremism practice beyond its specific details.

The key mechanism is interruption. Investigators can assess whether online grievance is becoming target selection, attack planning, or contact with others. Services can then use safeguarding or criminal investigations as appropriate. The article highlights AI as a new challenge because it could help create personalised propaganda, refine attack plans, support cyber hacking, or enable drones.

MI5 plans to create an AI Threat Assessment Centre bringing together government expertise and distinguishing fact from fiction. Software companies’ safety guardrails are also important, because Paradox warned that models had been used in ways that could support biological weapons development. Prevention therefore requires security action, technology safeguards, and trusted community cooperation.

Ordinary political protest uses lawful speech, assembly, or campaigning to influence public decisions. Terrorism is different because it involves serious violence, threats, or preparation intended to intimidate people or communities and advance a political or ideological cause. The article’s concern is not simply anti-migrant protests, but the point where extremist grievance becomes terrorist intent and attack planning.

The distinction can be seen in the article’s examples. The far-right Patriot Platform held aggressive anti-migrant protests in Portsmouth and Dover. Separately, a 16-year-old pleaded guilty to planning mass murder by firebombing a Muslim centre. Protest communicates a demand, while the planned firebombing would use violence against civilians and a community.

A democratic society protects political expression because people must be free to criticise governments, debate immigration, and organise peacefully. It criminalises plans to use violence because those plans threaten lives, intimidate communities, and can prevent others from exercising the same freedoms. The legal boundary protects both public safety and meaningful democratic participation.