Gaby Hinsliff (Axel Rudakubana walked a long path to murder. At what point could he have been stopped?, 24 January) and your editorial (23 January) ask the question that arises when somebody commits an act that causes us deep distress: “What can we do to prevent this from happening again?” The realistic answer, sadly, is “nothing”, because such obscene acts are not manageable by social care, policing or state intervention. There are very dark places lurking in some human beings, and there are no policies or interventions that will eradicate them. Fortunately, such acts are extremely rare.
The law cannot permit “preventive detention”, or punishment before the crime. A large number of people are walking around with sociopathic, psychopathic and disturbing personality characteristics. Until they commit a crime, they cannot have their liberties curtailed. An inquiry might help, though there is a risk that, as ever in moral panics, socially harmful increases in the power of state agencies will penalise significant numbers of people who would do no harm.
Keir Starmer’s reference to “loners” and “misfits” stigmatises the legions of introverts and shy adolescents who are guilty of nothing more than a personality which often burdens them with loneliness. How many will be at risk of criminal suspicion and perhaps shaming sanctions if the state assumes increased powers of surveillance and intervention?
Stephen Smith
Glasgow
• Samira Shackle (It’s easy to label violence like the Southport attack as terrorism. I’m afraid the truth is more complex, 23 January) is right to question the wisdom of redefining terrorism to include offenders like Axel Rudakubana.
What I find incongruous is the reference to violent attacks on communities after the Southport attacks as simply “riots”. Surely terrorists is a more accurate descriptor for rightwing activists who fuelled and participated in those attacks. Unlike Rudakubana, they have a clearly articulated political ideology.
What should be at the forefront of debate is the state of our mental health services, which are buckling under the pressures of increased demand and reduced resources.
Under the Mental Health Act, people cannot be sectioned unless there is a bed available. With bed shortages, we could find people deemed dangerous but still in the community as professionals wait for a bed. The children’s commissioner revealed last March that more than 270,000 children who had been referred to mental health services were still waiting for support.
Given the Prevent programme’s remit, it is rational to say that it was not the appropriate way to respond to the danger posed by Rudakubana. It is irrational, but possibly politically expedient, to redefine terrorism as a response when mental health services should be the focus of attention.
Bill Nightingale
Leyland, Lancashire
• It is obvious what the Southport inquiry will reveal. Every organisation and agency that engaged with him will show frontline staff under pressure to reduce waiting times and backlogs while grappling with severe underfunding and staff shortages.
Senior managers will have been simply looking at whether this individual met their criteria or whether they could legitimately drop him from their lists, regardless of whether they knew he was raising red flags of concern. Until public services are properly funded, no findings or recommendations are going to make any difference in keeping the public safer.
Sarah James
Monmouth
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
