Why don't mainstream media like ourselves report all the information about Southport knife attacks?

ON 29 July 2024, a mass stabbing, occurred at a dance studio in Southport, that targeted children and led to 3 children dying. This was shocking enough, but what was to follow made it far worse. Issues surrounding the release of information following the highly emotive killings were soon to highlight the serious issues around the release of information to the public and the extent that fake news can have on society. It also highlighted the need for local regulated media like ourselves in what is increasingly a first past the post game on social media platforms and non-regulated media outlets to get 'news' out, no matter the consequences.

On the day, it was extremely frustrating, with journalists desperately trying to report on what was a massive emergency service response to a distressing event, in what is a backwater seaside resort, on the outskirts of Liverpool. It was tempting to use the many reports being given to us on the ground, mostly from people who had read information on social media, but we did know more about what was going out, and could tell that this so called 'news' was often not correct. This situation has continued ever since, so we thought it was a good idea to explain why the regulated media reports the way we do.

Justice Minister Heidi Alexander MP, on 1 November 2024, said:- "I'm hugely grateful for the vital role the media played at the time, and of the work it continues to do in reporting on both hearings and the sentences of people involved in the riots. I want to thank journalists and news organisations for their unfailing work. Following cases through the system, attending and observing hearings, requesting and verifying details; all before independently and accurately reporting, often to very tight deadlines; is no mean feat."

Does that statement act as proof that we only take the Government's stance or the Police’s views on the narrative?

Many are still asking why the media, including ourselves, are not reporting immediately all the information we get in? The answer is a simple one.  This is normal practice that is both a moral and a legal requirement within the UK. Why that is the case might not be as simple to explain.

Reporting on any news is extremely challenging and isn't as clear cut as you might want to think. Think of a battle field covered in smoke. At first you only see some details, but as reports come in, you get a bigger picture of what really is going on before pushing any units ahead. That is what reporters do with a situation like this. We stop and build up the big picture before responding what we have found out for ourselves, using all the information we have collected. It is a similar system job to what the Police do, except we are not getting the evidence for a prosecution. But, what we put out can sometimes have a massive impact on an ongoing situation. If we get the reporting wrong, it can be very dangerous and the stakes are high. Sadly, those on social media might not realise that they might also be adding to the problems and not helping, if they also do not fact check. The difference being, media have resources and training to do this, where as the public do not.

Journalists and media outlets all have very strict rules and processes set by our regulatory authorities and responsibilities under laws both nationally and internationally, that we have to follow.   The delay in reporting information; not only helps in the ongoing process of investigation that the Police are conducting, but also aims to protect witnesses, victims and witness's families from additional harm.   As media we have a very difficult decision as to what we can and what we should put out to the public. How would you like to first hear a relative, say your child, had been killed, on national TV, or worse still see it? Also, if Police are searching an area, why would you want the TV to show the location live, so that the suspect can evade them?

If Police are trying to get information in about a suspect, having all the information out in public would not help them to cross check information, so again, we might not publish all the information to help the Police accomplish that task effectively.   As regulated media, in Southport, we had and still have a hard time reporting on the ongoing investigations, along with trying to respect the families' and the victim's privacy.

In the case of the Southport stabbings we knew very quickly the ages of the victims, their names, and also the information about the suspect. But, to add to the problems was the fact the suspect's age was under 18. This meant we couldn't identify him by law, unless a judge gave permission to do so.

The complexity behind the reporting of Southport stabbings means the media was running a very fine balancing act, that by default resulted in a delay in releasing information.

Often at incidents like the Southport stabbings the media knows more than we let on, but for all those reasons we do not publish the information we know, until it is verified and we know it is legally OK to do so.   In the case of the Southport stabbings, this was an exceptionally unusual situation which has highlighted the awareness of the desire of the users on social media to fill in any perceived information gap, minute to minute. This eagerness for information was fuelled by many external voices, again particularly in social media, for a variety of reasons, from political manipulation to just chasing hits.

When it comes to reporting the information. The already complex situation of getting the facts correct becomes even more difficult for journalists when faced with sorting out rumour and fact. On the day of the attack, at the location as the incident was unfolding, people were using social media and telling the reporters on site of the information they had read as 'fact.' Often these people who have seen the fake or misleading information online, like in Southport, help to disseminate the news in the belief they are helping to fill in the perceived gaps in coverage from the mainstream media, like ourselves... Situations like those associated with the Southport stabbings can often result in yet another layer of complexity to the case for Police to investigate.

An example of how misinformation online can hamper an investigation can be demonstrated with an incident which took place in January 2023. In that incident, a Lancashire mother of 2 vanished, while walking her dog, sparking a huge search and widespread public interest. This interest in the case soon resulted in Lancashire Police losing control of the public narrative at an early stage, resulting in an information vacuum and unchecked speculation. The online speculation about the missing Mum ultimately caused unwarranted distress and false alarm' to her mourning family, even death threats were sent to family and friends of Nicola Bulley. Plus, false information hampered the concentration of the searches in to the wrong area, resulting in an added delay in finding her body.

In the case of the Southport attacks, the perceived information gap was pounced on by people with alternative motives. This flood of misinformation being circulated following the Southport stabbings made the checking of facts by regulated media even harder.

The Southport killings and riots are a good example of social media posts passing on misleading information. This includes the  statements being put out by the likes of Eddie Murray, who posted 3 hours after the attack, stating that a migrant had carried it out the attack. His unsubstantiated claim then spread at speed around the world. According to the BBC,  Mr Murray's post was 1 of the earliest examples of 'local' testimony posted on social media to incorrectly use the word:- 'migrant.' Following a fact check by the BBC, when asked why he posted it he later told them that he was only posting the information he had been given.

The misinformation which is still being distributed on and offline today has helped to demonstrate just how dangerous unverified posts on unregulated news sites and social media can be.   This perceived information gap and the willingness by some to fill on the blanks with unsubstantiated information  was also exploited to help spawn a wave of protests, violence and rioting, across many UK Towns and Cities within the following days, including in Southport. This disorder led to over 1,000 people being arrested, and hundreds being charged and sentenced to jail.   As media we do our best to verify information we hear or get sent. We don't always get it correct, but with such high stakes, as media, we cannot afford to make mistakes. Sadly, some on social media and running unregulated news outlets do not do this, or think they should.

Annoyingly for us on the ground, our hands on the day as we were restricted by UK laws on what information we could release. Yet, we could clearly see the problems around fake information building up within an hour of the incident taking place.

For example, the spread of disinformation about the suspect's religion leads to a rise in Islamophobia and anti-migrant anger started within hours of the incident. This also hampered our own media coverage, adding to the requirements to do even more checks on information being circulated.

What you might not have also realised, but the media, including ourselves have at times been threatened by members of the public, saying we:- "aren't reporting the truth." Even within an hour of the incident, reporters, including our Editor, heard this being asked over and over again.  If we did say anything from the outset, the amount of fake information being pushed out was overwhelming and it could have added to the extremely volatile situation.

Since the stabbings we know that the both Police and Prosecutors are seeking to dispel disinformation by explaining how criminal justice processes apply to the case, But the framework of the UK's legal system does not account for the drive online for immediate response to all questions and a huge misunderstanding in how the UK's legal system works. This current legal framework has made the situation from the very start a headache for the media, Police and Prosecutors to work within it and respond to the ever growing rise in misinformation.

Then things got even more complicated on:- Tuesday, 29 October 2024, when Axel Rudakubana, was further charged by Merseyside Police with possessing a study of al-Qaida’s training manual and producing a biological weapon, ricin, which is feared to be 6,000 times more poisonous than cyanide.

On the same day, Constable Serena Kennedy made the following statement in relation to the case of Axel Muganwa Rudakubana:- "The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised Axel Rudakubana, aged 18, from Banks in Lancashire, to be charged with 2 further offences. Axel Rudakubana already faces 3 charges of murder, 10 charges of attempted murder and 1 charge of possession of a knife, all relating to the incident at Hart Street, Southport on:- 29 July 2024. The 2 further offences relate to evidence obtained by Merseyside Police during searches of Axel Rudakubana’s home address, as part of the lengthy and complex investigation that followed the events of:- 29 July 2024."

The additional charges facing Axel Rudakubana are as follows:-

Production of a biological toxin, namely ricin, contrary to Section 1 of the Biological Weapons Act 1974.

Already we are seeing speculation and conspiracy theories have been reignited, especially as the Southport attack has not been declared a terrorist incident. This is also coming from all areas of society, including speculation by those who should know better.    We must remember that the Southport stabbing incident  under UK law cannot be  declared an act of terrorism as both Police and Prosecutors have been unable to establish the motivation behind the stabbings. Under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000  it is clear that for an incident to be declared as terror related it must be:- "a act that is designed to influence the Government or an international Governmental organisation" or to:- "intimidate the public, or a section of the public." The act must be:- "for the purpose of political, religious, racial or ideological cause."

Even if a suspect has been charged with a separate offence under the Terrorism Act; in this case Section 58, relating to possession of material; there would need to be evidence of a sufficient motive in order to class an ensuing attack as:- "an act of terrorism."

In both cases with this case, the ongoing investigation has yet to find the threshold being met to charge Axel Rudakubana for terrorism.

We must all remember that this case has become politically charged and emotions are already highly charged. We must stop speculation and let the investigation continue.

Constable Serena Kennedy has also added:-"Following the announcement of the further charges, I wanted to reassure the public of Southport, and Merseyside, that we are committed to achieving justice for the families of:- Bebe, Elsie and Alice, the 10 victims who were injured at the Hart Space in Southport on that Monday, in July 2024, and the other 16 people who were present. We are also committed to being open and transparent with our communities. However, I am sure you will all appreciate that we need to make sure we do not prejudice any trial. You may have seen speculation online that the Police are deciding to keep things from the public. This is certainly not the case. We have been given extensive guidance by the CPS in relation to what we can say publicly to ensure the integrity of the Court proceedings are protected, and therefore we are restricted in what we can share with you now, whilst the proceedings are live. Following the events of:' Monday, 29 July 2024, searches of Axel Rudakubana’s home address resulted in an unknown substance being found; testing confirmed the substance was ricin. We have worked extensively with partners to establish that there was a low to very low risk to the public; and I want to make that reassurance clear. I can also tell you that there was no ricin present at Hart Street. When the ricin was discovered, all necessary steps were taken so we could be sure that no 1 was at risk. This was a multi agency response. Expert advice, and guidance was received and adhered to throughout the investigation. In the following days Merseyside Police worked closely with partners including:- Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service (MFRS); North West Ambulance Service (NWAS); Sefton Council; Lancashire Police; West Lancashire Borough Council; Counter Terrorism Policing North West (CTPNW); Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP); UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA); Crown Prosecution Service (CPS); NHS England; National CBRN Centre; Defence, Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), and the Ministry of Defence to identify if there was any risk to victims, local communities, or the specialist professionals in attendance at Hart Street and Old School Close. At this point it is particularly appropriate to recognise the support we have received from the emergency services, the local authority, and Counter Terrorism Policing. That support has included forensics experts and digital investigators. This was in place from the initial stages of the investigation and remains ongoing. I want to reassure our communities that we continue to work in partnership with all our partners and are absolutely committed to keeping our communities safe. At this time, Counter Terrorism Policing has not declared the attack on:- Monday, 29 July 2024, a terrorist incident. I recognise that the new charges, may lead to speculation. The matter for which Axel Rudakubana has been charged with under the Terrorism Act does not require motive to be established. For a matter to be declared a terrorist incident, motivation would need to be established. We would strongly advise caution against anyone speculating as to motivation in this case. The criminal proceedings against Axel Rudakubana are live and he has a right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there is no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings. I want to remind everyone that a trial is scheduled for January next year. Since 29 July, my Officers and staff have been working diligently in conjunction with colleagues from Counter terrorism and they are continuing to assess evidential material we have recovered to ensure all the evidence is available to the CPS, and the details of the case will come out in Court. My plea is to be patient, don't engage in rumour and speculation and don’t believe everything you read on social media. We must not lose sight of the families of:' Elsie, Bebe, and Alice, who are still grieving, and the families of those children and adults who were injured and affected by what happened on that day. We all need to do the right thing by them to ensure the justice process is not prejudiced."

Merseyside Police have said that the new charges had not changed the UK's Counter Terrorism Policing decision not to declare the Southport attack terrorism, and urged people not to jeopardise Rudakubana’s forthcoming trial with speculation.

It later emerged that the Government delayed announcing new charges against the Southport stabbings suspect by up to 2 weeks amid fears of fresh riots, it has been reported during the high profile Chris Kaba murder trial. We should remember that there is no threat to the general public, so this delay really isn't a big thing in the grand scheme of things. It would have been theoretically worse if they had released it sooner. But the Chair of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) and Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner, Emily Spurrell, said in a statement to the media:- "I understand people are angry. They feel like things have been done withholding information, but that’s absolutely not the case. These investigations take time; they are dealing with some sensitive materials. They had to bring the right experts in to manage that, and they have to make sure that they are not jeopardising the trial process. Because ultimately, what we don't want is somebody to turn around and say the trial can't go ahead because it's been jeopardised. That would be the worst thing for those poor families of the Southport victims."

We, at Southport Reporter, can confirm that as we ourselves are regulated media, we knew on the day lots more information than we could disclose and we still do, as did many other news outlets. The same thing is still happening today. While this situation is frustrating to us, the media, we have a legal obligation not to disclose information unless we can clearly claim it's in the public interest. Even then, we must all be aware of the of seriously prejudicing criminal proceedings by commenting on the investigation.

There isn't any deep conspiracy with the media and we strongly recommend everyone to let the Police do their job, as they are doing the best they can under extremely unusual circumstances.

Questions about the incident should come after the legal process has taken place, not before. We all want justice to prevail.

Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle warned MPs this week, who might be frustrated at not being able to comment, saying:- "More importantly at the heart of this case are 3 young girls. We all want to see justice for them and others affected by this appalling incident."

We must all remember sometimes it still takes weeks and years to get answers. And sometimes, tragically, no answers can be found at all as to why and what happened. We must continue to respect the UK legal process and be aware of fresh pushes of fake news and information related to the stabbings being released.

In a recent statement Spurrell, who has been the Labour's Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside since 2021,  said:- "my fear is there are people who are just so far past the point of trusting us that they won't believe what we're telling them."

Please remember to also consider all those involved, from the survivors, families, emergency service workers, the residents and local community who are all still coming to terms with the situation they have found themselves in. Please give them space...

If you are affected by the attack or if it has brought back memories of an incident, you had been involved in, such as Dunblane, please remember there is support for you.

If you need help contact Victim Support anytime for independent, free, and confidential advice:-

• Call Supportline on:- 08081689111.
   

• Text Relay: use the Relay UK App or contact them using BSL.
   

• You can start go to the Victim Support's website and start a live chat.
   

• You can also fill out a Victim Support online form (a member of your local area team will then contact you within three working days). To do this please visit:- VictimSupport.Org.UK.

In an emergency you should always call:- 999.

If you want to get in contact about the issues mentioned within this news report please do  get in contact via emailing our Newsroom at:- News24@SouthportReporter.Com or send us a message on:-  Mastodon, Facebook, or Twitter.

Ask your questions about Policing in Merseyside

MERSEYSIDE'S Police Commissioner is inviting people to submit their questions for the Chief Constable and her senior team as she prepares for her final public Scrutiny Meeting of 2024.

Emily Spurrell is responsible for holding the Chief Constable, Serena Kennedy, to account for delivering on her policing and community safety priorities and maintaining an efficient and effective Police service in Merseyside.

One of the keyways the Police Commissioner undertakes this crucial role is through quarterly public Scrutiny Meetings, which include:- questions submitted by the public which she then puts to the Chief Constable and her Chief Officer team.

While the focus for the next Scrutiny Meeting will be Merseyside Police's work around Violence Against Women and Girls, Serious and Organised Crime, and Hate Crime, the commissioner is inviting questions on any policing or community safety issue with the aim of further increasing the openness and transparency around policing in our Region.

Residents can submit their questions by completing the online form on the Merseyside PCC website.

The meeting will be live streamed at 13:00 on:- Monday, 16 December 2024, to enable everyone to watch and hear the responses to their questions.

Merseyside's Police Commissioner, Emily Spurrell said:- "1 of my top priorities as Commissioner is to listen to what our residents have to say and to be their voice on policing and community safety issues. Your questions and opinions matter to me and can help to make Merseyside a safer place for everyone. It's vitally important the public trust the Police and can see that money and resources are being used wisely to deliver the best possible service to keep our communities safe. I hope by providing this opportunity it will help to reassure people that both myself and the Chief Constable are committed to being as open and transparent about the Police's work as possible. Don't miss your chance to put your question to the Chief Constable and her team!”

The meeting will provide Chief Officers with the opportunity to give the Commissioner a detailed account of the force's progress and how they are working to make our communities safer.
How to ask a question

Please submit your questions by:- Monday, 25 November 2024, via the online form or writing to:-

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
Mather Avenue Training Centre
Mather Avenue
Liverpool
L18 9TG

A selection of questions which are received by this deadline will be asked by the Police Commissioner and addressed by Chief Officers. Questions should not focus on individual cases as these cannot be addressed in a public domain.

Watch the meeting live, at:- 13:00, on:- Monday, 16 December 2024.