Was it in public interest to cover up the terror links to the Southport stabbings?

Cossy

vegansrock

The riots occurred because of false rumours that the perpetrator was an asylum seeker, hence the asylum hotels attacked. I doubt whether calling it a terror attack would have made any difference.

I agree

This.

Isn't it so very sad that people used the tragic death of three young girls to foment hatred?

What puzzles me is how he knew about the dance studio. He didn’t live in Southport or go to school there and yet didn’t he take a taxi to a specific place? BTW I come from Merseyside and know Southport quite well.

Stansgran

What puzzles me is how he knew about the dance studio. He didn’t live in Southport or go to school there and yet didn’t he take a taxi to a specific place? BTW I come from Merseyside and know Southport quite well.

Oh me too, Stansgran.

Sadly I know some of the affected. Everyone here mentioned the venue. Firstly it's a very small road, my daughter lives around the corner. She wasn't even aware there was a studio there. We were all baffled as to what drove him to go there.

Apparently he was all set to attack his old school in Formby but his father was able to stop him

The most awful event and I'm hoping he'll be locked away with no chance of parole

Not hatred.
Fury.
Fury that concerns are reported, support and help requested to be met with indifference, time and again.
The school recognised this boy as a danger.
Why did the police refuse to act?

Three innocent girls slaughtered.

I believe Yvette Cooper has just announced a public enquiry into this.

Wyllow3

Cossy

vegansrock

The riots occurred because of false rumours that the perpetrator was an asylum seeker, hence the asylum hotels attacked. I doubt whether calling it a terror attack would have made any difference.

I agree

This.

(And of course the false rumours that he was Muslim)

woodenspoon

He should never be released. You only have to look at him to see he is evil. He was going to do a school massacre apparently.

Would you say, from this photo that this nice looking young man was evil?
Chances are you would agree that he looks very presentable?
It’s Jeffrey Dahmer.
He killed ( and ate) some of his 15 victims. He also committed necrophilia.
Very naive to say you can tell someone is evil by a photo.

I’m not naive far from it. The photo the police has published show the evil in this man. No excuses need to be made by apologists for evil.

Sago

vegansrock

The riots occurred because of false rumours that the perpetrator was an asylum seeker, hence the asylum hotels attacked. I doubt whether calling it a terror attack would have made any difference.

Had the truth come out immediately the rumour mill may not have turned.

The rumour mill started immediately, including people on this site who were repeating false information like it was some kind of sick information race.

Agree with Petra. The media will always show the worst, most demonic looking photo they can lay their hands on. He didn't look evil in that Children in Need video he put out, although his behaviour was ringing alarm bells even back then.
Can't tell from a photo.
I sincerely hope he's never released.

vegansrock

The riots occurred because of false rumours that the perpetrator was an asylum seeker, hence the asylum hotels attacked. I doubt whether calling it a terror attack would have made any difference.

Why not?

Because it was too late. And wrong.

The Guardian article says it all really (it's really worth reading) as regards how he grew up into the very mentally sick and dangerous person he turned out to be.

He can never be released.

Yes I recall on this very forum a speculative thread which repeated the original "muslim asylum seeker' rumour from extremely suspect sources - and made much of it too - and was deleted after things said even before the police revealed what I consider to be the right approach: ie, he was a UK citizen, he was a Christian.

The other facts in the Guardian took a long investigation and quite rightly were not released until now.

Didn't Labour categorically deny, alongside the Chief Constable of the local police force that this was a terrorist related attack? Yet they knew very early that the person at the centre of the murders had been referred to Prevent 3 times, as well as had, in his possession… a terrorist manual and bluddy RICIN in a Tupperware under his bed.

I'm quite confused by the apparent mismatch here.

A terrorist carries out a terrorist act in pursuit of political aims. This attack was not a terrorist attack because it was not a politically motivated act. Put simply, that’s what was concluded.

If you carry on like this you are going to hand the keys of number 10 to Farage.
Nobody believes a word that is said.

Galaxy

If you carry on like this you are going to hand the keys of number 10 to Farage.
Nobody believes a word that is said.

What was inaccurate about what I said Galaxy? It wasn’t a value judgment.

It was a general statement, not aimed at you. I cant begin to express the danger that occurs when faith in institutions dies, nobody believes a word of it.

I suppose, realistically, if everyone who was suspected of terrorism was imprisoned or regularly checked on there would be a vast amount of work generated and the police wouldn’t cope. This scum would probably have slipped through the cracks anyway.

Lies should not be told to assuage (some of) the public’s lack of faith in institutions though, because that further undermines them. It’s all very well being a fence sitter, telling everybody where they are going wrong, but it achieves no progress.

I am not asking people to lie. Look people knew immediately that information was being withheld. It was obvious. They knew, and they were right. When that happens people turn to other places for information, I dont actually blame them for that.

They also believe that different standards apply. So if this person had had a Tommy Robinson manual in his possession, we would be having endless angst about the far right. There wouldnt be a moments hesitation, and I think ( but obviously cant prove) that that information would have been made public very quickly. What a mess.

Do you think all the information about him should have been immediately in the public domain, before he was convicted? How do you balance that with the rights of the individual? That worries me when people don’t even understand the difference between a terrorist and a murderer.

If he had had a TR pamphlet in his possession I dont think there would have been much worry about his rights as an individual. There are some interesting FOI requests going in at the moment with regard to whether the police considered it a terrorist incident at any stage in the investigation. They are blocking that request at the moment but it is being re submitted, interesting to watch.