Southport Attacks and Aftermath #5

1
Snowfairy08 said:
I just don’t understand why WE need to know. As long as those of importance (i.e the victims and their families) know and there’s no further expected risk from THIS incident, and they haven’t found imminent risk during their enquiries of further action, why do we actually need to know? It may be an unpopular opinion but I can understand why this wasn’t made public sooner. I appreciate the feeling that we were all lied to, but who are we to have the right to know unless we are at risk ourselves?
Click to expand...

If the new revelations had been that he was part of an incel group, I don’t think anyone would be questioning whether we had the right to know to be fair, even though all of the above might well still apply. The same way there was an awful lot of “That’s total speculation, there’s no evidence” thrown at people speculating about a terrorism link early on, but the same criticism wasn’t thrown at those speculating it could be an incel thing.

It’s generally the case that stuff like this is disclosed so when it isn’t, I think it’s natural people will question why this case is different.
 
IMG_0337.jpeg

Not sure if this has been shared in here. Set up by Elsie’s family.
 
There seems to be a fair few similarities between the specimen who committed this atrocity and many school shooters. Admittedly the available info is anecdotal so far. Wonder if he kept a journal ala Klebold and Harris and a few others?
Chronically online/voluntary seclusion/interest in terrorism/mass murder/methods of killing. Rage.
IMO the Ricin PDF he had doesn't mean much in this context. These types read and collect all sorts of material on killing/how to kill.Probs read up on Holocaust stuff too.

I'm still curious about the one who turned up at the memorial service with a knife.
Last time I asked on here a while back he'd been apprehended but not heard anything since.
Admittedly I've not paid this any mind till now so I've probably missed something there.
 
Does anyone have evidence that his father was part of the genocide? I keep seeing that his dad was a diplomat but he was 18 at the time of the genocide, are many 18 year olds diplomats?
Also Rudakubana, whilst not common isn’t exactly an unusual surname in Rwanda. Lots of people are seeing the surname in relation to someone who was part of the genocide and going ‘yes that’s the one!’ without doing anymore research.
 
thegirlscout said:
Does anyone have evidence that his father was part of the genocide? I keep seeing that his dad was a diplomat but he was 18 at the time of the genocide, are many 18 year olds diplomats?
Also Rudakubana, whilst not common isn’t exactly an unusual surname in Rwanda. Lots of people are seeing the surname in relation to someone who was part of the genocide and going ‘yes that’s the one!’ without doing anymore research.
Click to expand...
That wouldn’t be public if they were given new identities.Extremists can be any age Axel was 17 when he committed the murders it could be his grandfather was given sanctuary from Rwandan authorities ?
---
RaveChampion said:
There seems to be a fair few similarities between the specimen who committed this atrocity and many school shooters. Admittedly the available info is anecdotal so far. Wonder if he kept a journal ala Klebold and Harris and a few others?
Chronically online/voluntary seclusion/interest in terrorism/mass murder/methods of killing. Rage.
IMO the Ricin PDF he had doesn't mean much in this context. These types read and collect all sorts of material on killing/how to kill.Probs read up on Holocaust stuff too.

I'm still curious about the one who turned up at the memorial service with a knife.
Last time I asked on here a while back he'd been apprehended but not heard anything since.
Admittedly I've not paid this any mind till now so I've probably missed something there.
Click to expand...
Think this is him?
www.bbc.co.uk

Man caught with knife near vigil for Southport stabbing victims jailed - BBC News

Jordan Davies, 32, was seen by members of the public carrying a knife and wearing a balaclava.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
My criteria for Psychopathy was overly generous in my prior post (my apologies!) so I should clarify:-

1/ Chronically online = actively seeking out and repeatedly viewing footage of people being hurt/killed. Obsessively.
2/ Interest in violent crime/genocide etc = Finding that material sexy/gratifying/empowering/of possible practical use.
3/ Voluntary seclusion (I crave this) = Refusal/extreme reluctance to leave the house/bedroom and interact with anyone at all.

It's a matter of degree otherwise half the population (myself included) qualifies.

I trust everything will come out at the trial.
There's been a near unimaginable tragedy.
It triggered social unrest.
Justice really has to be seen being done here now IMHO.
 
But Tory leadership candidate Robert Jenrick said he was concerned facts may have been withheld from the public.

He said: “Any suggestion of a cover-up will permanently damage public trust in whether we’re being told the truth about crime in our country. Keir Starmer must urgently explain to the country what he knew about the Southport attack and when he learned it.

“Across the board the hard reality of mass migration is being covered up We need the truth – and we need to change.”

His Tory rival Kemi Badenoch said there were “serious questions to be asked of the police, the CPS and also of Keir Starmer’s response to the whole situation”.

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, she added: “Parliament is the right place for this to happen.

“While we must abide by the rules of contempt of court and not prejudice this case, it is important that there is appropriate scrutiny.”

Both Tory leadership candidates mentioned 'cover up' and 'abiding by the rules' prior to Farrage. Farrage said a similar thing but made it sound like a sinister conspiracy.
It is politics, of course any political party are going to politicise anything emotive to their favour.
The Palestine 'issue' lost Labour a lot of the Muslim vote...this was a way to show that Labour were taking Islamaphobic threats seriously/
Did it take the focus off immigration/weapons to Israel/prisoners being released...you could see it as simply Keir showing he is in control?
Is it Farrage just being Farrage?
 
All I say is the police grapevine has in my experience been one of the most efficient set of jungle drums. It’s a very stressful job, people chat, but are experienced enough not to mention anything to compromise the trial.

The trial is due in January. The government can’t control what comes out. Unless they seek to have part of it held in secret. And they wouldn’t do that. Would they?
 
I think the fact it has even been announced that there are potential links is very telling, after the blanket insistence from so many early on that there were no links at all.

The riots were absolutely awful and were the far right seeking to sew divide and blame innocent people for an attack they had nothing to do with. Nobody is saying they weren’t.

But the answer to that isn’t to resort to lying by saying there were no links whatsoever and accusing anyone talking about potential links as being as bad as the rioters. It wasn’t speculation people and the government had a problem with because anyone talking about the Incel theory wasn’t told there was no evidence it’s all speculation, be quiet.

I hate to agree with a Tory but they’re right - if it turns out it was covered up it will have ramifications both for trust in the police and in terms of the far right absolutely crowing from the roof tops “we were RIGHT and they SILENCED us!” A massive own goal all round.
 
The end of Starmer for sure ✔️
---
NeverEnough said:
All I say is the police grapevine has in my experience been one of the most efficient set of jungle drums. It’s a very stressful job, people chat, but are experienced enough not to mention anything to compromise the trial.

The trial is due in January. The government can’t control what comes out. Unless they seek to have part of it held in secret. And they wouldn’t do that. Would they?
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t be the first time!
 
CabalofBolorneaise said:
I think the fact it has even been announced that there are potential links is very telling, after the blanket insistence from so many early on that there were no links at all.

The riots were absolutely awful and were the far right seeking to sew divide and blame innocent people for an attack they had nothing to do with. Nobody is saying they weren’t.

But the answer to that isn’t to resort to lying by saying there were no links whatsoever and accusing anyone talking about potential links as being as bad as the rioters. It wasn’t speculation people and the government had a problem with because anyone talking about the Incel theory wasn’t told there was no evidence it’s all speculation, be quiet.

I hate to agree with a Tory but they’re right - if it turns out it was covered up it will have ramifications both for trust in the police and in terms of the far right absolutely crowing from the roof tops “we were RIGHT and they SILENCED us!” A massive own goal all round.
Click to expand...

I think we should remember the context. This happened weeks into the first Labour government in 14 years. Some of the new ministers had never held a ministerial role, and had only experienced opposition, or student politics with the “safe space” concept. I honestly believe they panicked and tried to suppress the incident which very quickly spiralled out of control when they discovered that a proportion of the country don’t believe in the safe space philosophy.
 
Or maybe it’s because when there were riots over the 2011 there was a massive crackdown which had broad public support and it would have been odd not to do the same here. Especially, when the crackdown in 2011 affected lots of young kids, many from ethnic minorities and some thought they had been treated too harshly. Keir Starmer was the DPP at the time I think
 
Lars Guinard said:
But Tory leadership candidate Robert Jenrick said he was concerned facts may have been withheld from the public.

He said: “Any suggestion of a cover-up will permanently damage public trust in whether we’re being told the truth about crime in our country. Keir Starmer must urgently explain to the country what he knew about the Southport attack and when he learned it.

“Across the board the hard reality of mass migration is being covered up We need the truth – and we need to change.”

His Tory rival Kemi Badenoch said there were “serious questions to be asked of the police, the CPS and also of Keir Starmer’s response to the whole situation”.

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, she added: “Parliament is the right place for this to happen.

“While we must abide by the rules of contempt of court and not prejudice this case, it is important that there is appropriate scrutiny.”

Both Tory leadership candidates mentioned 'cover up' and 'abiding by the rules' prior to Farrage. Farrage said a similar thing but made it sound like a sinister conspiracy.
It is politics, of course any political party are going to politicise anything emotive to their favour.
The Palestine 'issue' lost Labour a lot of the Muslim vote...this was a way to show that Labour were taking Islamaphobic threats seriously/
Did it take the focus off immigration/weapons to Israel/prisoners being released...you could see it as simply Keir showing he is in control?
Is it Farrage just being Farrage?
Click to expand...
There’s security experts that have publicly stated it would be unusual for Starmer not to know (very early on ) there were terrorists connotations to the case.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0714.jpeg
    IMG_0714.jpeg
    44.5 KB · Views: 7
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top