On Monday 29^th of July a knife rampage described as a “horror movie” took place in Southport, UK, during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class resulting in three little girls stabbed to death and eight others injured. The perpetrator was a 17-year-old boy arrested at the scene, and his motivations seem irrelevant to terrorism.

Right after the grave incident, online false claims, including that a Muslim immigrant had been arrested for murder, led to clashes between the police and far-right rioters, including an attack against a mosque. For this reason, the Judge at the Liverpool Crown Court lift the anonymity of the accused minor, citing the “idiotic rioting” in parts of the UK after the attack as one reason it was in the public interest for his name to be released, as the defendant’s anonymity would run the risk of misinformation spread in a vacuum. The perpetrator turned out as non-Muslim, he is Christian, described as a “quiet choir boy” with a family heavily involved in the local church. Yet, the riots have continued, sweeping Britain, with outbreaks of far-right, anti-immigrant violence (hotels housing asylum seekers set on fire), Police officers injured and angry crowds.

Both the actual Southport crime and the riots that have followed and continue throughout the UK should make European security officials think about several points:

1. When the discussion about mass murders starts, usually the debate is whether firearm possession should be allowed or not and how access to firearms (especially when the perpetrator is a minor) plays a significant role. The case study of the United States and the inadequate or not firearms control is at the core of nearly every analysis. However, the Southport example, where the perpetrator used a knife, should direct us to understand that we need to research more carefully the motives and the reasons that lead persons to commit such violent crimes, than fixate too much on the choice of weapon. For those who want to commit a violent crime, finding a weapon is not difficult. While taking measures to prevent the use of a certain criminal modus operandi can be useful (after all, that is the “situational prevention” approach countering crime), it does not solve the problem in the long run, since perpetrators will move to using another operational methodology (and this “displacement” is known to criminologists as a normal consequence of situational prevention measures). A successful security policy must focus on the underlying causes of the phenomenon and invest also into researching any behavioural signs that could assist authorities to deal in time with crime, before it takes place.
2. When it comes to the Southport case (and generally mass attacks) it is important to see if members of the family, or of other communities the boy was active in (e.g. school, local church etc.) had understood any problems the boy may have been facing, if they could have detected any suspicious signs revealing the deadly plan. Finally, it must be examined if there are ways to communicate such concerns accordingly to authorities, not only to thwart a pending attack, but also to provide psychological support where needed to prevent violent outbreaks of behaviour.
3. Without falling to the trap of moral panic, societies have reached a point where it is mandatory to address the problem of serious types of violence committed by minors. Violent, dehumanising narratives are present almost everywhere, offline and online, and children are exposed to them since a very early age. There are video games, song lyrics, films, television series, cartoons etc., that promote violence as a model behaviour or something normalised. It is hypocritical to demand from the youth to act and react in different ways than adults do. While after any violent act a minor commits society seems surprised condemning it, the same society still glorifies violence even in forms of art and gaming that literally surround the youth in their everyday life. We cannot expect for children to remain unaffected, especially if there are no adequate efforts to protect them from messages of violence they can see almost everywhere, or at least deconstruct the message and provide alternative narratives.
4. The riots that have erupted in the UK are a scary example of the result fake news, bias and stereotypes can have in society, especially when political movements are fuelling them. The online and social media dimension of spreading information is based on speed, on the power of the image and the tendency people seem to have to accept what they see and hear as the undeniable truth, without double-checking it. There seems to be no time nor willingness to verify, question or go deeper when it comes to news, particularly if they appear to confirm preexisting perceptions, biases and fears. In the Southport example the nationalist and far right movement in the UK has taken advantage of the tragic victimisation of little girls, a crime that touches the hearts of people and their instinct to protect their children, their family to push its anti-immigrant and Islamophobic agenda. Fake news can incite violence and justify it as a supposed necessary reaction to protect society, homeland, religion, the nation and its values. Immigrants have been used as scapegoats and perceived as dangerous throughout history, especially when there are crises and problems. Vilifying someone who is not “one of us” can make us feel more secure and sure that we are the “good guys”. The one who is dangerous, “evil”, of criminal nature is the “other”, outside “us” different from “us”, easily spotted. We are defending ourselves against the “other” that represents an alien culture, responsible for the crimes committed. Our own principles, values, community are proven to be superior, because they are supposedly not forming behaviours that pose a security threat. It is of course possible for an immigrant to commit crimes. This does not mean though that all immigrants commit crimes and threaten security. Collective responsibility and guilt can only create injustice and grievances that will marginalise immigrants and make it easier for them to get radicalised or be pushed to choose crime to survive, since they will not intergrade appropriately in society. There is a strong double standard irrational reaction when it comes to crime committed by immigrants that shows how for part of the public opinion it is not the crime that matters, but who may have carried it out. If a country’s native (with evident racial ties to what is considered as ethnically pure) has committed the crime, the one to be blamed is just the perpetrator and his actions represent no one else. If the perpetrator is a “foreigner”, then it is all about attributing the crime to ethnic, religious, cultural etc. characteristics. The criminal represents also a whole country, race or religion that is to be blamed as criminal. And this is how generalisations can put at risk people to be targeted as threats to security when they have nothing to do with crime, and they just share a common religious, ethnic, racial, cultural characteristic with the original perpetrator. This is the reality now for so many people in the UK that are targeted and put at risk just because they are foreigners, immigrants, asylum seekers.
5. While at first nationalist and far right movements seem to play the role of the conservative in societies, the riots after the Southport attack are an example of how they are often opposing the official authorities and the institutional monopoly of the state when it comes to delivering justice. The reactions we see in the UK are above all disrespecting and rejecting authorities, the rule of law and the criminal justice mechanism of the country. There is an anarchist element to be noted in such a behaviour, that is masked with the argument that all institutions are corrupted, in the hands of corrupted officials, so there is need for alternative ways to deliver justice. But that is also the argument of every extremist, taking the law in his hand. Riots and mobs never guarantee justice, they make sure just that anger and sentiment find a way to be expressed in the form of vengeance and indiscriminate violence. Furthermore, we are seeing how police officers and police stations are attacked, and the fighting scenes remind anarchists attacking the Police. It would not be an exaggeration to argue that nationalists and far rightists see the state as an enemy, and they reject its rules and laws. Furthermore, there is nothing serving and protecting the nation in burning and destroying the cars and property of other fellow citizens. This is par excellence trademark activity exhibited by violent anarchists, even hooligans and it does not match at all any ideology that allegedly wants to protect the British nation and society.
6. Riots are the perfect setting for participants to carry out violence for a variety of reasons. They create dynamics that suppress control mechanisms and allow mob mentality under the command of those who resume the role of the “leader”. Nowadays, when it comes to understanding how riots start, we should look at the power of online incitement and the ability to use social media to form mobs that will go out on the streets and create a chaotic situation. It can be of course also that riots start with peaceful protests that turn later into riots and in this case again online messages and even slogans inciting crowds to act in certain ways play a significant role. The work of the police dealing with mobs and protests turning violent has to address many challenges. Authorities must keep a sensitive balance between only policing if everything is still at protest level and intervening decisively if mobs are created and start to act violently. They must isolate such violent groups, not allowing them to set the pace. On one hand there is the risk of inadequate- or delayed- intervention, on the other hand the danger of excessive violence that could make things worse and trigger more violence. Moreover, there is need to protect both the targets of the mobs and those protesters who are not violent. An additional challenge can come from other groups, ideologically opposite, that could complicate things even further. For example, in the UK case there are also anti-fascist groups that organise counterprotests that can result to clashes with the nationalist mob, creating an extra headache for authorities. It should be noted that the online, social media parameter though can be also helpful to authorities, particularly when it comes to protecting targets. Monitoring communication and publications assists authorities to understand the hateful narrative shared in order to run a risk analysis, map possible targets and guard them appropriately.

What is happening in the UK needs close monitoring as another European country could face a similar situation. First, we must understand that mass attacks are not just terrorism related and the phenomenon is not an American exclusivity. We must invest into research and especially in informing people about telltale signs that could help prevent such incidents. Moreover, given the fact that extremist movements appear to be active in our societies, we need to address and deconstruct their dehumanising, violent narrative and any fake news they may push as part of their agenda. The pretext can be any crime, which could be used to stir the emotions of people and get them down to the streets attacking other people and putting to test the resilience of society.