Outrage Erupts After Southport Killings While Minister Slams PMs Dangerous Terror Law Plan
Police bosses have been warned to step up and provide clear, accurate details in the wake of major incidents to prevent conspiracy theories from running wild. The UK’s terror watchdog, Jonathan Hall KC, has urged officers to avoid staying silent after atrocities, stressing that if they don’t take the lead, others will fill the gap with misinformation.
His comments come in the aftermath of the Southport killings, where false claims spread rapidly on social media, leading to riots, protests, and widespread outrage. Hall rejected Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s suggestion to expand the definition of terrorism to include mass killings, arguing that such a move could harm free speech and lead to a situation where far more people are labelled as terrorists.
More: Southport Killer Axel Rudakubana Was on Anti-Terror Radar—Case Closed Too Soon
Instead, he’s calling for a new offence specifically targeting those who plan mass killings, with a potential life sentence as the maximum penalty. Hall emphasised that in cases where the attacker dies or refuses to speak, police often rely on digital evidence to determine motive. He urged officers to be upfront with the public, saying: “A clear and honest explanation to the public would go something like this: ‘Because of the nature of the attack, Counter Terrorism Police are involved in this investigation alongside the local force. Investigators are keeping an open mind, but there is insufficient evidence at the moment to state why the attack was carried out and whether terrorism was involved’.”
- Keir Starmer Plans to Scrap NHS England in Radical Health Service Overhaul!
- Sadie Frost Opens Up About Struggling With Empty Nest and Finding Strength After Public Heartache
- Labour Lunacy Sparks Fears of ‘National Security Crisis’ as UK Faces Decline
- Princess Kate Avoids These Two Food Groups for Stunning Health and Fitness
- Outrage Erupts After Southport Killings While Minister Slams PMs Dangerous Terror Law Plan
He also highlighted the importance of controlling the narrative early, stating that in today’s digital world, silence from authorities allows misinformation to spread unchecked. “Near-silence in the face of horrific events of major public interest is no longer an option,” he said, pointing to the dangerous levels of disinformation following the Southport attack.
Hall’s findings come as Starmer warns the UK is facing a fresh threat from “extreme violence carried out by loners, misfits, young men in their bedrooms.” He insists that the legal framework must evolve to deal with this new reality, promising that any necessary changes will be made.
The case at the centre of this debate involves Axel Rudakubana, who was sentenced to a minimum of 52 years for the brutal murders of three young girls and the attempted murders of eight other children, as well as class instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes. The attack took place during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class last July. Despite previous contact with Prevent, a scheme designed to counter extremism, authorities failed to stop him before he carried out his rampage.
The reason Rudakubana wasn’t charged with terrorism under current laws is because there was no clear ideological motive, which the existing terror definition requires. This is exactly why Hall is pushing for a new offence – one that criminalises planning mass killings, regardless of ideology. “I therefore recommend that the Government considers bringing forward legislation to create a new offence where an individual, with the intention of killing two or more persons, engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to this intention,” he said, adding that life imprisonment should be the maximum sentence.
Related: Axel Rudakubana’s Nightmare Behind Bars – Chilling Threats, Total Isolation, and a Living Hell
Hall also dismissed the idea that technology alone could have prevented the attack, cautioning against the belief that online activity always translates into real-world violence. “Online rhetoric rarely reflects online intentions,” he said. “Many young people view and share terrible images of violence and sexual harm online, but only a tiny fraction act on it.”
Expanding the terrorism definition, he warned, could have unintended consequences, potentially branding thousands of people as terrorists—including those simply sharing violent war footage. “Redefining terrorism would alter the landscape,” he explained, warning that it could lead to over-prosecution and limit free expression.
He also raised concerns about increasing the discretion given to police and prosecutors. “So far, this discretion has been exercised capably and well,” he said. “But changing the threshold could lead to more mistakes and even abuse.”
Hall pointed to the case of Nicholas Prosper, a 19-year-old who killed his mother and two siblings and was stopped by police before he could carry out a mass shooting at his old primary school. Despite having a loaded shotgun and over 30 cartridges, there was no specific charge for planning the attack because, under current law, it didn’t qualify as terrorism.
His report makes it clear: authorities need to rethink how they handle extreme acts of violence. While terrorism laws might not be the right tool, something needs to change to make sure those plotting mass killings face the justice they deserve.
