Southport report lays bare the failures of authorities - and the attacker's parents

[IwantToRetire]

The words "failure", "failing" and "failed" appear more than 200 times in Monday's Southport Report

Its findings leave almost no agency, organisation or individual involved in Axel Rudakubana’s life unscathed.

The police, council, mental health services, Prevent programme – none of them took ownership of the risks that he posed.

Only The Acorn School, which the attacker attended after being expelled from Range High School, is noted as having repeatedly intervened.

But the Chair of the inquiry, Sir Adrian Fulford, also clearly believes in parental responsibility.

The attacker's father, in particular, is described as "obstructive" and "manipulative" in relation to the authorities.

It is rare to see a killer’s parents singled-out for not doing more to prevent their child’s crimes.

Together, the Southport attack was a failure of both parenting and policy – nobody, says the Chair, agreed who was responsible for the troubled teenager.

There was a "merry-go-round of referrals, assessments, case-closures and 'hand-offs'", he says.

There is even a specific moment when Sir Adrian believes the murders could have been prevented, after the attacker was caught with a knife on a bus in 2022.

But no arrest or search of his home took place, leaving the poison in his bedroom and the warped search history on his computer undetected.

The report’s recommendations include setting up an agency with overall responsibility for monitoring risk, to avoid repeat failings.
But there are searching questions too about access to online materials for children, the availability of weapons and the complexities of the attacker’s autism (the Chair is keen not to stigmatise others with condition).

Ultimately, only the attacker can account for his crimes. But for the families of the victims and survivors, today’s report contains the painful conclusion that he could – and should – have been stopped.

https://www.itv.com/news/2026-04-13/southport-report-finds-failures-by-authorities-and-at-home

The Southport Inquiry: Phase 1 report
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-southport-inquiry-phase-1-report

Why can't they write that they have inadequate funding? It should be part of professional competence to say when you don't have the right tools to do your job. I do it all the time!

It is damming to others, whilst acknowledging for some, they tried their best and failings were due to systematic failures. To others, it is damming where there is personal failure.

Will these people lose their jobs or will they just carry on working?

The only person currently in danger of that is the last social worker, who took 9 months to write up her report.

He had been in trouble for carrying a knife before and nothing happened.

The parents could reasonably assume that if they reported him, nothing much would happen again, except that their lives would be in danger from him.

The issues around child to parent violence are complicated. People are saying the dad should have done this, should have done that, without having experience of living with a violent child who threatens to kill you, and there is no practical help.

I don't know but you get some bonkers reports to avoid providing non existent resources. There's often a lot of eye rolling from other professionals.

Yes. The thing is that nothing materialises. If you beg for help you are seen as the problem for not being able to cope, this can lead to safeguarding where you are judged for everything, lots of meetings, loads of intrusion and you are told you're a crap parent.

You are seen as collateral damage really - or that's the way it feels anyway. It's your fault that you get attacked by your child, you must be doing something to make them do that. There's very little empathy towards you. Lots of families seem to experience this. I think that that's one of the most traumatic things as when you really need support you get stones thrown at you. I appreciate that not everyone has this experience but many do.

Yes. The thing is that nothing materialises. If you beg for help you are seen as the problem for not being able to cope, this can lead to safeguarding where you are judged for everything, lots of meetings, loads of intrusion and you are told you're a crap parent

@Thekidsarefightingagain that’s so shocking.
Are these social workers who blame you trained to do this or is it a way of avoiding dealing with the problem?
What happens if you complain about these people who are supposed to be helping you but are making things worse?
Do you think after the terrible Southport tragedy, anything will change?

I find all this speculation or even assertions that the parents this that and the other, pointless and in a making a thread about an issue pointless. No one on here knows. Maybe we could have threads where is says in the title "If I were the parent I would have .... "

There have been any number of threads on FWR about how there is no support for parents of children particularly boys with some form of autism.

And the crisis it has caused for them, and sometimes harm.

Instead of speculative musing, if the common factor is that services aren't helping how can this be changed.

Clearly cuts and lack of funding is making service provision less reliable or even non existent.

There is no system that seems to ensure that those who are struggling with their job in support services, or even know they are faililng, are able to do something about it.

Added to which it has been reported that thanks to the escalation of armed conflict (the west needs its oil) increased spending on armaments will mean cuts to social services.

This is the world we are now living in.

There may never have been a time that support services were there, and the original concept of the NHS was something much more basic that what on paper is appears it can offer (but often doesn't).

What used to happen in the past? Were people who were "different" just locked away?

Or is it a current phenomenon that there appears to be a high leval and increasing number of people with autism.

If so why?

As a society we only seem to wonder about this after whatever event it is that has attract public attention.

Tbh lots of social workers are really nice and really do care so it's no criticism of social workers. Some are understandably hypervigilent so a narrative can form quickly, everything then slots into that narrative and take quite a while to shift. It's hard for them to get CAMHS input I think as CAMHS don't have the time. They are usually the ones running around frantically trying to coordinate everything behind the scenes and working until midnight and on their days off. I personally wouldn't advise complaining as it only strains the relationships.

I don't think anything will change as services are stripped to the bone and until the system changes nothing will.

Tbh lots of social workers are really nice and really do care so it's no criticism of social workers.

That’s good to hear. Who are the people who are blaming you for being attacked by your child?

What used to happen in the past? Were people who were "different" just locked away?

yeah pretty much. Pre the 1992 community care act and the dissolution of the old mental asylums, ppl were locked away on them for a plethora of reasons

my sister worked in one in the early 90s. She said there were all kinds off ppl in there who'd been there for years. "juvenile delinquency" (very broad category), people with PTSD from ww2, women who were teenage mothers - some traumatised for sexual abuse. I'd be amazed if it didn't also include ND ppl with autism

It doesn't take much common sense and you don't need government advice to know that if you have a volatile child in the home prone to violent outbursts, you don't let him keep a collection of hunting knifes, arrows and poison.

I can't go into details here but in very difficult situations a lot of people get involved. That can go badly wrong, things escalate, people panic and it can lead to a lot of parent blame as a game of Chinese whispers becomes fact. Eventually someone has to take control. It actually turned everything around for us but it was an experience I'll never recover from.

The thing is, the professionals are working within a system that actively pushes the needs of the individual over the needs of the general public.

The 'voice of the child' is deemed central. 'Punishment' is a dirty word. Practical help isn't at the forefront and social workers are tied up in endless paperwork and targets that are utterly unachievable. Everyone is in fear of Ofsted and being seen to be doing a 'good job' is more important than actually doing the best in terms of outcomes for everyone.

I don't disagree with you re accountability. But the accountability needs to be from those at the top.

This case is absolutely representative of what's happening systemically across the board, in my view. The individual professionals are doing the same as is happening pretty much everywhere.

As a pp said the similarities with the Nottingham case are considerable. If a serious incident happens in the private sector then legislation is put in place to make serious changes. What will happen in the public sector with cases like this? We need to bring back asylums for people like this. They should not be loose to roam the streets and take people’s lives.

@Thekidsarefightingagain thank you for answering my questions. I am so sorry you had such a difficult time.

@JazzyAmbs The thing is, we do, broadly speaking, have asylums-we just call them “secure units” now, and people are often in them for years or even decades. Even on the acute short stay ward I work on we have average stays of four months-and our longest staying patient has been with us for over 2 years. This is normal in inpatient mental health. The biggest issue is quantifying risk. In reality you can’t section someone without a clear cut mental illness or lock someone away in a secure unit effectively forever without proof that they’re going to cause serious/significant harm. Most people don’t want to live in a country where people can be imprisoned or long term hospitalised based on the possibility of risk, especially as most people with autism or schizophrenia live happy, fulfilling lives in the community. Add to that the fact that risk assessment/quantification is notoriously inaccurate and you can see how it becomes difficult.

In the adoption groups I belong to, the standing joke is that if you approach services for help with really challenging children, they ask if you have tried a sticker chart....

I saw one speaker at an adoption conference once who reeled off a whole list of possible parenting techniques and he asked us which we thought worked best. Then he said they all work - with most kids. But there is a smaller group for whom none of it works.

If you have one of those children, you are well and truly stuck. Sometimes social services can organise residential care but most times parents are left to it.

No problem. It's a brutal system for both parents and professionals. It's been like that for decades, you can't just change things, I suspect it's similar in many countries. Professionals of course get burned out and hardened through necessity and they don't live with families 24/7 so don't always understand the realities. And there's often not much do to help which must be horrible for them. Who goes into their job with the risk of being hauled up to give evidence at an inquiry? It's just traumatic for everyone really and however many lessons are learned things won't change.

https://news.sky.com/story/adults-aged-under-34-twice-as-likely-to-fall-victim-to-fraud-than-other-age-groups-survey-finds-12741799

I think younger people are more likely to report and are targeted more than older people, but they are still falling for a lot of scams despite having grown up with tech.

He didn’t carry out the attack because he was autistic. He carried it out because his parents buried their heads in the sand and did nothing on that awful day to stop him.

Not just them. Staff downplayed, minimised or ignored the potential for that extreme violence.

@IwantToRetire I think years ago parents did not cover up for dc as much. They would “dob them in”. There was far less strain on services and knife crime was less prevalent. The wishes of the individual were less important snd the needs of the population to be safe were more important.

We require all services to respond to dangerous dc. Parents too. They need to work together and scared parents really must not cover up what dc are doing, as in this case. I don’t feel people would have done 50 years ago.

I thought he did it because he had some vicious hatred inside him. His parents didn't make him do it. This reminds me of the book We Need to Talk About Kevin, where the lines around responsibility (his or his mother's)are blurred. It is always the perpetrator.

One of the problems is that the people who actually try and help - the good professionals - are not only hampered by the blame avoiding professionals or ideology pushing ones, but also are more likely to get punished when things go wrong. Because they actually do something.

Literally every state agency I've had to deal with recently - with the exception of small pockets of the NHS (I suspect due to good consultants who've had the power and capacity to push for change) - are absolutely toxic workplaces with zero accountability for failure and extreme blame avoidance. A social services department I had to deal with did not have an email address I assume so I could not put things in writing.

Even things like the post office scandal result in no accountability. Someone senior should be in prison for that - vast sums of money were stolen from subpostmasters some of whom still haven't got it all back. Everything takes a million years.

I agree - managers need to have accountability and lose their jobs not only the lowest paid staff members it's the only way things will change.

I'm surprised the staff member who wrote that AR did not pose a risk to others is facing no disciplinary action though. And the one who told the headteacher that she was 'racially profiling' him as a result of saying he was high risk.