People struggle to accept the truth about Southport because they are unwilling to face it.

On Monday, the trial of Axel Rudakubana began. He is charged with the murder of three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport. However, Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick seemed more focused on targeting someone else.

Jenrick expressed his strong feelings by stating, ‘Once this trial is concluded, Keir Starmer must be held accountable.’ He emphasized the importance of the public receiving truthful answers, adding, ‘Any hint of a cover-up could severely damage public confidence in our institutions.’

Jenrick appeared to be aiming to insinuate a conspiracy linked to No 10, hoping it would go unchallenged as the trial progressed. Yet, unexpectedly, Rudakubana admitted guilt to all charges.

With reporting restrictions finally lifted, we now know the truth about the killings. Which is a problem for Jenrick – and those conspiracy theorists who have been trying to peddle their toxic wares across the cesspit of social media. Because they can’t handle the truth.

Before Rudakubuna’s belated admission of guilt, the charge against Starmer was that he had deliberately hidden vital facts about the Southport attack from the public in order to quell a potentially violent backlash. ‘What did he know and when?’ Jenrick challenged.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister provided the answer. He had been constantly briefed by the police about the case. But had been specifically advised by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not to release information about evidence that had been gathered for fear of potentially prejudicing any trial.

This account was supported by Stephen Parkinson, head of the CPS, who stated: ‘Public reporting of significant information before the conclusion of the trial, including about the actions of Axel Rudakubana on the day and some elements of his past history, would have posed a serious risk to the integrity of the trial and risked undermining justice for the victims and their families.’

The police confirmed they’d received similar CPS guidance.

Now it’s true, some respected lawyers have queried whether this CPS advice was overly cautious. And it’s entirely legitimate to debate that point.

But what is not open for debate is the scenario Starmer was presented with. Britain had just been subjected to one of the most appalling crimes in our modern history. He was advised by the head of the CPS, and the Government’s own lawyers, that the release of information risked prejudicing the trial.

And if in those circumstances he’d sought to overrule them, he would have been guilty of reckless irresponsibility.

Though that, apparently, wouldn’t have stopped Robert Jenrick. ‘Many will be wondering why it would have prejudiced the trial to reveal information – such as Rudakubana’s possession of the Al Qaeda manual and [the chemical weapon] ricin – that was released anyway when he was charged,’ he chided.

Those wondering need only look at what happened when that information was put into the public domain. As soon as it came to light, the far-Right rabble-rousers fanned out across social media to declare this was definitive proof Rudakubana was a jihadi terrorist.

But he wasn’t. The document he possessed was not – as widely believed – an Al Qaeda training manual. It was, in fact, a US military evaluation of an Al Qaeda training manual.

Its possession was still technically an offence. But it was no more proof he was a jihadi than it was proof he was a member of the US army. Rudakubana was also in possession of material about the IRA. That didn’t mean he was a Catholic nationalist.

It was the same with the ricin. As soon as it was revealed, people claimed: ‘Ricin is a jihadi weapon’. But the last person convicted of a terrorist offence in the UK involving ricin was Ian Davison, a white supremacist and the leader of the Aryan Strike Force, who was convicted of manufacturing a deadly chemical weapon in 2010.

In any case, Starmer did not have the presence of ricin confirmed by the chemical weapons laboratory at Porton Down until August. And he wasn’t informed of the discovery of the manual until just before Rudakubana was charged in October.

The idea that the premature release of these facts – even in advance of Rudakubana being charged – could not have potentially influenced a subsequent trial is a fantasy. As is the conceit it would somehow have cooled public passions.

But again the truth is of no consequence to those who believe the pursuit of Starmer is more important than the pursuit of justice. 

Yesterday, Starmer’s critics were demanding to know why the killings had not swiftly been declared a terrorist incident in the same way they had been after the killings of MPs Jo Cox and Sir David Amess.

They weren’t declared terrorism for one very simple reason. The police and CPS assessed the murders – as distinct to possession of the US military assessment – not to be terrorist crimes. And that remains their position.

People may debate that assessment. But there is no debate about what the law says. For a crime to be classified as terrorism it must be shown to be ‘for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause’. 

And the police and CPS judged there was no sustainable evidence of such cause in this case.

‘But he had ricin and a terror manual!’ people scream.

In 1987, Michael Ryan, dressed in military fatigues and armed himself with the terrorist’s weapon of choice – an AK47 machine gun – murdered a police officer and 15 others in Hungerford. Nobody said he was a terrorist. They, rightly, identified him as a sick maniac.

The Dunblane massacre in 1996. The Cumbria shootings in 2010. Were they carried out by terrorists?

It’s not just that people can’t handle the truth about Southport. It’s that they don’t want the truth.

The far-Right social media warriors don’t just believe Axel Rudakubana is a jihadi terrorist. They are actively desperate for him to be a jihadi so they can continue to peddle their agenda of hate.

But we know what jihadi terrorism actually looks like. Manchester. 7/7. London Bridge. Woolwich. The perpetrators don’t sit in cowardly silence with their shirts pulled over their face, as Rudakubana has done since the day of his arrest.

They publish manifestos. They produce videos. They glorify in their slaughter.

So the person who now has questions to answer is Robert Jenrick. And all those others who have leapt aboard the Southport conspiracy bandwagon.

Why are they helping peddle conspiracy theories that only serve to cement cynicism and mistrust? Why are they ignoring the actual evidence in this case as presented by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service?

And one for Jenrick specifically. Is he seriously saying that if a crime as appalling as Southport is ever repeated, and he finds himself back in office, he would actually ignore the advice of the CPS and his own lawyers, even if that raised a risk – if only a minuscule risk – of the perpetrator walking free?

The reality is we now know the truth about Southport. Can Robert Jenrick, and the social media conspiracy nuts, handle it?