Southport Attacks: Why the U.K. Needs a Unified Approach to All Violent Attacks on the Public

While often not given a psychiatric diagnosis, many people who have carried out attacks appear to have been emotionally dysfunctional. Evidence for this goes back at least as far as 9/11, to the personality of the ringleader Mohamed Atta. It has since been accumulating in what is known of many convicted attackers, including those with lengthy ideological rationales, such as Anders Breivik.

The emergence of “incel” terror has further blurred the distinction between those with an apparent ideological rationale and those with obvious psychological problems.

At the psychological level, there is no clear separation between lone actor ideological attackers and those who are supposedly non-ideological. Common to all is some disturbance within the self, one requiring the enactment of lethal violence.

Ironically, the clear presence of psychological factors can also be seen – at a different level – in some of the people involved in the violent riots which occurred in response to the Southport murders. These were, in considerable part, the creation of online agitators, extreme right-wing activists and their bussed-in followers.

But some who took part were more casual joiners of the riots. These were people of no fixed ideological abode who were drawn by the excitement of the occasion and the opportunity to attack the police and other symbols of social order. The same psychological motive may be attributed to the “Maga tourist” element among the January 2021 invaders of the Capitol building in Washington DC.

Protecting the Public
Such problems of group-based violence in public spaces may be amenable to primarily political and policy solutions (albeit very difficult ones to achieve). However, individuals who may suddenly erupt into violence, ideological or not, are even more difficult to identify, assess, monitor and contain.

The first step towards better protecting the public should be to recognize the psychological drivers of all such attacks. These include a preoccupation with grievance, often linked to a powerful sense of humiliation and psychological defenses against that. For example, the hypermasculinity and fantasied omnipotence of Islamic State.

It is necessary, for various reasons, to retain the legal category of terrorist attacks. But it should be a subcategory of a more inclusive approach that covers all violent attacks on the public.

Where there is little or no consistent ideological element, the term terrorism, which has political connotations, should not be employed. Violence that doesn’t aim to promote a political objective would be better described as the infliction of terror on innocent members of the public, as a form of revenge upon the world or as an expression of hatred. Other political terms such as “radicalization” and “extremism” may also be inappropriate or confusing when applied to such cases.

A conceptual framework which makes that distinction, while also recognizing the common psychological ground of the draw towards violence, would allow for more effective interventions.

Prevent could continue its work (with much-needed improvements) to minimise ideologically rationalized attacks. But it would be coordinated with a complementary national agency that oversees and supports local services in identifying and managing people like Rudakubana. The face-to-face client work of both prongs would be guided and overseen by forensic psychiatrists and psychotherapists.

There will be more people in both sub-categories coming along with very weak control of their violent impulses. They will need skillful management that understands the drivers of profound disturbance.

Barry Richards is Emeritus Professor of Political Psychology, Bournemouth University. This article is published courtesy of The Conversation.