Vital questions that must be answered in wake of Southport killings

When Axel Rudakubana attacked the Taylor Swift themed class in July last year, the country could scarcely believe what had happened.

A group of 26 small children had turned out for what should have been a joyous event, as they looked forward to their summer holidays. But that happiness was shattered the moment Rudakubana burst into the room armed with an 8in knife, randomly attacking the youngsters. 

Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and nine-year-old Alice Dasilva Aguiar all paid with their lives, and eight other youngsters were injured. The tragic reality is, though, that every one of the children present on that fateful day will bear the scars for their rest of their lives.

So when we learn that Rudakubana had been referred to the Government's Prevent anti-terror programme on no fewer than three occasions, and each time was deemed to pose not threat to the public, it leaves a lot of questions that need to be answered.

How was it that Rudakubana, who was clearly on the authorities' radar, able to repeatedly slip through the net? How did an apparently normal schoolboy, from a loving, church-going family, turn into such a monster?

It is understood that Rudakubana, who was 17 at the time of the attack, wished to emulate the atrocities committed by groups such as al-Qaeda. The forthcoming inquiry will need to look at how somebody so young could have their mind corrupted in such a way, and this will inevitably mean looking at the role of the internet, and social media in particular.

The Prevent programme was drawn up almost 20 years ago, at a time when the main terror threat appeared to be from organised groups motivated by religious or political objectives. That may well need to be reviewed.

The lesson from the Southport massacre is that we ignore 'lone wolf' attacks from disaffected young people at our peril.