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.
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.
Image: Victims of the Manchester Arena terror attack
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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:39
How MI5 got Manchester Arena attack wrong
‘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.”
Image: Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi
‘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.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:57
‘MI5 have blood on their hands’
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.”
Image: Hashem Abedi is serving life in prison for helping build the bomb
‘Missed opportunities’
Sir John’s first inquiry report, published in June 2012, 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.”
Image: (L-R) Salman Abedi and his brothers Hashem and Ismail
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.”
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.
Counter-terrorism police are investigating after an incident involving a crossbow and a firearm left two women injured in Leeds.
Police were called to Otley Road at 2.47pm on Saturday to reports of a “serious incident involving a man seen with weapons”, West Yorkshire Police said.
Officers arrived at the scene to find two women injured – and a 38-year-old man with a self-inflicted injury. All three were taken to hospital, with the man held under arrest, but their injuries are not believed to be life-threatening.
“Two weapons have been recovered from the scene, which were a crossbow and a firearm,” Counter Terrorism Policing North East said in a statement.
The incident happened on the ‘Otley Run’ pub crawl, with one venue saying it was closed for the evening due to “unforeseen circumstances”.
Image: Officers guard one of the crime scenes
Image: Officers inside the cordon in Leeds
Counter Terrorism Policing’s statement added: “Due to the circumstances surrounding the incident, Counter Terrorism Policing North East have taken responsibility for leading the investigation with the support of West Yorkshire Police.
“Extensive enquiries continue to establish the full circumstances and explore any potential motivation.”
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper described it as a “serious violent incident” and said she was being kept updated by police.
“Thank you to the police and emergency services for their swift response,” she said. “My thoughts are with the victims and all those affected by this attack.”
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Wrexham AFC have been promoted for the third season in a row.
The North Wales-based side has gone from the National League to the Championship in just three seasons, under its Hollywood owners Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney.
Wrexham were second in the table and had a run of eight games unbeaten ahead of their match against Charlton Athletic on Saturday, which they won 3-0.
Image: Wrexham’s James McClean lifts the League One trophy. Pic: PA
Image: Wrexham’s Dan Scarr celebrates with the fans on the pitch after Wrexham won promotion to the Championship. Pic: PA
It is the first time any club has been promoted for three consecutive seasons within the top five tiers of English football.
The third oldest association football club in the world, Wrexham AFC was bought by Reynolds and McElhenney in 2020, and has since been the subject of a Disney+ documentary, Welcome To Wrexham.
Reynolds, wearing a Wrexham sweatshirt, and McElhenney were pictured celebrating each goal, and after the game, as the fans came onto the pitch at the SToK Cae Ras (Racecourse Ground) to celebrate the victory with the players.
Image: Wrexham co-owners Rob McElhenney (L) and Ryan Reynolds and Ryan’s wife Blake Lively, before the match. Pic: PA
Both stars came onto the pitch after the supporters returned to the stands.
More on Ryan Reynolds
Related Topics:
Speaking to Sky Sports, McElhenney praised those behind the scenes, referring to “so many that don’t get the credit they deserve, people who aren’t talked about”.
Reynolds said bringing success back to the club “seemed like an impossible dream” when they arrived in North Wales in 2020.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Image: Wrexham’s Sam Smith celebrates in front of the fans after Wrexham won promotion to the Championship. Pic: PA
He put the three promotions down to “the coaching staff, the greatest dressing room” and an “all for one, one for all” attitude throughout the club, adding he was “speechless with their commitment and their emotion”.
As for the mouth-watering prospect of another promotion to the promised land of the Premier League, the pair agreed it was “for tomorrow”, before ending the interview with a joint mic-drop.
Veteran striker Steven Fletcher said, “as soon as I came to this club, I knew it was something special. We want to go again. We’ll reset in the summer, take a break and go again”.
Just Stop Oil (JSO) insists it’s been “successful” – as its members ceremoniously hang up their orange high-vis vests during a march in central London.
Since the group formed three years ago, it’s drawn attention and criticism for its colourful, controversial protests, which ranged from disrupting sporting events to throwing soup on Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers, and climbing on gantries over the M25. It sprayed orange paint over Stonehenge, and cost police forces tens of millions of pounds.
Those days are now behind it; to the relief of many.
As a few hundred activists marched through London on Saturday, blocking roads as they went; taxi drivers blared their horns and football fans shouted abuse from the pavement.
The PA News Agency filmed the moment a white minivan seemed to drive towards a group of protesters blocking the road.
Protesters shouted “I’m being pushed back!” to police, while the driver could be heard shouting “What about my right to get home?” to the officers gathered.
But JSO never set out to be popular. And it believes its tactics – though hated – have been successful; thanks to the new Labour government’s commitment to not issue new oil or gas exploration licences.
That’s why, it says, its ceasing direct action.
Image: JSO hangs up its high-vis jackets in central London on Saturday
Image: A washing line of high-vis jackets signifies JSO’s disbanding
“This moment marks the success of the JSO campaign – our demand was to end new oil and gas licences and that is now government policy.
“As a result of which four billion barrels of oil are being kept under the North Sea. The campaign has reached a natural end.”
Dr Oscar Berglund, senior lecturer in international public and social policy, disagrees that JSO is disappearing because it’s been “successful”.
He told Sky News policing strength and public perception might have more to do with it.
“They have very low levels of popularity. About 17% of the British population are kind of broadly supportive of what Just Stop Oil do. And that’s too low to recruit.
“It’s difficult to recruit members to something that is that unpopular, and then that a lot of people for good reason I think have kind of stopped believing in that kind of disruption as a means to achieve meaningful change.”
Group triggers specific new protest laws
One thing it did change is the law.
Policing commentator Graham Wettone tells us: “Obstruction of the highway, obstruction of rail networks for example, these are specific offences now.
“It’s given the police more tactics, more methods, more offences they can consider, even stopping and searching somebody who may have something to either lock themselves on or glue themselves to something.”
Image: A JSO activist holds a picture of an imprisoned colleague
Emma Smart was held in prison for her activism with both Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil.
“The high-vis might be going away,” she tells me, “but we aren’t.”
“These people aren’t going anywhere, we are still committed, dedicated, terrified by the failings of this government and governments around the world.”
Image: JSO activists throw orange paint at van Gogh’s sunflowers
Image: Orange smoke set off by JSO protesters at Stonehenge
She hopes for a time of reflection before it returns in a new form but says the need for climate activism is stronger than ever.
She also believes that while most people dislike JSO tactics, it still raises awareness of the cause and might even push people to more moderate campaign groups.
Just Stop Oil came behind other, similarly controversial climate campaign groups like Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion, and as it says goodbye, its disruptive methods have been seized upon by other organisations like the Pro-Palestinian Youth Justice.
The infamous Just Stop Oil orange vests might be going away, but the individual activists, their cause and campaign tactics feel here to stay.