Southport killer enabled by father

At least one of school names that was mentioned in news reports is a PRU, you don’t get sent to one of those for no reason.

It is quite common (having worked in one) for the children in PRUs to have parents who either underestimate their risk level (“not my Timmy”) or struggle with their children to the point they disengage. We had parents wouldn’t answer the phone, or tell us to deal with it because they’d had enough, etc etc.

We had kids who would threaten to come to your house and burn it down, and if they knew where you lived I have no doubt they would have.

All of them though, are struggling families, and those children don’t present any less risk in the home than they do outside of it.

I just don’t think many can fully comprehend the absolute terror of your own child presenting you and others with that level of threat, and don’t really know what they’d do or how they’d cope in a similar situation.

I know people that taught him, he was a risk for a long time

No, they already knew that he posed a significant risk. There had been a lot of agency and police involvement. And a lot of opportunity to intervene earlier. They could have removed him if they wanted to from the care of his parents, there had been a lot of police call outs, it wasn't safe for anyone. They knew that the parents weren't equipped to manage the situation and there were other children in the house at risk.

they were given an entirely false picture of his mental state and blocked by the parents

Well the inquiry team certainly thought so and my inclination is to believe them

Services had YEARS to intervene. They did nothing.

Do you really think if the parents had called the police that morning when he left they would have a) taken it seriously enough to treat it as an emergency b) been able to track where he went and find that he got in a taxi c) been able to identify the taxi he got into and d) locate that taxi - within the space of forty minutes?

Given the police had already found him with knives and just returned him home, I doubt we'd have cleared point A.

Right, so the authorities bear all the responsibility. The fact is that if his parents had called the police when he left the house that day, those children might still be alive. They chose not to.

I don't condone that at all but ultimately the family did try to get support. Quite possibly challenged interventions that led to escalation. And if services were that concerned about the parenting then they should have forced removal.

The report also said that they didn’t call the authorities even though the only time he ever left the house was to assault other people violently.

For a parenting website, I find it pretty chilling that there are a number of parents who seem to think no matter how dangerous their children are, protecting themselves is the main priority. His father repeatedly challenged interventions. He did not plead for AR to be taken into custody to protect his family. He did quite the opposite.

Of course there were multiple failures of the agencies involved but we have a responsibility as parents too. It’s not good enough to bury your head in the sand.

It says so in the inquiry report that escalation happened which put the family at risk. Violence increased and family were not protected. This is unacceptable.

There is plenty of literature about the dangers of doing this.

Can you provide any evidence for that assertion?

To anyone who talks about the failure of the parents in setting boundaries this was dangerous. It led to escalation and put the entire family at risk of harm. It was ill advised and reckless. It is not acceptable for families to be put at even greater risk by escalating a volatile situation. Yet this is what they were told to do. I don't know why they are being heavily criticised for not wanting to be put in even greater danger than they were in!

I think it goes beyond saying the parents were lax. Knives delivered to the house. Lethal Poison intended for use being made in his bedroom. I think that is rather beyond lax parenting. Its this wishy washy approach to this dangerous individual that has caused this. The leader of the report said it was preventative. Somebody is just saying on TV now that people should be held to account. Parents and the various agencies.

I'd be interested what sort of websites AR frequented in the days and weeks leading up to his attack. Was he posting on forums?

It is very probably both.

One of the greatest fears of any parent is that you lose your child.

Where does any of that say that the parents were largely to blame?

It looks like a monumental fuck up by all. The inquiry said the failures by the public sector agencies ‘lies at the heart’ of the attacks.

So where do you get that he said the parents were largely to blame?

They didn’t want him taken into care or into custody. That doesn’t suggest they were acting out of fear. They were protecting him.

And you flippantly and falsely summarise that extremely complex scenario as "they gave him money to stockpile weapons".

You said you wanted a source as the parents being largely to blame was no backed up by any news reports and that it would have been reported.

I’ve provided the source.

Fundamental findings:

1. Absence of risk ownership: No agency or multi-agency structure accepted responsibility for assessing and managing the grave risk posed by the perpetrator.
2. Critical failures in information sharing: Essential information was repeatedly lost, diluted or poorly managed across agencies.
3. Misunderstanding of autism: AR’s conduct was wrongly attributed to his autism spectrum disorder, leading to inaction and a failure to address dangerous behaviours.
4. Lack of oversight of online activity: AR’s online behaviour, which provided the clearest indications of his violent preoccupations, was never meaningfully examined.
5. Significant parental failures: AR’s parents did not provide boundaries, permitted knives and weapons to be delivered to the home, and failed to report crucial information in the days leading up to the attack.

I’d argue that 4 and 5 both point to the parents. Given they are 2 out of 5 key findings, your assertion that they were not ‘largely to blame’ is incorrect.

I’d also suggest you read chapter 12 where AR’s father lied about hearing him say the reason he had a knife in school was because he wanted to use it, where he tried to get his expulsion overturned, when he complained that Childline reported AR to the police, that the only time AR had ever left the house over a number of years AR was when he was intending to use weapons to inflict serious violence. Etc.

From the report:

"While it said all those involved acted in good faith, the report suggested the "merry-go-round referral system" meant AR's case was passed from one public sector agency to another. This, the report concluded, "is not effective - or responsible - risk management". It said this failure "lies at the heart" of why the attacker was able to carry out the stabbings, "despite so many warning signs of his capacity for fatal violence"."

You can't rely on families who are petrified of their son and want to appease them to take action.

This is patently untrue. Whilst I believe the parents were extremely lax and should have reported the weapons, the inquiry sets out that Alphonse did try to hide the weapons from his son. It's clear to me that the parents chose a path of appeasement, which is common in families where they are scared of one member.

Alphonse R’s involvement with AR’s first machete is significant. It will be
recalled that, for this machete, AR had used the false name of ‘Alice’ supported
by a driving licence in that name. The machete was delivered on 14 June
2023 by DPD. Because Springfields of Burton sought to meet the statutory
requirements then in place, the delivery was age verified, and the package
was marked very clearly with a red box stating “Bladed Items Delivery To
18+ Only”.1940 Alphonse R accepts that he received delivery of this machete.
He states that he understood it was a knife rather than a machete. The package
was heavy and in the shape of a knife. Moreover, the delivery driver told
Alphonse R that it was a knife. However, Alphonse R accepted in his oral
evidence to the Inquiry that he knew it was not a small kitchen knife.1941 He also knew that AR had been furtive about the purchase because Alphonse R had seen the false name ‘Alice’ on the delivery label.

132. AR overheard the conversation between Alphonse R and the delivery driver
and unexpectedly did not protest when Alphonse R refused to give him
the parcel.1943 Alphonse R then hid the package on top of the wardrobe in
his and Laetitia M’s bedroom. It remained there unopened until after the
29 July 2024 attack, when it was found during the police search of the house (although AR did seek it from Alphonse R, threatening him in the process, on 22 July 2024 – see below)

Can you quote where I have said they were blameless?

Paragraph 48 (my bold)

AR’s parents’ irresponsible and harmful attitude to sharing information and to
managing the risk posed by AR to others culminated in the week prior to the
attack. In that period, AR’s parents, for the reasons that are set out in detail
in Chapter 12: AR’s family, bear significant responsibility for failing to alert any
appropriate agency whatsoever to the full extent of the risk of a serious or fatal
attack by their son. Over the period leading to 29 July 2024, they came into
possession of crucial information which revealed that their son was covertly
accumulating a number of deadly weapons and that he remained intent on
carrying out some form of attack outside the home address. What can only
be described as their misguided and irresponsible motivation for not sharing this information was to avoid AR being taken into care or custody. I have
explained the basis for this conclusion and the evidence on which it is based in
Chapter 12: AR’s family. If the parents had reported their true level of knowledge
to the authorities prior to the 29 July 2024, AR would undoubtedly have been
arrested and he would either have been taken into care or held in custody.
That position would have been likely to have remained the case both during
and following the inevitable criminal proceedings in which he would have faced
serious charges.

Can you explain how it is untrue that they enquiry concluded they failed to engage with services?

The attacker's parents were found to have failed to provide boundaries and had "permitted knives and weapons to be delivered" to their home.
While their role is described as "complex", the report said AR's parents "failed to report crucial information" in the days before the attack.
"AR's parents faced significant challenges, but they were too ready to excuse and defend AR's actions; they failed to stand up to his behaviour and set boundaries," it concluded.
The attacker's father is described as being "difficult" in cooperating with authorities, which included an "outright refusal to take legitimate professional concerns seriously"