'Pick-n-mix' ideologies: Why violent motivations are becoming harder to define

"Loners and misfits and young men in their bedrooms accessing all sorts of material online" - are these the "new threat" to our security? That's how Sir Keir Starmer put it as he told us last week that "terrorism has changed".
The government says it has no plans to change the definition of extremism. So, then what does need redefining? Or does the "new threat" fall into some other category that perhaps in the US they would call "school-shooter"?
Southport killer Axel Rudakubana is indeed a misfit, an aberration, but even the most clearly defined terrorists often are. Sometimes they have mental health problems. Often there's a criminal background and a pattern of escalating violence in their lives.
In 2017, Khalid Masood killed four people and injured 50 when he drove a car down the pavement of Westminster Bridge, before fatally stabbing a police officer who was protecting parliament.
Masood was a known extremist and Islamic State claimed responsibility for his actions, but research by criminologists at Birmingham City University found Masood's history of violence was a means to assert his "manliness" and regain power that may have been lacking elsewhere in his life.
He also had a previous knife crime conviction, often got into fights and researchers say that "there is evidence that within prison he wanted to kill someone".
No one is quite sure how Masood was radicalised, probably in jail, but perhaps he was just looking for a reason to justify his desire to kill - and extremism provided it. There is an argument that in many cases ideology is a mask, or at least secondary in significance to a person's violent nature.
Our definition of terrorism comes from the Terrorism Act of 2000 and is the use of threat of violence designed to influence government or intimidate the public for the purpose of a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
The Incel movement
New and weird forms of ideology can potentially form a plank for terrorism. The Incel (involuntary celibate) movement is one, and it definitely falls into the "misfit" category. This sub-culture is focused on members's feeling that they are being denied their right to intimate relationships. A deadly attack in a Toronto massage parlour in 2020 by an Incel-inspired man was described as an act of terrorism by a judge in Canada.
Research by Swansea University for the Commission for Counter Extremism said this phenomenon was more aligned to the need for mental health support rather than counter-terrorism interventions, and that is partly where debate lies now with Rudakubana.
He did get mental health support after it was determined he had an autism spectrum disorder, but he stopped engaging with it two years ago. The well-publicised deficiency in our mental health services needs as much attention here as any alleged failure in the anti-terrorism Prevent system.
'More volatile would-be terrorists'
In October 2024, the head of MI5 Ken McCallum made the point that it was becoming harder to determine whether an act of violence was ideologically motivated or driven by another factor like mental health.
He said: "We're encountering more volatile would-be terrorists with only a tenuous grasp of the ideologies they profess to follow. People viewing both extreme right-wing and Islamist extremist instructional material, along with other bits of online hatred, conspiracy theories and disinformation."
Mr McCallum described a "dizzying range" of beliefs, "pick-n-mix" ideologies, and a "crowd-sourced model" where people pull on hatred and misinformation from a multitude of mostly online sources.
He said: "Today, an attacker may have no connections to other terrorists. They might not be on our records. And there's often no claim of responsibility."
160,000 documents seized in Rudakubana probe
Rudakubana again fits into the 'pic-n-mix' classification. He had a copy of Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The al Qaeda Training Manual, but he also had documents about Nazi Germany and the Rwandan genocide.
3:19
From 160,000 documents seized and examined, it was concluded he was simply obsessed with extreme violence, not a political or religious ideology. You could say violence was his ideology.
In October 2017, when teenagers Thomas Wyllie and Alex Bolland were arrested for plotting to massacre fellow pupils at their school in Northallerton, their planned actions too did not conform to an ideology.
The seeming act of terrorism committed by Emad al Swealmeen in November 2021, when he blew himself up in the back of a taxi outside Liverpool Women's Hospital, was eventually found to be motivated by a mix of anger over his failed asylum application and poor mental health.
Prevent and its deradicalisation programme
The Prevent programme, set up to stop the spread of terrorism in the UK, clearly is not ideal for these kinds of cases.
Around 6,000 to 7,000 people are referred to it every year and only a few hundred are selected to go on a deradicalisation programme called Channel.
This can't be a catch-all for anyone intent on mass murder. The number of people referred to Prevent with "conflicted" or no ideology has been growing and now makes up 36% of all referrals.
1:38
Rudakubana fell into that category in the three times he was referred.
The first came after he did online searches around mass shootings, the second because of posts he made on Instagram about Libya's Colonel Gaddafi, and the third when he was found to be researching the London Bridge attacks. In each case, a judgement was made that he did not require intervention.
'Individuals pose a serious concern'
Dame Sara Khan, the former counter-extremism czar, told Sky News: "There is no effective system in place to deal with such individuals and they will continue to pose a serious concern."
It's hard to quantify the number of success stories from Prevent because, by definition, they lead to nothing happening. But Rudakubana is the fourth person known to the programme, who has gone on to commit an act that many would call terrorism.
The others include Reading knife killer Khairi Saadallah, Parsons Green bomber Ahmed Hassan, and the man who murdered MP Sir David Amess. Ali Harbi Ali managed to convince people at Prevent that he was reformed, when, actually, he was becoming ever more devoted to Islamic State ideology, ever more obsessed with murdering a politician.
His ideology and choice of a political target puts Ali Harbi Ali firmly in the terrorist bracket. But is it worth trying to glean an understanding of Rudakubana's motives from his choice of victims? After all, he is the second mass killer to target children enjoying pop music from a female artist. Like the Manchester bombing at Ariana Grande's concert, his was an attack on innocence.
Perhaps the best explanation for this was from the woman taking the dance class, Leanne Lucus. She told Liverpool Crown Court: "He targeted us because we were women and girls - because we were vulnerable, easy prey."
Add to this the Islamic State terror threat to a Taylor Swift concert in Austria last summer, it seems angry young men; be they Islamic terrorists, Incels, or misfit loners, often have a misogynistic streak, taking out their rage on women and girls.
It's clear a new strategy is needed, and as Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley told LBC, they can never stop every violent man.
He added: "We need to be as good as possible at it and there are too many, young men, online, obsessing about this violent material. Some of that is how we intervene with individuals, some of that's about the rules for online material and what people can digest and watch."
MI5 says the internet is becoming ever more central to terrorist activities - surely that is the frontline of this battle, and one that seems to be getting further out of control with tech bosses choosing not to monitor and regulate content.
With easy access to whatever he wanted to watch, Rudakubana was able to curate and indulge his warped fantasy in his bedroom, until he was ready to inflict it on the softest of targets. Does that make him a terrorist or just a monster? A young girl who he attacked but miraculously survived, perhaps found the best word: "Coward."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Western Telegraph

16 minutes ago

• Western Telegraph

Sir Mark Rowley ‘shocked' at planned protest in support of Palestine Action

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said a protest supporting the 'organised extremist criminal group' was due to take place in Westminster on Monday. He said until the group is proscribed the force has 'no power in law' to prevent the protest taking place, adding that breaches of the law would be 'dealt with robustly'. The act of vandalism committed at RAF Brize Norton is disgraceful. Our Armed Forces represent the very best of Britain and put their lives on the line for us every day. It is our responsibility to support those who defend us. — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 20, 2025 The Home Secretary will update Parliament on Monday on the Government's plan to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. Yvette Cooper will provide MPs with more details on the move to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support it, in a written ministerial statement. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being investigated by counter-terror police. The actions that they undertook at Brize Norton were also completely unacceptable and it's not the first Jonathan Reynolds In a statement on Sunday, Sir Mark said: 'I'm sure many people will be as shocked and frustrated as I am to see a protest taking place tomorrow in support of Palestine Action. 'This is an organised extremist criminal group, whose proscription as terrorists is being actively considered. 'Members are alleged to have caused millions of pounds of criminal damage, assaulted a police officer with a sledgehammer and last week claimed responsibility for breaking into an airbase and damaging aircraft. Multiple members of the group are awaiting trial accused of serious offences. 'The right to protest is essential and we will always defend it, but actions in support of such a group go beyond what most would see as legitimate protest. 'Thousands of people attend protests of a different character every week without clashing with the law or with the police. The criminal charges faced by Palestine Action members, in contrast, represent a form of extremism that I believe the overwhelming majority of the public rejects. 'We have laid out to Government the operational basis on which to consider proscribing this group. If that happens we will be determined to target those who continue to act in its name and those who show support for it. 'Until then we have no power in law to prevent tomorrow's protest taking place. We do, however, have the power to impose conditions on it to prevent disorder, damage, and serious disruption to the community, including to Parliament, to elected representatives moving around Westminster and to ordinary Londoners. 'Breaches of the law will be dealt with robustly.' A spokesperson for Palestine Action previously accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our Government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' Cabinet minister Jonathan Reynolds said he could not rule out the possibility of a foreign power being behind Palestine Action. The Business and Trade Secretary told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg: 'It is extremely concerning they gained access to that base and the Defence Secretary is doing an immediate review of how that happened. 'The actions that they undertook at Brize Norton were also completely unacceptable and it's not the first. It's the fourth attack by that group on a key piece of UK defence infrastructure.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Don't forget about Gaza. While the world is distracted, almost 400 people – queueing for food – have been gunned down by Israeli forces. You don't accidentally kill 400 people waiting for aid, they have been deliberately massacred. The UK must end all arms sales to Israel now. — Humza Yousaf (@HumzaYousaf) June 19, 2025 Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company the Wagner Group. Former justice secretary Lord Charlie Falconer said vandalising aircraft at RAF Brize Norton would not solely provide legal justification for proscribing the group. Asked whether the group's actions were commensurate with proscription, Lord Falconer told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips: 'I am not aware of what Palestine Action has done beyond the painting of things on the planes in Brize Norton, they may have done other things I didn't know. 'But generally, that sort of demonstration wouldn't justify proscription so there must be something else that I don't know about.' Former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf said the Government was 'abusing' anti-terror laws against pro-Palestine activists, as tens of thousands of protesters marched in London on Saturday. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Home Secretary @YvetteCooperMP is banning Palestine Action. We are pleased that the Home Secretary has listened to our representations over the last week. Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF… — Campaign Against Antisemitism (@antisemitism) June 20, 2025 The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe Palestine Action, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman also said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'. A pro-Palestine protester at Saturday's march in central London said it was 'absolutely horrendous' that the Government was preparing to ban Palestine Action. Artist Hannah Woodhouse, 61, told the PA news agency: 'Counter-terrorism measures, it seems, are being used against non-violent peace protesters. 'The peace activists are trying to do the Government's job, which is to disarm Israel.' Palestine Action has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire.

Telegraph

16 minutes ago

• Telegraph

With the US strikes on Iran, the old international order is under threat

SIR – Will the American bombing of Iran lead to another Iraq-style conflict? It is certainly a major breach of the rules-based international order which has largely prevailed since 1945. No doubt Donald Trump and his apologists will continue to justify what has happened. However, it is clear that if there is to be any hope of a return to a better settlement of world affairs then work towards this must start now. At least three things need to happen: a major reconstitution and strengthening of the United Nations (especially in relation to the Security Council); the recommitment by its originators to the 1941 Atlantic Charter; and serious talks on universal nuclear disarmament. Things certainly cannot go on as they are. Andrew McLuskey Ashford, Middlesex SIR – A few days ago, Sir Keir Starmer was adamant that Donald Trump would not get involved in Iran. The US president, along with Israel, has now taken a vital step towards long-term peace in dealing a blow to the nuclear capabilities of the primary sponsor of global terrorism. Now that our Prime Minister has demonstrated his irrelevance on the world stage, let him concentrate on making our country secure. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be proscribed, hate marches in our capital should be prevented and the small boats should be turned back to France. Tim Coles Carlton, Bedfordshire SIR – In light of the bombing of Iran's key nuclear sites, Sir Keir Starmer shows himself to be naive at best when claiming that the Chagos treaty his Government negotiated guarantees the effectiveness of the US-UK military base on Diego Garcia for the next 100 years. As a reminder, Annex 1 section 2 of the treaty states '... the United Kingdom agrees to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia'. Had the B-2s been deployed from Diego Garcia it stands to reason that Mauritius would have instantly warned Iran, one of their key regional allies, of the imminence of the military operation, thus gravely jeopardising its success. Jean Maigrot London SW6 SIR – The protesters who sprayed red paint on the engine of a RAF refuelling aircraft (report, June 22) deserve our sincere thanks. At a stroke, they have revealed the sheer inadequacy of the security of Brize Norton airbase. Having regard to current world events, including the destruction of so many aircraft across Russia, and the situation in the Middle East, the lack of effective security is truly mind-blowing. One can only hope that this warning leads to immediate and effective action across all our Armed Forces everywhere. Jonathan Fogg Loulé, Algarve, Portugal

Sky News

an hour ago

• Sky News

An Iranian attack on US military bases could draw the UK into the conflict

When I got to Chequers on Sunday morning the prime minister had clearly been up for most of the night and hitting the phones all morning with calls to fellow leaders in Europe and the Middle East as he and others scrambled to try to contain a very dangerous situation. His primary message on Sunday was to try to reassure the public that the UK government was working to stabilise the region as best it could and press for a return to diplomacy. But what struck me in our short interview was not what he did say but what he didn't - what he couldn't - say about the US strikes. It was clear from his swerve on the question of whether the UK supported the strikes that the prime minister neither wanted to endorse US strikes nor overtly criticise President Trump. Instead, his was a form of words - repeated later in a joint statement of the E3 (the UK, Germany and France) to acknowledge the US strikes and reiterate where they can agree: the need to prevent Iran having a nuclear weapon. He also didn't want to engage in the very obvious observation that President Trump simply isn't listening to Sir Keir Starmer or other allies, who had been very publicly pressing for de-escalation all week, from the G7 summit in Canada to this weekend as European countries convened talks in Geneva with Iran. 4:00 It was only five days ago that the prime minister told me he didn't think a US attack was imminent when I asked him what was going on following President Trump's abrupt decision to quit the G7 early and convene his security council at the White House. When I asked him if he felt foolish or frustrated that Trump had done that and didn't seem to be listening, he told me it was a "fast moving situation" with a "huge amount of discussions in the days since the G7" and said he was intensely pressing his consistent position of de-escalation. What else really could he say? He has calculated that criticising Trump goes against UK interests and has no other option but to press for a diplomatic solution and work with other leaders to achieve that aim. 1:15 Before these strikes, Tehran was clear it would not enter negotiations until Israel stopped firing missiles into Iran - something Israel is still saying on Sunday evening it is not prepared to do. The US has been briefing that one of the reasons it took action was because it did not think the Iranians were taking the talks convened by the Europeans in Geneva seriously enough. It is hard now to see how these strikes will not serve but to deepen the conflict in the Middle East and the mood in government is bleak. Iran will probably conclude that continuing to strike only Israel in light of the US attacks - the first airstrikes ever by the US on Iran - is a response that will make the regime seem weak. 2:38 But escalation could draw the UK into a wider conflict it does not want. If Iran struck US assets, it could trigger article five of NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all) and draw the UK into military action. If Iran chose to attack the US via proxies, then UK bases and assets could be under threat. The prime minister was at pains to stress on Sunday that the UK had not been involved in these strikes. Meanwhile, the UK-controlled airbase on Diego Garcia was not used to launch the US attacks, with B-2 bombers deployed from Guam instead. There was no request to use the Diego Garcia base, the president moving unilaterally, underlining his disinterest in what the UK has to say. The world is waiting nervously to see how Iran might respond, as the PM moves more military assets to the region while simultaneously hitting the phones.