Manchester Arena attack: Security services might have prevented bombing, inquiry finds

Published

3 years ago

March 2, 2023

admin

The security services were guilty of “a significant missed opportunity to take action that might have prevented” the Manchester Arena bombing, according to the chairman of the inquiry into the atrocity.

A report published by former high court judge Sir John Saunders, the third and final from his inquiry, looked at whether MI5 and counter-terror police could have prevented bomber Salman Abedi from carrying out the attack.

Inquiry latest: Bomber’s family held ‘significant responsibility’ for his radicalisation

The inquiry had heard Manchester-born Abedi had been on the radar of the security services for seven years before the bombing.

Twenty-two people died and hundreds were injured in Abedi’s suicide bombing at the end of an Ariana Grande concert on 22 May 2017.

The report also covered the radicalisation of Abedi and the planning and preparation for the attack.

But the focus for many of the families of the victims has been the failings of the security services to prevent the attack.

In his report, Sir John said: “There was a significant missed opportunity to take action that might have prevented the attack.

“It is not possible to reach any conclusion on the balance of probabilities or to any other evidential standard as to whether the attack would have been prevented.

“However, there was a realistic possibility that actionable intelligence could have been obtained which might have led to actions preventing the attack.”

He said the reason for the missed opportunity included a failure by a Security Service officer to act swiftly enough.

‘Devastating conclusion’

The inquiry, he said, also identified problems with the sharing of information between the Security Service and counter-terrorism police.

“It remains quite impossible to say whether any different or additional action taken by the authorities could have prevented the attack. It might have done; it might not have done.”

Families of the victims described the report as a “devastating conclusion”.

In a statement they said: “Today’s report has been deeply painful to read, but also eye-opening. On the issue of the preventability of this attack, inevitably the report provides less information than we would have wanted. But it is now very clear that there was a failure to properly assess key intelligence about Salman Abedi; a failure to put it into proper context; and – most catastrophic of all – a delay in acting on it.

“As a result of these failures, at the very least, a real possibility of preventing this attack was lost. This is a devastating conclusion for us. The failures exposed in this report are unacceptable.”

They added: “It is clear that Salman Abedi should have been referred to Prevent (counter-terror programme). It is clear that the education system needs to be more vigilant in picking up signs of radicalisation. It is clear that Didsbury mosque turned a blind eye to extremism in its midst. Sir John’s report today contains many lessons; we must heed every one of them and make the necessary changes urgently.

“On 22 May 2017, thousands of people left their homes to attend a concert at Manchester Arena. 22 of those would never return home. Those killed and injured in this murderous attack had every right to feel safe and protected, but as this inquiry has demonstrated, they were failed at every level – before, during and after this horrific attack.”

‘Intelligence was not shared’

A number of MI5 and police counter-terrorism detective witnesses gave evidence behind closed doors during the 17-month inquiry. The sessions were held in secret in an effort not to compromise national security.

A summary of some of their evidence was later made public but the so-called “gist” did not reveal any details about the intelligence received by MI5 in the months before the attack.

But Sir John’s report identified the “principal missed opportunity” as two pieces of intelligence received by the Security Service in the months prior to the attack, “the significance of which was not fully appreciated at the time”.

Both of those pieces of intelligence, which were not disclosed in the report, were assessed to relate to “non-nefarious activity or to non-terrorist criminal activity” on the part of Abedi.

Neither piece of intelligence was shared by the Security Service (MI5) with counter-terror police in the northwest. If further investigative steps had been taken as a result of one of those pieces of intelligence, Sir John said, “this would have increased the overall prospect that the attack would have been prevented”.

The other critical piece of intelligence, Sir John said, “gave rise to the real possibility of obtaining information that might have led to actions which prevented the attack. We cannot know what would have happened, but there is at least the material possibility that opportunities to intervene were missed”.

When Abedi returned to the UK from Libya four days before the attack, he said, that information could have led to his Nissan Micra, which contained the explosive, being followed by police.

When the second piece of intelligence was received, Sir John said, the Security Service officer should have discussed it straight away and written their report on the same day but did not do so.

“The delay in providing the report led to the missing of an opportunity to take a potentially important investigative action. I am satisfied that such an investigative action would have been a proportionate and justified step to take. This should have happened,” he said.

Sir John said the security service and police “underestimated the risk” of returnees from Libya because of their focus on those from Syria.

Abedi’s radicalisation

The inquiry identified other missed opportunities to intercept Abedi.

The Security Service had first received information relating to him in December 2010, he was treated as a “subject of interest” in 2015 and had contact with a convicted terrorist and “known radicaliser” Abdalraouf Abdallah.

Messages between Abedi and Abdalraouf Abdallah were not given to the security service by counter-terror police. They should have been, Sir John said, as this would have added to the picture about Abedi’s “actions and intentions”.

A meeting to consider further investigation of Abedi had been scheduled for 31 May 2017, nine days after the bombing.

In his report, Sir John said the Abedi family – father Ramadan, mother Samia and elder brother Ismail – held “significant responsibility” for the radicalisation of Salman Abedi and his younger brother Hashem. Hashem Abedi is serving a minimum of 55 years for helping to plan the attack.

“Salman Abedi’s radicalisation journey into operational violent Islamist extremism was primarily driven by noxious absences and malign presences,” Sir John said.

“Noxious absences included a prolonged disengagement from mainstream English education and parental absence. Malign presences included the ongoing conflict in Libya and engagement with a radicalising peer group.”

‘Missed opportunities’

Sir John’s first inquiry report, published in June 2021, focussed on security arrangements on the night of the bombing and highlighted a string of “missed opportunities” to intercept Abedi before he detonated his device.

His second report, published in November last year, was highly critical of the emergency service response. He judged that one of the victims, John Atkinson, would have probably survived had it not been for the inadequate response. There was a “remote possibility” that the youngest victim, eight-year-old Saffie-Rose Roussos, could have lived.

In his final report, Sir John said, Abedi “left behind no message to explain why he carried out the attack. The evidence I heard does not provide a definitive answer as to why he did what he did”.

He said the national security interest of holding some parts of the inquiry in private “has been particularly difficult for the bereaved families”.

He added: “I am sorry that I have not been able to reveal in my open report everything I have discovered. I know that what I have revealed, while increasing public knowledge, will raise other questions.”

Sir John made a number of recommendations in his final report.

He said that no one should underestimate the “very difficult job” of security services, particularly with the emergence of lone actor terrorists whose activities are more difficult to track.

Dozens of so-called “late-stage attack plots” had been disrupted since the start of 2017, he said.

“Having said all that, if the Security Service or counterterrorism policing make mistakes, then these need to be identified and steps taken to put them right.”

MI5’s director general, Ken McCallum, apologised following the publication of the report, saying he was “profoundly sorry” that the Security Service did not prevent the attack.

“I deeply regret that such intelligence was not obtained,” he said in a statement.

“Gathering covert intelligence is difficult – but had we managed to seize the slim chance we had, those impacted might not have experienced such appalling loss and trauma.

“I am profoundly sorry that MI5 did not prevent the attack.

“MI5 exists to stop atrocities. To all those whose lives were forever changed on that awful night, I am so sorry that MI5 did not prevent the attack at the Manchester Arena.”

We asked MI5 to speak directly to Sky News, but they declined.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman said she is “committed” to working with MI5 and the police to “do everything possible” to prevent a repeat of the “horrifying” attack.

UK

Banksy art theft lands burglar with 13-month prison sentence

Published

4 mins ago

November 14, 2025

admin

Banksy art theft lands burglar with 13-month prison sentence

A man has been given a 13-month prison sentence for stealing Banksy’s famous Girl With Balloon print from a London gallery.

Larry Fraser, 49, of Beckton, east London, was sentenced on Friday after pleading guilty to one count of non-residential burglary at Kingston Crown Court on 9 October.

The print, one of the street artist‘s most famous, was stolen from a gallery in New Cavendish Street in London at around 11pm on 8 September last year.

Fraser used a hammer to smash his way through a glass entrance door at the Grove Gallery before stealing the artwork, which was valued at £270,000.

He concealed his identity with a mask, hooded jacket and gloves, but the Metropolitan Police’s Flying Squad was able to identify him and track him to a location streets away.

He was also caught on CCTV loading the artwork into a van before fleeing the scene.

A second man, 54-year-old James Love, was accused of being the getaway driver in the burglary, but cleared of stealing the print.

Fraser was arrested at his home address on 10 September, within 48 hours of the burglary, and charged the next day.

Officers were able to recover the artwork after executing a warrant on the Isle of Dogs. It has now been returned to the gallery.

Fraser pleaded to the court that he was struggling with a historic drug debt and agreed to steal the work “under a degree of pressure and fear”.

He said he did not know what he would be stealing, nor its value, until the day of the offence.

Jeffrey Israel, defending, said Fraser lived with his mother as her principal carer, and had only managed to “break his cycle of drug addiction” after his last prison sentence.

He added that it “would take a bold advocate” to suggest that the value of the print had increased by the burglary, but insisted “that is probably the reality”.

Judge Anne Brown was unmoved, however, and said the offence was “simply too serious” for a suspended sentence.

“This is a brazen and serious non-domestic burglary,” she said.

“Whilst you did not know the precise value of the print, you obviously understood it to be very valuable.”

She added: “Whilst I am sure there was a high degree of planning, this was not your plan.”

However, Fraser may be eligible for immediate release due to time spent on electronic curfew.

Detective Chief Inspector Scott Mather, who led the Met’s investigation, said: “Banksy’s Girl With Balloon is known across the world – and we reacted immediately to not just bring Fraser to justice but also reunite the artwork with the gallery.

“The speed at which this took place is a testament to the tireless work of the flying squad officers – in total it took just four days for normality to be restored.”

The 2004 artwork was part of a £1.5m collection of 13 Banksy pieces at the gallery.

Gallery manager, Lindor Mehmetaj, said it was “remarkable” for the piece to have been recovered after the theft.

The 29-year-old said: “I was completely, completely shocked, but in a very, very positive way when the Flying Squad showed me the actual artwork.

“It’s very hard to put into words, the weight that comes off your shoulders.”

UK

‘Incredibly dangerous’ sex offender Chao Xu jailed – as police say there could be hundreds more victims

Published

4 mins ago

November 14, 2025

admin

'Incredibly dangerous' sex offender Chao Xu jailed - as police say there could be hundreds more victims

An “incredibly dangerous” sex offender who drugged his victims and installed spy cameras around his home has been jailed for life with a minimum term of 14 years – as police appeal for hundreds more potential victims to come forward.

Warning: This article contains details of sexual offences

Chinese national Chao Xu, 33, has been described by police as “one of the most prolific offenders ever uncovered” by the Metropolitan Police.

Xu, who was a law postgraduate student at the University of Greenwich in London between 2015 and 2016, ran his own recruitment business and targeted victims at networking events at his home.

He invented his “Spring of Life” cocktail, a mix of alcohols and Chinese herbal medicines, to sedate guests, and planted spy cameras in items including air fresheners, sanitary packaging and speakers.

Police found thousands of pictures and videos, with some showing unconscious or incapacitated victims in his flat in Greenwich, south-east London.

Xu, who is from China but is believed to have been living in the UK since 2013, also covertly filmed women on their daily commutes at stations such as London Bridge in so-called upskirting incidents.

He pleaded guilty to 24 sex offences between 2021 and 2025 at Woolwich Crown Court in August relating to six victims, with two charges relating to a seventh woman left to lie on file.

Xu admitted four counts of rape, eight counts of assault by penetration, four counts of sexual assault, four counts of voyeurism, two counts of administering a substance with intent and two counts of operating equipment beneath the clothing of another without consent (commonly known as upskirting).

‘Incredibly dangerous man’

His Honour Judge Christopher Grout described Xu as an “incredibly dangerous man” who “took great enjoyment” from his offending.

“Your behaviour was calculated and planned, evidenced by the covert recording systems you had set up in your flats and the fact you had incapacitated a number of your victims by drugging them.

“You betrayed the trust of a number of women who you befriended in the most appalling ways imaginable,” he added.

Could be hundreds of victims

Another 11 alleged victims have since come forward but the Metropolitan Police believe there are hundreds more in the UK and China, with offences committed in workplaces, public spaces and overseas.

Acting Detective Superintendent Lewis Sanderson described Xu as one of the “most prolific” offenders the force has ever investigated, adding that his “crimes were calculated, sustained, and devastating”.

Speaking outside the court on Friday, he said: “Chao Xu was a prolific and predatory sexual offender who committed some of the most cowardly and abhorrent crimes imaginable. His actions caused deep and lasting harm.”

“The number of victims of sexual assault, voyeurism and upskirting is believed to be in the hundreds. This includes individuals filmed without consent in Xu’s flat at his workplace and in public spaces.

“That is why today I’m making a direct appeal. If you believe you may have been a victim of Chao Xu, or if you have any information that could assist our investigation, please come forward. You will be listened to. You will be believed and you will be supported.”

He said all of the sexual assault victims were Chinese women, aged between 18 and 30, while the voyeurism victims are also young females but of different ethnicities.

He added that there will be women who may not know they are victims of his crimes, as they may have been drugged by Xu.

Detectives were alerted to Xu’s crimes after he held a networking event in Greenwich in June.

When one of the women who attended became unwell, Xu offered to let her stay, before raping her several times, the Metropolitan Police said.

They later found he had drugged her with substances known to cause drowsiness and incapacitation.

The case included six million messages on WeChat, the popular Chinese messaging app, most of them in Mandarin, which all had to be checked with the help of a translator.

UK

Does the government have the power to push through unpopular decisions?

Published

3 hours ago

November 14, 2025

admin

Does the government have the power to push through unpopular decisions?

Back in June, it was the U-turn on welfare that raised eyebrows. Now it’s a perceived volte-face on tax.

After weeks of suggestions that income tax may have to rise in the forthcoming budget, government sources have confirmed that Chancellor Rachel Reeves will do no such thing.

The government is flip-flopping in a febrile environment. Markets are sensitive to levels of government debt, which climbed by 17.9% between 2019 and 2024.

In the context of an ageing population, slow growth and comparatively high inflation, there are concerns that UK debt is on an unsustainable path. Markets want consolidation – for the chancellor to get a grip on tax and spending.

Ms Reeves, with her insistence on iron-clad fiscal rules, promised discipline. But flip-flopping doesn’t look like discipline. Markets are letting their thoughts be known – and their thoughts matter because the government borrows from them.

Government bond yields, the interest rate demanded on UK debt, jumped amid fears that the government is not prepared to face down opposition from its own backbenchers, from political opponents or the public.

The 30-year gilt was up 16 basis points after its worst day since July, when the chancellor was seen crying in the Commons. The 10-year gilt was up 13 points.

Borrowing costs are already costing the country more than £100bn a year – about 10% of total spending. The more money the government is spending on interest, the less flexibility it has to spend more in other areas, like schools or hospitals.

It appears that Ms Reeves has changed tack because official forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), whose forecasts underpin the budget, show the fiscal black hole is closer to £20bn, rather than the £30bn first feared. It means she can take less radical steps to raise money.

Markets are pleased that the chancellor is sticking to her rules, but they are viewing this move with scepticism.

Many view the OBR forecasts as overly optimistic. These are smaller tax rises to tackle a smaller problem on paper, but is what’s written on that paper credible?

Andrew Goodwin, of Oxford Economics, said: “If investors suspect the government is leaning on convenient assumptions, they may assume more trouble ahead – and yields could rise further.”

Then there’s the speculation over which taxes could rise. Markets have a clear preference towards income tax because, unlike the increase in national insurance contributions on businesses in the last budget, it’s not inflationary.

And alternative sources, such as tweaks to stamp duty or EV taxes, are less dependable revenue raisers. “Avoiding the politically sensitive income tax lever implies less willingness to tackle the structural deficit later,” said Gordon Shannon, of TwentyFour Asset Management.

Traders are eyeing the long-term trajectory of the UK, and they are bristling at short-term fixes and tweaks that don’t address the fundamental fiscal position.

There are those in policy who are also frustrated at the approach, which has seen the government pick and drop policies to meet fiscal rules by fine margin.

It is difficult to find any political vision in it all.