After suspicions about Southport attack 'cover-up', no wonder the public is confused
Share:
According to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, the Southport attack was "clearly intended to terrorise". But officially it wasn't, and still isn't, considered a terror attack because the police couldn't identify the killer's motive, so it falls outside the definition of terrorism.
Axel Rudakubana even admitted a terror charge - possessing a training manual useful to a terrorist - but without a motive it's still not terrorism, apparently. No wonder the public is confused - suspicious even that the government wanted to cover up the failure of its Prevent anti-extremism scheme, which Home Secretary Yvette Cooper now admits should have identified Rudakubana as a threat, especially as he was flagged three times.
The manual was found at his home a couple of days after the attack, but he wasn't charged with the terror offence for another three months. Again, easy to see why some people cried "cover-up". When asked about his decision to withhold information about the Southport attacker by Sky News political editor Beth Rigby, Sir Keir said he knew details about Rudakubana, as they were emerging, but it "would not have been right to disclose" them.
It's easier to understand why other details of the police investigation were not revealed. That's normal when there is expected to be a criminal trial in which a jury must decide its verdict purely on what it hears in court, untainted by anything it might have heard or read before.
