![[DEALS] The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Certification Training Bundle (37% off) & Other Deals Up To 98% Off – Offers End Soon!](https://www.javacodegeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/jcg-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
![Hidden Notes In Hotel Bedsheets: Flight Attendants Reveal Dirty Secrets About Your Room [Roundup]](https://viewfromthewing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/DALL·E-2025-01-22-17.42.17-A-female-flight-attendant-in-a-professional-uniform-is-seen-in-a-neatly-arranged-hotel-room-leaving-a-handwritten-note-on-the-bed.-The-note-reads-T.webp?#)
It’s easy to label violence like the Southport attack as terrorism. I’m afraid the truth is more complex | Samira Shackle
Axel Rudakubana’s case isn’t just about how his crime is defined – but the failures of a hollowed-out social care and justice systemAmid the chaos of rioting and misinformation that followed the Southport attack last summer, the abject horror of the crime itself almost seemed to recede: the murder of three little girls, and the attempted murder of eight others and two adults. This horror is clearly back in view this week – with a new scrutiny on all the missed opportunities to stop it. The fact that has gained most attention is that the 18-year-old killer, Axel Rudakubana, had been referred to Prevent, the government’s counter-extremism programme, three times in 2019 and 2021. Each time, Prevent concluded his preoccupation with violence was concerning but did not intervene. Rudakubana did not have a coherent ideology, so he was not considered suitable for the programme.In a press conference about the Southport killings on Tuesday, Keir Starmer said this decision was “clearly wrong”, and pledged to change the law so that lone wolf killers without a clear ideology can be prosecuted as terrorists. “When I look through the details of this case, the extreme nature of the violence, the meticulous plan to attack young children in a place of joy and safety – violence clearly intended to terrorise – then I understand why people wonder what the word terrorism means,” he said. UK law defines terrorism as violence, or the threat of violence, carried out with “the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause”. It’s not clear what would be gained by expanding the definition to include non-ideological violence. Rudakubana was obsessed with US school shootings, and in his call to expand terror legislation, Starmer drew a comparison with these acts of mass violence. But in the US, most mass shootings are not classified as terrorism. Sometimes, violence is violence.Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist and the author of Karachi Vice Continue reading...
Axel Rudakubana’s case isn’t just about how his crime is defined – but the failures of a hollowed-out social care and justice system
Amid the chaos of rioting and misinformation that followed the Southport attack last summer, the abject horror of the crime itself almost seemed to recede: the murder of three little girls, and the attempted murder of eight others and two adults. This horror is clearly back in view this week – with a new scrutiny on all the missed opportunities to stop it. The fact that has gained most attention is that the 18-year-old killer, Axel Rudakubana, had been referred to Prevent, the government’s counter-extremism programme, three times in 2019 and 2021. Each time, Prevent concluded his preoccupation with violence was concerning but did not intervene. Rudakubana did not have a coherent ideology, so he was not considered suitable for the programme.
In a press conference about the Southport killings on Tuesday, Keir Starmer said this decision was “clearly wrong”, and pledged to change the law so that lone wolf killers without a clear ideology can be prosecuted as terrorists. “When I look through the details of this case, the extreme nature of the violence, the meticulous plan to attack young children in a place of joy and safety – violence clearly intended to terrorise – then I understand why people wonder what the word terrorism means,” he said. UK law defines terrorism as violence, or the threat of violence, carried out with “the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause”. It’s not clear what would be gained by expanding the definition to include non-ideological violence. Rudakubana was obsessed with US school shootings, and in his call to expand terror legislation, Starmer drew a comparison with these acts of mass violence. But in the US, most mass shootings are not classified as terrorism. Sometimes, violence is violence.
Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist and the author of Karachi Vice Continue reading...
What's Your Reaction?
