roubaixtuesday
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 5,828
- Team supported
- City
Suppose he didn't do anything illegal. He certainly wasn't convicted of any crime. But what could have been done differently will be part of the enquiry I guess.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Southport attacker pleads guilty to murdering three girls | Sentenced to 52 years in prison
- Thread starter CTID1988
- Start date
We could have invested millions in anything. What the so called experts struggle with is, just accepting some folk are just pure evilThis will probably happen.
I discussed this with my wife who is a psycotherapist specialising in trauma work. We spoke at length, but the first thing she said was that he looks absolutely insane. In no way does this undermine what he did, nor why he did it, but unless you incarcerate children the moment they display a hint of violent tendency, these sporadic events will happen. They are, I contend, more likely to happen without proper investment in schools, social care, youth services and mental health services. We have to address that, but it will still never rule out every one of these situations.
All for show, if you look at earlier pictures he looks like butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. If you tried that pose when you were having a mugshot done plod would tell you to sit up and face the camera properly and keep you there until you did.That pic is freaky, he looks completely dead inside, like one of the tethered from ‘Us’.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
He seems to have followed no particular ideology as such, but he certainly hated "something"
His planning of his final act doesn't speak of mental.illness....so what is it?
It's the same mentality as most of the maladjusted young people that carry out spree shootings in the USA.
Basement losers with a grudge against the world and often for unclear reasons.
How can we stop these people getting hold of knives or other weapons and carrying out attacks?
It's very difficult. The prevent system focuses on preventing young people from becoming radicalised and becoming terrorists.
But maybe there should be a wider focus on preventing young boys (and girls, but it's mostly boys) from developing the mindset where they carry knives, admire violence and become involved in the criminal justice system.
I saw parallels with this case. Same age, another black boy with autism and a warped sense of "respect".
Could the killer in Southport ever have been stopped or saved from going down that path? I'm not sure. But maybe he could have been detained in a secure hospital.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
All for show, if you look at earlier pictures he looks like butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. If you tried that pose when you were having a mugshot done plod would tell you to sit up and face the camera properly and keep you there until you did.
The earlier pics are from many years ago. Look at the length of his hair compared to the cropped length in the old images.
Might as well be two different people.
It is apparent he has been a distant loner and loser in his own fantasy world of violence and hate for a long time.
johnnytapia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 12,544
I blame the school he attended.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 8,723
I really do struggle with why some posters are so reluctant to suggest a terrorist motive. Here is my guess, at the moment the politicians, for what ever reason, though I think we all know why, are reluctant to use the word terrorist. Even Starmer in his speech today said, it is something we need to revisit in the fact this guy was threatening to do mass killings at his old school but because it failed the current terrorism test on 3 occasions, he was dismissed as a danger to the public
I’d flip that round and ask why some are so keen for it to be deemed as that. From the evidence that they’ve said so far, it sounds like he was obsessed with violence and terrorism in general, not that he was acting on a particular political or ideological reason.
Hence why Starmer is thinking of changing the law to broaden the scope of what is deemed as terrorism. Personally I’m more in favour of keeping it as is and just broadening the scope of what Prevent in particular deals with.
That may be because we struggle with why so many are keen to label it terrorism.I really do struggle with why some posters are so reluctant to suggest a terrorist motive. Here is my guess, at the moment the politicians, for what ever reason, though I think we all know why, are reluctant to use the word terrorist. Even Starmer in his speech today said, it is something we need to revisit in the fact this guy was threatening to do mass killings at his old school but because it failed the current terrorism test on 3 occasions, he was dismissed as a danger to the public
Are the police doing mugshots from slightly above? So they're looking up at the camera? Sentamu in this and Rudakubana in his?It's the same mentality as most of the maladjusted young people that carry out spree shootings in the USA.
Basement losers with a grudge against the world and often for unclear reasons.
How can we stop these people getting hold of knives or other weapons and carrying out attacks?
It's very difficult. The prevent system focuses on preventing young people from becoming radicalised and becoming terrorists.
But maybe there should be a wider focus on preventing young boys (and girls, but it's mostly boys) from developing the mindset where they carry knives, admire violence and become involved in the criminal justice system.
I saw parallels with this case. Same age, another black boy with autism and a warped sense of "respect".
Could the killer in Southport ever have been stopped or saved from going down that path? I'm not sure. But maybe he could have been detained in a secure hospital.
It isn't a struggle. Words, especially when describing horror such as this, need to be carefully chosen.I really do struggle with why some posters are so reluctant to suggest a terrorist motive. Here is my guess, at the moment the politicians, for what ever reason, though I think we all know why, are reluctant to use the word terrorist. Even Starmer in his speech today said, it is something we need to revisit in the fact this guy was threatening to do mass killings at his old school but because it failed the current terrorism test on 3 occasions, he was dismissed as a danger to the public
Words that are not carefully chosen, and accurate, can lead to the kinds of social disturbance we saw, with lives placed under threat, and religious buildings and asylum centres attacked.
The current, broad definition of terrorism is 'the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims'. Rudakubana used violence, but there is no clue that he had a political nor ideological aim. At this time, even now, terrorism would be an inaccurate description, based on even this broad definition.
He was a child-you aren’t going to detain child in a secure hospital-certainly at that point.It's the same mentality as most of the maladjusted young people that carry out spree shootings in the USA.
Basement losers with a grudge against the world and often for unclear reasons.
How can we stop these people getting hold of knives or other weapons and carrying out attacks?
It's very difficult. The prevent system focuses on preventing young people from becoming radicalised and becoming terrorists.
But maybe there should be a wider focus on preventing young boys (and girls, but it's mostly boys) from developing the mindset where they carry knives, admire violence and become involved in the criminal justice system.
I saw parallels with this case. Same age, another black boy with autism and a warped sense of "respect".
Could the killer in Southport ever have been stopped or saved from going down that path? I'm not sure. But maybe he could have been detained in a secure hospital.
Always hard enough to get a juvenile any form of secure accommodation.
Re the mugshot-a photograph is taken for identification purposes and also for any potential identity parade purpose-whilst there is in law a power to use force in order to take a photograph, force is incredibly rarely used-it doesn’t make a good photo.
A photo taken in custody should be reviewed by a sergeant or sometimes inspector at the time to quality check it-sometimes you have to accept the detainee isn’t going to fully cooperate, and you get the best one you can.
Last edited:
Because cps decided the evidence didn’t support a charge of terrorism-it has nothing to with politicians. It’s the job of the police and cps.I really do struggle with why some posters are so reluctant to suggest a terrorist motive. Here is my guess, at the moment the politicians, for what ever reason, though I think we all know why, are reluctant to use the word terrorist. Even Starmer in his speech today said, it is something we need to revisit in the fact this guy was threatening to do mass killings at his old school but because it failed the current terrorism test on 3 occasions, he was dismissed as a danger to the public
The definition of terrorism relevant for the murders is briefly violence for political, racial or ideological reasons.
There has been no cover up.
There have been multiple failings for certain but no cover up.
hilts
Well-Known Member
On Bluemoon if it walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck it's a Hedgehog.He had terrorist manual, made ricin, was referred to the terrorist prevention organisation ‘prevent’ and he killed three girls at a primary school. How was he not classed as a terrorist earlier?
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
He was a child-you aren’t going to detain child in a secure hospital-certainly at that point.
Always hard enough to get a juvenile any form of secure accommodation.
You're right. It would all be dependent on what his general day to day behavior was like.
He wouldn't have met the threshold for a secure children's home on the behavior that was known about and don't think there was an event likely to lead to a search that discovered the ricin.
I wonder what it was that prompted all the police call outs.
Was it physical domestic violence from him towards other family members? Or just shouting and screaming?
Seems to have been mental enough to get his plan in his head but able to keep it together to not draw the attention of prevent.
My experience with social services and the enforcement of the Children’s Act 1989 was entirely centred on the well being of the child, potential for significant risk to harm to that child.You're right. It would all be dependent on what his general day to day behavior was like.
He wouldn't have met the threshold for a secure children's home on the behavior that was known about and don't think there was an event likely to lead to a search that discovered the ricin.
I wonder what it was that prompted all the police call outs.
Was it physical domestic violence from him towards other family members? Or just shouting and screaming?
Seems to have been mental enough to get his plan in his head but able to keep it together to not draw the attention of prevent.
I’m not an expert in this area-but typically a juvenile will often be arrested a number of times before being sign posted to the relevant services. But it’s v rare for a juvenile to be detained in secure accommodation-it’s much more common for them to be placed in temporary foster care etc.
Such a difficult area when it comes to juveniles.
There are thousands of children who fall through the cracks in society-look at the grooming gang scandals-it’s more often vulnerable kids in care that are ripe for sexualisation by predators who give them the ‘love and attention’ they have never had.
It does need root and branch reform but that takes time and a lot of investment
We just see the world differently. Someone who admits to terrorism offences in my book is a terrorist. Quite simple really despite any political or ideological aims as you put itIt isn't a struggle. Words, especially when describing horror such as this, need to be carefully chosen.
Words that are not carefully chosen, and accurate, can lead to the kinds of social disturbance we saw, with lives placed under threat, and religious buildings and asylum centres attacked.
The current, broad definition of terrorism is 'the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims'. Rudakubana used violence, but there is no clue that he had a political nor ideological aim. At this time, even now, terrorism would be an inaccurate description, based on even this broad definition.
Yet those in self denial quite happily shout racist behind the keyboard, with absolutely no proof, to anyone who happens to disagree with them.On Bluemoon if it walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck it's a Hedgehog.
roubaixtuesday
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 5,828
- Team supported
- City
I don't think anyone cares if you call him a terrorist.We just see the world differently. Someone who admits to terrorism offences in my book is a terrorist. Quite simple really despite any political or ideological aims as you put it
What you seem to want is that the murders he committed are defined as terrorist offences.
As they do not meet the definiton of a terrorist offence, that can't happen.
It's really, really simple. I've no idea why you've been going on about it for days.
dronefromsector7G
Well-Known Member
He has to be wumming at this point.I don't think anyone cares if you call him a terrorist.
What you seem to want is that the murders he committed are defined as terrorist offences.
As they do not meet the definiton of a terrorist offence, that can't happen.
It's really, really simple. I've no idea why you've been going on about it for days.