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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Read more:
‘Nothing off the table in Southport inquiry’
Missed opportunities to stop Southport killer
How people of Southport are trying to make sense of horror
The traditional media usually sticks to that rule because to flout it could land journalists in prison for breaching the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
A lot of information has emerged since Rudakubana pleaded guilty to murder on Monday, scrapping the need for a trial, but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has still stopped some known details being published ahead of Thursday’s sentencing.
Of course, many social media users aren’t aware of, or simply don’t care about, the contempt laws and post in ignorance or malevolence some vital facts – plus the rumours and gossip – the rest of us have to keep schtum about.
Jurors are always warned to forget anything they read or hear outside the courtroom.
👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈
Crime hacks often think the Contempt Act is too restrictive in limiting what we can report. We hope it will be eased when the Law Commission reports on its ongoing review of the legislation.
The prime minister is not the first to highlight the growing threat from young misfits like Rudakubana; alone with a computer, their heads full of violent images and evil thoughts and hell-bent on achieving notoriety but without the fixed ideology of recognised terror groups.
Follow our channel and never miss an update
The bosses of MI5 and counter-terror policing have both warned recently of the risks they pose without any direct influence from organisations like Isis and al Qaeda.
Sir Keir has vowed to consider changing the terrorism laws to accommodate such individuals and to try to rid the internet of extreme violence.
He should find the first of those ambitions rather easier to realise than the second.
