That picture of the Southport killer

[User09678]

That has been circulating today.

Remember that sweet boy that was in all the reports at the time? The one who looked about nine?

Can anyone think of any other serious criminal who has pictures of them as a child out in the press?

@Tittat50 yes, you are on the money…his classmates knew he was a wrongun but honestly, what wre his parents not/thinking. Those little girls though, terrified, knifed.
Thank you for your lucid remarks.

not at age 9 he didn’t, when he was cute and passed for normal

Yes, the referrals are heavily weighted towards right wing extremism. It's also heavily weighted towards children.

But MI5's caseload, and the majority of all terrorist attacks, are not by children or right wing extremists. They are endlessly clear that "Islamist terrorism currently remains our primary and deadliest threat".

Prevent reporting is not necessarily representative of actual terrorist risk. It's mainly worried teachers reporting angry boys. If you think about this it makes sense as most children are in regular contact with professionals with the duty to report, through school. Adult men, who are the perpetrators of almost all terrorism, can disengage with education/health/social services if they are planning something, so are less likely to be reported through this particular channel.

Surely it’s irrelevant whether he was an Islamic threat or not. Whatever his motivation, he was a threat.

...This isn't to say right wing extremism isn't extremely concerning! Of course it is. It's just that when we say things that are obviously really not correct it worries me that it fuels these conspiracists and rioters. It's like when people go on like transwomen are not only women, but the most vulnerable type of woman, moreso than, say, disabled women in prison. You know? It makes people think you are just a very smug liberal who can say anything they want and make it "true" because you have social power.

I know the power exists, but I can tell you there are lots of dangerous children in the services/agencies at the moment and obsessions to kill or being violent or thinking about violence will not get someone detained if they are a child (not sure about adults as I dont work with adults). Particularly because he was ND there are whole tiers of health to prevent children with ND from being hospitalised

I think we all know who. The public opinion of him is so low right now, he is trying to manage it.

Keir Starmer did not set the pre-trial hearing date FFS. No one is trying to bury the story.

Do you really believe that? You are so wrong if you do. There is no possibility a politician would have the power or the access to court listings. You are living in a fantasy world.

What sort of medical psychological intervention? What do you mean by that?

They would have to agree to a MHA assessment, then get the professionals out to see him in a timely way where he is still presenting like that. I cant tell you how many occasions Ive had where we've waited days for someone to go out to the YP and by then their delusion or behaviour has settled a bit.

During that assessment if no imminent risk is present, there is no grounds for detainment. Even if there is, with someone who is ND there is a big push for not hospitalising the person, services work to prevent hospitalisation of children with ND

Do think someone like this would have engaged with CBT?

Ive had children in hospital where their lives very much are at risk and another difficulty is that treating professionals do not want to force medication, even under section.

It seems there was an ideaology though if he's been described as an incel

@Doris86

"Surely it’s irrelevant whether he was an Islamic threat or not. Whatever his motivation, he was a threat."

I completely agree and besides the police were unable to establish his motive and because he pleaded guilty his motive will never be known.

Just because he had an Al Qaeda terror manual does not make him a Muslim.
Equally just because his parents attended Church does not make him a Christian.

I am equally concerned about the anti Muslim and anti Christian nature of certain posts, when religion does not appear to have been his motive.

Starmer is announcing a Public Enquiry today. There’s no point anybody speculating until we know the outcome.

Inquiry FFs! Shouldn’t post when I have the flu.

Of course all those things can be difficult to achieve

My point was that if there's not even basic CAMHS provision then none of it can be accessed - ever

I walked in when the picture was on the screen, without any knowledge as to what was being reported. My thoughts were omg what horrific image. I didn't realise immediately that it was actually a photo!! When I realised what the report was about I was doubly horrified again!!

Some very serious questions need to be asked regarding what the hell went wrong across ALL agencies!! Broken hearted again for all those involved.

New powers to extend Prevent. Jonathan Hall KC (independent reviewer of terrorism legislation) points out that individuals just obsessed with violence aren't covered by terrorism law.

Question is why nothing was done re possession of the training manual. He could have been detained then before any of the violence that followed.

They: journalists and editors of TV news, newspapers and news sites. People who need to compete and gain attention for their product.

Seems reasonable that they would use contrast and juxtaposition to select pictures from what is available. I don't think @BobbyBiscuits is hinting at some loony conspiracy

Starmer is announcing the parameters of the terrorist definition are to be redrawn.

People who carry out acts in the name of a cause are vocal about it. He isn't a terrorist. He's fixated by extreme violence. He hasn't limited himself to al qaeda, but has consumed violence from all societies and groups. It isn't the cause for him, it's the act.

We cannot just treat everything as terrorism.

You may want to follow the news about how the definition of terrorism is going to be redrafted @NoSoupForU

This isn't true either. He hadn't entered any plea previously and had refused to speak. In the absence of any plea, we adopt a plea of not guilty because it shouldn't ever be the default position to deny somebody their right to a trial.

Yesterday was the first point at which he spoke and entered a plea.

Ahhh. That cute little Cardiff boy that stabbed those poor children to death has all grown up. Also since he has now pleaded guilty that he has a violent past.

Why were we lied too?

What were "we" lied to about?