You hit the nail on the head, immigration! Regardless of the motives or the religion, the perpetrators of these atrocities should not have been here in the first place. Anti mass immigration sentiments have been abound amongst the British population for decades and yet none of the political parties take any heed of this, rolling out tripe like "we are a tolerant people" and nonsense about 'British values'. Sooner or later, alas too late in my view as the longer this goes on the less likely we indigenous Brits are going to come out on top, this is going to come to a head and a lot of nastiness, that nobody wanted, and could have been avoided, will occur. Our political class needs holding to account, properly.
The attempt to spin this into a debate about access to knives is risible. This is similar to the dynamic in the US - where whenever a gun masacre takes place mainstream media & politicians focus exclusively on the perpetrator's weapon of choice rather than what drove them to slaughter innocents in the first place.
I suspect the kind of barbarity we see from Rudakabana is at least partly related to long term drug abuse, which serves to lower peoples' natural inhibitions against extreme violence. That then opens up an interesting debate as to why drug abuse is more prevalent in certain ethnic minority communities than society as a whole.
But certainly Reform are barking up the wrong tree trying to frame this as an Islamist atrocity. The short-sightedness of this is that if a similar attack is ever carried out by some lunatic claiming to be a patriotic nationalist (along the lines of Thomas Mair) - Reform won't have much of leg to stand on when the government uses it as an excuse to crack down on 'far-right ideology'.
The key lesson to be learnt and faced is that diverse cultures do have a problem mixing into our British way of life and therefore we need a policy of integration and not a promotion of multiculturalism or more correctly segregation.
The presence in our towns and cities of large numbers of peoples with cultures incompatible with our own may include Muslims as a subset but is a much wider issue. Focusing on Islam therefore is a poor strategy. It risks us ending up with the mistaken conclusion that all other non-muslim cultures are okay then.
Agree wholeheartedly; a total omnishambles is on the way in terms of culpability. You've explained it very clearly and, to cap it all, the dog-whistle approach is not doing Reform any favours.
(P.S. I think you mean 'the Labour government is to blame' in paragraph 7.)
"The focus should be on the fact that Rudakubana should never have been here in the first place...We can also say with absolute certainty that this will happen again, and is more likely to happen for as long as our politicians steadfastly refuse to get a grip on immigration."
Rudakubana was born in the UK in 2006 so the implication is presumably that his parents should never have been granted asylum in 2002.
In its 2001 Report of Border Control, the Home Affairs Select Committee noted that "the United Kingdom has a long and honourable record in providing refuge for those genuinely fleeing persecution". So is the argument here that, contra the Committee, the UK should have granted asylum to no-one? Or that the UK should have granted asylum to some but not to Rwandans? Or that the UK should have granted asylum to some Rwandans, just not these particular Rwandans?
Given the the specifics of Alphonse and Laetitia Rudakubana's applications have not been released, we don't know why asylum was granted. (I'd have thought there's a public interest justification for knowing the specifics of the decision to grant asylum.)
“Rudakubana had a closer connection to genocide than most other British youths: his father, Alphonse, is thought to have fought with the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), an armed force that battled the Hutu-dominated regime in Rwanda and eventually brought an end to the mass ethnic killings of 1994.
Alphonse, now 49, is reported to have been an RPA officer, possibly relatively senior, based in neighbouring Uganda, where his family are thought to have fled well before the genocide. One source said Alphonse had acquired significant military experience.”
The point here is that the father, Alphonse Rudakubana, if he really was an officer in the RPA, was on the winning side in the Hutu vs Tutsi conflict, and on top of that, he was based in Uganda with his family, not Rwanda itself.
Also, the father Alphonse moved to the UK in 2002, which is 8 years *after* the end of the Rwandan genocide.
I would like to know whether the killer has been visited by imams or vicars while on remand and whether he practises a faith in prison.
I would also like to know why little girls at a Taylor Swift dance party were his choice of target. Was he inspired by Manchester Arena? Did he consider other targets and what were they? To which online forums was he contributing and what was he posting?
The public will likely never know the answers to these questions and it is because of this that I will be sticking to 'no description is a full description' out of spite and the high probability of being proven correct eventually.
If you take each facet individually and argue legal semantics the end result you achieved is correct. However I believe the correct approach is to look at all the strands and view them together if you cannot reach the terrorism conclusion then I do not believe we will ever identify most of those arrested for this type of offence as terrorists. Each of the facets in this case has Islamic terrorist ideology and methodology written all over it as clear as day and only starshit if and his useful idiots would not see it as such. Anything else us apologist sadly
You hit the nail on the head, immigration! Regardless of the motives or the religion, the perpetrators of these atrocities should not have been here in the first place. Anti mass immigration sentiments have been abound amongst the British population for decades and yet none of the political parties take any heed of this, rolling out tripe like "we are a tolerant people" and nonsense about 'British values'. Sooner or later, alas too late in my view as the longer this goes on the less likely we indigenous Brits are going to come out on top, this is going to come to a head and a lot of nastiness, that nobody wanted, and could have been avoided, will occur. Our political class needs holding to account, properly.
The attempt to spin this into a debate about access to knives is risible. This is similar to the dynamic in the US - where whenever a gun masacre takes place mainstream media & politicians focus exclusively on the perpetrator's weapon of choice rather than what drove them to slaughter innocents in the first place.
I suspect the kind of barbarity we see from Rudakabana is at least partly related to long term drug abuse, which serves to lower peoples' natural inhibitions against extreme violence. That then opens up an interesting debate as to why drug abuse is more prevalent in certain ethnic minority communities than society as a whole.
But certainly Reform are barking up the wrong tree trying to frame this as an Islamist atrocity. The short-sightedness of this is that if a similar attack is ever carried out by some lunatic claiming to be a patriotic nationalist (along the lines of Thomas Mair) - Reform won't have much of leg to stand on when the government uses it as an excuse to crack down on 'far-right ideology'.
The key lesson to be learnt and faced is that diverse cultures do have a problem mixing into our British way of life and therefore we need a policy of integration and not a promotion of multiculturalism or more correctly segregation.
The presence in our towns and cities of large numbers of peoples with cultures incompatible with our own may include Muslims as a subset but is a much wider issue. Focusing on Islam therefore is a poor strategy. It risks us ending up with the mistaken conclusion that all other non-muslim cultures are okay then.
Agree wholeheartedly; a total omnishambles is on the way in terms of culpability. You've explained it very clearly and, to cap it all, the dog-whistle approach is not doing Reform any favours.
(P.S. I think you mean 'the Labour government is to blame' in paragraph 7.)
Good luck getting the parents deported. I can already hear the cries from the Human Rights brigade: 'They won't be able to visit their son in prison'!
"The focus should be on the fact that Rudakubana should never have been here in the first place...We can also say with absolute certainty that this will happen again, and is more likely to happen for as long as our politicians steadfastly refuse to get a grip on immigration."
Rudakubana was born in the UK in 2006 so the implication is presumably that his parents should never have been granted asylum in 2002.
In its 2001 Report of Border Control, the Home Affairs Select Committee noted that "the United Kingdom has a long and honourable record in providing refuge for those genuinely fleeing persecution". So is the argument here that, contra the Committee, the UK should have granted asylum to no-one? Or that the UK should have granted asylum to some but not to Rwandans? Or that the UK should have granted asylum to some Rwandans, just not these particular Rwandans?
Given the the specifics of Alphonse and Laetitia Rudakubana's applications have not been released, we don't know why asylum was granted. (I'd have thought there's a public interest justification for knowing the specifics of the decision to grant asylum.)
The question that should be asked regarding granting asylum is whether the parents were genuinely fleeing persecution.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jan/20/axel-rudakubana-a-ticking-timebomb-who-murdered-three-girls-in-southport
Two paragraphs from the above Guardian article:
“Rudakubana had a closer connection to genocide than most other British youths: his father, Alphonse, is thought to have fought with the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), an armed force that battled the Hutu-dominated regime in Rwanda and eventually brought an end to the mass ethnic killings of 1994.
Alphonse, now 49, is reported to have been an RPA officer, possibly relatively senior, based in neighbouring Uganda, where his family are thought to have fled well before the genocide. One source said Alphonse had acquired significant military experience.”
The point here is that the father, Alphonse Rudakubana, if he really was an officer in the RPA, was on the winning side in the Hutu vs Tutsi conflict, and on top of that, he was based in Uganda with his family, not Rwanda itself.
Also, the father Alphonse moved to the UK in 2002, which is 8 years *after* the end of the Rwandan genocide.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/axel-rudakubana-southport-timeline/
I was going to write a detailed response but this country is so repressive I don’t feel safe to do so.
I’m sure Trumps presidency will (provided he’s not bumped off) move the UK and EU from the totalitarian state we find ourselves in.
But it will take the next four years of his presidency.
Suffice to point out evidence required for proving a far right terrorist act are a smorgasbord of random ideas.
Match one idea and bingo you’re a far right terrorist.
But the evidence for describing an act as Islamic terrorism appears to be far more precise and I’m sure I’m not alone in that thought.
I would like to know whether the killer has been visited by imams or vicars while on remand and whether he practises a faith in prison.
I would also like to know why little girls at a Taylor Swift dance party were his choice of target. Was he inspired by Manchester Arena? Did he consider other targets and what were they? To which online forums was he contributing and what was he posting?
The public will likely never know the answers to these questions and it is because of this that I will be sticking to 'no description is a full description' out of spite and the high probability of being proven correct eventually.
If you take each facet individually and argue legal semantics the end result you achieved is correct. However I believe the correct approach is to look at all the strands and view them together if you cannot reach the terrorism conclusion then I do not believe we will ever identify most of those arrested for this type of offence as terrorists. Each of the facets in this case has Islamic terrorist ideology and methodology written all over it as clear as day and only starshit if and his useful idiots would not see it as such. Anything else us apologist sadly