top of page
Search

Political Objectivity: Southport Murders

Updated: Feb 17

The aim of this exercise is to sift through and vet some of the claims surrounding the Southport murders committed by Axel Rudakubana.


We will take care to use reliable sources of information, separate falsehoods from fact, and take a multi-channel approach to clear up any potential confusion surrounding the events. In doing so, it may reveal bad actors and political red flags. It will hopefully teach a little critical thinking in general.


We will use verifiable journalism, media bias tools to help vet them for accuracy, and independent fact checkers to ensure that we are dealing with objectivity, rather than opinion and outrage. We will be honest with ourselves about what the facts are or are not.


Where falsehoods are found to be at play, we will also try to understand where and how they originated.


Five main talking points will be looked at, which have connections to the recent sentencing of Axel Rudakubana:


1. Was it covered up that the murderer was a terrorist?

2. Where did the Welsh choir boy claim come from?

3. Does Kier Starmer have a professional relationship with the murderer’s dad? (implying a cover up)

4. Peter Lynch - why specifically did he go to prison?

5. Allison Pearson - falsely imprisoned?

6. A bonus point - Andrew McIntyre Imprisoned.



Point 1. Terrorist cover-up?


This will assess whether it was covered up that the murderer was a terrorist, and by who, if so. But before we get to that question there is an unstated major premise: that he in fact was a terrorist. This is the question we need to ask first, before the alleged cover up. We will tackle point 2 first, to help with this.


Unstated Major Premise


Point 2. Who is the killer?


The claim here is that rather than being a described ‘Welsh Choir Boy’, Axel was presumably a Muslim terrorist recently immigrated.


The ‘Welsh’ part of this is easily verified, first by the Merseyside Police when it happened, as it was confirmed “A 17-year-old male from Banks in Lancashire, who was born in Cardiff, has been arrested…”.


Full Fact, an independent political fact checking website, breaks down the claims that his name was “Ali Al-Shakati” – a false name that was very quickly spread online. The reason police didn’t release his name straight away was that he was 17 at the time, standard law for a minor. They also address the false claim that he was recently off a boat from Syria, or was Muslim.


The police confirmed that:


“Merseyside Police have confirmed that the 17-year-old they have arrested was born in Cardiff to Rwandan parents, that he appears to have no known links to Islam, and that they are not currently investigating the attack as terror-related.”


– Note that this does not mean they aren’t treating it as terrorism “because” of no known links to Islam, these two things are not inherently linked. Terrorist is a non-ethnic definition.


Just speaking to the choir boy comment, I suspect this comes from the fact that his parents are of an extreme Christian faith, though no evidence was found that he himself had any religious motive, which is partly why this wasn’t classed as terrorism (we’ll dive into that). This and a deeper dive into his character can be read here.


Another insight on his character from the local Liverpool Echo here in which he was actually called a choir boy. The comment was made loosely by neighbours who knew him – as irrelevant as the label is. He did indeed attend the church choir as a kid by all accounts. Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart assesses The Liverpool Echo as consistently center, politically.



Terrorist – The Recognised Definition


There seems to be a misunderstanding about what the literal definition of terrorist is, and this may be where the notion that it’s covered up originated.


The judge on this case has made the comment that he ‘must accept’ that there was no evidence of terrorist cause in the case. This enraged some, thinking that it implies he is lowering the severity of the crime or that he ‘isn’t allowed to call it terrorism’ or that he’s ‘excusing Islam’. (Of course, as investigated, the truth was it was nothing to do with Muslims and the crime was most certainly not played down).


Naturally for some, thinking that he’s avoiding calling it terrorism, one might conclude it was being covered up that he was a terrorist. However, a judge is required to use legal terminology correctly, as currently defined by law (a law in place since 2000).


Further to that, though he did say that legally speaking he must accept that fact, he clearly still equated it with the severity of terrorism in the same speech, adding that:


"What he did on 29 July last year has caused such shock and revulsion to the whole nation, that it must be viewed as being at the extreme level of crime", the judge said.


"His culpability, and the harm he caused and intended, were at the highest."


So whether he was or wasn’t a terrorist is irrelevant. He did acknowledge the severity, but as a literal definition, prosecution was not able to prove it under the Terrorism Act 2000. The difference is the words on paper. He was no less punished for his crime. Call it one thing or another - he did what he did.


Al-Qaeda manual



Was this a cover up?


As independently checked by several well-vetted sources already, further investigating reveals the Muslim immigrant rumours to have started on social media and without any evidence, by known spreaders of political misinformation and conspiracies, including Nigel Farage of Reform and former far right EDL leader Tommy Robinson (who is currently on the run abroad for defamation and unlawful racial harassment of an innocent man).


The video in the above article is a good summary of how people like Farage, Andrew Tate and Tommy Robinson use Twitter to incite racial violence and emotions, and in turn leverage political sway – because it’s quick and effective. There’s a good dive into that in the next main section, which also covers the specific role the aforementioned people played in it all.


Since no evidence was found linking his motive to terrorism by the correct lawful definition, it wasn’t covered up that he was – and as verified, nor were any other details of his crime or identity.


Conclusion of the facts: 


It was not ‘covered up’ that he was a terrorist -


  • Islamic terrorist rumour was initially started on social media and the conspiracy cover up part was then stirred by English Defence League types and nefarious political figures with large online profiles.

  • It is fact that he doesn’t meet the legal definition. This is why he was not legally categorised as such.

  • There is no evidence that either his identity or any of the events were covered up.

  • There is no plausible motive to cover it up.

  • He is a deeply deranged individual obsessed with violence, but no political or religious motive could be ascertained.


It makes the event no less horrific that he wasn’t defined as a terrorist, and this was expressed by all reporting and ruling on the case, including the judge. There is no shortage of outspoken condemnation of this man and his crimes, and a considerably hefty sentence for a minor (at the time) was issued.



Point 3: Speaking of Conspiracies


This and the next section are also relevant to points 1 and 4.


The claim that terrorism was covered up by the government points to ‘baseless conspiracy’ and racial propaganda than a left/right bias and here we’ll discuss why. Blaming the ‘mainstream media’ (as though they are all one group of people with the same set of beliefs and quality checks) is a classic trope of the conspiracy theorist.


While I’ve been using high quality journalistic and fact checking sources to vet the claims, outlets generally considered politically opposed are also agreeing on the facts here. For example, both The Guardian and the Daily Mail, left and right leaning respectively, debunk the claims accurately about Axels identity, nationality, religion and accusations of a ‘cover-up’ involving Kier Starmer.


This article specifically addresses the social media rumours claiming that Keir Starmer represented the father of Axel Rudakubana in an asylum case in 2003.


Despite the opposing political biases, these two sources are often still near the top of the quality axis on Ad Fontes Media Bias, meaning they’re consistently reliable, factually speaking. That’s regardless of political stance. It would be a red flag for both if two politically opposed sources disagreed on the facts - this would suggest real quality issues with one or both, and more deeper digging would be required to verify which is true.


Note: we don’t want to look too far left or right – this leads to increased chances of cherry picking, unfair takes, and opinions and lies in place of evidence - from both sides.


Propaganda



Understanding These Conspiratorial Talking Points


Make sure you listen to the following episodes even if it takes a few days to get round to – they give the bigger picture, well-explained, and provide vital context to understand.


You’ll have heard that people are called far right and jailed if they ‘just protest’ or ‘ask questions’ or express ‘real concerns’. But where is the line between those reasonable things and those acting in bad faith, and when and in what ways is it crossed? The far right conspiracy world is a real, pervasive machine in global society. How do we check it against reality?


Michael Marshall is a working professional in investigative journalism, conspiracies, how the media functions, and more broadly how to vet claims to find if they are true or not. He has worked for decades with various nonprofits and charities, such as the Good Thinking Society. One of his core aims is to uphold responsible journalism and hold all sources of media to account for their claims.


Back when the riots happened in August, he did this deep dive on what caused them. In this episode he covers:


  • The origin of the fake name in more detail, revealing a now suspended Russian YouTube account for content farming, before it got spread by others.

  • The historical nature of the Reform party.

  • Shines a light on the kind of characters who get normal people saying things like ‘you can be jailed for saying anything’.

  • The ways conspiracies tend to overlap and are often used as a tool to ignite racial uproar.

  • Repeat offenders of deliberate grifting and lying.

  • How they frequently misrepresent child trafficking stats by Muslims as inflated, when the majority are white British men (despite that this crime had nothing to do with child trafficking, although ironically Nigel Farage admitted his source of information about the murderer is literal child trafficker Andrew Tate).

  • How the racial riots and outrage generated around this crime had no specific point to protest, but just parroted immigration conspiracies which are nothing to do with the crime (again not an immigrant).

  • A deeper look at the conspiracy circles that have been driving these kinds of outrage for decades.


Starting at 10.10 - 50.20



In a great bit of timing for us, only this week (30th Jan), a new and updated dive was released alongside Axel’s sentencing. Specifically about the misinformation surrounding it – exactly what we’re after!


In this new coverage:


  • The distinction of why he wasn’t found to be a terrorist and that there was actually plenty of evidence contradicting terrorism (I found this out also prior to the episode).

  • The real impact that all the initial misinformation is still having, 5 months later, on public perception.

  • The clear stats of how Reform supporters are much more likely to believe the lies and how notoriously inaccurate news sites like GB News keep churning out propaganda based on misinformation.

  • Explaining the political propaganda surrounding the Labour party and how Labour’s opponents are spinning it.

  • The impact that rich and irresponsible commentators such as Elon Musk are having on it by boosting misinformation to new levels using his social media outreach, and funding far-right propaganda groups (conflict of interest?).

  • Addressing how Tommy Robinson has gained his power over the years using lies about child grooming gangs, and how Musk blindly supports him.

  • Debunking the claims of Kier Starmer denying justice to rape victims, based on a cherry picked 22 second clip that went viral (doesn’t mean we should ‘like’ him, it’s just not true).

  • More crucial details addressing the conspiracies around Starmer and an alleged cover up.


Starting at 7.06 - 43.08




Point 4. Why was Peter Lynch Jailed?


Points 4 and 5 are fairly straightforward – especially if you paid attention to the rest so far.


We now have a good picture from the podcast dive that the summer riots that followed the stabbings were unjustified, incoherent, and incited by long-brewing racial and conspiratorial propaganda.


So, was Peter Lynch jailed for simply voicing his concerns and asking questions? All evidence suggests no. He was jailed for partaking in a violent and destructive riot and charged for violent disorder under the Public Order Act 1986.


You can argue over whether jail time is the best answer, as this Guardian writer does here – but the point is that he was not jailed for just ‘saying something’. He was not jailed for merely protesting. By the law as it has been since 1986, he was correctly sentenced.


He (along with the others) was jailed for being a core part of a violent mob which were targeting, intimidating, and threatening innocent people, in which 64 police officers were injured, as well as four dogs and a horse. In which a hotel – again nothing to do with the stabbings – was smashed up. In which the mob attempted to burn the hotel, with innocent people fearing for their lives inside. This is not representative behaviour of your average ‘concerned citizen’. There is more than enough here to convict him on.


He was also on camera literally screaming racially driven lies at the front of the mob, contributing to riling them up into violence. All of which had zero to do with the Southport stabbings or Muslims. The protest didn’t even have clear or valid point as it was mostly conspiracy driven, baseless, and directed at innocent people.



Point 5. Allison Pearson


This case was quite easy to parse – journalist Allison Pearson. There was an investigation into whether she committed a hate crime as she had been accused, but the case was dropped with ‘no chance of conviction’.

 

This is therefore a non-issue, non-talking point for anyone trying to tell us you can’t say anything without going to jail. Nothing more on her is relevant to the Southport stabbings, that I found.



Bonus point 6. Andrew McIntyre Imprisoned


While researching, I came across this example as well and got interested to find out what was going on – another Twitter commentary missing key facts. The rumours were that Andrew was sentenced to 7 years in prison over his tweets. This rumour was viewed 35 million times. It claimed:


“Taxi driver, Andrew McIntyre, jailed for seven and a half years over Southport social media posts. This is Keir Starmer's England.”


It was also shared on Facebook. Following this viral claim, there were countless comments to the tune of:


"It’s troubling to see someone sentenced so harshly for expressing opinions online, especially when free speech is a fundamental right."


Believe me, if someone was jailed at all - let alone for seven years - for tweeting their opinions, I would be livid as well. That's Nazi-level oppression. What did I find though?


Again, far from anything to do with Starmer or the conspirators’ much loved 'free speech' card, he plead guilty and was actually jailed for:


  • Encouraging violent disorder/key role in organising mobs.

  • Violent and racial abuse, public damage.

  • Threatening (and using) violence against police, “even if you’re just doing your jobs”

  • Participated in multiple planned riots targeting innocent citizens.

  • Intent to cause physical harm.

  • Possession of a blade in public.


That’s right, he was another thug. I doubt that anyone would agree that those things are 'social media posts'. Yet, how many of those 35 million views will carry forward the notion that you can be punished for ‘expressing opinions online’? Even his tweets themselves were barely ‘opinions’, they were nationalist war cries and racist-mob dog whistles.


The fact checking by Reuters and some of the tweets can be seen here for a more detailed account.



Summary Point By Point


Before I round this off with some closing thoughts, let's now recap in summary, all we've found.


Stuff to verify and vet re Southport killings:


1. Was it covered up that the murderer was a terrorist?


  • No cover up evidence. Everything we can know is out in the open.

  • Unhinged murderer but not a terrorist.

  • Terrorist definition is the thing in question, but complex.

  • Terrorist doesn’t mean Islamic.

  • Riots against Muslims not justified but incited by the usual racist parties.


2. Where the Welsh choir boy claim came from.


  • Police and neighbours confirm he is literally Welsh, albeit to Rwandan parents who moved to the UK 20+ years ago.

  • Parents are hard Christians from Rwanda, a mostly Christian country. He literally attended church and sang in the choir when younger by neighbours' accounts.

  • Multiple authorities' investigations such as Prevent and Merseyside Police revealed no ties to Islam.


3. Does Kier Starmer have a professional relationship with the murderer’s dad? (implying a cover up)



4. Peter Lynch - why specifically did he go to prison?


  • Found guilty of inciting violence. On camera doing it.

  • 2 years prison for pleading guilty. He admitted it.

  • He wasn’t peacefully protesting. He was revving up the crowd and abusing officers.

  • Deeply engrossed in all manner of conspiracies.

  • Lynch participated in a violent riot: “Inside, 240 asylum seekers were trapped, fearing for their lives as windows were smashed, objects were hurled and rioters attempted to burn the hotel down. Lynch held a placard while screaming that the police were “protecting people who are killing our kids and raping them”. Which is a racially targeted lie, as we’ve investigated.

  • The asylum seekers had done nothing wrong but were being attacked and hurled abuse at – this isn't protesting the government.

  • Rape was nothing to do with what started these riots. And even if they wanted to really protest immigration based on rape statistics, they had better get the facts straight – because in the UK the best evidence is that the majority of child sex offenders are white/British.


5. Allison Pearson - falsely imprisoned?


  • She is a journalist – there was an investigation into whether she committed a hate crime as she was accused, but the case was dropped with no chance of conviction.

  • Not imprisoned, no crime committed.

  • You can’t go to prison for just having an opinion, as some like to claim in order to justify harmful propaganda and real hate speech. Not that she did, but her case was likely used as cancel culture hype by those who do make such claims.



Closing Thoughts


This piece and the rumours have the recurring theme of racial, political propaganda. We teased the facts apart from it, but there is clearly a much bigger context. The rumours and conspiracies originate from the usual suspects who have been exposed for decades, and their playbook is the same.


The amount of confusion and outrage generated is staggering, and as we’ve uncovered, has real-world impacts on many other innocent, scared, and genuinely concerned people.


Misinformation, disinformation and propaganda causes real harm. People get abused. Hurt. And at the core of it all, hard-right parties who start and stir it gain more power and followers; followers woefully misled in their beliefs about otherwise innocent human beings.


Figureheads such as Tommy Robinson, Farage, and Tate, spout hatred and lies to pretend they’re on ‘your’ side and that immigrants are the big enemy to fear. But only they stand to gain from cultivating fear and confusion - something that ironically, terrorism aims to do.


Social media billionaires openly gloat, spread lies, fund and promote politicians, and unthinkingly amplify bad actors. Again, they are the only ones standing to profit as they line their pockets further, monetising peoples online outrage.


Our original conversation is a perfect real-time example of how all of the above misinformation and propaganda gets people like us to argue. It targets emotions without evidence, by 'shotgunning' a bunch of lies. It breeds tribal division with no reason. Wrongly inflates the false parts of half-truths. Makes politics a shallow popularity contest, rather than focusing on the serious matters of evidence. It thrives on short soundbites and lies, and pushes personalities and grifters over real concern for humans and for the larger truth.


And social media provides the perfect environment for it to flourish. Some more than others.


If we are really and actually passionate about such political issues, as I was told I should be because it’s important (and it is), we should first endeavour to understand the facts around them before forming an emotional, but potentially wrong or harmful opinion. We should do this without aligning fully with one side – accidentally parroting political propaganda, based in disguised viewpoints which I know we don’t have in our character such as racism.


We don't 'have' to have an immediate opinion for the sake of having one. For the sake of agreeing with our peers. For the sake of conversation, or shared mutual anger.


Outrage and hatred towards political figures, when not reasoned by truth, is misplaced passion. It only perpetuates the problem.


A closing thought on Starmer




Sources and Citations:


Ad Fontes Media Bias – verified BBC and other new sites used in this piece as consistently accurate.


BBC, The Liverpool Echo, The Guardian, Sky News, The Daily Mail, Reuters – Journalism and fact reporting/analyses on a range of topics in this piece. Several differing sources for cross referencing of facts.


Legislation.gov website – for legally defined laws on terrorism and relating to reasons for jail convictions (Public Order Act 1986, Terrorism Act 2000)


Merseyside Police website – for local police official statement.

– further investigating the origins of the reckless misinformation/conspiracies.


Full Fact – independent fact checkers, for giving a full analysis of the role misinformation has played in the riots following the stabbing.


Merseyside Skeptics – Evidence-based reasoning with a compassionate approach. For a very well-cited, deep debunking of the motives and origins of the unfounded claims and conspiracies surrounding Axel Rudakubana. Professional media-vetting journalism.


Pew Research Center – for Muslim concerns about extremist groups. A nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world that values independence, objectivity, accuracy, rigor, humility, transparency and innovation.


This source is consistently rated as one of the most factual, least bias sources on media bias charts.


Wikipedia – for up to date, in depth factual information about EDL, background on Michael Marshall, a key researcher in this piece. A well-vetted and cited online depository of information, for the people, by the people.


YouGov UK – for public polling data on who Britons hold responsible for the attack, broken down in several ways to back up comments on Reform party.


The Good Thinking Society – for a description of the work they do as a charity to better improve public understanding of science, critical thinking about the media and bad PR – specifically what Michael Marshall is best at.


Media Bias/Fact Check – another media bias checker for detailed breakdown of the bias and credibility of GB News. Also fact checks each outlet for false claims.


Prevent – for a look into why the counter terrorism agency overlooked Axel before he had committed a crime, further evidence pointing to this not being a terror-related incident.


Total Sources: 17


Specifically Fact Checking Sites: 2

Sources which specifically did fact checking: 8


Media Bias checking sources: 3


Research data/data hubs: 3


Gov agency info/UK Law: 4


Journalism/reporting: 6


Critical Thinking Resources: 2





Comments

© 2023 by Shutter Zone. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page