Politics: prejudicial comment

By Richard North - October 30, 2024

Last week, there was the hint of something amiss when it was noted that the scheduled hearing in Liverpool Crown Court for the Southport knife murderer, Axel Rudakubana, had been delayed. No explanation was offered.

It took until yesterday, though, for warnings to emerge that “shocking news” would be coming out of a police press conference in Southport, with the suggestion of an “Islam link”.

The news was not long in coming, with the BBC website reporting by mid-afternoon under the headline: “Southport murder accused facing terror charge”.

In addition to his murder and related charges, Rudakubana was to face an additional charge relating to the production of a “biological toxin” contrary to Section 1 of the Biological Weapons Act 1974. He had also been charged with possessing a PDF document “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing to or preparing an act of terrorism”, contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The “biological toxin” was the poison Ricin, extracted from castor oil seed, and the document was an online download of a military study of an Al Qaeda training manual.

Two players, immediately cried foul: Harry Cole of The Sun and the website Guido Fawkes alleged that the new charges, one alleging terrorism, had been held back until after the Tommy Robinson march in London on Saturday and his subsequent jailing on Monday.

Amongst others, Robert Jenrick quickly joined the throng of those commenting on the development, stating that “the public had a right to know the truth straight away”.

He was “seriously concerned”, he said, “that facts may have been withheld from the public”, and called for Starmer urgently to explain “what he knew about the Southport attack and when he learned it”.

Jenrick did right to make the call as it was yesterday three calendar months from the murders and Merseyside Police had been quickly on the scene at Rudakubana’s house in the Lancashire village of Banks, following the stabbing.

Even allowing for some days for their search to be completed, it would not have taken long for the presence of Ricin to be detected. Tests for its presence can actually take as little as 15-30 mins of lab time – longer with preparatory work.

But according to the US CDC, their Laboratory Response Network (LRN) uses rapid detection tests for environmental samples, which can be completed within 6-8 hours from receipt of samples.

In a real-life situation in 2003, all tests had been completed and relevant parties notified in less than a week. Now, field-deployable diagnostic tests are also available for initial screening purposes.

With the more modern technology, Merseyside Police would have had confirmed results from samples taken from Rudakubana’s home within 24-36 hours, and the Home Office would have known at the same time. Starmer cannot have been far behind.

It beggars belief, therefore, that the presence of Ricin was not known to all the relevant authorities by early August, if not before – and the detection of the Al Qaeda-related document cannot have taken much longer. On the face of it, therefore, Starmer, home secretary Cooper and Merseyside Police have been withholding information from the public for almost three months.

The significance, of course, of the new charges is that they change the status of Rudakubana. Although the BBC is quick to tell us that counter-terrorism police have not declared the Southport murders a terrorist incident, Rudakubana, in addition to being an alleged murderer, is now also an alleged terrorist – even though each status is held separate.

Although there has been no official statement to that effect, the Al Qaeda link has triggered multiple accusations in Twitter and elsewhere that Rudakubana – despite coming from a Christian family – had converted to Islam, with obvious implications for the status of his crimes.

Unlike the time when Rudakubana was falsely named, this time round none of the current round of accusations have been denied, and claims of “misinformation” so freely levied by the authorities are now more appropriately directed at those self-same authorities, who have been denying and/or ridiculing an Islam link.

For the moment, though, the police are hanging onto the fig leaf that, for the murders to be classified as terrorism, a motive would need to be established. And we are led to believe that, despite Rudakubana being in custody for the best part of three months, the police have not been able to determine a motive.

While the police, et al have ostensibly been sitting on vital information, the Starmer regime has unleashed its reign of terror on rioters and social media commentators, with pompous judges handing down draconian sentences which seem entirely out of proportion to the charges.

The severity of the sentencing had, in the words of one judge, been influenced by the use (in Southport) of “obviously racist and religiously intolerant language that was demonstrating quite deliberately outside a mosque”.

Judge Andrew Menary, speaking on 8 August, went on to opine that “there were others who saw these events as an opportunity to sow division and hatred and so published on social media and in printed leaflets false information about the supposed nationality, ethnicity and religion of the alleged attacker”.

“Of course”, he said, “all of this was complete nonsense but from that point on it has been used as a pretext for widespread violence, intimidation and damage”. This is a judge who should be thinking about eating his words but that would never occur to his likes.

Nevertheless, The Times is running a front-page story on Tory accusations of a cover-up, the nature of which could have had an impact on the sentencing.

Alison Pearson in the Telegraph identifies the pattern of evasion used by the authorities when seeking to manage public perception of immigrant-related outrages.

It starts with the suppression of information on the identity and ethnicity of the suspect and is followed immediately by criticism of perfectly understandable public speculation and anger about the alleged attacker.

Yet once again, with no lessons having been learned, we get the dull drone of DEI hire, chief constable Serena Kennedy, “strongly” advising anyone against speculating as to the motivation in the case.

“The criminal proceedings against Axel Rudakubana”, she says, “are live and he has the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there is no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online that could prejudice these proceedings”.

She has the nerve to add: “My plea is to be patient. Don’t engage in rumour and speculation”, and “Don’t believe everything you read on social media”, while denying that the police are deciding to keep information from the public.

Typically, this bureaucrat falls back on the claim that “we are restricted in what we can share with you while proceedings are live”, although the restrictions on prejudicial comment in such circumstances are perhaps not as severe as she might like.

They certainly do not affect comment about the behaviour of the authorities, and the impact of immigration policies on violent crime, which is probably what her ilk is most keen to suppress.

They won’t entirely get their way this time as, even though it is budget day today, Rudakubana is due to appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court, for the new charges to be heard, and there is bound to be more publicity.

Broadly, there is a very strong feeling being expressed that, from Starmer downwards, we are being fobbed off with lies. He and his fellow travellers can expect to hear much more “prejudicial comment” before this is over, as trust has never before been so badly eroded.