Silence Surrounds the Southport Attacks: A Narrative on Secrecy and Public Curiosity

[Social Media]

 

There exists an unspoken rule in British public discourse: when an attack occurs with potential links to jihadism or immigration, the public often remains uninformed of a possible motive, at least until withholding this information becomes impractical. This process follows predictable steps. Typically, those who do attempt to discuss likely motives are advised to avoid prejudicing any trial.

 

Public officials often insist that there will be an appropriate time and place to discuss these issues – though, in practice, that opportunity may never arise. Incidents like the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, the assassination of Sir David Amess, the Ariana Grande concert bombing, and more recently, the Taylor Swift dance class massacre, showcase this pattern. These tragic events reveal a recurring reluctance to fully address the motives behind certain attacks until public curiosity grows too intense to ignore. 

 

For now, such violent attacks remain rare in the UK. It is only natural that, alongside outrage, the public might feel curious about how such incidents occur. Yet, when it came to the Southport attack, information from law enforcement seemed notably sparse. This led some to speculate about the motive behind the crime. Had the assailant been a far-right extremist with slogans referencing figures like Oswald Mosley, for instance, the details may have come to light immediately. Or if the attacker had declared, "All Taylor Swift fans must be killed," this, too, would likely have been shared openly.

 

Instead, there was silence. Eventually, a vague statement surfaced on Sky News and other major media outlets, disclosing that the suspect was from Cardiff. This information, rather than satisfying public curiosity, seemed almost incongruous. As some wondered, would any presume a “typical Welshman” behind the crime?

 

Further details then emerged, identifying the suspect as of Rwandan descent, a revelation that momentarily redirected attention. For some, this discovery was sufficient to dismiss any significant implications about the suspect's background. Others pointed to Rwanda’s predominantly Christian demographics and argued that, given the suspect was a child of immigrants rather than a recent arrival, his heritage bore little relevance. The prevalent belief in the multicultural state posits that once someone settles in Britain, they become “as British as roast beef,” regardless of origins.

 

The release of the suspect's name, 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana, brought a new wave of responses. Media outlets strategically displayed images of Rudakubana from his school years, a conscious effort to present him as a young person, though not as young as his victims. As public frustration boiled over, protests erupted in multiple cities, and some individuals resorted to violence, targeting police vehicles, a station, a mosque, and even a hotel housing illegal immigrants.

 

While some perpetrators faced imprisonment for these violent acts, others found themselves arrested simply for speculating online about the attacker or sharing what was deemed “false news,” including suggestions that the attacker might be Muslim.

 

Only this week did further details about the case surface, indicating that the suspect possessed al Qaeda training materials and had attempted to create the deadly toxin ricin. These are significant revelations, vital for Rudakubana’s trial. Yet, the authorities likely became aware of these details early on, possibly within hours of searching Rudakubana’s home. Now, individuals who were criticized for allegedly spreading “fake news” about the attacker’s motives appear to have, in part, anticipated the truth.

 

Like many other people I look forward very much to the day when we get to find out where the truth really lies. 

 

Based on a report by the Spectator 2024-11-01

 

 

 

[RichardColeman]

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

Like many other people I look forward very much to the day when we get to find out where the truth really lies. 

And upset the muslim electorate ?Never happen

[MalcolmB]

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

Like many other people I look forward very much to the day when we get to find out where the truth really lies.

Julian Assange was gone after most because of a video called collateral murder which exposed the American “Christian” army killing innocent Muslims and then lying about the cover up. In a Muslim country that has been invaded by the Christians based a a lie of weapons of mass destruction. The only ones with weapons of mass destruction were the the Christians 

 

The reporting on the current Israel genocide is also a taboo subject for most of the media who are showing a watered down version of events and it seems they always have to mention “the attack on October 7” every time despite everybody knowing all that. They worry the will be accused of “anti semitism” 

 

Mentioning a women’s weight or sexual history also is a taboo subject, not wanting to be accused of fat or slut shaming. Reporting on men is a lot freer. Fat men are not referred to as “curvy”. Fat chicks are protected. 

 

There is a lot that isn’t reported anymore for fear of setting off the far left or far right of who are as bad as each other. 
 

Somehow climate change also fits in the taboo subject basket despite it being scientifically proven.
 

In America they are totally obsessed by race an the “N” word is taboo, you can not even say it. Unless you are an N. Then you can sing and dance about it.

It is mostly in the West this happens. Despite us having the highest standard of living everyone whines and wants to be a victim.

 

Thais are much more realistic. Fat girls are nicknamed หมู moo (pig) fat men are often nicknamed อ้วน oun Fatty. 
The west seems overly triggered by LGBT, the Thais just let people be what they want to be “up to you”.

 

The south of Thailand has a lot of Muslims. The Buddhists and Muslims treat each other with respect. Except in the far south, but Thais in other provinces are smart enough to realise the issue is more to do with land history rather than religious nonsense. And they don’t carry on about it in other provinces, it is hardly mentioned and people get along.

 

This killer was obviously mentally unwell. Blaming “Islam” on it is a stretch. Most killers in the UK are non Muslim or “Christian”.

He is a complete nutter that happened to be Islamic (maybe).

The rioting and wrecking of peoples cars and businesses was shameful and those people should be locked up as the kid will be locked up. He won’t get a free pass because he is a Muslim. 
 

Banning religions completely would be the best thing we could do if we want peace. It is all BS.

[cowellandrew]

59 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

And upset the muslim electorate ?Never happen

Attack 5 cops in Manchester airport 3 months on still no charges,

 

Post a Twitter post 18 months jail!

[mokwit]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

The prevalent belief in the multicultural state posits that once someone settles in Britain, they become “as British as roast beef,” regardless of origins.

Spelt propaganda wrong  it is not spelt 'belief'

[Smokey and the Bandit]

27 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Spelt propaganda wrong  it is not spelt 'belief'

 Belief is spelt correctly, propaganda is spelt wrong!🙄

[herfiehandbag]

The real question is very simple.

 

Police searched the culprit's house, very shortly after the attack, and recovered Ricin and a Jihadist terror manual. That was then covered up, whilst stringent sanctions were applied to those suggesting on social media that he may have had Islamic extremist links.

 

Some of those who commented, with often foolish and vitriolic posts, were subjected, at Keir Starmer's urging, to the maximum extent of the law; all whilst Starmer was aware of the culprit's Islamic extremist activities ( he made Ricin for crying out loud.

 

This is a question which should be answered. It won't be.

 

It is quite a sobering thought, but expressing exactly this view in the UK, on Social Media, could lead to investigation and perhaps prosecution, currently probably for "hate crimes" or "incitement", in due course, once legal proceedings have finally started, for " contempt of court".

 

"Something is rotten in the State of Denmark (well Westminster)" - and the Blessed Keir is a less than convincing Hamlet!

Edited 7 hours ago by herfiehandbag

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

The real question is very simple.

 

Police searched the culprit's house, very shortly after the attack, and recovered Ricin and a Jihadist terror manual. That was then covered up, whilst stringent sanctions were applied to those suggesting on social media that he may have had Islamic extremist links.

 

Some of those who commented, with often foolish and vitriolic posts, were subjected, at Keir Starmer's urging, to the maximum extent of the law; all whilst Starmer was aware of the culprit's Islamic extremist activities ( he made Ricin for crying out loud.

 

This is a question which should be answered. It won't be.

 

It is quite a sobering thought, but expressing exactly this view in the UK, on Social Media, could lead to investigation and perhaps prosecution, currently probably for "hate crimes" or "incitement", in due course, once legal proceedings have finally started, for " contempt of court".

 

"Something is rotten in the State of Denmark (well Westminster)" - and the Blessed Keir is a less than convincing Hamlet!

Where’s the simple question you referred to?

[herfiehandbag]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Where’s the simple question you referred to?

Why was the presence of Ricin and a Jihadist manual covered up, and the culprit's links to Islamic extremism denied?

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Why was the presence of Ricin and a Jihadist manual covered up, and the culprit's links to Islamic extremism denied?

Ah, the loaded question.

 

I have no idea of any of that, neither do you.

 

The difference is I don’t assume I do.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Chomper Higgot

[herfiehandbag]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Ah, the loaded question.

 

I have no idea of any of that, neither do you.

 

The difference is I don’t assume I do.

 

 

If you agree that it is a relevant question, and if you accept that the government were aware from early on, (hard not to accept really); then I am surprised that your intellectual curiosity does not lead to you forming or holding any view.

 

Amongst those on this forum, especially those who are interested and think on these matters, you must feel very lonely.

[Chomper Higgot]

35 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

If you agree that it is a relevant question, and if you accept that the government were aware from early on, (hard not to accept really); then I am surprised that your intellectual curiosity does not lead to you forming or holding any view.

 

Amongst those on this forum, especially those who are interested and think on these matters, you must feel very lonely.

I do t accept the assumptions you make without you proving evidence.

 

We went through this yesterday.

[herfiehandbag]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I do t accept the assumptions you make without you proving evidence.

 

We went through this yesterday.

There is no admitted evidence - that is why we ask the questions.

 

We know ( now) that the murderer was at the very least influenced by Islamic terrorist extremism; influenced enough to make Ricin and download the definitive Al Quaeida manual.

 

It is probable (far from an irrational or unreasonable assumption) that the government knew that from the earliest days (hours) of the investigation.

 

That Chomper is why I (we) ask these questions. Specifically, why was it covered up?

 

Your performance yesterday in denying reality by refusing to even consider any assumptions, let alone countenance any questions lost you any credibility.

 

I am afraid that you are striking out, into what is for you familiar territory, by shouting loudly and repeatedly with the intention of silencing comment. Shout as loud and as long as you want, no-one( except perhaps your party handlers?) is listening!

 

Edited 4 hours ago by herfiehandbag

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

There is no admitted evidence - that is why we ask the questions.

 

We know ( now) that the murderer was at the very least influenced by Islamic terrorist extremism; influenced enough to make Ricin and download the definitive Al Quaeida manual.

 

It is probable (far from an irrational or unreasonable assumption) that the government knew that from the earliest days (hours) of the investigation.

 

That Chomper is why I (we) ask these questions. Specifically, why was it covered up?

 

Your performance yesterday in denying reality by refusing to even consider any assumptions, let alone countenance any questions lost you any credibility.

 

I am afraid that you are striking out, into what is for you familiar territory, by shouting loudly and repeatedly with the intention of silencing comment. Shout as loud and as long as you want, no-one( except perhaps your party handlers?) is listening!

 

Which goes back to what I said earlier, I don’t accept the assumptions you make without you providing evidence.

 

Asking a question is not proof that something was ‘covered up’.

 

You need first to ask ‘was there a coverup?’.

 

 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Chomper Higgot