The Southport Murders: Some Thoughts

 

It's difficult to think of something new to say about the Southport murders and the sentencing of the killer - Axel Rudakubana (AR), seen above in an appropriate location. All I can do is to provide a personal perspective. When I first heard the news back in July of how the three small children -  Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, Bebe King, six, and Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine - had been slain, like everyone else, I was consumed with shock. Although I don't live in Southport now, it is still my home town and I could not believe that such a thing could happen there. It's the sort of thing that happens here in London, so I thought, remembering the London Bridge and Westminster Bridge attacks. "Why", so I wondered at first, "would a terrorist want to strike in Southport?". Now, as we know, AR was apparently not a terrorist, still less a Muslim. Not that this awkward fact stopped the Fash from using the attacks as an excuse to launch racist rioting, but that's not relevant here.

What I found of interest was the way that AR conducted himself at his trial, and the weeks leading up to it. As we know, he has never expressed any remorse for his crimes. As The Guardian says: 

"The Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, said “I’m so glad those kids are dead” after he was arrested for the “sadistic” murder of three young girls and attempted murder of 10 others".

In the courtroom, His sentencing was halted as he shouted that he felt ill before the judge ordered him to be removed from the dock. Now, this drew shouts of "coward!" from the public gallery, but it gives me pause for thought, as did the revelation (at least to me) that he had planned the attack for some time. Even his purchase of two knives from Amazon had been planned with care. It seems that he had used special software to get round Amazon's security checks. This causes me to wonder why he unexpectedly pleaded guilty and if there was another reason for his court outbursts, other than cowardice. Perhaps he simply wanted to appear to be in charge of proceedings and/or to deny the children's relatives the satisfaction of seeing him sentenced.

AR was clearly a troubled youth, as the BBC describe in some detail. It seems that the first serious signs Rudakubana was capable of serious violence towards others date back to when he was in year nine at Range High School in Formby, near Southport. From then on, as the Beeb say: 

"...over his adolescence, Rudakubana began to exhibit anger issues and a propensity for violence. When he was sentenced in January 2025, his barrister would tell the court that "something changed" in Rudakubana at the age of 13". Fellow pupils remember him being obsessed with figures such as Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan."

And the violence exhibited itself later, leading to his expulsion and returns to his old school to commit acts of violence as well as his diagnosis for Autism Spectrum Disorder. He was convicted several times for carrying a knife and, as the BBC say:

" He had involvement with local mental health services but "stopped engaging" in February 2023.
At the time of the attack, social care professionals were assessing whether the then-17-year-old needed to be offered additional care to manage his transition to adulthood".

I have been very critical of the mental health powers that be over the release of murderous mental health patients back into the community but, to be fair, I cannot see what grounds they would have had for permanent incarceration of AR. Neither did the police have any such powers. I am the first to declare that he should have been in an institution, but without grounds for putting him there, it would have been difficult to enforce.

Having said this, I expected that AR's defence team would have entered a plea of manslaughter with diminished responsibility and assumed that he would be sent to Broadmoor or somewhere similar. To my astonishment, that has not happened. Instead, his guilty plea has been accepted and he could well be sent to a "normal" prison. And that opens up another topic.

For if AR goes to an ordinary jail, he will be a prime target for attack by other prisoners. As we know, he has been sentenced to 52 years but, if other prisoners are successful, he might not reach the age of 70 (not that he would be released anyway - I hope). There are precedents for this. As Joe Duggan says on MSN News:

 

"In 2019, paedophile Richard Huckle, was killed by another prisoner after being attacked at Full Sutton, where he was serving 22 life sentences after admitting the sexual abuse of up to 200 Malaysian children aged between six months and 12 years. In 2010, Soham child murderer Ian Huntley had his throat slashed in HMP Durham’s Frankland Jail while Roy Whiting, who murdered eight-year-old Sarah Payne, was stabbed at HMP Wakefield last year".

There will be precious little sympathy for AR, should he face a similar or worse fate. As Duggan says, he will probably lead an isolated life in a segregation unit. He will not be completely safe there, as Mark Fairhurst,  national chairman of the Prison Officers’ Association (POA) trade union says: 

“Everyone will know who he is, and no matter where he is in the prison, they’ll know where he is, and they will target him. His life will be an absolute misery...You’ve got to unlock him for a phone call for exercise, so he can have a shower. And there’ll always be prisoners around when that happens. They always find a way to get to these people.”

I can find no room in my heart for Axel Rudakubana, should that happen. My sympathies lie with his victims and their families. 

By way of a footnote, it has been reported that the father of Sara Sharif, who was convicted together with his wife last month of his 10-year old daughter's murder, has already been attacked in prison. The BBC reports: 

"Urfan Sharif is said to have been attacked at Belmarsh Prison on New Year's Day by two other inmates in a cell, the Sun newspaper reported. Sharif reportedly suffered cuts to his face, and it is understood he received medical treatment inside the prison. The weapon alleged to have been used in the assault was part of a tuna can".

For Axel Rudakubana, the clock is ticking.

Sara Sharif, R.I.P.

Elon Musk: an Alien Influence?

 I have to admit that I didn't know much about Elon Musk. I knew, of course, that he was the new owner of Twitter/X. Like the rest of the world, I knew he was fabulously wealthy and - who could miss it? - he was in political cahoots with Donald Trump and is now part of the US government. However, his recent "interventions" into British politics, and his tiff with Nigel Farage, have spurred me into learning more about him. If his wealth is to become influential in our political affairs, we need to understand what we are dealing with.

Well, he is a a South African by birth, born in Pretoria about 53 years ago. According to the BBC: 

"Mr Musk showed his talents for entrepreneurship early, going door-to-door with his brother selling homemade chocolate Easter eggs and developing his first computer game at the age of 12".

Coming from a domestically fractured background, and despite suffering from Asperger's Syndrome, he left home at 17 for college. He moved to Canada, becoming a Canadian, before moving to the USA where he gained a degree in economics and physics at the University of Pennsylvania, and became a US citizen, before starting out on his business career.

Now, there are several factors of interest here. First, we should note that Musk has a family background that was far Right politically. Joe Hill, in Searchlight magazine, writes:

"Our attention has been drawn to a fascinating recent interview in which Errol Musk, father of Elon, apparently begins to say that Elon’s maternal grandparents were signed-up Nazis, but then checks himself: "They used to support Hitler and all that stuff… they were in the Nazi P... [stops himself]… they were in the German Party in Canada, so they sympathised with the Germans."

Not that this makes Musk a Nazi, but early political influences can affect children. There is also Musk's diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome. The National Autistic Society (NAS) says: 

"Historically, Asperger syndrome was used as a diagnostic term for some autistic people who did not also have a diagnosis of a learning disability. Broadly, it is now agreed that what was referred to as Asperger syndrome is part of the autism spectrum and there is no need for a separate term."

Hans Asperger, who invented the term, has been exposed as a Nazi supporter who helped the Nazis with their genocide programme, which has led to the term falling into disuse, as the NAS say. In spite of this, the accepted dictionary definition is relevant to our study of Elon Musk. It says:

 

(Asperger's is...) "...a condition forming part of the autistic spectrum, characterized chiefly by repetitive patterns of behaviour, preoccupation with restricted interests, and difficulties with social interaction, without intellectual impairment or significant problems with verbal communication".

 Compare this to the verdict of Musk's first wife, Justine Wilson, who became his wife in 2000, when he wasn't yet a rich man. In a 2010 essay for Marie Claire, she wrote that even before making his millions  Musk was "not a man who takes no for an answer. The will to compete and dominate, that made him so successful in business, did not magically shut off when he came home,". While dancing at their wedding, Elon the Charmer told his new wife: "I am the alpha in this relationship."

Now, is it going too far to say that this indicates a definite autistic trait and an authoritarian background influence? I am not qualified to say, but it does remind me of an old saying: "as the twig is bent, so is the tree inclined". But let's move on.

If repetitive behaviour applies to human relationships, Musk certainly exhibits it in his family life (lives?). As all the tabloids know, he has had three wives and has 12 children by three different women. Anyone who finds this of interest can read about this on People.com or by conducting a Google search. Musk has requested privacy for his partners and their offspring, but one comment by one of his children is of interest.

Vivian Jenna Wilson is a transgender woman in her early 20s. She is also the child of Elon Musk and his first wife, Justine. Her recollection of Musk as a father is relevant here. According to NBC News:

"Wilson said that, for as long as she could remember, Musk hasn’t been a supportive father. She said he was rarely present in her life, leaving her and her siblings to be cared for by their mother or by nannies even though Musk had joint custody, and she said Musk berated her when he was present. “He was cold,” she said. “He’s very quick to anger. He is uncaring and narcissistic.”

Once again, I am left wondering about the autism link. Not all uncaring and narcissistic people are autistic, but there does seem to be a connection. In 2022, Vivian applied to change her family name from Musk to Wilson. In doing so, she practically disowned Musk, saying: “I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form,”.

Musk's reaction to this is, I think, of particular significance. The first, obvious point is that Musk used this domestic affair as an excuse to move towards the political Right. Expressing no anguish over the alienation of his child, he said on X: “I vowed to destroy the woke mind virus after that, and we’re making some progress”.

Perhaps less obvious is the obsessive way in which Musk has launched a sustained attack on Transgender people on X and - highly relevant - Musk has shown no regret or remorse over his treatment of his child. Narcissists never express remorse.

And his move to the Right has continued. Once a Democrat voter, he now is critical of the Democrat party's stance on a number of issues, including the economy, immigration and gun control - decrying many of its policies as "woke" - shades of his statement on X, mentioned above. It looks to me that Musk is venting his wounded pride in having a transgender child into a deepening liaison with the far Right - which leads us to his political status, both here and in the USA.

Musk's interference in politics here is well enough known. After last summer's riots, Musk said that we are drifting towards civil war. Lately, he has launched a number of attacks on the Labour government, accusing the PM of being "complicit in the rape of Britain", and described Jess Phillips MP as "a rape genocide apologist" - whatever that means. He is even said to be interested in buying Liverpool FC.

  According to the Mail:

"...his (Musk's) father revealed that his family have generational ties to the Merseyside city. 'His grandmother was born in Liverpool, and we had relatives in Liverpool, and we were fortunate to know quite a lot of the Beatles because they grew up with some of my family. So, we are attached to Liverpool, you know,' he told Times Radio".

Happily, FSG, the club's owners, say that the club is not for sale. And, as the Liverpool Echo comments: "Musk’s right-wing views likely would not chime with the socialism of Liverpool".

Liverpool fans, to their credit, have spoken out vociferously against this proposed purchase by Musk and , by doing so, have set us an example of how we should react to the intrusions of this foreign billionaire.

In conclusion, I can declare that the more I have learned of Elon Musk, the less I like him. As Wordsworth said: "The child is father of the man". My readings of the early lives of Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson bear this out and it's true of Elon Musk. They are all egotistical, narcissistic opportunists with an overweening sense of privilege and/or "entitlement". Musk's first wife's comment that he wouldn't take no for an answer is true of all four. The problem with Musk is that he has a  lot of money to throw around. His unstable character, shown by the way he abruptly turned on Nigel Farage (NF) because NF wants to keep his distance from Tommy Robinson (for now) indicates that he is capable of sudden changes of preference. Reform UK might not receive funding, but more extreme groups, including whatever faction Tommy Robinson now sides with, might well benefit from Musk's largesse. 

But we must not forget the menace he poses to many people in the USA. As we know, he has a reputation as a hard-nosed businessman. When he took over ownership of Twitter/X, he made a lot of Twitter employees redundant. Federal workers across the USA must be sweating with anxiety for their future employment. If he is capable of treating his own child badly, then he won't shrink from creating mass federal redundancies. And that is just the beginning. Dissenters, and past opponents of him and his friend, Donald Trump, might well find themselves targets of Elon's baleful attention.

I wonder - is it too late for Musk to find treatment for his autism?