Southport stabbings: The processes might have been followed but the systems failed

This is a government acknowledgement of what we already knew; that the system failed.

There were three chances to act, which certainly cumulatively, but even individually, should have seen Rudakubana placed in a system designed to de-radicalise him, even if his ideology was poorly formed and hard to define.

Today’s report for the government suggests, even in his first referral to Prevent, enough was known to put Rudakubana into the Channel programme.

The report says a number of factors pointed to “his vulnerability of being drawn to terrorism”, such as researching school shootings, talking about stabbing people, and stating the terrorist attack on ‘MEN’ was a good thing – this probably a reference to the Manchester Arena attack.

He was young with complex needs. Even though his ideology wasn’t understood – it was an opportunity to try to understand it and work him out of it.

Instead, in December 2019, the assessor decided Rudakubana had “no ideological driver” beyond “a potential obsession with mass violence” and so placed him in a category called Mixed, Unclear or Unstable (MUU) which by its very name shows that they are unable to conclude whether he is dangerous or not.

Today’s rapid report identified another significant factor that might motivate this type of violence: “grievances.”

In this case, Rudakubana was bullied at school and the report implies these “behavioural factors” should be given more weight in assessments.

The review also suggests that not enough general background checking is happening.

On the second referral in February 2021, the decision not to place Rudakubana into Channel is made on “minimal information”, not speaking directly to the person who reported the concerns, nor Rudakubana’s parents, nor checking internet searches at the school.

Read more:
Why violent motivations are becoming harder to define
Former social worker warns over ‘holes in the system’
Southport killer jailed for minimum of 52 years

It seems as if processes were largely followed, but this review criticises the subjective decisions made and the lack of professional curiosity, considering the same person crops up three times.

The rapid review calls on the Prevent system to strengthen its risk assessments, particularly where there isn’t a coherent ideology, and to recognise the potential risk from repeat referrals.

But, perhaps the most depressing finding is that on his second referral there was a spelling error of his name as Rudukubana.

Just one ‘u’ instead of an ‘a’ may have meant previous referrals didn’t show up in searches.