 | Forum
Reply | The Southport attack and Starmer
at 18:43 26 Jan 2025
The point about interpretation is pertinent. Anybody who had a passing awareness of the large"law in action" literature would realise that operational guidance on the application of law developed by front line organisations and agents can evolve over time, often without any change in the primary legislation. That is why the phrase "In the eyes of the law" caught my attention a few posts ago. [Post edited 26 Jan 18:53]
|
| Forum
Reply | The Southport attack and Starmer
at 18:25 26 Jan 2025
Yet again you do not provide your detailed reasoning as to why Ms Littlewood's comments are incorrect. As we saw when I gave examples of a couple of KCs who took a different view to you on another matter, professionals working in a given field may well have different views about what is going on and the way forward. They then need to put forward arguments about why their view should be heard rather than that of a fellow professional, so that observers can judge who is right.
Edit. I see you have realised that "believe me because of the identity I claim" is insufficient and added a couple of sentences. I thought what Ms Littlewood said was quite plausible, and would have been interested to hear exactly where she went wrong. [Post edited 26 Jan 18:32]
|
| Forum
Reply | The Southport attack and Starmer
at 17:01 26 Jan 2025
You seem to have better inside knowledge than Ms Littlewood, who worked as a Prevent counter-terrorism officer! Are you offering an informed view after reading her article at the link? Is she mistaken? A little bit of background reasoning rather than just repeating a general point, which others may dispute, would be helpful. [Post edited 26 Jan 17:10]
|
| Forum
Reply | The Southport attack and Starmer
at 11:36 26 Jan 2025
The newspapers continue to ask questions about how Prevent counter-terrorism officers approached the case. There is an article in the Sunday Times today, based on a redacted version of a Home Office Prevent Learning Review, that alleges serious shortcomings.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/case-closed-how-southport-killer-was-l
Two of the issues are whether the case was closed too soon, and if there was effective liaison with other agencies. The article quotes the original case notes as saying: “Case closed. Concerns related to Prevent were explored. Did not appear to be linked to an ideology or vulnerability to radicalisation. Vulnerability and needs were identified but these were being met by other safeguarding and other agencies. Case closed to Prevent but triaged to other services”. Rudakabana’s interest in online reports of various mass killings and terrorist acts was considered by the Prevent team to be only an “interest in world news”. He was not referred on to a second stage of Prevent known as “Channel”, in which experts investigate an individual’s views and circumstances in greater depth.
An interesting comment in the Metro newspaper comes from Charlotte Littlewood, a former Prevent officer. She raises questions both about whether the existing definition of terrorism was wide enough to apply to this case, and also suggests that she would have done things differently under the present framework.
“It can be assumed, from my experience, that, after Merseyside Police found he had ‘an unhealthy obsession with extreme violence’, that a call would have come into the local Prevent team with his referral. (…) This referral means Prevent officers would have been tasked to fill in a risk assessment, to ascertain did this individual meet the threshold for intervention; was he a terror risk? The form includes a list of potential ideologies, and questions related to the capacity for violence. If it had come across my desk I would have noted the potential for a far-left anti-racism ideology being present in this instance, alongside a verbalised intent to commit violence and the capability to do so. (...)
Ultimately we will never know if steps within Prevent would have prevented this heinous crime, but the chances of him becoming so dangerously obsessed with violence could have substantially reduced and, in my view, the attack could have been prevented all-together. It is clear that we need to gain a better understanding of the Mixed Unclear Unstable (MUU) category of cases that, in 2020, made up half of Prevent’s case load, therefore the ideology with the highest number of referrals. MUU can catch cases like Rudakubana where violence is the priority and ideology is more of an inspiration than a fully adopted identity and motive, as opposed to the more defined categories of ‘Extreme Right Wing’ or ‘Islamist’. It can also be cases of individuals who merge ideologies to create a new identity.”
https://metro.co.uk/2025/01/23/worked-prevent-went-wrong-axel-rudakubana-2241790
Probably, there will be a debate between those who see this as an isolated case of a solitary individual with mental health issues (“neuro-diversity” etc) going out of control, and those who think this is one of a string of cases where lone individuals disaffected with the society around them try to kill multiple people to hurt that society. Those who take the latter view are likely to ask whether ethnicity, perceived racial tensions and MUU ideologies enter the picture. Others may still argue that the attacks simply reflect an individual’s pathological desire to kill, but I don’t think we should discount the performative aspect of the Southport killings, the idea that the choice of targets – young white girls – was designed to shock and hurt a wider public that would react to the event.
I think the inquiry should be wide and leave open the possibility that this was a form of terrorism. It should not start by assuming that the CPS report and the judge’s comments already tell us most of what we need to know. |
| Forum
Reply | The Southport attack and Starmer
at 20:45 25 Jan 2025
If by "in the eyes of the law" you mean in the opinion of the trial judge, then yes. But what I had in mind is the range of motivated behaviour covered by the legislation. My point was that there was a path to an offence under the 2000 Act that does not not involve a political, ideological or religious motive. With the right evidence, a charge could have been made in respect of a racial "cause" under the provision added in 2009. This is an evidential matter concerning motivation, rather than a question of what the Act ("the law") covers. If the motivation discovered falls into any one of the four categories in s1(1)c then terrorism may have been involved. The CPS guidance on charging under the Terrorist Act, 2000 indicates that "cause" (the wording of the Act) can be construed as motivation. I accept that no clear evidence of a racial motivation has been reported in statements from the key stakeholders, but if such evidence had been found then Rudakabana could have been charged under the provisions of the Act. The idea that any evidence discovered about a racial aspect would certainly have been reported seems to me to be too kind to the authorities, whom we know from past cases may prefer to frame events in one way rather than another.. That is why I felt your earlier posts may have framed the range of motivational possibilities too narrowly. Personally, I still believe that Rudakabana may have been motivated by resentment based on his experiences with a majority population that he perceived as racially different from him. It seems to me that it is appropriate for the Inquiry to consider that possibility, irrespective of the charge that led to imprisonment. I still think there is a debate to be had about whether the Southport killings were a form of terrorism. |
| Forum
Reply | All this Budget Speculation
at 14:26 25 Jan 2025
Yep, that misguided talk from some about adults now being in the room keeps coming back to me. Sixth formers may indeed be more accurate. |
| Forum
Reply | Norwich City v Swansea City : Mach day thread
at 13:27 25 Jan 2025
Deja vu really; lots of possession but inability to convert chances and a mistake in us at the back. I suppose some will say we have been unlucky on the balance of play, but the same pattern seems to be repeated most weeks. |
| Forum
Reply | Number of Welsh-speakers lowest in eight years
at 08:47 25 Jan 2025
I can understand the wish to maintain the use of the Welsh language for those who wish to speak it. My concern is that the legal requirement for certain organisations to comply with the Welsh Language Standards causes major inconvenience and costs, so that things have gone too far.
To take one example in an organisation known to me, all emails sent to more than one person (except where the language of all is known not to be Welsh) should be bilingual in Welsh and English. All official emails come around with the Welsh version first, and I often wonder how much time the English-speaking majority spend in scrolling down before they can understand what the message is about, Should an English language monoglot employee wish to send an email to multiple colleagues, for instance to notify others of a forthcoming event, they must send the message to the translation unit, which requires several days notice.
More generally all service users have a right to conduct their dealings with the organisation in Welsh. As most employees do not speak Welsh this again means that they must be assisted by a specialist unit when this need arises. If over a short period a larger number of service users insisted that all communication did take place in Welsh then the organisation would have nowhere near the capacity to deliver that. You might very well say that the answer at that stage would be to employ more Welsh speakers to cope with the demand, but as the organisation contains employees with various types of specialist expertise, I cannot see that this would be possible., [Post edited 25 Jan 9:54]
|
| Forum
Reply | The Southport attack and Starmer
at 06:10 25 Jan 2025
Yes, I had set out of the relevant provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and am aware that multiple conditions need to be realised for a terrorist offense to be deemed to have occurred. However, the four categories of terrorist actions that I was referring to (from section 1(1)c) are those that advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. So the scenario I am suggesting involves serious violence (1(1)a as per subsection 2), against a section of the public (1(1)b) to advance a racial cause (1(1)c). You say that the authorities, plus "every man and his dog" , will have fully investigated a possible racial aspect. I say that that is by no means evident to me, especially given that multiple sceptical commentators are arguing that this is the possibility the powers that be are desperate to play down.
Suppose, for instance, that a black person who perceives that his life has been blighted by racism develops a strong dislike to the white society that he blames for this, and decides to seek revenge against "a section of the public" with that racial identity. The serious violence in this case was directed at a general category of persons rather than individuals known to Rudakabana. Wouldn't an attack on a room full of white girls and the preparation of ricin for a possible multiple casualty event be prima facie evidence of antagonism towards that white society? And doesn't that make it necessary to take a hard look at what Rudakabana may have said to various people in his life? Perhaps that has happened, but the focus so far seems to have been on the apparent ideological inconsistency of somebody who looks at both an Al Qaeda manual and school massacres. The 2008 Act makes it clear that a racial motivation may lead to a terrorist offence even if an ideological or political dimension is absent. The judge, as you say, decided that the conditions for a terrorist act had not been met, but he made that judgement on the basis of the evidence before him. I think the inquiry should drill down and gather more evidence that would determine whether there was a racial motive. [Post edited 25 Jan 6:38]
|
| Forum
Reply | The Southport attack and Starmer
at 22:11 24 Jan 2025
Perhaps, but one senses that it is the possibility that the authorities are most loath to foreground. Even in this thread the tendency is to miss that fourth category from the definition of terrorism in the legislation. |
| Forum
Reply | The Southport attack and Starmer
at 19:11 24 Jan 2025
Terrorism Act, 2000
1 (1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
F2. Words in s. 1(1)(c) inserted (16.2.2009) by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28), ss. 75(1)(2)(a), 100(5) (with s. 101(2)); S.I. 2009/58, art. 2(a)
____________________
The aspect of the definition that interests me is the addition of the racial dimension in the 2009 amendment. The change in the definition in s75 of the 2008 Act was intended to indicate that acts carried out with a racial motivation did not need to be associated with an ideological or political aim to be considered to be terrorism.
The explanatory note says: “Section 75 gives effect to Lord Carlile’s 12th recommendation in his January 2007 report on the definition of terrorism. This was that the definition of terrorism in section 1(1) of the 2000 Act be amended to include, in paragraph (c), the purpose of advancing a racial cause (in addition to a political, religious or ideological cause). Although a racial cause will in most cases be subsumed within a political or ideological cause this amendment is designed to put the matter beyond doubt that such a cause is included”.
Now, I am not sure this would apply to this case, but I wonder if the racial aspect has been fully investigated. Radakubana appears to have had a grudge against his former school and beyond that against the wider society, possibly because of his past negative experiences. Did his actions reveal antagonism towards white people? |
| Forum
Reply | Iraq loses the age of consent to NINE
at 12:49 24 Jan 2025
It was just that in light of your earlier post, you might have noticed the bit about '”cultural racism” stretches the concept of racism "to a point where it becomes too wide to be useful as anything but a rhetorical ploy" '. |
| Forum
Reply | Iraq loses the age of consent to NINE
at 09:22 24 Jan 2025
Cultural racism is a highly-contested concept that in most versions applies to a situation where cultural differences are viewed by a majority population as essential and immutable, meaning that an ethnic minority group that suffers discrimination is seen as unable to change its problematic culture. Of course, the majority of academics working in cultural studies view cultures as fluid and ever-changing. From the left, several academics writing about racism have criticised the concept of cultural racism because they believe that “racism” should centre on the notion of perceived biological difference. After all cultural differences exist within (socially-constructed) racial groups as well as between them. Rattansi, for instance, says that ”cultural racism” stretches the concept of racism "to a point where it becomes too wide to be useful as anything but a rhetorical ploy" (1st link below). Others who reject the concept believe that discrimination based on culture is a different phenomenon that needs to be analysed in its own terms (2nd link below). The idea of cultural racism emerged mainly in France in response to the rise of far right discourses about immigration there, although we also had a professor at Aberystwyth who pushed a similar line; it has not really caught on among the critical race theory fraternity in the US.
https://archive.org/details/racismveryshorti0000ratt/page/n3/mode/2up
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267513585_Siebers_H_and_Dennissen_MHJ_2
Of course, not everybody will be interested in this kind of stuff. [Post edited 24 Jan 9:24]
|
| Forum
Reply | Iraq loses the age of consent to NINE
at 22:41 23 Jan 2025
There is a difference between how people react to those they perceive to be members of another race (possible racism), and those who have a different culture, but I'm afraid that is lost on Contro. Of course, there is a pattern here across many topics. |
| Forum
Reply | The Southport attack and Starmer
at 22:25 23 Jan 2025
Yes, that is what I thought. There was a weapon in the sitting room, plus lots of dodgy material, Also the general state of the house did not match the picture of the respectable, middle class, God-fearing family previously portrayed by the mainstream media. I see on X/ Twitter that posters are zeroing in on the father's previous life in one of the feuding Rwanda militias, his asylum claim (and which lawyers were involved), and the relocation of the family to a secret address at considerable taxpayer expense. The family's arrival in the UK doesn't seem to have been exactly positive in terms of outcomes. [Post edited 23 Jan 22:45]
|
| | AnotherJohn
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 1122 | | Comment Votes: | 1 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 1123 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.