Southport’s Real Story Finally Emerges
The key revelations and what it might mean...
Earlier today, police announced that they have formally charged 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana, the suspect of the vile Southport child murders, with two new offences.
In addition to the murder charges of three beautiful young girls—Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe, and Alice da Silva Aguiar—Rudakubana has been charged with producing ricin, a deadly toxin, under Section 1 of the Biological Weapons Act 1974, and with possessing extremist material, a military study in the form of an al-Qaeda training manual, under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The additional charges, discovered during an investigation of Rudakubana’s home in the Lancashire village of Banks, include production of ricin and possession of a PDF titled ‘Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants—the al-Qaeda training manual’.
Given the lethal nature of ricin and the links to jihadist material, one would assume that Counter Terrorism Police would classify the case as terrorism. However, they’ve refrained, citing lack of evidence of a “motive.”
At a press conference earlier today, Merseyside Police Chief Superintendent Serena Kennedy cautioned the public against assumption, stating, “The new charges followed a lengthy and complex three-month investigation… I would strongly advise everyone to avoid speculation about the motivation in this case.”
Kennedy emphasised that the criminal proceedings are ongoing and warned that any commentary could compromise Rudakubana’s right to a fair trial.
Her advice seems ironic. Kennedy had no hesitation on July 31st, just two days after the murders, in labelling protesters who gathered in Southport as “far-right.” It marked a quick judgment on her part in comparison. No official, thorough investigations had yet determined the motivations behind the protests and riots.
The discovery of extremist material takes on further significance, considering some of the media’s reactions following the stabbings.
On August 19th, the BBC declared “false online rumours” fuelled the violence associating Rudakubana with Islam—later supplementing it with more articles theorising about online chatrooms “fanning the flames”.
For context, a recent Sky News investigation revealed that most of the influential accounts driving disinformation and orchestrating far-right riots in the UK originated from overseas users.
Other outlets, such as the Mirror and the Daily Record, frequently referenced the suspect’s Christian father and his prior involvement in a local choir.
British-Nigerian lawyer and activist Adeshola Mos-Shogbamimu, a frequent figure in the progressive media, stated Rudakubana was a “Black British Christian… born and bred in the UK” and emphatically “NOT Muslim.”
Indeed, possession of extremist religious materials does not equate to motivation, yet it strongly suggests an ideological link.
The government and authorities agreed that “misinformation” sparked widespread unrest. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper repeated such concerns in the House of Commons days after the murders.
Even our broadcasting regulator agreed, saying there is a clear link between “misleading content” and violent disorder.
In reality, determining the true reasons—objectively— behind public anger remains complex; the government’s assertions of “misinformation” sidestep the possibility that protestors and/or rioters may have had broader concerns, whether over immigration or perceived inaction by authorities.
In the maelstrom of footage posted online during the unrest, many peaceful protestors voiced their reason for coming out. Some said it was to show opposition to mass immigration and illegal immigration in general. While other protestors and/or rioters specifically mentioned Islam, with some clashing with police outside of a mosque.
Earlier this month, MI5 Director General Ken McCallum said that roughly 75 per cent of terror threats his teams were dealing were “Islamic inspired”, with 25 per cent relating to “far-right” extremism.
But then Telegraph and Critic journalist Charlie Bentley-Astor dropped the real bombshell…
On the day of the murders, she revealed that police on the scene had informed a Reform party candidate that Rudakubana’s actions were motivated by Islamic extremism.
Bentley-Astor stated that this information could not be corroborated with another source, preventing publication, but now regrets staying silent. “People knew in their bones this extreme act of violence was characteristic of other atrocities motivated by Islam,” she said.
The question begs: was the information deliberately withheld from the start? When did police know of the link?
Meanwhile, best-selling author Douglas Murray weighed in, claiming that authorities deliberately withheld critical information to control the narrative.
“Now we know why the UK authorities kept so quiet after the slaughter of three young girls in Southport… They kept silent because the suspect had al-Qaeda manuals. They knew. They just didn’t want the public to know. Because they think the public can’t be trusted,” he said.
Murray’s further remarked: “The UK police and government think it’s clever to hide things from the public if it’s immigration / Jihad related. It isn’t. It’s dumb and dangerous. Because the British public know. And won’t be taken for fools.”
In an equally scandalous development, outlet Guido Fawkes revealed that when they published an article last week questioning why Rudakubana’s case had been delayed, authorities went to the extent of directly contacting and pressuring them to pull the story.
The implications of concealing such details go beyond this case alone, touching on a deeper, more systemic issue of public trust, as does the authorities’ attempt to pressure a retraction.
The terrorism charges also touch on the prosecution and sentencing of those for saying supposedly “inflammatory” things online. The Free Speech Union thinks a number of alleged offenders could have grounds for lawsuits.
For example, a man in Cumbria received an eight-week jail sentence for reposting three allegedly "Islamophobic" memes on Facebook, which could justify an appeal against harsh sentencing.
Additionally, they posed that many people arrested in August for social media posts about the Southport attack faced intense police pressure to plead guilty. Did police anticipate news of a link to an Islamist training manual would surface, potentially weakening the case for conviction? If so, this could also be grounds for a lawsuit.
One positive consequence that has emerged in all the mayhem is that Robert Jenrick, who looks to become Conservative party leader, has demanded that the police and Sir Keir Starmer reveal what they knew about the suspect and at what point.
It might be the sort of political pressure that’s needed to get some transparency.
If our police and the Prime Minister encouraged the systematic targeting of individuals aware of the suspect’s potential links to Islam for “stirring up racial/religious hatred” despite its truth, the cultural—and possibly political—repercussions could be seismic.
Do you think if things stay the way they are our best days are ahead of us?
Are you going to sit down and watch as our media/government officials push for yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?
If you want to do something today to help change that, you can opt for a paid subscription and help citizen journalists like me attempting to stop it…
Why can’t the government and police just tell the truth is read of obfuscation all the time.