Al Qaeda Angle Emerges in the Prematurely Denounced as Disinformation Riots

“Military Studies in the Jihad” is book said possessed by shooting suspect

Flowers and plush toys mark the site of a deadly attack in Southport, England. Photo credit: “Emperor of Byzantium”

It is always tempting for the police to try to control the flow of information on sensitive matters, especially when they feel that releasing those details might incite further mob violence. But it is a perilous undertaking — especially if what is later revealed makes it look to suspicious minds like the authorities have previously been engaged in a cover-up.

We are witnessing just such a scenario playing out in the United Kingdom right now.

In August, English towns from Sunderland in the north to Weymouth on the south coast saw scenes of violence and civil disorder. Those hurling bricks, making a nuisance of themselves outside hotels now used to house asylum applicants, and setting alight the occasional police car were incensed by mass immigration to the UK (see “Behind Britain’s Riots: Not Just ‘Disinformation,’” The Editors, August 8, 2024).

These commotions were set off by a mass stabbing at a children’s holiday dance workshop in Southport, a suburb of Liverpool, on July 29. Three young girls were killed; Axel Rudakubana, a then 17-year-old youth born in the UK to Rwandan parents, was subsequently charged with their murder and the attempted murder of two adults and eight further children. 

The disturbances started after the idea took hold that this was some kind of Islamist attack. An obviously Muslim name of the supposed attacker was widely shared on social media — these claims were wholly false. 

But the police’s early tactics allowed fake news to flourish. They revealed only sketchy details about the attacks at first, and this vacuum was filled with rumor. 

Added to this, the UK has very strict sub judice rules, meaning what can be reported after a suspect is charged is extremely limited. Rudakubana’s name could well have remained secret, as it is normal practice that people under 18 who are charged are not named until conviction. 

But in this case, unusually, his name was released by the judge to quell the earlier rumors. The authorities were adamant at the time that the killings were not Islamist in nature. The fact that the alleged assailant’s parents were from Rwanda, a country that is 94 percent Christian, seemed to confirm this. 

But matters have just become rather murkier. Rudakubana has this week additionally been charged, under the Biological Weapons Act, with the manufacture of ricin and, under the Terrorism Act, of possession of a military study of an Al-Qaeda training manual. The English language terror manual is catchily titled “Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants.”

The fact that these charges were brought nearly three months after the original arrest is almost perfectly designed to raise the suspicions of those who are already inclined to be dubious about any official narrative.

It raises obvious questions. Were the authorities aware of the potential terrorist dimension to the attack back in the summer? And if so, why was the impression allowed to gain traction that there was no Islamist element?

The riots happened just one month into Keir Starmer’s Labour government. They made much about how the violence was stoked by disinformation spread on social media. There have been numerous cases of people convicted for incitement and stirring up racial hatred for their Tweets during these disturbances. And the sentences have been stiff. One woman, the wife of a Tory councillor, received a 31 month prison sentence for a single obnoxious social media message that was up for three and a half hours.

But what if the authorities were also knowingly involved in spreading information that they knew would give a false impression? The question is being raised by politicians from Reform leader Nigel Farage to Conservative leadership candidate Robert Jenrick — were these decisions made at the level of the police and prosecution authorities, or were they made at the political level? 

If the impression takes hold that the public is being intentionally duped, whatever calm is purchased by the “disinformation” police will come at the cost of eroding confidence in future claims by authorities.