Blaming Southport on Amazon cannot conceal ugly truth

At a hastily convened press conference this week, Sir Keir Starmer announced a public inquiry into the Southport murders. Axel Rudakubana's unexpected guilty plea removed any barriers stopping the Prime Minster revealing what he was told in the hours and days following the horrifying knife attack that left three young girls dead - including Rudakubana's possession of a terrorist training manual and the deadly toxin ricin.

- Esther Krakue

The PM also knew that Rudakubana had been referred to the anti-terrorism scheme Prevent three times before his arrest last summer, as well as details of the 17-year-old's past, including his expulsion from school and how police had caught him with a knife on 10 separate occasions.

The question is, why didn't he say anything? Why did Sir Keir allow the information vacuum which fuelled conspiracy theories and worsened last summer's civil unrest to fester?

In his defence, the PM argues he did not want to make the information public at the time because it would have risked prejudicing Rudakubana's trial.

On that point, he is totally right. Without a fair trial, there can be no conviction. The integrity of our judicial system must be upheld at all times, if only to give grieving families the justice they deserve.

But if that is indeed the case, and the Government was so concerned with not prejudicing ongoing cases, why did they take the opposite approach with the hundreds of people who were arrested in the wake of the Southport riots?