Starmer on New Southport Enquiry & Massive Failures that led to the Attack

[Social Media]

 

A New Era of Terrorism: Southport Knife Attack Signals an Evolving Threat, Says Prime Minister. Axel Rudakubana, in a surprising courtroom twist, admitted to the murder of three young girls in Southport last summer, even before his trial officially began. This shocking development has prompted the government to reassess the nation's "entire counterterrorism system," as announced by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer.

 

Sir Keir emphasized that modern attackers are becoming increasingly difficult to detect. He stated, "We have to be ready to face every threat. If the law needs to change to recognize this new and dangerous threat, then we will change it, and quickly." His remarks highlight the urgency of protecting children from the growing influence of online violence, which he described as a "tidal wave."

 

The Prime Minister also pointed to the need for greater accountability within Whitehall and Westminster, criticizing the current system for its slow reaction to tragedies unless spurred by public outcry or persistent campaigning. "Time and again we see this pattern, and people are right to be angry about it. I'm angry about it. Southport must be a line in the sand, but nothing will be off the table in this inquiry. Nothing," Sir Keir declared, ensuring that substantial changes would follow.

 

During a press conference, when asked if he had withheld information about the Southport case, Sir Keir confirmed that he was aware of details about the attacker, Axel Rudakubana, as they unfolded. However, he defended his decision to keep them confidential, stating, "There has been a failure here, and I do not intend to let any institution of the state deflect from their failures. The only losers if the details had been disclosed would be the victims and the families because it runs the risk the trial would collapse. I'm never going to do that because they deserve that justice."

 

Sir Keir stressed that his actions were not only his personal choice but also aligned with the law. He reiterated the government's commitment to swiftly amend the law if necessary to address this evolving threat and announced a comprehensive review of the counter-extremism system.

 

Rudakubana’s case revealed that he had been referred to the Prevent scheme three times in the 17 months leading up to the attack due to concerns about his obsession with violence. However, it was determined that he did not require intervention. In light of this, Sir Keir called for an inquiry, recognizing the emergence of "a new cohort, a new different threat, this individualised extreme violence."

 

He concluded by assuring the public that the government would act immediately to implement changes, even before the inquiry's findings were available, emphasizing the urgency of protecting children and preventing further tragedies. "We need to get on with the change in the meantime and to reassure the public that every step has been taken to protect their children," he affirmed.

 

This case serves as a grim reminder that the nature of terrorism is shifting, demanding a more proactive and adaptable approach to safeguarding the nation.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-statement-on-the-southport-public-inquiry-21-january-2025

 

 

Based on a report by Sky News 2025-01-22

 

 

[Classic Ray]

Unfortunately the number of potential criminals requiring intervention by Prevent will inevitably lead to decisions needed to manage individuals. 
 

Sometimes these decisions will be wrong. This individual seemed to fit the criteria for close monitoring. I wonder whether his background and possible family political connections in Rwanda led to a light touch approach. His parents had concerns but did they express these to authorities enough?

 

More resources need to be applied to Prevent and a more proactive scheme.

[The Cyclist]

3 minutes ago, Classic Ray said:

Unfortunately the number of potential criminals requiring intervention by Prevent will inevitably lead to decisions needed to manage individuals. 
 

Sometimes these decisions will be wrong. This individual seemed to fit the criteria for close monitoring. I wonder whether his background and possible family political connections in Rwanda led to a light touch approach. His parents had concerns but did they express these to authorities enough?

 

More resources need to be applied to Prevent and a more proactive scheme.

 

According to Starmer

 

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

A New Era of Terrorism: Southport Knife Attack Signals an Evolving Threat, Says Prime Minister.

 

Really ? How many years have lone wolf, mental health, stabby stabby, vehicle borne killers been wreaking havoc across mainland Europe ?
 

Nothing new whatsoever.

 

And while your assessment is probably close to the mark, in terms of monitoring, manpower and resources. It is meaningless whilst about 40,000 per annum are flocking across the Channel.

 

And lets not forget the army of Human Rights Parasites that will go above and beyond the call of duty, to prevent anything that is ' Proactive '

[herfiehandbag]

Jolly good Starmer, now back to the inquiry which the public really want - the decades long activities of the Pakistani child rape gangs and it's cover up by the police, judicial and local authority establishments - you know, the cases  that never crossed your desk for all those years that you were Director of Public Prosecutions.

[PomPolo]

What I would give to have 5 minutes alone with him in his cell!
I am surprised Elon Musk hasn't chirped up about this one yet

[JonnyF]

He can start by listening to the public's very real concerns rather than lying to us, hiding the truth, trying to silence us with bullyboy tactics and labelling everyone who wants an end to this murderous terrorism "far right".

 

I won't hold my breath though. This is mere lip service from a man under enormous, well deserved pressure. 

 

[josephbloggs]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

He can start by listening to the public's very real concerns rather than lying to us, hiding the truth, trying to silence us with bullyboy tactics and labelling everyone who wants an end to this murderous terrorism "far right".

 

I won't hold my breath though. This is mere lip service from a man under enormous, well deserved pressure. 

 

Nobody calls people who want an end to murderous terrorism "far right". The far right get called "far right". I am considered to the left but guess what, I would like an end to murderous terrorism too!

Just another of your dreamt up fantasies to stroke your imagined grievance.

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Nobody calls people who want an end to murderous terrorism "far right".

 

Yes they do.

 

The PM himself did it for people wanting an inquiry on the rape gangs.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/06/starmer-musk-grooming-inquiry-far-right-bandwagon/

 

 

You're starting to sound a lot like Chomps.

 

11 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Just another of your dreamt up fantasies to stroke your imagined grievance.

 

Multiple accounts or no original thoughts?

[Chomper Higgot]

57 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

According to Starmer

 

 

Really ? How many years have lone wolf, mental health, stabby stabby, vehicle borne killers been wreaking havoc across mainland Europe ?
 

Nothing new whatsoever.

 

And while your assessment is probably close to the mark, in terms of monitoring, manpower and resources. It is meaningless whilst about 40,000 per annum are flocking across the Channel.

 

And lets not forget the army of Human Rights Parasites that will go above and beyond the call of duty, to prevent anything that is ' Proactive '

If you argue years of complacency then you can’t rationally argue against Starmer changing the law and procedures to address that complacency.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes they do.

 

The PM himself did it for people wanting an inquiry on the rape gangs.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/06/starmer-musk-grooming-inquiry-far-right-bandwagon/

 

 

You're starting to sound a lot like Chomps.

 

 

Multiple accounts or no original thoughts?

I want to end murderous terrorism.

 

Nobody calls me far right.

 

Oh and you conflated comments on murderous terrorism with your off topic grooming gangs reference.

 

They are not the same thing.

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I want to end murderous terrorism.

 

 

Yet you support the Palestinian cause.

 

Cognitive dissonance much?

[The Cyclist]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you argue years of complacency then you can’t rationally argue against Starmer changing the law and procedures to address that complacency.

 

Your valued input is appreciated.............. By somebody, somewhere, I just don't know who or where.

 

I was merely pointing out that changing the laws or the  definition of the Law, means the square root of nothing, when you have around 40,000, mostly fighting age males, of unknown backgrounds, flocking across the Channel.

 

If you want to stamp out complacency, stopping that is your starter for 10.

 

But that would be far beyond your level of intellect.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yet you support the Palestinian cause.

 

Cognitive dissonance much?

 

What? 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Your valued input is appreciated.............. By somebody, somewhere, I just don't know who or where.

 

I was merely pointing out that changing the laws or the  definition of the Law, means the square root of nothing, when you have around 40,000, mostly fighting age males, of unknown backgrounds, flocking across the Channel.

 

If you want to stamp out complacency, stopping that is your starter for 10.

 

But that would be far beyond your level of intellect.

Again back to that complacency thing.

 

Do you support changing the law to deal with the changed threat of terrorism?

 

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

 

What? 

 

 

 

Reading/eyesight issues as well as memory?

 

Let me try again in a larger font. 

 

Yet you support the Palestinian cause.

 

Cognitive Dissonance much?

[The Cyclist]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you support changing the law to deal with the changed threat of terrorism?

 

What I support, or do not support regarding changing the Laws around terrorism mean nothing, when 40,000, mostly fighting age males are flocking across the Channel on an annual basis.

 

Terrorists do not care what the Law says.

 

So when Laws and actions are put in place to stop the boats bringing around 40,000 fighting age males across the Channel, I might start believing that something more than soundbites is happening.

 

Until then, it is nothing more than hot air adding to Climate Change.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Reading/eyesight issues as well as memory?

 

Let me try again in a larger font. 

 

Yet you support the Palestinian cause.

 

Cognitive Dissonance much?

Which Palestinian cause?

 

I believe there are numerous Palestinian causes, which particular one Jonny?

Or alternatively, spend less time imagining what I ‘support’ and get back to discussing the topic of this thread.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

 

What I support, or do not support regarding changing the Laws around terrorism mean nothing, when 40,000, mostly fighting age males are flocking across the Channel on an annual basis.

 

Terrorists do not care what the Law says.

 

So when Laws and actions are put in place to stop the boats bringing around 40,000 fighting age males across the Channel, I might start believing that something more than soundbites is happening.

 

Until then, it is nothing more than hot air adding to Climate Change.

I think that’s know as the wet bar of soap answer.

 

Refer the OP.

 

Starmer has stated he’s going to change the laws to address the threat of how terrorism has developed.

 

I’m surprised you can’t support the Government in this endeavor.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or alternatively, spend less time imagining what I ‘support’ and get back to discussing the topic of this thread.

 

You were the one who inserted yourself into the topic. 😄

 

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nobody calls me far right.

 

Yes, that would be too kind. 

[The Cyclist]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Starmer has stated he’s going to change the laws to address the threat of how terrorism has developed.

 

Starmer stating, means Jack

 

Changing Laws means jack

 

When you have 40,000 fighting age males flocking across the Channel, who could not care less what Starmer states, or what Laws he puts in place.

 

So until Starmer puts a plan in action to halt the Channel hoppers, he is doing nothing more than adding to Climate Change by spouting hot air.

 

How is that you cannot understand that simple fact of life ?

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Starmer stating, means Jack

 

Changing Laws means jack

 

When you have 40,000 fighting age males flocking across the Channel, who could not care less what Starmer states, or what Laws he puts in place.

 

So until Starmer puts a plan in action to halt the Channel hoppers, he is doing nothing more than adding to Climate Change by spouting hot air.

 

How is that you cannot understand that simple fact of life ?

Because I don’t swallow your ‘all men of fighting age’, deflection for the topic of discussion.

 

The Southport murderer did not arrive across the channel in a rubber boat, or did you miss that detail?

[The Cyclist]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because I don’t swallow your ‘all men of fighting age’, deflection for the topic of discussion.

 

The Southport murderer did not arrive across the channel in a rubber boat, or did you miss that detail?

 

Deflection ?
 

Eh, the topic is about the Southport attack and changing the Laws around terrorism, is it not ?
 

Therefore, on behalf of all the sleeper terrorists and would be Jihadi's flocking undeterred across the Channel. I would just like to take this opportunity to thank Starmer, and the band of useful idiots, spouting hot air about changing laws, and not taking direct action to impede our travel across the Channel.

 

Not much point in changing terrorism Laws, when sleeper terrorist and would be jihadi's are still coming across the Channel.

 

Or are you one of those that mentalists that think that they are all Law abiding, genuine asylum seekers ?