The Southport Enquiry, the Prevent Strategy and The Robinson Trial.
JUPPLANDIA
Most of us know, even if we wish we did not, what an Islamic terrorist attack looks like.
We know that a long list of Islamic terrorist killers have used stabbing attacks to target civilians, and we know the difference between those and gang battles over drug turf or assaults related to mugging and theft. The most recent terrorist attack in the UK was exactly this-a Muslim immigrant attacking a Jewish synagogue and randomly hacking and slashing at innocent civilians (the Manchester synagogue attack perpetrated by Jihad al-Shamie and accomplices on the 2nd October 2025).
An older attack mirrored the exact same pattern. On the 29th July 2024 Axel Rudakubana murdered Alice da Silva Aguiar, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and Bebe King, nine, as well as the attempting to murder ten other people, including eight children and two adults. Around 2015, a wave of such stabbing terrorist attacks surged, particularly in France. In Britain, of course, we just passed yesterday the 4th anniversary of the Islamic terrorist stabbing murder of David Amess MP, who represented a constituency relatively near to where I live.
NOT a terrorist. A devout Christian…..
Most of us think of these things when we think of terrorism: stabbings, bombings or shootings targeting unarmed and defenceless civilians. To distinguish such attacks from ones motivated solely by insanity or by some personal grudge or conflict, we also look for a political, religious or ideological motive, especially one that can be confirmed by evidence such as materials from terrorist organisations, terrorist literature, or training and contact with known terror organisations. Both the nature of the attack and its targets, and the surrounding evidence is supposed to rationally tell us whether this was terrorism.
And then there is the Prevent strategy. The Prevent Strategy was initially introduced in 2003 as a New Labour, Blairite response to 9/11. It’s supposed to identify radicalisation, spot and monitor dangerous individuals who may be terrorists, and train and instruct various government agencies and police and security services on the signs of terrorist activity. Prevent strategy documents define what the authorities think terrorism is, how they try to spot it, and how they try to monitor and prevent it. It’s supposed to allow people to refer dangerous individuals to the police and security services, so it really defines the entire counter-terrorism strategy of the British State at its most vital juncture (spotting these people before they have committed an atrocity). 7,000 people a year are referred to the Prevent Strategy investigators, and over 31,000 cases have been assessed since 2019.
Over 90% of these get some kind of ‘no further action’ response. But there are also over 40,000 people on terror watchlists, often people first identified by Prevent. So it’s pretty important that Prevent guidelines are accurate and sensible.
Which they aren’t. More to that later.
The Southport killer targeted the most innocent civilians imaginable. He wanted to provoke as much terror as possible. He stabbed each of his victims multiple times. He stabbed other children. He tried to behead his victims, copying the classic Islamic terrorism beheading acts.
He had an al Qeada training manual and stores to develop ricin poison gas in his flat.
The training manual of an Islamic terrorist organisation.
Police at the time concealed the details of the contents of the flat. The BBC reported on the 24th February 2025 that:
“Despite public demands for information, the police provided few details about the attacker. There was very little information in their statements about his background. He was not even named because he was 17 at the time of the attack. One thing was made public early on – it was not being treated as terror-related by the authorities.”
At the same time, people were imprisoned for speculating or claiming that the killer was an immigrant or a Muslim, or for responding to this belief in ways that the authorities classify as incitement (the most famous being the Lucy Connolly case).
The Southport enquiry has since revealed that the killers parents were Christians and that the police wanted to reveal this to combat ‘disinformation’.
“Merseyside’s chief constable has said she was told by a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) official not to release factual information about the man they had arrested on suspicion of carrying out the Southport knife attacks…..Kennedy told MPs that, despite violent disorder spreading to other parts of the UK, she was told not to release information about Rudakubana to journalists.
She said she had wanted to tell the media that Rudakubana was not a Muslim.”
(BBC report on the enquiry, 25th February 2025, referring to the enquiry evidence presented by Serena Kennedy).
For mainstream media and fact checkers, this confirms that the killer, too, must have been a Christian:
“Axel Rudakubana is not a Muslim. He was born in Cardiff to a Christian family whose parents had previously moved to the UK from Rwanda, a country where the majority of the population is Christian. Neighbours described him as a “quiet choir boy” who came from a family that regularly attended a Christian church. His mother has been associated with evangelical Christianism and is a fan of the US evangelist David Turner. Despite widespread false claims online, particularly from far-right and Islamophobic sources, Rudakubana’s religious background is Christian. The false narrative that he was a Muslim or an immigrant was widely circulated after the attack but has been repeatedly debunked by authorities and media outlets.”
AI fact check.
Because, after all, nobody ever has different views or joins a different faith to their parents, do they? That’s impossible to contemplate. Nor does anyone ever change their religion. Nor do people ever pick up ideas from somewhere else when they are radicalised….such as from Islamic terrorist training manuals they own.
Presumably most devout Christians copy Islamic beheadings and have Al Qaeda training manuals, according to this logic. Perhaps that’s more common in Rwanda, as Axel’s father was an immigrant who would have either witnessed, been threatened by, or even participated in the Rwandan massacres (the whole basis for him being offered asylum in the UK).
Axel was a 2nd generation immigrant.
Remember, people were questioned, arrested, demonised and in some cases imprisoned for speculation about his immigrant status and his faith if that was combined with rhetorical responses taken as ‘hateful’. Mainstream media went on a hunt for such posts and accounts, especially if they were from independent alternative media sources.
When public anger led to Kier Starmer being heckled at a brief appearance he made at a memorial service, Politico wrote an article about ‘far right thugs hijacking’ the event. The Independent ran with Former security minister raises concerns Putin behind far right Southport disinformation. Sky News went with How the far right hijacked Southport protests and Southport attack disinformation fuels far right discourse on social media. CNN gave us UK rocked by far right riots fuelled by online disinformation about Southport stabbings.
Throughout 2024 following the attack, not just during the ‘Southport Riots’, mainstream media produced hundreds of articles and opinion pieces about the Far Right and about disinformation. The articles on the reaction to the attack outnumbered the articles on the attack itself. Some mentioned the flat evidence when it emerged, primarily in passing or in relation to the enquiry. There were, of course, no major articles specifically discussing whether or not the killer considered the Islamic terror training manual he owned significant, or whether it was significant that he owned it. There were, so far as I am aware at present, no mainstream media articles heavily criticising the Prevent strategy and its failures to identity a potential terrorist.
All mainstream media criticism transferred from the attack and the attacker, and from the terrorist elements present, to feverish speculation on the ‘Far Right’. Do an AI search now on Southport ‘disinformation’ and you get this:
“Following the July 29, 2024, stabbing attack in Southport that killed three children, a coordinated disinformation campaign falsely portrayed the 17-year-old suspect as a Muslim, undocumented immigrant, or refugee, despite no evidence supporting these claims. This narrative was rapidly amplified by far-right influencers and networks across social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube, where over 27 million posts related to the incident were analyzed. Prominent figures such as Tommy Robinson, Andrew Tate, and Laurence Fox played a significant role in spreading these false claims, with Robinson and Fox sharing content that falsely linked the attack to immigration and calling for border closures. The disinformation was not isolated; it was part of a long-running strategy by far-right groups and hyper-partisan media, including GB News, to exploit pre-existing anti-immigrant sentiments.
The false narrative was strategically planted and nurtured before the incident, creating a receptive environment for rapid amplification during the crisis. This disinformation was further amplified by international right-wing influencers, notably Elon Musk, whose ownership of X allowed previously banned accounts like Robinson’s and Tate’s to be reinstated, facilitating the spread of harmful content. A post by Eddie Murray on LinkedIn, which falsely claimed the attacker was from Africa and on MI6 watch, was reposted by Laurence Fox and viewed over 500,000 times, significantly contributing to the spread of the false narrative. The consequences were tangible, leading to nationwide riots, attacks on mosques, asylum centers, and refugee hotels, with 53 police officers injured and significant property damage. The UK’s regulatory framework, including the Online Safety Act, has been criticized for failing to address the systematic manipulation of online discourse that enables such narratives to gain power. The coordinated effort by far-right actors, combined with algorithmic incentives on social media platforms that reward outrage and engagement, created an ecosystem where disinformation could rapidly escalate into real-world violence.”
So…..Axel wasn’t a terrorist. Terrorists look more like this:
Or perhaps like this:
Please report any GB News teacups you find to your local Prevent investigator, immediately.
Nobody has ever supplied ANY evidence that the rightwing figures mentioned above coordinated their responses, or that rightwing responses generally were “strategically planted and nurtured”. This is all mainstream conspiracy theory. And of course far more people have criticised the Online Safety Act and the draconian crackdowns and censorship of rightwing content in the UK then have praised it….but by the circular logic of their own enormous bias, the larger number of people worried about censorship of commonly held opinions automatically become Far Right terrorists too. especially if they are either end of the social spectrum-powerless enough to be demonised or imprisoned for thought crimes (angry white people of working class backgrounds) or powerful or popular enough to be a threat to progressive political control and authoritarianism:
Before his murders, Axel Rudakubana was dismissed as not being a terrorist threat:
“He was referred to the government’s counter-terrorism Prevent programme three times between 2019 and 2021 due to his obsession with violence, though authorities did not classify him as a terrorist threat.
Police found evidence of ricin production and an al-Qaeda training manual at his home in Banks, Lancashire, which led to additional charges, although the attack was not officially declared terror-related.”
Three times Prevent was told, this guy looks like a terrorist. Three times they said, no he doesn’t.
Then he murdered three children in a knife attack mirroring multiple Islamic terror attacks.
You would think that the media and the government, if they wanted to prevent terrorist attacks, would have spent much more time looking at this Prevent failure than in chasing the conspiracy theory that a vast Far Right network (headed by Laurence Fox and Lucy Connolly, apparently) strategically marshalled all those other people who said…..
This looks like Islamic terrorism to me.
Now, instead of finally drawing the very obvious conclusion that Islamic or not the Southport killer showed terrorist intent and behaviour, the Southport enquiry doubles down, again concluding he wasn’t a terrorist. The same conclusion that let him commit his attack.
Why?
Well admitting he was a terrorist would mean admitting that the people the State arrested and imprisoned were right. As would admitting that non terrorist Christians generally don’t possess Islamic terror manuals.
Everything Axel did was textbook Islamic terrorism. But it’s not terrorism. And it’s not Islamic. It’s a devout Christian with mental health issues. Don’t think about the contents of his flat.
Meanwhile, Tommy Robinson is arrested and charged on terrorism offences for refusing to supply his mobile phone PIN number. Oh, and for driving a Bentley on his way to Spain. Apparently, a Bentley is proof of terrorist activity. The policeman who stopped him said that he suspected that the driver was Tommy Robinson before he stopped him:
“Police officer Pc Mitchell Thorogood, who was part of the Channel Tunnel policing team, stated he stopped the vehicle because it was an unusual car to come through and a lone driver added to suspicions, and he believed the driver was Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, before stopping the vehicle. He explained that he had concerns about Robinson’s travel, noting that Robinson was travelling a far distance in a vehicle that wasn’t his and had bought tickets on the day rather than in advance, which he described as unusual.”
So driving while being Tommy Robinson is also proof of terrorism.
That trial is ongoing. Mainstream media are trusted to report live from it. Alternative media have been warned not to report live from it.
According to the Prevent strategy itself, thinking that western civilisation is in trouble or the UK is being threatened via mass immigration is also terrorism. So essentially more than half the country are terrorists, according to the anti terrorism strategy our police and security services work from:
It’s just killing three little girls in a savage knife attack after reading Al Qaeda training manuals that isn’t terrorism.
It’s just Axel who isn’t a terrorist. But Tommy is, and most of us are, apparently.
These are the authorities we are supposed to trust to protect us?
This article (When Armchair Terrorists Decide What is and isn’t Terrorism) was created and published by Jupplandia and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply