As additional terror-related charges against the Southport murder suspect Axel Rudakubana were announced on Monday, Merseyside Police was keen to deter us from discussing the case further. “We would strongly advise caution against anyone speculating as to motivation in this case,” the Chief Constable Serena Kennedy said at her press conference. “It is extremely important that there is no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”
In the next few hours, the BBC focused on this aspect of her address — that anyone discussing these developments further was irresponsible — and notably disapproved of Conservative leadership candidates Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch for expressing concern about a possible cover-up. During the News at Ten, the story was relegated to the end of the bulletin.
But the game was already up. At the press conference, Dr Renu Bindra of the UK Health Security Agency said that they were informed that ricin, a biological weapon, had been found in Rudakubana’s home “early in August”. In other words, leading agencies in the British state had had evidence to charge Rudakubana for producing ricin for nearly three months. They had also discovered that he had possessed a PDF file entitled “Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual”.
The new information was quite a contrast to what we were told in the aftermath of the attack. Then, the police had said that the incident was “not believed to be terror-related”. Even during Monday’s press conference, Kennedy maintained that Counter Terrorism police were not classifying the Southport murders as a terror incident due to the lack of an established motive — even though they are now prosecuting their suspect under the Terrorism Act.
Then there’s the religious connection. Many of us immediately assumed that the attacker was inspired by radical Islam, connecting his rampage with actual and planned Islamist attacks on music events at Manchester Arena in 2017 and more recently in Austria. However this notion was stamped on hard after the killings, especially as far-Right riots spread around Britain in response, and Keir Starmer launched a blitz of prosecutions on those accused of “lies” and “disinformation” and for stirring up hatred against Muslims.
Something distinctly odd and unsatisfactory appears to be going on here. Certainly the timing of the police announcement gave off a bad smell, coming a day before the Budget. It was also notably delayed until a few days after a Tommy Robinson march in London, which would have been given fuel by the news.
The day the authorities released the news could hardly have been bettered from a media-management point of view, suggesting at least informal coordination between police, the Crime Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Labour government. But I think this is unlikely to take the form of any deliberate “cover-up” or conspiracy. Rather I suspect that any coordination will be wrapped in technical, legalistic language and of shared priorities like maintaining “community relations”: in the collective assumption that they were simply doing the right thing.
For, despite 14 years of Conservative rule, the British state shares broadly the same aims as the new Labour government. They speak the same language and have the same approach, especially to things such as diversity and equality. In the last and most domestically significant act of its previous time in government, Labour embedded identity politics in the state through the Equality Act of 2010. And this has now percolated fully through the system. The government and state, now largely aligned as shown in their common response to the Southport riots, give off the appearance of being a regime, one with a common sociology. Its mantra is “Diversity is Our Strength”: an unabashed assertion that diversity causes good things to happen, which also means not bad things.
We all now know what this messaging demands. We’ve seen it before, following outrages from 7/7 in London to Manchester Arena, Liverpool Remembrance Day, London Bridge, Waterloo Bridge, Reading, Parsons Green and Lee Rigby in Woolwich; as well as other largely unknown attacks happening at the fringes, such as in Hartlepool in 2023 and Burnley in 2020. Right-wing activists are familiar with the logic. Liberal-Left opinion managers know it like the back of their hands. So do the authorities, and they crank into gear whenever an attack occurs bearing the obvious hallmarks.
We all know instinctively that the system must defend diversity. It must be revealed as a strength, otherwise the meaning of our society is revealed to be fake: at best naive and mistaken; at worst mendacious lies, open for exploitation by those who mean us deep harm. The bold statements we used to hear about how such attacks have “nothing to do with Islam” are no longer convincing. Other tactics must be employed. Some things must be revealed and others concealed. And so the regime and its supporters go to war over “reporting”, “commentary” and “sharing information”. They say that this is a matter of responsibility versus irresponsibility, that it is legally necessary in order to not prejudice a trial.
But we get the wider message. We shouldn’t talk about it. We shouldn’t be concerned about the same pattern repeating itself. And we shouldn’t get angry about this information being withheld from us for nearly three months while people were convicted for overreaching in their anger.
This is not to say that the police and the Criminal Prosecution Service; the commentators and opinion managers on Twitter; the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and the Prime Minister Keir Starmer are all bad people, mendacious, cynical liars, determined to prevent people from knowing the truth. Rather, as Dominic Cummings keeps on telling us in between his relentless denunciations of these people: “The system is working as intended.”
This is the regime we live in. It is a regime of the Equality Act and associated Public Sector Equality Duty, of community leaders for some and not for others, of DEI commissars telling us to who must be favoured and disfavoured, of the Human Rights Act and European Convention of Human Rights protecting dangerous foreign criminals from being deported. It is the system of diversity: and it demands that certain things be promoted and others be suppressed. The regime has committed itself. Its functionaries are merely following the rules, following the logic of the system. Communities that qualify as “communities” must be protected from harm: and this means that we must all be protected from reality.
Disclaimer
Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.
We would be glad to have your feedback.
Source: UnHerd Read the original article here: https://unherd.com/