Was it in public interest to cover up the terror links to the Southport stabbings?

I don’t have salacious desires Barleyfield. I just happen to believe things weren’t shared in the public domain that could have been shared earlier than they were. As a KC pointed out. It would not have been prejudicial to a trial. If one were needed.

That said after pleading ‘not guilty’ for months (daft in my opinion it was obvious he’d murdered those three little girls) the defendant has now pled ‘guilty’. So the Court can sentence now on Thursday without a trial.

People can and do change their plea at the last moment FGT. I’m sure you know that. If that had happened and the information you believe should have been available from the outset were such as to prejudice a fair trial, what then?

You can’t say, without further evidence, that it was obvious that murder had been committed. You know, I have no doubt, of manslaughter and of people being found unfit to plead. It is not for us to decide whether a killing is, in law, murder.

I really have no idea what good you think would have been served by releasing to the public at the outset all the information we now have, including the name of someone who was then a minor. It would not have prevented the riots and it may have prevented this person from ever being brought to justice. I for one will be pleased to hear or read the judge’s sentencing comments and the sentence which is considered appropriate for this heinous crime, in light of all the facts available to the judge.

https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/202501/medium-63712-1000027942.jpg%3C/span%3E https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/202501/medium-815649-1000027945.jpg%3C/span%3E https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/202501/medium-500635-1000027947.jpg%3C/span%3E

I don't feel there's any chance of having anything like a sensible discussion on this thread. Several of us tried earlier to explain things about the law, about what he was charged with and why.
Obviously we are only privvy to what has been written about but there's an excellent article linked to (way upthread) that many don't seem to have read/ digested.

Sill people are busy pointing at nonsense and some saying "you only have to look at him to know he's evil".

Here's Vera Renczi, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer. I suppose you can tell they are evil too?

This is not a good thread in my opinion.

I agree NotSpaghetti. I can see in some posts the mindset which leads not only to riots, but to lynching. It’s quite frightening to see that in people whose posts on other matters you read and enjoy each day.

Sago

It seems the Home Office knew very quickly that Alex Rudakabuna was a terrorist.

The decision was made to cover this up, Nigel Farage was prevented from asking questions in parliament, he claims there would have been less chance of riots if the public had been told the truth.

Was it in the best interests of the public to hide the truth?

what are you talking about?
he wasn't a terrorist, and continuing to spread misinformation like this will just make it harder to understand, respond to and prevent these types of attacks
he was charged with terrorist offences, that doesn't make him a terrorist
he was obsessed with violence and had no other motive that the police could doscover
you'll be saying he came over in a small boat next
he was British (Welsh) and from a christian family, who I feel very sorry for

The information about the Al-Qaeda manual and the ricin was released in October because apparently it would not prejudice the trial.
He was visited by six different authorities, none of who took action; they are now being blamed.
Arguing about whether or not he is a terrorist is pointless; his actions certainly created terror, and the delay in releasing his name fuelled suspicion.
The minatory, self-righteous tone of some posters on here is unpleasant, and I note the use of 'far-right' applied to posts of which they do not approve.
People are allowed to express their opinions even of you do not agree with them.

His father fought in the army during the war in Rwanda. The couple sought asylum in the UK after the war, saying they were students. Their children were born here in the UK. Apparently the father is now a taxi driver, and the mother doesn’t work. The BBC have just reported that the father managed to prevent his son leaving the house with a large knife and going to the school he went to, and presumably he had killing in his mind since he was taking a knife, but I guess we’ll never know. He had ordered a taxi to take him to the school, when his father intervened. A week later he ordered a taxi and went to the building where the Taylor Swift event was taking place, and he committed his crime.
The parents were Christians and worshipped at an evangelical church. Members of the congregation have said that he never attended with his parents, and he was certainly never a choir boy, since evangelical churches don’t have choir boys/girls.
This is just a bit of background information. Maybe you are already aware of it, but it is what has been reported and is freely available to the public now.

I agree NotSpaghetti and Barleyfields.

I find I am contributing less and less on N&P because I find the views of some posters quite disturbing.

It’s entirely up to them what they believe, but I choose not to engage - just as I wouldn’t engage with such views in real life.

LizzieDrip

I agree NotSpaghetti and Barleyfields.

I find I am contributing less and less on N&P because I find the views of some posters quite disturbing.

It’s entirely up to them what they believe, but I choose not to engage - just as I wouldn’t engage with such views in real life.

I’ve been out so catching up here. I heard some of Nicky Campbell’s phone in this morning and some of Starmer’s speech. It was a relief to hear the majority of callers were well informed and sensible as to the reason information has been released as it has.
I recognise some posters dislike and mistrust the PM to the extent they believe he’d cover up information about this murderer. No recognition of the speech this morning, no acknowledgement of the legal situation. Suggestions his parents are to blame with an absence of evidence and veiled . Not so veiled references to their refugee status -

I fail to see what difference it would have made in any way at all even if the information was out that he had manuals and a small amount of ricin

to those deciding to riot violently against muslim mosques and migrant hotels

.........even when they had the information he was of a Christian family, and born in the UK.

( certainly don't agree with offering such partial information anyway, because much investigating had to be done about this very sick young man before a more complete picture could be revealed)

Because everyone knew it wasnt the whole story, it isnt in my view really about what was released in terms of this case, it is that many people dont trust various institutions to discuss issues honestly. The damage has been done over a long period of time, by all parties and many institutions.

Breaking News:
The Police were gagged by the Crown Prosecution Service over this.

It depends whether we accept the CPS believed it was necessary to keep some info back to ensure nothing could cause a mistrial. The CPS doesn’t ’gag’ police. It gives legal advice.

Well I suppose it ‘gags’ them if their advice is a very firm ‘say nowt’.

I had a lot of sympathy with Starmer today and his explanation that Prevent was set up when the threats to us in the UK came from established organised terrorist groups and their members. This is why Prevent turned him down, because, as Rucakubana had no links with any terrorist group, he did not fall within their remit.

But things have changed and we now see far more of these atrocities being committed by lone wolves attached to no organisation, but obsessed with violence and looking at terrorist sites is a good way to feast their obsession, that is why the remit of Prevent and other organisations needs to be changed to meet this changing situation.

But that is the right of the Crown Prosecution Service to decide, as they have to make decisions about how to best/effectively prosecute a case alongside the police, whose job is to investigate.

It's their actual job.

The Telegraph article is deliberately misleading for readers, and members of the public who are unaware of the CPS's role, by putting this slant on it.

M0nica

I had a lot of sympathy with Starmer today and his explanation that Prevent was set up when the threats to us in the UK came from established organised terrorist groups and their members. This is why Prevent turned him down, because, as Rucakubana had no links with any terrorist group, he did not fall within their remit.

But things have changed and we now see far more of these atrocities being committed by lone wolves attached to no organisation, but obsessed with violence and looking at terrorist sites is a good way to feast their obsession, that is why the remit of Prevent and other organisations needs to be changed to meet this changing situation.

Yes, we are increasingly in "lone wolf" territory which is why Starmer (as quoted above) said this issue was under review today.

Yep I said that a few weeks ago on here when people were trying to deny it was terror related, we need to very quickly look at the definition. I think also something about the targets, women and girls, in particular, if you look at the concerts that are frequently targeted.

I agree with what you say M0nica.

After the event, when somebody has murdered somebody else, everybody looks for a solution to stop another similar event happening again. One solution would be to remove potential murders from the streets before they do anything, and lock them away in an institution or a secure mental health unit depending on their presentation, and run Prevent mark2 type programmes for them. How many people would be locked away because they were a potential risk? I’ve got no idea, and I’m also not convinced that even if that happened it would prevent future random attacks, because so many perpetrators are not known to the authorities before they offend.

It is a balance of freedoms, I am aware of a man locally who if he did something terrible, not one person in my area would be surprised. Arrested twice for threats to politicians (local ones) served brief prison sentence, fits every loner profile you could think of, I would guess many people know such a person.

Starmer is knowledgable on Prevent and the need for reliable effective services. He was clear the public inquiry won’t allow any of the services to duck and weave (my words not his).
I posted earlier there was insufficient evidence to label Rukacabana as a terrorist. Starmer identified his belief the remit of Prevent and other organisations may need changing.

One of the things that stands out to me is the level of concern staff felt, obviously those concerns shared by the police, who agreed officers should attend when staff visited the family home. The inquiry should clarify this and identify what steps could have been taken to protect staff, his family, former school staff/pupils and ultimately those children and the adults with them,
It’s not common to section 17 year olds, when it happens they’re usually held on adult wards. Usually it happens when the child poses serious risk to themselves or others. It would appear he wasn’t considered to meet the threshold. I’m relieved there’s to be a public inquiry

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Breaking News:
The Police were gagged by the Crown Prosecution Service over this.

The CPS advised the police regarding what should lawfully be disclosed. That is their duty. It isn’t ‘gagging’. Why do you sensationalise this as ‘breaking news’? You seem intent on inducing hysterical belief in a conspiracy.

Surely any person who sets out to murder as many innocent people as possible is a "terrorist". The many incidents of serial killings of school children or young people, mostly in the US but also sometimes occurring in other countries, such as the killing of 77 mostly young people by Anders Breivik, are acts of terror?

What makes young people commit such atrocities?

The murder of the three little girls was an act of terror which it appears may be described as religiously motivated. But, from what has been reported, this young man had in earlier years contacted childline on several occasions and, in later years, had been flagged up as a possible security risk. Maybe if there had been an intervention when he was much younger, this terrible act would not have happened.

I didn’t know it’s been reported that he had contacted ChildLine. That obviously gives reason to wonder about his childhood. Maybe it was not quite as it seemed.
But it’s all speculation until we know something more definite. Maybe it will come out in the Inquiry.

It’s just not black and white in terms of the profile of murderers. The Dunblane school murderer was middle aged, not diagnosed as mentally ill, and I don’t think he was known to the authorities. An inquiry will help close a number of loopholes, but I do think we have to be realistic in our expectations