| The Southport attack and Starmer 08:58 - Jan 21 with 5059 views | onehunglow |
Are we allowed to offer comments on here Mods
Thanks
Starmers comments of late are surely worth commenting . |  |
| |  |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 11:36 - Jan 26 with 310 views | AnotherJohn |
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. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 14:00 - Jan 26 with 221 views | Boundy |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 13:06 - Jan 25 by Gwyn737 |
Why didn’t they do it after the Lucy Letby conviction? |
It shouldn't be " why didn't they " , they should be applauded because they did , I'm surprised that you've taken that slant . | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:17 - Jan 26 with 184 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 11:36 - Jan 26 by AnotherJohn |
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. |
Prevent has a narrow remit which is terrorism, if Rudakabana’s behaviour wasn’t considered to be terrorism then it’s understandable that he wouldn’t be progressed through Prevent and he wouldn’t be eligible for “Channel” as that’s a de radicalisation programme for individuals on the pathway to extremist radicalisation.
Where serious questions need to be asked is after the referral to the safeguarding and other agencies, what did they do to manage this individual because they’ve clearly come up short. A compressive and far ranging enquiry is definitely required. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:01 - Jan 26 with 164 views | AnotherJohn |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:17 - Jan 26 by majorraglan |
Prevent has a narrow remit which is terrorism, if Rudakabana’s behaviour wasn’t considered to be terrorism then it’s understandable that he wouldn’t be progressed through Prevent and he wouldn’t be eligible for “Channel” as that’s a de radicalisation programme for individuals on the pathway to extremist radicalisation.
Where serious questions need to be asked is after the referral to the safeguarding and other agencies, what did they do to manage this individual because they’ve clearly come up short. A compressive and far ranging enquiry is definitely required. |
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]
| | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:14 - Jan 26 with 125 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:01 - Jan 26 by AnotherJohn |
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]
|
I have professional knowledge of the criminal justice system. The article makes reference to the CPS view of terrorism, it’s actually the law of the land’s definition.
The actions and interventions she outlined should have taken place outside the Prevent scheme because he didn’t “tick the boxes” for Prevent, the government recognise that and are making changes. The concerning things is that there could be others who have “ no terrorist ideology” but are ticking time bombs who could cause a lot a problems. [Post edited 26 Jan 18:25]
| | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:25 - Jan 26 with 108 views | AnotherJohn |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:14 - Jan 26 by majorraglan |
I have professional knowledge of the criminal justice system. The article makes reference to the CPS view of terrorism, it’s actually the law of the land’s definition.
The actions and interventions she outlined should have taken place outside the Prevent scheme because he didn’t “tick the boxes” for Prevent, the government recognise that and are making changes. The concerning things is that there could be others who have “ no terrorist ideology” but are ticking time bombs who could cause a lot a problems. [Post edited 26 Jan 18:25]
|
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]
| | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:33 - Jan 26 with 101 views | onehunglow |
Dear God.
Laws are interpreted .
I too have experience of legislation and how it operated ,at least in my day.
What is “ reasonable “
What is excessive
Etc
Shite like that | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:43 - Jan 26 with 94 views | AnotherJohn |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:33 - Jan 26 by onehunglow |
Dear God.
Laws are interpreted .
I too have experience of legislation and how it operated ,at least in my day.
What is “ reasonable “
What is excessive
Etc
Shite like that |
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]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
