When Nigel Farage sensed that something shady was going on in the Government’s handling of the Southport massacre last July, where Axel Rudakubana murdered three young girls at a Taylor-Swift-themed dance class, he was widely rebuked for spreading misinformation that helped stoke the riots that followed. “Was this guy being monitored by the security services?,” he asked in a video posted on X the day after the atrocity. “I wonder whether the truth is being withheld from us,” he added, clearly dissatisfied with the police’s announcement that the attack was not being treated as terror-related.
Neil Basu, the former head of counter-terrorism policing, was particularly critical of Farage, who he accused of giving “succour” to the far-Right, as well as “undermining the police” and “creating conspiracy theories”. Public figures such as Farage, Basu advised, should “keep their mouth shut”. This, by the way, is the same Neil Basu who earlier this month accused Elon Musk of trading in “dangerous rhetoric” about Britain’s grooming gangs; Basu clearly thinks that Musk should keep his mouth shut, too.
Well, Farage couldn’t keep his mouth shut and the more his Left-leaning critics pushed back against him and tried to turn the Southport attack into a story about the far-Right, the more he felt that a cover-up was underway. This is typical now of how Britain treats these crimes, with each political faction talking past the other, asserting a claim to victimhood.
When some three months later the Crown Prosecution Service announced two further charges against Rudakubana, including one under the terrorism act, Farage was positively vociferous. “Perhaps I was right all along,” he said in another video. On Monday, after Rudakubana pleaded guilty to all 16 charges against him and it transpired that he had been referred three times to Prevent, the UK’s counter-radicalisation scheme, Farage was unequivocal: “I was right all along.” He again referred to a “cover-up” and suggested that had the authorities disclosed “the truth” at the outset the riots of last summer might not have happened. “This is two-tier policing…it is an outrage,” he added with cold indignation.
But was he right all along? And what really is “the truth” that the authorities were withholding? On the question of whether Rudakubana was being monitored by the security services, which was Farage’s original suspicion back in July, he is categorically wrong: he wasn’t being monitored by the security services. Indeed, he wasn’t being monitored by anyone, although he became known to a range of services in 2019 as his mental health declined and he engaged in increasingly erratic and threatening behaviour. This is what prompted the referrals to Prevent.
It is probably important to clarify that Prevent doesn’t collect intelligence on terrorism suspects nor monitor their activities. Instead, it’s a programme intended to foster change in the mindset and behaviour of those who have come to embrace an extremist ideology but not yet committed any offences. And because the Prevent officers who dealt with the Rudakubana referrals were not convinced that he’d been radicalised into an extremist ideology, those referrals went nowhere. Had it been otherwise, and had Rudakubana exhibited support for, say, the Islamic State or some other terrorist group, he would almost certainly have been invited to attend a “Channel” programme, where a mentor would have attempted to challenge his extremist convictions. Even so, it would have been well within Rudakubana’s rights to have refused any such invitation, since Prevent has no statutory powers to compel a referred person to cooperate.
But if there was a cover-up, as Farage claims, he might be disappointed. Because it isn’t the one he thinks it is: Rudakubana was not a terrorist. Which is to say that his motive in carrying out the atrocity in Southport was not political. He had no ideology, no injustices he wanted to avenge or draw to public attention, no burning cause that radicalised him and turned his mind to murder. What he had instead was a deep fascination with murder itself and the dark pornographic culture surrounding it.
Rudakubana, who was 17 at the time of the Southport attack, was first referred to Prevent in 2019 when he was 13: he had been searching for material on US school shootings at his school. A further two referrals were made in 2021, after he had sought out material on Libya and past terrorist attacks, including the 2017 London Bridge atrocity carried out by an Islamic State-inspired cell. According to official sources, this material was not terrorist propaganda, but consisted of news articles. On each occasion Prevent officers were satisfied that Rudakubana’s behaviour, though concerning, did not meet the threshold for intervention by Prevent.
In a statement on Monday evening, Merseyside police described Rudakubana as “a man with [an] unhealthy obsession with extreme violence”, elaborating that “no one ideology” could be deduced from his online interests and behaviour. “And that is why this was not treated as terrorism,” the statement clarified. It also made clear that the police had failed to locate a motive behind the Southport massacre.
Among the 164,394 documents that Merseyside police sifted through on the digital devices Rudakubana had access to, there was an item solemnly titled “Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al Qaeda Training Manual”. It is a crime under Section 58 of the 2000 Terrorism Act to possess such a document, since it’s deemed “likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”. But this doesn’t necessarily demonstrate, much less prove, sympathy for jihadist ideology and the authorities clearly believe that Rudakubana’s possession of the document was a function of his acute and abiding interest in violence. Many on the Right, though, leapt on this as evidence of Islamist hatred.
The authorities, for their part, insist that there has been no cover-up and the statement by Merseyside Police directly challenges this accusation. “We have been accused of purposely withholding information, this is absolutely not the case,” it said. “From day one,” it went on, “we have constantly been in touch with the CPS who have advised us on what information could be released. We have wanted to say much more to show we were being open and transparent, but we have been advised throughout that we couldn’t do so as it would risk justice being delivered.”
It is on this last score, then, that Farage is on stronger ground, for it isn’t entirely clear why the authorities were so slow in disclosing details about who Rudakubana was and whether he was being monitored by the security services, especially given the fervent public interest in the case and the unlikelihood of this information jeopardising the prosecution of Rudakubana. These actions only inflamed suspicions on the Right and consequent righteous anger on the Left.
Farage is also onto something when he invokes the spectre of two-tier policing, for let’s imagine, as I did when I first wrote about the Southport massacre in August, that Rudakubana was not the son of Rwandan immigrants to Britain, but a white teen who had targeted a Beyoncé-themed event where the victims were predominantly black children. Would the police have exercised the same degree of caution in releasing information about the suspect and would they have been so quick to rule out declaring the atrocity a terrorist incident? It seems unlikely, given its fierce commitment to anti-racism and its keenness to publicly demonstrate that commitment.
Let’s also imagine that rumours were rife about the white teen and how his parents were known racists with links to a white-supremacist group. Riots ensue, with black youths at the forefront. Would Starmer and his government rush to condemn the rioters as mindless “thugs”, as they had done in the case of those who rioted after Southport — or would they instead have empathised with their “legitimate anger”, which is how Neil Basu spoke about the grievances of BLM protesters in 2020.
And let’s imagine further that the police subsequently discover a copy of Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto on the teen’s computer, a document that sounds the alarm about the ethnic replacement of white Europeans through mass immigration and calls for terrorist violence to put a stop to it. Would the authorities, in announcing the new charge, have the patience to explain that that possession of this document, though contrary to UK terrorism legislation, does not by itself indicate a commitment to far-Right ideology, as they had done when announcing the same charge against Rudakubana? This also seems unlikely, especially given the inevitable accusation of racism that would follow.
Farage is right to point out — and to keep pointing out — the double standard in operation here. But the facts of the Southport massacre are not just inconvenient for the Government, they are for all those who want to believe in a sinister cover-up over jihadist terrorism.
The bigger and more urgent question is how or whether the authorities can stop the next mass-casualty atrocity from happening. Clearly, Prevent, in its current form, is singularly ill-equipped to discharge that task, primarily because its remit is to prevent political radicalisation and not manage the personal miseries of deeply disturbed people. Moreover, even if its scope were widened to include the risk of mentally unwell people who are morbidly fascinated by violence, it’s unclear how this would work in practice, what coercive powers it would be given and how it could work in an effective way.
Of all the inconvenient truths that Southport exposes, perhaps the most troubling one is our powerlessness to stop the recalcitrant few whose violence is as senseless as it is unpredictable. But it is within our power to respond to any horrors that might befall us by refusing to play politics in their aftermath.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere’s one issue that I’m sure about in this case.
The photo of Rudakubana will become as notorious and seared into public memory as the 1965 police photos of Brady and Hindley following their arrest for child murder.
Hindley in particular. Her stare in the infamous photo could be superimposed upon Rudakubana with no change in nihilistic emptiness.
I thought exactly the same immediately upon seeing him. Uncanny isn’t it?
Where did Simon Cottee get all this information from?
Information that was withheld from the leaders of major political parties like the Conservatives and Reform?
All of the information given is now openly in the news following his guilty pleas.
All of this information was covered up.
When Farage said ‘“I wonder whether the truth is being withheld from us,”’ , he was accused of misinformation.
As was said in the first paragraph of the article
Yes. A lot of it was on social media in the first day or two, but rapidly disappeared.
In the end I suspect we are all left with a similar feeling. Whether we want to admit it or not is entirely up to the individual.
The withholding of information. The seemingly controlled use of his schoolboy photo (as if that was an accurate descriptor of him). And finally the court date that fell conveniently on the day of Trump’s inauguration. All of this feels managed. Controlled. And not in a good way.
There is an obvious question to as here. How is it that a family we have given safe haven to produced a child that would do such a thing?
Now that might seem harsh on the family. But there is overlap here with the Manchester bomber. Here again a family has been given safe haven and sadly produced a mass m#rderer.
Once is bad luck. But for this to happen twice looks at best foolish.
And now we look to reframe this. As if that will make us all feel better. He’s not a terrorist. He’s a sicko. No kidding.
If you stab children. Have a jihadi training manual. Produce Ricin. Then you’re a terrorist in my book. And no amount of reframing is going to change that.
And branded a terrorist had he been white
“Let’s also imagine that rumours were rife about the white teen and how his parents were known racists with links to a white-supremacist group. Riots ensue, with black youths at the forefront. Would Starmer and his government rush to condemn the rioters as mindless “thugs”, as they had done in the case of those who rioted after Southport….”
Even more, would any of the participants have even been charge let alone been handed lengthy custodial sentence
I don’t recall Starmer at the time condemning the violence and destruction of the Black Lives Matter riots in the UK. To the contrary, he bended his knee in solidarity!
Bent not bended
I bow to your superior grammatical aptitude. I stand corrected!
In that scenario Starmer would have had a photo of himself and Rayner bending the knee in solidarity with the attacked community.
They have both had extensive experience of bending the knee well out of the public eye.
Particularly for ‘righteously angry’ online comments.
Nigel Farage has invented (yet another) nickname for Starmer – Cover Up Keir. Whatever the truth I believe it has some stickiness, for the more a Cover Up is denied the more likely it seems.
Much of Starmer’s work before being DPP was from Muslims. Is he doing them a favour by covering up as much as possible Islamic terrorism ?
Of all Schturmer’s sins his photo op at Auschwitz shows some nerve and is IMO as cringy as it is vile. This is gaslighting on the same scale as the “arbeit macht frei” slogan and the sinister “camp orchestras”. So two tier punishment and covering up terrorism is grim but not even a days work for someone like that. Seems the common lot tbh – i heard the actor Jeremy Vine talking about the Southport atrocity now the sound may have gotten scrambled over the internet BUT i doubt it – He’s not going to knock Tom Hanks or Merryl Streep off the “crying on demand” podium anytime soon. He sounded like he’d OD’d on laughing gas or NOX as i believe the youth call N2O. Vile.
To extend the definition of terrorism to include persons obsessed with violence who do not have an ideology opens up the possibility of imposing restrictions not just on them but on the social media platforms through which they are said to have been encouraged.
If someone has an interest in school massacres but had neither an ideology nor feelings of pity for the victims, that person hasn’t been adequately socialised, and by values that are derived from Christianity by however many removes. This is in part a mental health issue.
I agree that this in part mental health issue. But I would also add that this appears to be a by product of our asylum system. If the parents of the Manchester bomber and Southport killer are not granted refuge in the UK these events do not occur.
That is 25 lives saved. Many of them children. Plus 1,000+ injured.
Our human rights lawyers, politicians, judiciary and media would do well to reflect on this.
But they won’t. They will grandstand. They find ways to justify it. They will blame social media and now Am*zon for the selling of a knife.
Exactly. If you’re severely mentally ill and have the urge to do something incredibly violent to loads of people, you’re not going to turn down the offer of a book giving you instructions on how to do just that because you object to its religious origins! He probably had a copy of the anarchist cookbook – as did many Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists – would that make Rudakubana an anarchist? Of course not.
“… that person hasn’t been adequately socialised, and by values that are derived from Christianity by however many removes. This is in part a mental health issue.”
So, what took the place of Christianity to create a ‘mental health issue’?
If we only knew, we could do something about it, though calling a terrorist act a ‘mental health issue’ does understate the situation somewhat.
I think given that the boy’s father was literally begging taxi drivers not to take him to intended targets before he finally got away to Southport shows that parents can only do so much when not supported by the system and the state.
Also, theres an awful lot of reaching in what Dylan says to try and make things sound a lot more sinister than they actually are.
There was a lot more happening on the news cycle on the day of Trumps Inauguration including, incidentally, the boy’s day in court which dominated the news headlines more than whatever Trump was/wasn’t doing on Capitol Hill.
You don’t usually see police mugshots of suspects until after a guilty verdict in the UK. This isn’t America, police here don’t routinely plaster the media and socials with police mugshots. Devon & Cornwall Police for example say “Photographs will only be released upon sentence of a crime when a custodial sentence has been imposed by the courts. Photographs will not be released upon conviction of a crime unless there are exceptional circumstances.”
The media needed a photo of Rudakubana and the only one they could get and that was the school photo. Not exactly JFK cover up, is it?
The question needs to be: was he following an ideology? The answer to that was emphatically no. Having an unhealthy sexual interest in mass murder isn’t usually a requirement for membership of Hamas, ISIS, etc. The next question has to be: does he have severe mental illness? The answer to that has to be emphatically yes.
Rudakubana is completely different to, say, Michael Adebowale who killed Fusilier Lee Rigby. Adebowale’s act of terrorism was premeditated, clearly planned involving substantial research and planning with a motivation to further the cause of Islamic Fundamentalism against a non believer nation state. Rudakubana meanwhile was a spur of the moment act with minimal planning and motivation with a target of convenience seemingly picked at random with no actual political or religious aim or guidance with a level of brutality and violence so out there that it’d probably even make the 7 December Hamas attackers blush.
So the final question really needs to be: is an attack by someone who is severely mentally ill terrorism? And if so, what kind? Because Rudakubana did doesn’t fit either Far Right, Islamic Fundamentalist or any other kind of recognised terrorist ideology.
You can’t possibly be that emphatically sure on the information provided thus far?
The individual concerned had a jihadi manual and had developed ricin. That requires planning.
At this point I think it’s safe to say we don’t know enough to be that sure of motive and ideology.
And do we really think that this government (or any previous UK government) wouldn’t consider holding back on potentially inflammatory information?
“The question needs to be: was he following an ideology? The answer to that was emphatically no. ”
That is refuted by the references in his possession to Jihad and the Al Qaeda canal. They are not available in a buddhist or methodist version)
Right. He could have chosen any victims to unleash his emotions on. How odd it should be several little white girls. And it wasn’t easy to get to them. If ideology was not involved, why not take the easy way out and kill some black teens.
In the depths of a mind insane, fantasy and reality are the same.
It’s almost an instinctive hatred they have for whites. The Arabs castrated theirs and now they have no problems.
You’re right, and while Starmer et al try to defend the ‘not terrorism’ label they simultaneously want to redefine it as precisely that.
Either way he should be dispatched to Broadmoor without delay.
Better still given a helicopter ride 1000 feet over the channel and kicked out of the door. With luck he might land on on a dingy and take some of his kind with him.
I don’t think he was a terrorist. His aim was not to make any kind of point. He wasn’t trying to terrorise the general population or influence anyone’s future behaviour. He wasn’t striking back at any past act, or perceived injustice, or trying to gain anything.
He is just evil. He doesn’t need to be understood, or sympathised with, or cured for illness. He did something unspeakably evil because he wanted to do it. His prison sentence should be seen as deterrent and ,, as well, of course, as protecting the public.
I hope he is treated very badly in prison, because that is what he deserves. 52 years of solitary confinement would still be insufficient punishment for what he did.
Terrorism suggests some sort of extrinsic agenda or means of justification, however misguided. That is surely not the case here.
It was just evil. I’m not sure why we don’t use that word any more.
Valdo Calocane is evil. Hassan Sentamu is evil. The 12 year olds who murdered Shawn Seesahai are evil. The people who murdered Cody Fisher in Birmingham, Remy Gordon and Kami Carpenter, over a very minor incident where someone brushed past someone else, they are evil. They swept his legs from under him, shattered his jaw with a kick and stabbed him to death. That is evil. It had nothing to do with injustice or poverty or anything else. The people who murdered Alfie Steele, age 9, by drowning him in a bath, evil. Sara Sharif’s father.
There have been many others in recent years, sadly. That is surely the inconvenient truth.
We are living in a failed state. More control is their desire. People should look to their own defences as much as possible. Vote for real changes not false promises.
World you like to elaborate on your final sentence, which seems charmingly naive
A balanced article on a sensitive subject that we should see more of. I can’t find fault in the authors assessment, although one thing I remember reading not too long after he was disclosed as being from a Rwandan family, about second hand trauma.
From what we know, Rudakubana’s father fought in pro-Tutsi militia during the Rwandan genocide before claiming asylum here with his family. We know that this was perhaps the most intensive and brutal genocide in history and would have left him and his wife scarred for life. Doubtless, that was passed onto Rudakubana the junior and could have been a contributory factor to him going on a murder spree. Given we are allowing people to come into this country illegally who have been on the receiving end of violence or at least witnessed it, are we not setting ourselves up for more of the same going forward? Food for thought.
Great point John. However explicable his motives, do we want more traumatised potential killers coming into the country. An unexplored angle to the asylum issue.
Definitely. Well done and thank you. You’re the first I’ve seen to pursue this track which was my first thought when I heard about his family background. Theories about this phenomenon are quite new and not well proven so it’s unsurprising that most people missed it. But that’s where source of this horror lies. Not appealing for milder punishment and extenuating circumstances or anything like that, but it’s important to understand. Standard psychiatric treatments will likely not be effective, although decades of psychotherapy may eventually reach him.
Some (quite a lot of) people will be disappointed more mileage won’t be forthcoming from the political terror race hate angle, but that’s a dead end, and this is the way to go.
At last, someone who has spotted the direction of travel.
Are ‘mentally unwell people who are morbidly fascinated by violence’ terrorists?
Is it ‘unclear how this (widening the scope of Prevent) would work in practice, what coercive powers it would be given’?
To change the definition of terrorism to include these mentally unwell people who are this ‘new threat’ that the Prime Minister has announced would allow restrictions on these platforms, such as X, that the Prime Minster declares these ‘loners’ are ‘radicalised’ by.
By failing these unwell people, care in the community becoming scare in the community, instead of treating the unwell, the failure is masked by scooping them up into a redefinition of terrorism, and everyone else is persuaded to exchange liberties for safety.
Though it’s not as if the BBC doesn’t screen dramas that glorify violence. Such as the hideous SAS Rogue Heroes. Compare how violence is typically depicted in TV and film today with how it was dealt with in television dramas of the late 1950s and early 1960s, such as Long John Silver, featuring Robert Newton.
“Treasure Island” (with Robert Newton) was a Disney live-action film for the cinemas, not a TV drama.
And who can forget it? Simply epic!
This:
« But it is within our power to respond to any horrors that might befall us by refusing to play politics in their aftermath. »
Thank you.
Only possible though if our institutions cease to function on fashion and identity politics.
Throw up a mob and violently throw a public statue in a port?
Nada
That the statue was still there is admittedly bizarre.
That justice was not blind and ultimately not served unforgivable
Vegans denying the great unwashed freedom of movement ?
Nada.
Our justice and police are playing politics on a daily basis.
England, where art thou?
There’s a very good article written by Chris Baylis in The Critic called “The Nihilism of Newcomers” (3rd Jan 2025). Written after the Christmas attacks in Magdeburg, Germany. He believes these attacks have little to do with political ideology but personal grievance due to social breakdown through radical cultural change.
When two very dissimilar cultures are forced together and the authorities pretend problems don’t exist, there will be at least one community experiencing ‘social breakdown through radical cultural change’, probably two.
It’s not difficult to understand.
The Ancient Greeks believed in the ‘science’ of Physiognomy. Were they wrong? This particular case seems to prove otherwise.
The Ancient Greeks also believed in having slaves.
Quite correct too!
What else are you supposed to do when a man tries to kill you, fails, and then begs you not to kill him? To take the military example.
The real problem with slavery was that it is just so damned expensive. “Hire and Fire” is much, much better.
Slavery is unacceptable because God created man in His own image, and as a consequence each human being is endowed with intrinsic dignity.
I thinks Charles Darwin Esq proved otherwise?
No he didn’t.
The conclusions “science” reaches are the consensus of how the most vocal or politically powerful scientists interpret the data available at the time. These conclusions change if new data are available, or if the existing data are reinterpreted. Science is a useful tool, but not a source of proof in the sense you’re giving it.
Secondly, you’re assuming that evolution is inconsistent with the creation of the universe by God, but most Christians don’t agree. Consider the development of motor cars from early models to contemporary hybrids; this is a form of evolution, but it wasn’t achieved by a “blind watchmaker”.
Interesting though that you seem to believe that secularism implies support for slavery. The majority of UnHerd commentators seem to be secular thinkers; is this really the secularists’ consensus? I’ll be surprised if it is.
It’s really ironic to read a defence of “creation by deity” that places the questioning of science at its core. What have you got to convince anyone that a creator exists, “your” faith?
Just because belief in a creator makes you feel better about being alive doesn’t mean that others need that false support. We’re not here to bolster your lack of insight, however much you’d like us to.
Thanks for that response! You have saved me the effort!
You’re tilting at a windmill.
CS claimed “science” disproved the idea that human dignity is a consequence of man being created in the image and likeness of God, and I disagreed and gave some reasons. I don’t doubt the utility of science, merely pointing out what I believe to be his improper use of it.
Your suggestion that questioning science is reprehensible is extraordinary. The scientific method (also used and arguably developed by scholastic theologians like Thomas Aquinas) consists of questioning hypotheses to test and refine them. To fail to question science is to fail to understand it.
I’m not seeking your approval or “bolstering” of my faith, but perhaps you could offer a view on whether slavery is right or wrong from a secular perspective? Thanks in advance.
Oh, i’m far from being someone who “fails to question science” – i question everything. What isn’t acceptable is reliance on belief systems; in fact, that’s precisely why we find ourselves in a predicament of our own making.
Neither am i obliged to offer a “defence of slavery from a secular perspective”. It’s much more straightforward than that: i wouldn’t want to be a slave, so i’d abhor the idea in principle.
I can understand you (or anyone) being upset about having their precious beliefs brought into the sunlight of how our species has evolved to now understand not only why religious beliefs are false but also why humans fall into that trap and that also applies to political creeds. It’s just no basis to live one’s life based on an untruth -that your god exists and that he/it could give a damn about you.
Humans are spiritual creatures; there is wonder, delight and love to behold in the universe, as well as all the things that trouble us. I rejoice in simply being alive, and the very idea of having been “created in god’s image” is anathema.
You’re very welcome indeed.
So he wasn’t a terrorist then? Just an extremely violent young man.
That’s a coincidence! Exactly as Starmer described him yesterday.
“You see now young men go around cutting the throats of anyone that gets in their way. There’s no Ideology here. No. It’s the times we live in. It happens everyday.”
Unbelievable. Starmer and this writer want to normalise terrorism.
The ricin? No. Everyone cooks that now. Al-qaeda terrorism manuals. Everyone has one.
And Unherd go along with the new government line.
The new normal. Nothing to see here. Everyone back to sleep.
“But if there was a cover-up, as Farage claims, he might be disappointed. Because it isn’t the one he thinks it is: Rudakubana was not a terrorist.”
How does Simon Cottee actually know this ?
Without any trial and public examination of the case, how will any of us ever know ?
Aside from which, it does seem a bit of a stretch to claim that someone who has voluntarily pleaded guilty to terrorist charges is not a terrorist.
The handling of this case by the authorities (and their handling of this individual before the killings) cannot be excused here. If you deliberately leave an information vacuum you have no business complaining when people try to fill in the gaps. The riots (criminal acts which needed to be punished) were largely the result of the deliberate policy of the government and authorities here in breeding distrust.
One guy, a barrister, thinks there was a cover-up:
What they DIDN’T tell you
https://youtu.be/Oq5o7JimaFg
Indeed. The incompetence coupled with the ideological narrowmindedness of this Labour government is quite something to behold. If it was’nt so damaging, if not potentially deadly, it would be laughable.
What a shower.
‘But it is within our power to respond to any horrors that might befall us by refusing to play politics in their aftermath.’
Refusing to play politics! How long did it take Starmer to start talking about the Far Right?
The British public is livid that biological weapons had been produced by a terrorist, and that Starmer covered that up.
And now we are ‘playing politics’ about the covering up of the production of Ricin!
Starmer couldn’t reveal any details about the background of the killer, apart from the fact he was a Welsh choirboy and from a Christian family and Starmer didn’t want to prejudice the trials of the Far Right ‘gang of thugs’ who needed to face speedy justice.
There should be outrage. There should be questions. Where did he get the ricin from? Where did he get the Al-qaeda manual from? Why haven’t all his accomplices been arrested? What were his parents doing?
Why does everyone accept sheeplike that this is the new normal?
Why is there not a refusal on the part of Starmer and the media to accept this as normal? A refusal of every single person. This is not normal. You cannot sleepwalk into barbarism. If you do you deserve it when you sink more deeply into it.
The article emphasises the point that the actions were not politically motivated. Surely, everything is political? Our standard of living, our history, our formative years, our schooling, etc, all political. Political cannot be separated from life.
In London, the Mayor is the Mayor for a record number of times and he is doing nothing about violence in a city which relies a lot on tourism. He has a knighthood but he can’t stop shoplifting gangs. All political.
Islam is political, besides much else.
That’s a proper stretch of an argument deploying numerous counter factuals and suppositions to try and weaponise the issue and give some justification for the violence that ensued. It’s twaddle and Author should be embarrassed. He’s not an investigative Journalist, he’s a Publicity Generator.
This is in the same vein as the recent push on Grooming Gangs. The endeavour isn’t to tackle the fundamental problem and is much more to try and tar a political opponent. On the Gangs it’s the abject failure of those raging about it now to have paid any attention to the Jay report. And read what Jay said yesterday about Braverman’s response to her report if you are truly interested in the matter (which of course many aren’t).
And on the Southport murders it’s all about some fictional cover-up rather than what are we going to have do differently about psychotic people with an interest in violence that is more easily fuelled by social media and the internet? The latter begs some serious questions about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the balance of risk judgments that may be made. This is why an Inquiry urgently needed.
Yet again a section of the Right wants to avoid fact it did naff all about these things for 14yrs and instead twist and turn to find some nonsense to land on Labour. Grow up for goodness sake.
You really do seem to be reading a different article !
I didn’t see any justification for the violence. Nor any “weaponisation” (not always a wise word to choose – ask Ed Miliband how that worked out for him). Nor did I detect any political agenda.
The fact that you’re frustrated by this article (supposedly too soft on the far right) and I am (struggling to understand why the author claims that someone who admitted to terrorist charges isn’t a terrorist) tells me the author is in the middle of the road here. Obviously the most dangerous place to be sitting in a case like this (flak from both sides) ! Though not to say that much of what he says isn’t sensible.
Yes, the article is very good.
“You really do seem to be reading a different article !”
…and not for the first time. JW hopes nobody will notice.
Hit a nerve JW. Outrage (and deflection) isn’t a argument, so provide one!
What RIGHT did “naff all about these things for 14 years” pray?
Are you seriously contending that we had anything even approaching a ‘Right’ wing government for past fourteen, wasted years?
A Public Enquiry will do nothing bar enrich a few lucky lawyers. We need to acknowledge that our system for dealing with feral, homicidal nutters, is utterly hopeless, and has been ever since the Dunblane killings if not long, long, before*.
*Prior to the 13th August 1964 last, it was a very different matter.
Welcome back Charles!
Thank you.
How does a civilised society protect people from feral homicidal nutters? The problem is that since post WW1 the Labour Party , those who control public opinion and latterly all parties have been run by people who have never witnessed the action of feral people.
If had people who had witnessed such events as partition of India, Biafran War, Bangladesh in 1970, Cambodia in 1970s, Jugoslavia and Rwanda , to name a few, they would realise how blood thirsty, cruel and homicidal are some people.
I have read many of your unfailingly partisan responses to articles and essays published on UnHerd and, until now, have managed to restrain myself from responding. However, today I find I have no such restraint. For a start the article was very balanced – calling out Farage’s errors as well as acknowledging his correctly stated concerns. I found nowhere that the author appeared to be seeking to find justification for the violence that ensued. Furthermore the article is by no means in the same vein as the recent ‘push on grooming gangs’ as you put it and your assertion otherwise is indicative of a politically motivated myopia that is less than helpful.
I support neither Labour nor the Conservatives – finding both parties to be stuffed to the gunnels with ideologues and individuals manifestly ill-suited to the rigourous demands of ministerial duties let alone those expected of a Secretary of State. Accordingly I would make no defence for 14 years of abject Conservative government and I would agree that the sudden desire for a new Public Inquiry into the grooming gangs smacks of political opportunism. However, and I feel this is important, that does not make it reasonable to describe the demands for a Public Inquiry as being not to ‘tackle the fundamental problem’ but instead to ‘try and tar a political opponent’. Let’s face the reality here, if the positions were reversed the Labour opposition would be engaging in exactly the same tactics to put pressure on the (new) Conservative administration. The important point your biased assertion misses is the failure/inability of the earlier national and local inquiries to look into the possibility of institutional failings with regard to the investigation and policing of the gangs. The focus should be on achieving justice for the victims, both in terms of bringing to book the abusers and those who may have facilitated the abuse through moral cowardice, and not on turning this whole issue into some childish political game.
Finally there has not been some ‘fictional cover up’ as you put it – the withholding of information from the public actually happened. There have, if reports that I have read are to be believed, been statements by legal experts that the making public of the known facts vis-a-vis the PDF Jihadist manual and the production of Ricin would not have been in contempt of court nor would they have jeopardised the prosecution’s case against Rudakubana. These revelations would, however, have flown in the face of the publicly stated narrative that the suspect was a ‘Welsh choirboy’ and this may have been a more pressing (political) reason for the delay in the disclosures.
Whilst your zeal in coming to the defence of the Labour bureaucracy is impressive you still haven’t explained why, if the grooming gang issue has been adequately investigated, none of the public officials involved have been held to account.
This is the question that MPs should be asking. But they don’t seem to have the ability to formulate the right question. You’ve nailed it here.
Tommy Robinson correct all along, yet he rots in prison. Free Tommy.
The pissants who still blame the populist right for this are actually quite annoying in their subtarded outlook: derivative, banal, and utterly unserious.
Starmer couldn’t tell the public about the Al-Qaeda manual and the ricin because he didn’t want to let the guy go free which would deny the families justice. He really thinks the British public buys what he is selling.
This coming from a man who is perfectly happy with convicted Albanian criminals not being deported because that would ‘violate their human rights’.
As far as not being a terrorist goes I can understand it is quite reasonable for anyone (not a terrorist) to download an Al Qaeda manual for bedtime reading. However unless you can tell me a peaceful, non-harmful use for the ricin he manufactured I’m afraid you are stretching my credibility to the limit.
This article just parrots Starmer. Confuse the meaning of a word and then no one can use it. Was Rudakubana a terrorist? The question now makes no sense. Starmer has reframed it. Welcome to the new normal. One more word you can no longer use.
There is a video of Khan being asked in the London Assembly if there are grooming gangs in London. He replies. A grooming gang? What is that? Refuse to use a word and the situation doesn’t even exist. If you can’t refer to what is happening right before your eyes, of course you cannot take any steps to change it. You cannot even say what you want to say.
If you take away the language to describe what Rudakubana is you cannot talk about him. You cannot talk about what England has become.
The new normal. The new stupidity. The new age of keep-your-mouth-shut-England.
If you cannot talk about what is going on you are giving up control of your future.
England is in a desperate state now.
It seems that Orwell understood the principles of totalitarian governance – he was just 40 years premature.
The most extraordinary indictment of Starmer and Unherd and this article and this comment thread is that the most upticked comment is about Rudakubana’s photograph.
That is what England is reduced to. Look at that photo! Welcome to the freakshow! Tabloid England. My poor country.
That’s an indictment of the commentariat. Bunch of lookie-Lou’s, the lot of ya. 😉
It’s a fair stab at a balanced view, I must say.
There is one nit I’d pick here – and it’s this: Rudakubana might well have had no specific ideology to defend and instead be driven by a sick fascination with murder itself as claimed above, but the graphic content he was accessing over the ‘net surely ought to be described more fully.
If, as many people suspect, that content predominantly features Islamist material, because Islamism is a violence-oriented cult that also appeals to violence for the sake of it, then Islamism does in fact stand in the dock here. And it’s a question that needs to be answered.
Good choice of words in your first sentence.
The problem with that is this: correlation is not causation. Is there anything else about Rudakubana which would make him an Islamist? Did he attend a Mosque regularly? Did he hang out with anybody who could be described of being strong hardline Islamist views? Was he ever referred to Prevent for his views on religion and liberal aspects of the West such as women’s rights, LGBT issues, etc?
As I said previously, he probably had a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook on his computer. That doesn’t automatically mean he’s a card carrying anarchist because obviously has to be doing and saying a whole lot more than just having a PDF of a book to be one. The same goes with automatically assuming he’s an islamist because he watches a lot of AQ and ISIS attack videos on Live Leak.
The root problem here is that the British legal system favours granting asylum to those who’ve participated in crimes that include genocide- as with this family before their past in Rwanda in the 90s became an obsession to their appalling son.
Effectively, British lawyers are waging lawfare on the ordinary British people who will never see court but injury to their families.
Consider 1984, the book. In that dystopia the proletariat lived their lives apart away from Big Brother. Faced with Rudakubana they would just gawp at his face. Evil. Evil.
But the middle classes had to be controlled. What they could say. What they could feel. This was done by controlling the narrative and reducing English to a simpler form. They were lied to everyday. They were taught to recognise they were being lied to, and then at that very moment turn the lie around and accept it as the truth, and believe the lie to be true. Orwell’s infamous double think.
Has England arrived at 1984?
Maybe yes, maybe no. By entering a guilty plea his motivation was not explored legally, and it is an error to assert one or another ‘reasons’ for his actions.
No ideology?
The evidence points otherwise. He wasn’t reading The Mothers’ Union’s marmalade recipes.
Think again.
It would have assisted the author’s argument if he hadn’t inserted the red herring of the conjecture of what would have happened if the identities of the perpetrator and victims of Southport had been reversed.
It’s as if it were thought that this is the way the right-wingers think, so giving them a little flannel would cultivate their sympathies, encouraging them to agree with the conclusion. Namely, that the speculation of Mr F and others is merely ‘playing politics’.
If we want to advise someone not to play politics in these cases, it’s more convincing if we don’t engage in politics ourselves, however subtly.
Politics is never a game of solitaire. It follows then to ask: who are the other players and what stakes are they playing for?
Some useful points here.
Thank you, beautiful.
Here is the thing that I’m still scratching my head over.
Were I to post in these comment sections something that is deemed is deemed transphobic by anyone else reading it, I will be reported to the police for a potential hate crime and liable to get a knock on the door from the plod and be told I have NCHI recorded against me. This would seriously lower my employment prospects if nothing else.
Meanwhile, and as an attempt to circumvent the WordPress censorship, if I had been reported for any of the things that Rudakubana had been reported to Prevent about, absolutely nothing would happen.
There is your two-tier policing and consequent cover-up right there. We have enormous bureaucracies with near unlimited power that seemingly fail repeatedly when it comes to the worst offences but mobilise expeditiously when people say unpleasant things online.
The power grab by government following 9/11 and the nascent war on terror before morphing into contemporary human rights and equity laws has done nothing but deliver a system that protects authorities at the expense of the public.
It takes a real offal eater to be able to look at a deliberate government lie and blame those who figured out the government was deliberately lying. It is like blaming the kid for pointing out that the Prime Minister has no clothes.
This awful essay seeks to blame Farage for pointing out the blatant coverup of this terrorist act by in part claiming that the poor misunderstood lad is not a terrorist. Which is odd, since he pled guilty to *terrorism*
It is an awful article. Unherd is an appendage to the government. It’s also coordinated with Starmer’s speech yesterday.
You do realize, don’t you, Richard, that you would stand a better chance of persuading people of the veracity of your opinions, not all of which are loopy, if you didn’t make demonstrably false statements like the above ?
What shall we call this rag? Unherd-Starmer or Starmer-Unherd?
Why will Unherd never publish a right wing article? The case against Starmer?
Unherd you are a lie. Party to the corruption and foul smell emanating from this government.
This is no longer a safe country to bring up a white child. Especially if the child is female.
Maybe Starmer should reflect on that.
Here is a free hint to the unself-aware:
When the facts that the killer had books on terrorism, murdered by racist profile, had deadly poisons used by terrorists and admitted in court to being guilty of terrorism, then you blame a straw man “right wing” for pointing this out, perhaps you are an idiotic ideologue.
The good news is that my subscription runs out in just over a month.
“Would Starmer and his government rush to condemn the rioters as mindless “thugs” …”
… or as mostly peaceful riots.
“On each occasion Prevent officers were satisfied that Rudakubana’s behaviour, though concerning, did not meet the threshold for intervention by Prevent.”
Do you think for a second that a “right-wing extremist” with the same documented interests would have been calmly proclaimed no threat and sent on his way?
It doesn’t matter what way you look at it, White Europeans are oppressed by this ‘multicultural’ nightmare. Terrorism, race hate, mental illness…does it matter to the victims and family?
Personally I’d have ‘Prevented’ the murder by sending these people back to Rwanda at the first signs of trouble.
The unasked question, when did Axel convert to Islam? We know that from the reports exiting prison. So, when did he convert, who provided the encouragement, and did this conversion have any impact on his mindset?
“… the facts of the Southport massacre … are [inconvenient] for all those who want to believe in a sinister cover-up over jihadist terrorism.”
Why, when we have headlines like this:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/21/axel-rudakubana-merseyside-police-gagged-cps-southport
They were certainly covered up, as we don’t know the details that the police knew and usually released: and after the event, information was obviously suppressed as well as being misleading, if true: lying by omission.
Is the cover-up sinister, or is it the jihadist terrorism, with the cover-up exacerbating the situation?
“The bigger and more urgent question is how or whether the authorities can stop the next mass-casualty atrocity from happening.”
Surely, to stop the atrocities will require a better understanding of the motivation, methods and supporting agencies. That includes the failings of the Public Sector that should have played the greater role in preventing it, and keeping the public informed. With the revelations by Oldham’s Raja Miah, one can see there’s a lot of work to be done.
I followed that link you gave last week. Everyone should listen to the Raja Miah interview on Heretics.
No one will ever look at Andy Burnham in the same light after listening to that.
The poster boy for Unherd, Labour and the trolls here.
Another compromised Labour figure up to his neck in corruption.
Some cultures seem to prefer knife violence.
Yet another ‘mental health incident’, in Germany:
https://youtu.be/5AHi371LbPw
More deaths or life changing injuries to people that will affect their families for ever.
Since Dunblane it is rather difficult to get a handgun.
Three take homes for me from this piece – 1 – whilst the boy is mentally ill he was def “terror-curious” and considering he had only one flavour of training manual was certainly “islamist- adjacent” to use regime speak. So Farage wasn’t 100% right but nearer the truth than anyone else. 2. UK has a failed judiciary and no “legal system” as such. This makes it convenient if you are a rich or royal perv or motivated Hamasite hiding at a school or the BBC. What you get instead is trial by media gossip and collective punishment of eg “white working class girls” via actors in line with the regime’s chosen skin tones or gender beliefs. 3. If the UK were to restore the rule of law they should look to Spain or Germany where until formal charges are made reporters are not allowed to identify the accused, and only then if no minors would be identified directly or indirectly. Best way to do this is to bring in laws that explicitly state suspected perps are “innocent until proven guilty”. So all that leaves the (social + regime) media with is this: Police are interviewing Andrew M-W of Berkshire under suspicion of sex offences against minors. Or police are questioning Mr A. R. of Merseyside about a range of offences including murder in the first degree, attempted murder and possession of a lethal weapon in public.
If Farage wasn’t 100% right, where was he wrong?
He wasn’t attempting to describe what happened. He was concerned that information was being withheld, and made some suggestions in order to encourage further information to be forthcoming.
Well the guy was more nut than terrorist – that’s pretty common with Moslem terror where the perp is a convert. You can see why a binary manichean life code would appeal to someone with mental health problems, a chaotic life or both. Also having been slandered and libelled throughout his political life by regime media and their mobs on the street i am surprised NF doesn’t play the “civic society” or “rule of law” card more. So he was a bit wayward there IMO BUT still nearer the truth than anyone else.
Cottee is engaging in sophistry. Farage was correct, there was a cover up. As it turns out, they weren’t covering up the fact that he was being monitored by the security services, they were covering up the fact that he should have been being monitored but wasn’t.
We should be able to discuss terrorism using the everyday meaning of the word, not being constrained by the need for a particular motivation in order to bring charges under the Terrorism Act 2000. That’s a matter for lawyers, not the lay public. Starmer said yesterday that Radukabana’s actions were “clearly intended to terrorise”. That makes it an act of terrorism in my book.
Whether or not you choose to call it terrorism, it was not Islamist inspired terrorism – which is what the social media conspiracy hysteria assumed.
Kolya is waving arms vigorously to push a vaporware narrative, and failing.
Non-Islamist terrorism can kill you just as dead. Do you think he could have used the ricin in a non-Islamist way and it suddenly would have become benign?
“it is within our power to respond to any horrors that might befall us by refusing to play politics in their aftermath”
You’ve got to be kidding! Too many people stand to gain by playing political games with everything.
Starmer appeasing, Islam appeasing, Pakistani gang rape appeasing, and now terrorism appeasing.
What a disgrace you are Unherd.
May I suggest a minor amendment. Replace Pakistani gang rape with Pakistani peadophile gang rape
He targeted a Taylor Swift event. Copy cat, or driven by hatred of music, song, dance and uncovered-up females, all anathema in Islam?
I’d be more inclined to follow Sarah Adams’ analysis of these types of ‘lone wolf’ killings, personally. This article seems worryingly along the lines of ‘mental health issues’, ‘but internet’, ‘nothing to see here’.
“…a deep fascination with murder itself and the dark pornographic culture surrounding it.”
Most Islamist terrorism is exactly this, isn’t it? How could this be a reason to not follow-thru? Madness!
Elite lying has become automatic, reflexive, even when dangerously counterproductive.
David Cameron is one figure behind this. He was a PR man (professional liar) before becoming PM. He also set up the ‘nudge unit’ as a tool for manipulating public opinion, boosting the culture of casual lying when courage is required.
The damage is serious.
The bottom line is the same in Australia: crimes are a fact of life, victims are to carry whatever is done to them with obedient resignation & silent dignity – out of sight at all times. The outcome sought is the illusion of peace. Silencing crime victims & witnesses has been trivial until social media, especially Elon MUSK gave crime witnesses & victims like me a voice.
Mario MARCUCCI Senior is a Victoria Police officer, hence all the crimes of dozens of MARCUCCI men & women across at least two generations are prosecution-proof. Australia’s police have always had a monopoly on what is a crime, while never had either: accountability or duty of care. Victoria Police’s own criminality is legendary.
Australia’s military insiders found guilty of crimes retain a clear civilian record (see https : //www .heraldsun .com.au/news/national/adf-fails-to-report-crimes-convicted-military-personnel-walk-free-in-civilian-life/news-story/debe853751b5c6d2fc37630030440e8f), so they gain high-trust positions in civilian life. Hence Australia’s bikers brag about their government security clearances while self-identifying as drug traffickers. Mario MARCUCCI Junior from the Australian Signals Directorate provides the MARCUCCI Crimes As A Service Enterprise with adversarial technology crippling anyone the CFMEU or other customers order, or just because he can. Since 2009 in my case. I never even dated the stalker ex-coworker, I never mixed with any MARCUCCI. The drug trade is a multi-billion $ industry in Australia.
Mick “Cooch” MARCUCCI has military background. He is likely the source of anti-personnel technology used frequently (every 24hr intervals this year in my case) against crime witnesses, anyone who cannot be tricked, bribed or coerced into aiding crime in the victims’ own homes. Since 2019 in my case, when I declared self-representation against Victoria Police, as they forced me to fight as an accused criminal in an admitted silencing attempt, tried to entrap me 2x & started openly participating in crimes brought to my home. I am isolated to protect others from the inevitable spill-overs of crimes against me since in 2017 I had to give up trying to earn a salary because of the MARCUCCI’s unpunished, devastating crimes.
My last, forced experience with military-grade remote technology was today, in the home I have owned in Clare O’Neil’s leafy electorate since 2001.
There is no authority to which it would be safe, let alone effective to try to report what is in Australian organised crime arsenals. I exhausted all legal avenues by the end of 2018 to have at least easily provable physical crimes of the MARCUCCI on any record beyond my desperate public interest disclosures and failed. Australia has no functional law-enforcement.
Since no one can prove to have suffered e.g. a remotely delivered EMR assault, let alone proving anyone’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, what the MARCUCCI are flaunting is the law being irrelevant. The law is the basis of Western civilisation. At least knives are visible.
UnHerd has steadily deteriorated over the last 2 years, it is disappointing, it started off so well.
‘Public figures such as Farage, Basu advised, should “keep their mouth shut”.’
We’d all be better off if the preposterous Basu kept his mouth shut.
Nicely discussed. A terrible act, but politicizing it doesn’t help anyone.
This Neil Basu the penny store expert with a chip on his shoulder should never be asked for his opinion which is always “white bad black good” His pontificating during the BLM riots was nauseating
What a daft article. Nothing to do with religious beliefs ? Jihad and Al Qaeda teachings ?
We were told he was a welsh school boy (photo of charming boy) . Nothing to do with Terrorism. (Al Qaeda manual and Ricin and Jihadist texts ? )
Neil Basu – look him up- the records show he claimed the real threat was from the far right. Somewhat inconsistent with actually terrorism murders in the UK.
Why do you need these blacks in your country? It’s been a disaster for the United States and every mixed race country in the New World. FACTS.
I am of the same opinion as Farage. The fact that the kid was able to go on the internet, use internet search to find the Al Qaida document and download it without being detected is astonishing. It shows up the fact that our security services messed up completely. No wonder they tried to hide information from the public. So the embarrassing reply to Farage was no, he wasn’t on their radar because they did not even know about Axel. This article seems to a subtle deflection from this glaring failure.
For all the writer says otherwise, the more he writes the more he makes it sound like a terrorist attack, maybe it just depends whether you want it to be such or not
Just another nutter. There have always been nutters, and always will. But the government could have handled this case much better.