Keir Starmer’s EMPTY RHETORIC on Southport Murders: Vague Promises, Hidden Terror Links & No Real Answers In The Face Of Tragedy !

Hi and welcome to this JK B'HAM Crime Report for VPN: REGIONAL NETWORKS:

Now that reporting restrictions have been lifted, we can finally reveal more about Axel Rudakubana’s descent into horrifying violence, a tragic series of events that could have been prevented if earlier warning signs had been taken more seriously by authorities.

Yet, while the focus should remain on the victims and the critical failures that led to this disaster, we must also turn a discerning eye toward the political response. Keir Starmer, in his address to the nation, promised reforms and vowed to learn from the tragedy.

However, his rhetoric raises more questions than it answers. Is his commitment to uncovering the truth as genuine as it appears? Or is this just another round of hollow promises, without any clear roadmap for change?

This article will scrutinise Starmer’s words, questioning whether they signal a genuine shift in policy or merely another iteration of inaction disguised as concern.

But first let’s examine the new revelations about the Southport attack perpetrator, Axel Rudakubana.

Profile of a Killer: How Warning Signs Were Missed in Axel Rudakubana’s Descent Into Violence

Axel Rudakubana, 18, who admitted to murdering three young girls and attempting to kill 10 others during a dance class in Southport on July 29, 2024, had a deeply troubled background with repeated warnings about his potential for violence. Born in Cardiff in 2006 to Rwandan parents, he moved to the Southport area in 2013. By his early teens, his behavior had already raised significant concerns among authorities, educators, and his own family.

A Troubled Past: Early Signs of Violence

Age 13 (October 2019): Rudakubana was expelled from Range High School in Formby after bringing a knife to school. This followed a phone call to Childline, where he claimed he was being racially bullied and said he intended to bring a knife as retaliation.

Age 13 (December 2019): Two months later, he returned to the school with a hockey stick, running through corridors and attacking a fellow pupil, breaking their wrist. A teacher had to restrain him to prevent further harm.

After his exclusion, Rudakubana was transferred to The Acorns School, which provides specialist education, before enrolling briefly at Presfield High School & Specialist College. However, he was unable to reintegrate into mainstream or specialist education, often refusing to leave the house. Social workers visited him at home but were frequently accompanied by police due to fears about his volatile and violent behavior.

An Obsession with Violence and Isolation

Ages 13–15 (2019–2021): Between the ages of 13 and 15, Rudakubana was referred to the government’s Prevent programme three times due to his obsession with violence. He showed a sustained interest in high school shootings, despotic leaders like Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan, and historical genocides, including the Rwandan genocide. His internet activity revealed an interest in graphic videos of murder, documents about warfare, and detailed guides on violent attacks.

Former classmates described him as a loner with a “kill list” of people he wanted to target. His isolation deepened as he spent most of his time at home, consuming violent content online.

Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis

In 2022, Rudakubana was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Reports suggest he struggled with communication and often refused to engage with his family or leave the house for extended periods. However, it is unclear whether this diagnosis influenced the management of his case by social services, education authorities, or Prevent.

The Final Warning Signs

Age 17 (July 22, 2024): A week before the Southport attack, Rudakubana attempted to return to Range High School, which he had been expelled from five years earlier. Wearing a surgical mask and a hooded sweatshirt—later used in the Southport attack—he booked a taxi under the name “Simon” and attempted to travel to the school. His father, Alphonse Rudakubana, intervened, pleading with the taxi driver not to take him there.

Age 17 (July 29, 2024): On the day of the attack, Rudakubana again disguised himself with the same mask and booked another taxi under the same alias. He traveled to a Taylor Swift-themed dance class and carried out a meticulously planned stabbing spree, killing Bebe King, 6, Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, 9. Eight other children and two adults were injured.

Authorities’ Involvement and Missed Opportunities

Throughout his teenage years, numerous agencies interacted with Rudakubana:

• Prevent Referrals: Three referrals to the counter-terrorism programme failed to mitigate his escalating obsession with violence.

• Social Services: Lancashire Constabulary responded to five calls from his home between October 2019 and May 2022 due to behavioral concerns. Social workers visiting his home often requested police accompaniment due to safety fears.

• Education Services: He struggled in specialist schools and was eventually managed through home visits, raising questions about the adequacy of support provided.

• Mental Health Awareness: Despite his autism diagnosis, there is little evidence that mental health services were adequately engaged to address his volatile behavior or social isolation.

Unanswered Questions

After the attack, police found ricin, knives, and documents about genocide and violence in his home. Despite repeated red flags—from his threats as a young teenager to his father’s desperate intervention just days before the murders—Rudakubana’s descent into violence was not prevented.

A public inquiry announced by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper will examine whether systemic failures in education, social services, and counter-terrorism efforts enabled him to carry out the deadly attack.

Rudakubana will be sentenced on Thursday. He faces a mandatory life sentence, with a minimum term of at least 30 years expected.

Keir Starmer’s Response To The Nation

Further to the shock guilty plea yesterday, Keir Starmer addressed the nation this morning regarding the brutal murders of Alice da Silva Aguiar, Bebe King, and Elsie Dot Stancombe. In an emotionally charged speech, the Prime Minister acknowledged the catastrophic failures that allowed Axel Rudakubana to carry out his horrific attack, framing it as a “devastating moment in our history” and promising sweeping reforms.

However, as powerful as his rhetoric was, Starmer’s speech is drawing intense scrutiny — both for its substantive omissions and its selective framing of legal obligations.

Starmer began with a solemn tribute to the victims, naming them individually and vowing that their legacy would be one of systemic change rather than merely grief and outrage. “The names of Alice, Bebe, and Elsie must not be associated with their barbaric killer,” he declared, “but instead with a fundamental change in how Britain protects its citizens and its children.” He described the murders as a “line in the sand” that the government must not cross again, framing his government’s response as a pivotal moment for national security policy.

Yet, this language of finality and turning points felt hollow in light of recent history. Critics were quick to point out that similar declarations have followed other national tragedies. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged this:

“I know people will be watching right now, and they’ll be saying, we’ve heard all this before — the promises, the sorrow, the inquiry that comes and goes. That inability to change has become the oxygen for wider conspiracy.”

The candour was notable, but it raises an uncomfortable question: if the cyclical nature of post-tragedy promises is so well understood, why has Starmer’s government — one committed to reform and justice — not broken that cycle already?

The “Law of the Land” and Its Application

One of the most contentious points of Starmer’s speech was his defence of the government’s decision to withhold information about Rudakubana’s terrorist links and deadly preparations until after his guilty plea. “It was not my personal decision to withhold this information,” Starmer stated, “any more than it was a journalist’s personal decision not to print or write about it. That is the law of the land, and it is in place to protect the integrity of the system to ensure that the victims and their families get the justice they deserve.”

This framing draws on the well-established principle of avoiding prejudicial publicity, particularly in high-profile cases. English courts have long been concerned with pre-trial prejudice, with the Contempt of Court Act 1981 providing a framework for limiting public disclosures that could influence a jury.

However, critics, including legal commentators, argue that the Prime Minister’s blanket invocation of this principle was an oversimplification. The modern use of judge-only trials for terrorism-related cases, as affirmed in R v. Coughlan (2022), means that the potential for juror bias is often mitigated in advance. This undermines the assertion that revealing Rudakubana’s terror-related materials or his Prevent referrals would have necessarily jeopardised justice.

Starmer’s comparison to journalists who must refrain from publishing certain details, lest they collapse a trial, rings true in principle. But it also highlights a troubling inconsistency. Journalists operate under stringent guidelines to protect due process, yet they often witness public figures and institutions evading similar restrictions, eroding public trust. Starmer acknowledged this paradox, stating:

“We need to address the frustration of journalists who know the law doesn’t permit them to report critical facts, while they watch others flout these rules with impunity. That has to change.”

Yet, offering an analysis of the law’s application without outlining concrete reforms leaves his comments as mere recognition of the problem rather than a pathway to solutions.

A New Definition of Terrorism?

A significant portion of Starmer’s speech was devoted to framing Rudakubana’s crimes within a broader context of shifting security threats. “Britain faces a new threat,” he warned, “one that we cannot combat with outdated tools.” He described a transition from highly organised terrorist groups with clear political ideologies, such as Al Qaeda, to “acts of extreme violence perpetrated by lonely misfits, young men in their bedrooms, desperate for notoriety.”

This characterisation raises crucial legal and philosophical questions about the definition of terrorism. Under the current Terrorism Act 2000, terrorism requires a political, religious, or ideological motive. Starmer’s portrayal of Rudakubana’s violence — as individualistic and driven by a fixation on extreme violence rather than a coherent ideology — strains this definition. The challenge for policymakers, therefore, is to expand or clarify the legal framework without eroding fundamental rights. Critics argue that Starmer failed to address how his government would achieve this balance. Will new legislation lower the bar for what constitutes terrorism, and if so, how will civil liberties be safeguarded?

Prevent and Systemic Failures

The Prime Minister’s speech was most powerful when he confronted the systemic failures of the Prevent programme. Rudakubana was referred to Prevent three times, with one referral raising concerns about a potential interest in school massacres. Despite these clear warning signs, the system failed to intervene effectively. Starmer described this as a “failure that leaps off the page,” pledging a comprehensive inquiry that would leave “no stone unturned.”

However, Prevent’s structural deficiencies have been well-documented for years. The Shawcross Review of Prevent (2023) highlighted the programme’s struggle to adapt to non-ideological violence, yet substantial reforms have yet to materialise. Starmer’s pledge to reform Prevent will be measured against his ability to overcome the inertia that has plagued previous efforts. Without detailed proposals — beyond vague promises of change — his words risk falling into the same pattern of reactive governance he so pointedly criticised.

A Call for Accountability

Perhaps the most striking moment of the speech came when Starmer directly addressed those responsible for the system’s failures:

“If you hinder our ability to keep this country safe, I will find you, and I will root you out.”

This muscular rhetoric was well-received by some, but it must be backed by a framework of accountability that reaches beyond fiery declarations. How will individual and institutional accountability be enforced? Will there be sanctions for agencies that miss critical warning signs, or will responsibility once again diffuse into bureaucratic obscurity?

A Conclusion Without a Roadmap

Starmer’s conclusion, while emotionally resonant, offered no clear roadmap for future action. He ended by invoking unity and resilience, declaring:

“We will learn. We will change. And we will honour Alice, Bebe, and Elsie with deeds, not just words. Nothing is off the table, and nothing will stand in our way.”

These words capture the nation’s collective grief and desire for change. Yet, as history has shown, rhetoric alone will not suffice. Accountability, transparency, and detailed, actionable reforms are the tools of meaningful governance. Until those tools are visibly wielded, scepticism will linger, and trust will remain elusive.

Ultimately, the Prime Minister’s speech is both a reflection of the challenges facing modern Britain and a test of his administration’s resolve to address them. Whether Starmer’s promises signal a genuine turning point or merely another iteration of a familiar cycle will depend on what comes next — decisive action or yet another inquiry that fades into obscurity.

Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.

Jason King

Birmingham City-Desk

Twitter (X) @JasonKingNews

Jasonkingnews@gmail.com