Southport killer enabled by father

[crowsfeet57]

The evidence given by the school and the social worker highlighted how Axel Rudakubana's deteriorating behaviour was blamed on everyone else by his father. Now the father's own evidence is damning. surely this man should be charged as an accessory to the murders which he had many chances to prevent.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c20e8qd5d53t

Others are saying the parents were partly to blame but other agencies had greater blame.

So yes, people need to provide a source if they want to be believed. Otherwise you’re just saying we need to take people’s word for it.

put him in prison..... alongside his horrible son.

I'm still not sure what could have been done, legally. Would he have met the criteria for detention under the mental health act, or for a custodial sentence, prior to the Southport murders?

Could secure accommodation have been found - would there have been a legal framework for detaining him there?

Why do you keep making statements that aren’t true? They refused help. They refused to engage.

1. Here’s a link to the report.https://www.southport.public-inquiry.uk/report/ It specifically lists 5 key failings, one of which is 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 suggest you and anyone else who keeps repeating they were blameless reads the report. @nomas

I have read the report and they clearly did engage with services. This is completely untrue.

It takes an awful lot for a public inquiry, or any public service, to clearly and damningly blame parents for their failures in caring for their children, so why is everyone trying to desperately defend them?

Agree. This endless desperation to put every single personal choice down to a ‘failure of services’ is sickening. Does anyone have personal responsibility any more, for anything?

Because ultimately they should not have been left to care for an extremely dangerous child . Because there were a lot of opportunities to intervene earlier. The whole family was put at risk in addition to everyone else.

This. I think it takes a certain kind of person to fully understand what it’s like to be scared of your own child.

Talk of “boundaries” and the father not resisting enough etc do nothing to understand how difficult it is living with a child that we can all accept is dangerous. That danger lived under their roof.

I think unless you can understand what that must be like, it’s a little bit like “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” for me.

Because they gave him money to purchase and stockpile weapons!!! Ffs

Do you accept the 1. quoted from the report in that post re significant parental failures?

They didn't give him money "to purchase and stockpile weapons", FFS.

It was noted in the enquiry how his parents had to pay him to do basic things like take a shower.

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"

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?

Can you quote where I have said they were blameless?

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

It is very probably both.

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

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?

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.

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!