There have been numerous controversies surrounding legal definition of terrorism. Left-wing critics claim that use of a nation’s armed forces in crushing an opponent’s political progress amounts to terrorism. In this context, a ruling government which uses indiscriminate violence to destroy an opponent’s progress engages in terrorism. Apart from a ruling government, terrorism comprise of violent activities used by nationalists fighting an oppressive regime. In fact the late Nelson Mandela was once branded as a terrorist by the white government in South Africa. This means that these controversies undermine existence of a definite boundary between justifiable uses of violence for political progress. Fraser and Staniforth (2012) says that from a legal perspective, UK law defines terrorism as any act of violence that causes or threatens to cause indiscriminate loss of lives, property damage and create a serious risk to health and safety of the public. The UK government takes any such form of violence which seeks to influence governmental institutions or the public as acts of terror. Terrorism is not new in Britain. In the last decade, British security forces arrested approximately 1800 people in connection to terror related cases. Most of these individuals arrested are British citizens involved or associated with accomplishing assistance roles in extremist activities. Demographics show that a substantial portion of those arrested are radical youth lured by perpetrators towards a path of violent extremism.