Sausage Machine

.

SUZANNE LOCKHART has spent over 20 years working with government agencies, global food manufacturers, farming groups and grocery retailers. During this time she has gained in-depth (& inside) knowledge relating to the politics and production of our food.

Her book, Mad Diet: Easy Steps to Lose Weight and Cure Depression (published in 2016) is informative, well-researched and easily read. It lifts the lid on the food-production/processing industry.

Like other female independent free-thinkers – such as Eva Karene Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley & Caitlin Johnstone – she is a breath of fresh air.

Like ourselves, Suzanne Lockhart is a non-conformist & not into groupthink. She also has an interesting take on politics & world affairs, which largely coincides with our own.

The following article, which is well worth reading, appeared on her Facebook page – https://www.facebook.com/Maddiet.co – four days ago. (If you want to read the original, hurry up as we’ve noticed that there’s a tendency for some of her articles to disappear without warning & presumably on the behest of the FB police!)

The author is Scottish which explains some of the colloquialisms & terms she uses. Also, she doesn’t name names in this article, but you’ll get the gist! She has an entertaining & unique writing style. And we really like the way she makes sometimes very complex and complicated information easy to understand. This includes the situation in Ukraine, the subject of this article.

We publish this article to promote free thought & debate. And, as the old saying goes, Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious.

It goes without saying that there are no links between Suzanne Lockhart, Mad Diet & the National Liberal Party.

.

US President Dondald Trump (left) & Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (right). Was their disagreement at the White House all a show? If you really want to know what’s going on in Ukraine, don’t obsess over the optics. Simply follow the money & ask yourself one question: who gains?

Sausage Machine

HUMANS HAVE been scrapping over land and resources since the beginning of time. Driven by lack of food or fuel, but sometimes greed and a thirst for power.

Today’s bunfights are no different, although the facts of such matters are rarely discussed on the box. We prefer to lambast pantomime puppets yet ignore the men behind the curtain.

When I worked in Kiev sampling grain for illegal GM contaminants, it was pretty clear they were heading for trouble. A mongrel nation like ours, but deeply divided with vultures circling overhead.

Long prized as the breadbasket of Europe, the land of blue and yellow was the second largest wheat exporter in the world. With its magic black soil and minerals aplenty, the usual suspects have been eyeing it up for years.

In 2011 the Verkhovna Rada (their parliament) held its first hearing on The Law on Land Market. They came up with a plan on who could and couldn’t buy farmland, but the World Bank wasn’t happy. The new Bretton Woods mob had assured Western banks and corporations a piece of the action and piled on pressure to deliver that promise.

Local people and some politicians were quite rightly worried about foreign entities controlling their food supply. But as officials bickered over which way to turn, movers and shakers were already making ground.

Cargill (the company I was paid to keep tabs on) bought up 30% of their largest commercial bank and invested big time in ports. ADM, Bunge and other Western agrifood giants set up shop, soon followed by Monsanto and DuPont waiting for the cards to fall their way.

Meanwhile, there was all sorts of jiggery-pokery going on to push and pull the people. MSM and social media jockeying – dividing ranks to weaken social cohesion and sovereignty.

By the time that comedian came to power the scene was already set. Money masters from East and West primed to slug it out. Not just for land and resources, but to destabilise Europe.

Global finance is a bit like the Highlander movie – remember that cheesy 1986 film with Christopher Lambert and Sean Connery? When it comes to the reserve currency, “there can be only one”, and today that’s the US dollar.

A lot has happened since the Treaty of Rome when six European countries clubbed together in 1957. Today the EU is the largest trading bloc in the world – one of three ‘Orwellian’ superstates vying for supremacy. Our penchant for cheap tat has transformed Mao’s China into an economic powerhouse chomping at Western heels.

The US economy is joined at the hip to China, so no matter what the big orange jobbie says, that won’t be sorted anytime soon. Derailing Europe is a far easier option to squeeze out the competition. Bomb the sh*t out of MENA, force mass migration across the Med, orchestrate a bunfight in their back yard and job’s a good’un.

Of course, none of this is decided by presidents or prime ministers – past or present. They are just players at the table hoping for a decent hand. But the croupier is bent, the deck is rigged, and the eye in the sky has dirt on everyone so even if they win, they still need to pony up.

This is why I don’t get my knickers in a twist about party politics and refrain from taking sides. That big drama in the White House last week had everyone in a tizzy but I just watched and sighed. Anyone paying attention may have noticed the wee snorter had already signed over his minerals to sausage fingers!

Defending that asset is of prime importance for those set to benefit from the spoils. So, now us minions are being conditioned to fork out more, see the needy go without, and send our boys off to the sausage machine?

They’ll likely soften us up with VE day celebrations, patriotic promotions and the like. Brainwashing us into thinking conscription or national service is a good idea. Our dads and granddads did it, so why not us?

The thing is, nobody is threatening to bomb Clydebank and why would they want to? In fact, the peace talks three years ago might have been sorted if Bojo hadn’t swooped in to scupper the deal!

It’s all super murky and you need to get up early to see the wood through the trees. But we must keep in mind what sparked this fire in the first place…

… a divided nation, manipulated by media, and elected patsies selling off farmland and natural resources.

Let’s ca’ canny and not fall for the ruse.

Suzanne.x

PS – we must support our farmers – not just for food security but to keep our land in trusted local hands. x

Date: March 12, 2025

Categories: Articles

Immigration: How Workers Can Respond

IT’S WELL KNOWN that the National Liberal Party has a long-standing policy of looking at a diverse range of opinions that might be of interest to our readers.

This involves printing articles from right across the political spectrum. Many of these articles come from unlikely sources. And this is particularly so of this article which comes from the January/February 2025 issue of Workers, the journal of the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist).

The CPB(ML) are completely different from other ‘leftist’ organisations that we’ve come across. For a start, they note that they ‘are not “left” or “right”’ & they ‘don’t divide our class into progressives and reactionaries’. This is interesting as groups like the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) just seem to want to ‘smash’ all those they regard as ‘reactionaries’.

The CPBML also want to talk about immigration in a calm & sane way. Contrast this to the SWP position of insulting workers – by accusing them of islamophobia, racism & so on – without listening to their genuine concerns about mass immigration.

With the above in mind, we’ve reprinted an article (about immigration) from their January/February 2025 issue of Workers. We think that readers will find it balanced, nuanced & very thought-provoking. You can find the original article here:

https://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/immigration-how-workers-can-respond

Once read, we’d encourage everyone to debate it via the National Liberal Party Facebook page here https://www.facebook.com/NationalLiberalParty or the National Liberals Facebook page here https://www.facebook.com/groups/52739504313

It goes without saying that there are no links between the CPBML, Workers and the National Liberal Party.

It is a precious thing when workers are able to talk to one another – and listen to the ideas of others. Nowhere is this discussion more needed than over the movement of labour across borders …

Immigration: How Workers Can Respond

The January/February 2025 issue of Workers, the magazine of the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist). It contains an excellent article on immigration. The magazine itself is balanced, nuanced & very thought-provoking. And the CPB(ML) are completely different from other ‘leftist’ organisations that we’ve come across.
Picture Credit: https://www.cpbml.org.uk

IT IS a precious thing when workers are able to talk to one another, and more importantly listen to the ideas of others, and understand the issues faced by workers in other industries and regions.

Open dialogue has never been more needed than in dealing with the issue of immigration, but is routinely suppressed for fear of the label “racist” – usually unfounded. Only through this discussion can our class build the unity and strength to exercise control.

The working class knows this issue is important but is frustrated in clarifying its real cause and impact, and in formulating an appropriate response.

We have first to understand the drivers of mass immigration in today’s capitalist Britain; secondly, we have to identify the impact that it has on the country and its working class; and finally, we must determine how we should respond.

No doubt every British worker has at some time been grateful to a migrant worker for a service they have received. For instance, it would be almost impossible in most parts of the health service not to be cared for by a member of staff who is either from a recent migrant background, or is a first-generation migrant.

ATTACK ON WAGES

At the same time workers can recognise that mass immigration is used as a means to attack the working class through the lowering of wages and deskilling, and impacts on other areas, such as housing and public services. So our first question is, Why has immigration increased to such high levels? What are the drivers?

Net mass immigration took off with the election of the Labour government in 1997. It was 48,000 but rose extremely rapidly, almost trebling in one year to 140,000 in 1998; it was not to fall below 100,000 again. Between 1997 and 2010, the “New Labour” years, net migration averaged 200,000 per year, five times higher than under the Conservative Major government of 1990-1996.

It is now clear that overall foreign immigration between 1997 and 2010 was 3.6 million, while nearly a million British citizens emigrated giving total net migration of 2.6 million (https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/355). A further boost happened when the Labour government introduced unrestricted immigration from the EU in 2004.

In 2015 net immigration was 330,000 a year, the vast majority EU citizens from Eastern Europe. This more than doubled in 2022, to 764,000. These were no longer EU nationals but came mainly from Asia and Africa. The year to June 2023 was higher still, last November revised up to 906,000 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3degx4029ko). That is an astonishing one and a half million added to our population in just two years.

What then are the arguments given to support this mass immigration? “There are too few workers to do the work needed.” It is true that Britain is in desperate need of workers doing the work we need doing. But capitalism chooses not to use this valuable resource available here.

NEVER CHEAP ENOUGH

The cheapness of labour promoted through immigration encourages capitalism to use labour in the most marginal of activities. No matter what the level of immigration, it will not satisfy the thirst of capital to seize the chance to use cheap labour requiring little investment and minimum risk. The hunger for this labour will never be satisfied.

The impact of mass immigration is the creation of an available pool of cheap labour which then suppresses the wages of all workers. It results in the plunder of talent from around the world – a new form of imperialism.

Globalisation means the free movement of labour, and of capital, and capital now views the whole world as its “reserve army of labour”, a concept that Karl Marx identified as an essential feature of capitalism.

Those who might think that they should leave their own countries should instead stay and fight for their countries’ own independence, and build socialism at home. The solution is not to desert their own countries and become rootless victims of capitalism.

Labour power is a commodity traded like any other. In effect Job Centres no longer need to be in Brixton and Liverpool to have the required impact – they can just as well be in Bangalore and Lagos.

Since 2020 when EU workers could no longer move freely to work in Britain, the number of work visas issued has exploded from 80,000 to 340,000 a year. The health and care sectors, by far the largest group of workers, have seen the biggest increase – 135 per cent last year.

How often do we hear that we need immigration to fill the skills shortage? There is no skills shortage other than that deliberately created by capitalism. Unable and unwilling to invest in skill, capitalism prefers to import skills from abroad, denying yet another generation the skills we need to rebuild Britain.

Another argument is that we need immigration to expand our economy. Recently, when immigration has been at its highest, the limited increase in GDP has been due to mass immigration expanding the population, not from any economic improvement. There is no improvement in productivity, rather a stagnating share of GDP per worker.

PROFITS

Immigration has encouraged capital to avoid investment and innovation, while still increasing its profits. Instead of economic improvements, we see a race to the bottom of low wages and low skill.

This is a desperate attempt to delay capitalism’s terminal decline, but in the end is no solution at all. Such short termism and lack of forward planning produce an increasingly unsustainable economy that will eventually collapse under its own contradictions into another financial crisis.

How then should the working class respond?

Firstly, by talking about it. So concerned are the ruling class and their allies at the strength of the evidence that they are trying to silence legitimate discussion amongst workers, dismissing genuinely held concerns as racism, bigotry and xenophobia.

This reached a peak during the Brexit debate, but the tactic failed, as it was bound to, when a confident working class holds its ground. The lies and abuse just strengthened workers’ resolve.

Riots last summer after the murder of three children in Southport, Merseyside have not made things easier. The actions of a few have been used to damn the legitimate criticisms made by many workers about the impact of mass immigration.

There has been an unholy alliance between those who call for the free movement of labour and those who call for mass deportation. Both undermine the security of people living here. Both sow confusion and disarray to stifle the clear voicing of legitimate concerns about mass immigration.

POSTURING

Posturing by successive governments over reducing immigration is purely for show. Their abuse of the Skilled Worker Visa system shows that they do not want to take control. Well, if the ruling class won’t take control, who will? In the end it can only be workers.

What are our trade unions doing about mass immigration? For the most part, not much. Although they may pay lip service to the issues of pay and training, they are frightened to tackle the related issue of immigration. For example, the TUC General Council at this year’s congress, in its statement on racism and the ‘far right‘ – https://congress.tuc.org.uk/2024-general-council-statements/#sthash.XBARRBkd.dpbs – failed to address workers’ very real concerns.

The class knows that this is something that needs to be dealt with and will talk about it one way or the other. When a confident working class frames its opposition to mass immigration as a fight for our jobs, for wages and for skills to rebuild Britain, it stands on solid ground and others will have to take note.

Date: March 5, 2025

Categories: Articles

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 3

Sir Keir Starmer led the Labour Party to a landslide victory at the general election held on 4th July last year. They won with a majority of 174 seats. The House of Lords acts as a check & balance to any party that holds a super majority. (Picture Credit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Keir_Starmer Fair use.)

IN ANY attempt to decide the future of the House of Lords, the upper chamber of the UK Parliament, it’s essential to avoid kneejerk reactions. Indeed, any decision (on any subject matter) requires deep analysis, thought and debate.

To this end, early last month we looked at what oversight body preceded the House of Lords (which was formally established in the early 14th century).

We found that its origins can be traced back to the medieval councils and assemblies that advised the monarch. Comprised of nobles, bishops, and other high-ranking official, their main role was to both advise the monarch and provide consent for legislation.

Over time, these gatherings evolved into a more structured body with defined powers. Thus, the main role of the House of Lords was to offer counsel to the king and to act as a judicial authority.

Various reforms (such as introducing life peers, reducing the number of hereditary peers, including women & reducing the power of the Lords to veto legislation, allowing them only to delay bills) have been introduced over the years.

However, the question remains, is the House of Lords still fit for purpose? Should it stay or should it go?

Before looking at the various arguments for & against retaining the House of Lords, we need to be clear what its purpose is. With this in mind, the following is a fairly comprehensive summary:

Basically, the House of Lords is the upper chamber of the UK Parliament, the lower chamber being the House of Commons. The Lords perform several key functions.

Its primary role is to review, amend/revise, and scrutinise legislation proposed by the House of Commons. This ensures that a brake can be applied to any hasty legislation.

It also acts as a check and balance on the government. The House of Lords ensures that bills are thoroughly examined and debated before becoming law.

Additionally, it also contributes to the expertise in various fields. Here, it draws upon the experience of its members, which includes life peers, bishops, and appointed experts. This body plays a crucial part in upholding democratic principles by preventing hasty legislation – as noted above – and promoting informed decision-making.

• To be continued.

• THIS ARTICLE should be read in conjunction with the following:

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 1 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-1

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 2 https://nationalliberal.org/the-house-of-lords-should-it-stay-or-should-it-go-part-2

Date: February 25, 2025

Categories: Articles

Self-Determination Is The Complete Opposite Of Imperialism!

SELF-DETERMINATION is the raison d’être of the National Liberal Party. And – as we’ve noted many times – we believe that there are three forms of self-determination. They are:

• National Self-Determination,

• Economic Self-Determination &

• Political Self-Determination.

For this article, we’ll be concentrating on National Self-Determination.

By National Self-Determination we mean that the ordinary working people of each nation have the right to have a real say in the way their countries are run. They also have the right – without outside interference – to make their own laws, rules and regulations.

National Self-Determination means that everyone has the right to keep their traditions, customs and way of life. It also means that everyone has the right to say how they work, who they trade with and who can come to live and work in their country.

It also means that everyone has the right to live in peace and freedom.

As National Liberals we fuse two old and honourable political traditions – Nationalism & Liberalism – together.

However, our form of nationalism (Self-Determination) is completely different to the way it is commonly depicted.

Our nationalism is positive. It’s based on the love of our respective nations & peoples. It’s also based on mutual cultural respect. Our nationalism is the complete opposite of imperialism. To us, imperialism is a more aggressive & expansive form of capitalism.

As we noted earlier, our nationalism is based on love & mutual respect. Imperialism is based on greed and disrespect (bordering on hate) of others.

It goes without saying that we’re opposed to both capitalism & imperialism. And we’re more than happy to distance ourselves from both.

We’re aware that some people mistakenly confuse nationalism with imperialism. Others deliberately conflate the two.

Therefore, we need to step up our educational efforts so that no one is in any doubt that self-determination is the complete opposite of imperialism!

Date: February 4, 2025

Categories: Articles

Assisted Dying

LATE LAST YEAR we reproduced an article – A Death Knell for Civilisation: Today’s vote is a dark day for Britain – by Laura Doddsworth. It examined the assisted dying bill (Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill) from, what could be considered, a ‘culturally conservative’ point of view (1).

We reproduced her article to promote free thought & debate & noted that we were more than happy to publish any opposing view.

One reader thought that Doddsworth’s article was strident & apocalyptic – akin to something produced by a ‘religious extremist’ who has no feeling for those watching close friends or relatives who’re dying slowly.

They agreed that it’s legitimate to ask that adequate safeguards be put in place. However, they pointed out that any legislation can be the adjusted, if required.

Our reader takes a position of bodily autonomy – basically, ‘My body, my choice.’ They also pointed out the trauma people are put through – on charges of murder – after they have seen a loved one slowly suffering due to a fatal illness & ‘have helped them on their way.’

With all of the above in mind, we reproduce the following article, written by Noel Byrne of the Dublin-based End of Life Ireland group. It appeared in an online publication called The Pensive Quill (TPQ).

TPQ is written mostly from an Irish Republican & Socialist perspective. It carries many interesting and thought-provoking essays. However, it’s unique in that it dissents from the current political position held by Sinn Féin & also promotes a diverse range of opinions (including those held by Ulster Unionists).

Noel Byrne’s article calls for ‘a compassionate law on Assisted Dying that permits a medically assisted death to adults of sound mind who are suffering intolerably or are terminally ill.’

It goes without saying that there are no links between Laura Doddsworth, Noel Byrne, the End of Life Ireland group, TPQ & the National Liberal Party.

.

Assisted Dying

In recent years two attempts have been made in this jurisdiction to have a law on Assisted Dying enacted. Both efforts failed.

In 2024 a Dáil ‘All Party Special Committee’ concluded after a nine-month period of research and consideration that such legislation should be enacted here. Their report has been accepted by the Dáil. It had already been determined by the Supreme Court that there was no constitutional bar on such legislation.

Unfortunately, legislation on Assisted Dying has not been included in the new Programme for Government as neither Fianna Fáil nor Fine Gael had included it in their manifestos. The majority of the other political parties are in favour of such legislation.

Such legislation would permit a medically assisted death to adults of sound mind who are suffering intolerably or terminally ill, and gives a choice to those with incurable physical conditions who face years of constant pain and suffering that they find unbearable.

The purpose of any Assisted Dying legislation is to give people:

The right to die with dignity, peacefully, and without suffering.

The ability to make their own choices about death while taking into account the reasonable interest of others.

The ability to make their well-considered end of life decisions in a safe and peaceful environment supported by the law.

Such legislation is similar to abortion or divorce, it is about giving individuals a personal right to choose if they so desire.

Legislation on Assisted Dying is currently in place in Austria, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, 11 of the United States and Colombia. The process to initiate such legislation is currently in progress in France, England, Scotland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

The principal arguments for Assisted Dying legislation are:

Relief from suffering. Assisted Dying provides a compassionate and humane way to end unbearable pain and suffering for terminally ill patients.

Autonomy and Self-Determination. Persons have the right to control their own bodies and lives. This includes the decision to end their life if they are suffering.

Dignity and Quality of Life. By allowing individuals to choose Assisted Dying it helps to preserve their dignity and maintain their quality of life rather than prolonging their suffering.

The National Liberal Party believes in free thought & free speech. Therefore, we publish a diverse range of opinions that might be of interest to our readers. This article is published in support of assisted dying. It counters an article – from late last year – that opposed assisted dying.

Naturally as with all such ethical legislation there are many who are opposed. Their arguments generally fall into four categories:

The sanctity of life. This is a belief that human life has inherent value and should be preserved at all costs, regardless of circumstances. This is primarily an argument from religious belief. There is no evidence of life being sacred.

The Slippery Slope argument is that legalising Assisted Dying could lead to a situation where the criteria for eligibility are gradually expanded, potentially leading to unjustified deaths. This is not a genuine argument. In any democracy the legislature must be in a position to amend legislation. It would be wrong to tie the hands of any future Government. This argument applies both ways, in that a future government might also decide to downgrade the eligibility criteria of any such legislation.

Palliative care is a sufficient alternative. This is completely untrue. There are a percentage of cases where palliative care is unable to relieve intolerable pain and distress. The majority of people seeking Assisted Dying are already receiving hospice or palliative care. Assisted Dying legislation is not in competition with palliative care. It is complementary to palliative care.

Potential for abuse. No law is perfect. All laws can be abused. It is most important that all laws relating to Assisted Dying have extremely tight controls and mechanisms in place whereby any abuse of the legislation is severely punished.

I am a member of EOLI (End of Life Ireland) which is a voluntary advocacy group involved solely in campaigning to have compassionate Assisted Dying legislation enacted in Ireland.

We want a compassionate law on Assisted Dying that permits a medically assisted death to adults of sound mind who are suffering intolerably or are terminally ill. We believe reform is necessary to reduce unbearable suffering of individuals, and just as importantly, to give choice to those with physical, incurable conditions who face years of constant pain or suffering that they find unbearable.

EOLI has a https://www.endoflifeireland.ie and also a Facebook page “End of Life Ireland” where you can get further information on this subject. EOLI are also looking for volunteers to assist us in our campaign. If you are interested in assisting the campaign, you can contact us at info@endoflifeireland.ie

Noel Byrne is a retired Civil Servant and a Humanist, with a principal interest in Philosophy, and a particular interest in Ethics and Morality.

(1) https://nationalliberal.org/a-death-knell-for-civilisation-todays-vote-is-a-dark-day-for-britain

(2) https://www.thepensivequill.com/2025/02/assisted-dying.html

Date: February 2, 2025

Categories: Articles

Why Are Police Refusing To Answer My Straightforward Question Over The Southport Massacre?

OUR ATTENTION has recently been drawn to the following article by Paul Embery. It relates to Axel Rudakubana, who was sentenced to life imprisonment last week for the of killing three children and injuring ten others in Southport last year.

Embery became a member of the Labour Party in the early 90s. He’s also a trade union activist (with the Fire Brigades Union – FBU). His views are probably best described as a form of patriotic & traditional working-class socialism. He’s as far from the ‘Far Right’ as is possible.

Embery’s article – which appeared on 15th January can be found here https://www.paulembery.com/p/why-are-police-refusing-to-answer – raises serious questions about Merseyside police, who were responsible for investigating the murders.

In refusing to answer legitimate questions, the police are only stoking public mistrust, which results in (often wild) online speculation. This, as we’ve already seen, can easily fuel civil disturbances.

This trend of – what seems to be – elements of the Establishment obscuring the truth must end. This is essential in establishing the correct balance, in terms of rights & responsibilities, between the nation, government & people.

Good government is based on liberty & truth. Any government which habitually obscures the truth – or outright lies – cannot expect to hold the loyalty of its people.

It goes without saying that there are no links between Paul Embery, the Labour Party, the FBU & the National Liberal Party.

Why Are Police Refusing To Answer My Straightforward Question Over The Southport Massacre?

THE TRIAL of Axel Rudakubana, the suspect in the Southport murders, is listed to commence next week at Liverpool crown court. Like every defendant, Mr Rudakubana is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and nobody should say or do anything to compromise that presumption or undermine the proceedings.

So, in what follows, I have chosen my words carefully and without making judgements on either the evidence to be laid before the court or Mr Rudakubana personally.

Instead, my focus is limited to an aspect of the police investigation that would usually be regarded as an open matter, as well as the question of what the public was (or wasn’t) told about that matter.

I raise these issues in the context of a response I have received to a freedom of information request that I submitted to Merseyside police – a response which, I believe, is highly evasive and suggests that we aren’t being provided with the full picture.

We know that immediately following the Southport massacre, Merseyside police announced that they were not treating the incident as terror related. This surprised many at the time, as the incident appeared to carry all the hallmarks of an Islamist attack.

Then, in October, three months after the incident, and after Rudakubana had been charged with murder, we learned that police had discovered ricin and an al-Qaida training manual when searching his home, and that additional charges, including one under the Terrorism Act 2000, had consequently been laid against him.

However, when announcing these additional charges, the chief constable of Merseyside police confirmed that the incident was still not being treated as terror related. ‘For a matter to be declared a terrorist incident, motivation would need to be established,’ she said.

I thought this peculiar. As someone who worked in the emergency services, I knew that there were examples of incidents being declared as terror related even though no motive had at that stage been established.

For instance, the attacks in 2019 at London Bridge by Usman Khan and Manchester Victoria station by Mahdi Mohamud, and in 2021 at Liverpool women’s hospital by Emad al-Swealmeen (an incident which, as with Southport, fell within the territory of Merseyside police), were all treated as terror related even though officers admitted that they were unsure of any motive at the time. There may be other examples.

Why, then, I wondered, were Merseyside police suggesting that the absence of a motive meant they were unable to treat the Southport incident as terror related? Had they not, even in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of the ricin and al-Qaida manual at the defendant’s property, seen fit to treat it as terror related? Did they then rescind that decision? The 12-week period between the search of the property and Merseyside police’s announcement of the discovery – a time lag which itself caused some controversy – would certainly have allowed for that sequence of events to have played out.

Were Merseyside police genuinely concerned only about motive when considering whether the incident should be declared terror related, or were other – let us say external – factors at play? Given the public suspicion and disquiet already surrounding the events in Southport, they would certainly have known that any decision to declare the incident terror related after previously insisting it was no such thing would have stoked more mistrust and alarm.

So I thought I would put the question to them. My freedom of information request was submitted in the following terms:

In respect of the murder of three young girls in Southport on 29 July 2024, I would like to know if at any point during the ensuing investigation, Merseyside police decided to treat the incident as terror related. (For the avoidance of doubt, the question still applies even if such a decision was subsequently rescinded.)

I saw no reason why Merseyside police shouldn’t provide me with the information. After all, my request centred on a straightforward question of process and, I stress again, one that would usually be regarded as an open matter following such incidents. I did not see how the release of such information would have any bearing on the administration of justice. Otherwise, why would it ever be deemed permissible to announce that an incident was or wasn’t being treated as terror related.

In December, I received a formal response from Merseyside police. They told me that they were ‘not obliged to supply the information’ I had requested. In refusing the request, they cited various exemptions listed in the Freedom of Information Act.

They argued that, if they did hold the information, it would be necessary to withhold it:

• on the grounds that it would have been supplied by, or relate to, a body (such as the Security Service) dealing with security matters (section 23 of the act

• for the purposes of ‘safeguarding national security’ (section 24)

• to avoid prejudicing the upcoming trial (section 30)

• to avoid compromising law enforcement (section 31)

On that basis, they refused to even confirm or deny that they held the requested information.

This all seemed a bit unconvincing. If Merseyside police had at some point treated the incident as terror related, that information wouldn’t, one would have thought, have been ‘supplied’ to them. And so far as the information might ‘relate’ to a security body, or disclosure of it might undermine national security, prejudice the trial or compromise law enforcement, it would be valid to ask why these things do not appear to preclude police from announcing in other cases that they are or aren’t treating an incident as terror related (just as Merseyside police had already confirmed in the Southport case, both prior to and then after the discovery of the ricin and al-Qaida manual, that they were not treating the incident as terror related).

Merseyside police also argued, bizarrely, that, if the information was held, they would be prevented from disclosing it on the grounds that it constituted personal data (section 40). I really couldn’t make sense of this contention. It’s almost as though they were trying to find any reason at all to withhold the information.

Guidance from the information commissioner states that a public authority is under no obligation to apply an exemption listed in the Freedom of Information Act (provided that in disapplying an exemption it does not contravene other laws). So Merseyside police’s decision to apply the exemptions here tells us that they didn’t want to release the information, not that they couldn’t release it.

It’s hard to avoid concluding that Merseyside police may be attempting to conceal something. After all, if they had never treated the incident as being terror related, what possible harm could come from admitting the fact – particularly given, once again, that they had confirmed on two occasions that they were not at those specific points in time treating it as being terror related. So any confirmation that they had never treated it as such would simply show consistency.

The Southport massacre was a horrific event that attracted significant media attention across the globe. The actions of the authorities have not been without controversy, and some members of parliament have expressed concern that information which ought to have been placed in the public domain is being withheld.

Disclosure of the information I requested, if it was held, would plainly be in the public interest. On that basis, I have asked Merseyside police to review their decision to block my request. After that, and if necessary, I will raise the matter with the information commissioner.

When revealing details of the ricin and al-Qaida manual discoveries, the chief constable stated: ‘You may have seen speculation online that the police are deciding to keep things from the public. This is certainly not the case.’

I think the jury is still out on that one.

Date: January 27, 2025

Categories: Articles

Categories

Recent Blog Posts

Thomas Sankara: A Point Of Reference For National Liberals

Stop Discriminating Against Cash Users At Self-Checkouts – Sign The Petition!

Distributism: An Alternative Approach to Economic Justice

For Self-Determination & Peace!

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 7

Sausage Machine

Sausage Machine

Immigration: How Workers Can Respond

Immigration: How Workers Can Respond

The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part 3

Self-Determination Is The Complete Opposite Of Imperialism!

Assisted Dying

.

Assisted Dying

Why Are Police Refusing To Answer My Straightforward Question Over The Southport Massacre?

Why Are Police Refusing To Answer My Straightforward Question Over The Southport Massacre?