The Home Office code deciding whether a synagogue or mosque keeps its security funding calls the test necessarily subjective. Two paragraphs later, it tells the same reader the line is clear.
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
In short. The Home Office's code of conduct for its protective security schemes for faith communities tells applicants that judging whether they have legitimised extremism "will necessarily be subjective, relying on context and a nuanced understanding" (paragraph 17) [1]. Two paragraphs later, about a neighbouring standard in the same document, it states "the line between acceptable and hateful discourse is clear" (paragraph 19) [1]. Either judgement can cost an organisation its funding application, or its continued place in a scheme, and no scheme-specific appeals process exists for a decision either way. Two documented mistakes: four stars.
A synagogue, mosque or church applying for Home Office help to pay for CCTV, fencing or an intruder alarm has to clear a "due diligence" check first. So does every one of them already receiving that help, on a rolling basis, for as long as they keep receiving it [1]. The stakes are real money: the Home Office confirmed in February 2026 that up to £73.4 million would be available in 2026 to 2027 across its protective security schemes for faith sites, £28.4 million of it through the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant and £40 million through the Protective Security for Mosques Scheme [2]. The schemes are split by faith: churches, gurdwaras and temples apply through the Places of Worship Protective Security Scheme, which explicitly excludes "Jewish and Muslim places of worship or community centres" in favour of their own separate grants [4]. One code of conduct, published in May and last updated 18 September 2026, governs due diligence across all of them.
A rule the document calls subjective, then calls clear
The code's central standard covers what it calls "legitimisation and endorsement of extremists." An organisation risks its funding if its conduct "could be seen as supporting, endorsing or legitimising extremist groups, individuals or ideologies" (paragraph 16) [1]. Immediately after setting that standard, the document concedes it cannot be applied mechanically: "What constitutes acceptable engagement will necessarily be subjective, relying on context and a nuanced understanding of the engagement in question" (paragraph 17) [1].
Two paragraphs later, moving to a related standard on "hateful language," the same document changes register entirely: "It is important that applicants participating in the schemes exercise good judgement in expressing their views, especially on sensitive issues. The line between acceptable and hateful discourse is clear" (paragraph 19) [1]. Nothing separates the two standards procedurally. Both sit inside the same "Standards" section, both feed the same due diligence check, and a finding against either "is likely to affect the suitability of an organisation to participate or to continue participating in the Home Office's protective security schemes" (paragraph 16) [1]. One is officially unclear by the document's own admission. The other is officially clear. An applicant reading both in sequence is told, within nine paragraphs, that the same code of conduct is and is not a fixed rule.
What a failed check actually costs
The consequence for a new applicant is stated plainly: "Any concerns about an organisation or a connected individual arising out of the due diligence process that suggests the standards set out in this code of conduct are not met may render the organisation's application unsuccessful" (paragraph 12) [1]. For an organisation already receiving protective measures, the same subjective test applies on an ongoing basis: continuing participants face "periodic checks" against the same standards (paragraph 13) [1]. A place of worship that has already had CCTV or fencing installed through one of these schemes can, in principle, lose its "suitability to participate" on the strength of a judgement the document itself calls necessarily subjective.
The code does name a route back to the Home Office: "Organisations participating in the schemes can contact the Home Office team at any time ... to discuss any concerns relating to the schemes. Information on the Home Office's complaints procedure is also available on GOV.UK" (paragraph 25) [1]. That complaints procedure is not scheme-specific. It lists dedicated routes for UK Visas and Immigration, Immigration Enforcement, Border Force, the Disclosure and Barring Service and HM Passport Office, with everything else, including any protective security scheme for faith communities, falling to a generic "Direct Communications Unit" [3]. The same page defines what counts as a complaint at all: "an expression of dissatisfaction with the services provided by the Home Office. This is not the same as general correspondence from members of Parliament, the public expressing disagreement with a policy" [3]. A due diligence finding built on a standard the code calls subjective could plausibly be read either way: a service failure worth complaining about, or a policy judgement the complaints system explicitly does not cover. Nothing in the code of conduct, the scheme guidance, or the complaints page says which.
Credit where due
The code is not vague everywhere. Its "hateful language" section names concrete, checkable categories: "racist or xenophobic comments," "homophobic or transphobic comments," "misogynistic comments," and "race or religion-based discrimination" (paragraph 20) [1], a materially more specific list than the extremism test it sits alongside. The document is also explicit, at the outset, that funded organisations remain "independent of government" and "must be free to make fair and balanced criticism of the schemes, as well as express their own views on all matters, including wider government policy" (paragraph 3) [1], a real safeguard against the code being used to police ordinary political disagreement. And the funding behind all of this is genuinely substantial and current: a record £73.4 million confirmed for 2026 to 2027, described by the Home Office as a response to "increased threats" against faith communities [2].
The claims, tested
| The claim | What the evidence shows | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Judging whether an organisation has legitimised extremism "will necessarily be subjective" (paragraph 17) [1] | Two paragraphs later, the same document says of a neighbouring standard that "the line between acceptable and hateful discourse is clear" (paragraph 19) [1] | The code asserts both that its standards cannot be applied by a fixed rule and that they obviously can, within the same section |
| Organisations with concerns can use "the Home Office's complaints procedure ... available on GOV.UK" (paragraph 25) [1] | That procedure names dedicated routes for five other Home Office functions but none for the faith communities schemes, and defines a complaint as excluding "disagreement with a policy" [3] | No scheme-specific appeals route exists for a due diligence finding, and it is unclear whether the generic route even covers one |
Two documented mistakes. First, the code of conduct states that judging one standard (legitimising extremism) is "necessarily subjective," then states two paragraphs later that a neighbouring standard (hateful language) has a line that "is clear," without explaining why the same document treats comparable judgement calls so differently. Second, no appeals process specific to these schemes exists: the code points applicants to a generic Home Office complaints procedure that names five other functions but not this one, and that explicitly excludes "disagreement with a policy" from what counts as a complaint. Both gaps sit inside a code of conduct governing up to £73.4 million a year in physical security funding for synagogues, mosques and other places of worship. Rated four stars out of five.
Sources
- Protective security for faith communities: code of conduct (GOV.UK, Home Office, published 13 May 2026, updated 18 September 2026)
- Record funding to protect faith communities (GOV.UK news, Home Office, published 19 February 2026)
- Complaints procedure (GOV.UK, Home Office, updated 8 December 2025)
- Places of Worship Protective Security Scheme (GOV.UK guidance, Home Office, updated 9 December 2025)