Talk:2024 Southport stabbing

Untitled

What was clear and unequivocal from the outset, was that Rudakubana had extensively researched and planned the attack knowing exactly who the victims were to be. He had travelled several miles to Southport at the exact time of the children's event which could call into question an inference of assistance from a third party. On 29th October 2024 the Crown Prosecution Service charged him with 3 counts of murder, 10 counts of attempted murder, 1 count of carrying a bladed article, and offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Biological Weapons Act 1974. It was discovered that he had manufactured ricin and that he had researched Al Qaeda training manuals. These latter charges were known about some time in advance however journalists including those from Guido Fawkes were instructed not to release this information into the public domain. Many of the arrests and subsequent jail terms were predicated on people alluding to religiously inspired terrorism which has now been shown to be correct. Political leaders including Nigel Farage and Robert Jenryk called upon the prime minister to divulge all the known information about the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.173.71 (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you proposing the above text as a change to the article? We need reliable sources and a neutral point of view. MIDI (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"The teenager accused of murdering three young girls in Southport has been charged with producing the poison ricin and possessing a military study of an al-Qaeda training manual."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05zpdq0lzgo 2604:2D80:F000:2C00:6DFF:339C:A633:E810 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The article already mentions the new charges. MIDI (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

New charges

I've removed the latest charges from the infobox as they're not necessarily part of the attack itself. From [1]: "the ricin and the study of the training manual were found as part of searches of the suspect's house [...] after the stabbings"; "Counter Terrorism Police have not declared the matter a terrorist incident, which would require evidence of a motive to be present". Considering both these quotes, for the time-being we cannot WP:V that the document on the Al Qaeda training manual influenced the attack (discounting the terror charge) and we know that the attack was with a bladed article, not ricin (discounting the biological weapon charge). There's no reason to remove this from the "Accused" section, but putting it in the infobox implies a link between the new charges and the attack that we cannot be sure actually exists (WP:SYNTH). MIDI (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is appropriate. The article is about the stabbings. S C Cheese (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. It should be in the lead. How it is now is just. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Not misinformation after all

The original "misinformation" that caused the riots were claims that the attacker was a Muslim and that the attack was a terror attack. After the new information from the police is out, the "misinformation" turns out to be the truth after all. 2A01:799:1B9B:C300:BC14:F5E5:8B85:5892 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is not a forum. 203.211.72.179 (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We can assume that OP wants mentions of misinformation to be edited out. However, there was misinformation with a specific name and migrant (not Muslim) status, and that hasn't been vindicated by the recent news. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It was misinformation at the time in that it was the assertion of speculation as fact. Those that had asserted it did not provide verification of it, so it was misinformation. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This article in no way should keep the misinformation claim. Those claims were proven to be correct. 81.106.174.83 (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well there certainly was misinformation, including the suspect's migrant status and his name.[2] Both were addressed by the police statement during early stages of the riots. We can also define misinformation as information not based on known facts, which this clearly was. I also want to pick up on this Muslim claim. He might be Muslim, or might not be. We know he had a study on Al-Qaeda's methods (I gather this was an FBI book?), but that doesn't indicate his religion. Such material is going to be standard issue for any random nutter. It also doesn't provide a motive for this attack. At this time I don't see anything being proven. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

See below—is there any evidence that the document in Rudakubana's possession was an "FBI study"—or one from the "U.S. military" as our article now twice asserts? Thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's probably answered below, and in particular by the very specific reporting of the BBC. I think I read somewhere about an FBI version, but it could very well be the DoJ, or military intelligence, or some other related agency. It's beside my main point really. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Part of the misinformation was an assertion about the attacker's presumed migrant status which led to an attack on buildings where asylum seekers were being held. While I am typing this, I see that the attack on buildings holding asylum seekers is not mentioned in the article, which surprises me as it was widely covered at the time. JRGp (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Police have not said Rudakubana was a Muslim, nor that this was a terror attack.

I assume you are referencing the new charges regarding the Al Qaeda manual. These charges do not mean the Southport attack was terrorism nor that Axel necessarily had extremist beliefs.

He was charged with possessing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. This has no relation to his actual attack, frankly anyone could be charged with this crime, so long as they have no good reason for possessing the document he supposedly had. Police maintain, even since the charges, that the attack is not being investigated as terror related. I suggest waiting until Rudakubana’s trial in January if you want insight into his potential motive. Macxcxz (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Details of the accused

The accused's nationality and place of birth and the nationality of his parents should not be in the lead paragraph. I have checked that all of the details are in the section about the accused and removed them from the lead paragraph, S C Cheese (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Rudakubana's copy of Al-Qaeda terror manual

There appears to be an error here—while one while one source cited in our article claims that "The PDF file was not an Al-Qaeda document but rather a military study of a manual made by the Islamist terror organisation", the fact is that the actual title of the Al-Qaeda manual is DECLARATION OF JIHAD [HOLY WAR] AGAINST THE COUNTRY’S TYRANTS MILITARY SERIES and/or Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants, per numerous translations available on the web.

"An editor linked to this version, which includes an editor's notes and could perhaps itself be called a "study" of sorts—although it reproduces the AQ manual in its entirety with the same translation of its title. In other words, "Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants" is the name of "The Al-Qaeda Training Manual".

Is there any reason to think this is the specific pdf that Rudakubana had possession of—or is its citation in our article simply the result of some editor's intemperate WP:OR? And is it perhaps even possible that some of the articles about this being a "military study" and the like are actually using our article as a source, thus laundering the OR?

None of the official documents or quotations from government sources describe what Rudakubana possessed as anything other than an "Al-Qaeda training manual"—nothing about it being a "study" of any "training manual".

In the interest of accuracy, I would strongly suggest that we back off describing it as a "study" until there's more definitive evidence thereof—and in the meantime, simply refer to it as an "Al-Qaeda training manual", just as the government officials bringing the charges have done (along with, it appears to me, a preponderance of the primary-source journalism).

I could certainly be wrong—if so, don't hesitate to let me know—thanks! Ekpyros (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Shadowwarrior8 please see above—I went to revert my edit and saw you had already done it. But what RS claims that there was a "U.S. military study" in Rudakubana's possession—as our article now twice asserts? Certainly neither of the sources cited inline for that claim… Ekpyros (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The outlets which are spreading the fake news noise that Rudakubana possessed an actual al-Qaeda document are some UK-based conservative outlets and thinktanks.

The pdf document which was allegedly found in Rudakubana's computer according to Merseyside Police was "Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al Qaeda Training Manual". This is an edited and translated document published by the US airforce.

Meseyside police alleged on Tuesday that Rudakubana, who was born in Cardiff, had possessed a document entitled Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al Qaeda Training Manual. 1

It was already clarified in several news reports before that it was not an actual Al-Qaeda document. 2 3 Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm not going near that URL with a barge pole, and I would request a better description of it from someone in a country without the UK's laws (speaking of which, if this document is illegal to download in the UK, it's more than a bit suspect to directly link it in this article). But my main question would be, what strong evidence is there that this is the actual document being possessed? What reference supplies this link to this document? I'd be surprised if this wasn't a synthesis of original research. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that it is illegal to download that document in the UK. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The guy in the article is literally being prosecuted for it. I should explain that the section of the Terrorism Act being used makes it illegal to possess such a document, for any reason, "without reasonable excuse". Downloading is possession. And reasonable excuse is very limited in scope. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

He is prosecuted in the UK not because he possessed it, but because he did some attacks which were likely motivated by his reading of that book. Furthermore, that document is freely accessible in the internet. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No, possession is simply illegal. See for example this police statement which says, "The matter for which Axel Rudakubana has been charged with under the Terrorism Act does not require motive to be established". There's a lot of stuff on the Internet that it's illegal to possess. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You missed the part where the merseyside police statement said:

"Possessing information, ... [pdf details] ... of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000."

So the charge was linked to his act. The possibility that information in the pdf file likely facilitated Rudakubana in perpetrating his attack was the reason why he was charged for possessing that pdf in the UK. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" is a feature of the information, not of the person or their acts or motivation. Take for example this case of a perfume seller cycling along the East India Dock Road. There's numerous examples of people jailed for possession and committing no other crime. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I'll provide a link to the Section 58 of the Terrorism Act, which is where this precise wording (and hence the crime) comes from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58. I've removed the link to the alleged document. If you want it restored (which I'll oppose) I'd recommend a new talk page section with a request for comments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if the above is the specific pdf in Rudakubana's possession, I would hesitate to describe it as a "study"—it's a translation with an author's commentary—and to describe it as "U.S. military" seems incorrect, considering it clearly states that: "The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, or the USAF Counterproliferation Center". Ekpyros (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Update

First police and media said that the attacker was Muslim was misinformation,

Now they are saying he had Al Qaeda material with him.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/29/southport-suspect-charged-with-terror-offence-and-producing-ricin

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05zpdq0lzgo

Misinformation was not misinformation. Sistersofchappel (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed above at #Not misinformation after all and #Rudakubana's copy of Al-Qaeda terror manual. There is no evidence (either now or at the time of the claims) that Rudakubana is Muslim, and he did not have Al Qaeda material with him (it was a) found at his home, and b) wasn't Al Qaeda material but a study thereof). MIDI (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)