The teenager who murdered three children, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice da Silva Aguiar, and Bebe King, at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class last July will serve a minimum of 52 years in prison.

Axel Rudakubana had a long-standing obsession with violence, killing and genocide, but prosecutors said there is no evidence he ascribed to any particular political or religious ideology.

He admitted a terrorism offence for downloading an al-Qaeda training manual. But the knife attack has not been treated as terrorism by police or prosecutors, and the judge stressed that he “must accept” that there was no evidence of terrorist cause.

He added, however, that Rudakubana’s culpability is “equivalent to terrorist matters, whatever its purpose”.

Following Rudakubana’s guilty pleas earlier this week, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer declared “terrorism has changed” and Britain is facing a “new threat”.

In the past, he said, the main threat was organised groups like al-Qaeda, but that we now also face extreme violence from “loners, misfits, young men in their bedroom, accessing all manner of material online, desperate for notoriety”. They are sometimes inspired by traditional terrorist groups, he said, but are fixated on extreme violence, seemingly for its own sake.

But what the prime minister described has been happening for years.

“This is not a new threat,” says Barnaby Jameson KC, who has spent years prosecuting terror cases. “In the last decade we have seen a plethora of terrorist cases involving young males who have become self-radicalised in isolation online.”

What is new is that the prime minister has now indicated this problem must be urgently addressed.

The question now is how he will do it – and, if this has been going on for so many years, why has it taken until now to do so?

At present, the police, courts and MI5 work to a definition in the Terrorism Act 2000.

That defines terrorism as the use or threat of violence designed to influence the government, an international governmental organisation, or to intimidate the public or a section of it, with the use or threat of violence for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

Put simply, for an attack to be treated as terrorism the authorities must conclude it was for some kind of cause.

But various terror offences can be – and are – used to charge and disrupt people who are not defined by prosecutors as having a terrorist motive. On the flipside, it is also true that cases which some think should be classed as terrorism, are not.

Several recent cases show how fluid the counter-terror system can be when presented with cases falling outside the main ideologies, showing these issues are not as new as the prime minister suggests.

Counter-terror police, with their particular focus on preventing violence in the first place, have investigated plots that are not defined as terrorism, including two teenagers jailed in 2018 for planning a school massacre in North Yorkshire.

Another investigation prevented a massacre in Cumbria the same year. The “loner” responsible was convicted of possessing terrorist manuals, but prosecutors said the motive was “not terrorism” and related to hatred and revenge.

In 2021, a 16-year-old boy from Birmingham admitted three terror offences for possessing gun and bomb manuals. He had a general fascination with terrorism, violence and so-called ‘incels’.

From age 11, he had constantly posted in a forum about the Columbine massacre. The prosecution case was that he did not hold any fixed ideology.

On the other side of the spectrum, a vehicle attack in Westminster in 2018 – in which a man drove at cyclists and police officers outside Parliament – was prosecuted and sentenced as terrorist-linked, despite no evidence of any extremist motive, on the basis that the act and location meant the attacker must have been acting for a terrorist purpose.

The case shows a motive does not need to be clear for a case to be treated as terrorism.

But a notorious double murder that was inspired by an extreme ideology – the stabbings of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman in a London park in 2020 – were not defined as terrorism despite the killer clearly being motivated by his adherence to Satanism and the occult.

It is up to the police, namely the senior national co-ordinator for counterterrorism, to declare an incident as terrorism.

In the past, this has happened quickly in notorious cases, including after the Manchester Arena bombing and the Westminster Bridge attack. Both were carried out by known extremists.

One reason why police may now take longer before making a declaration – even an incident that may appear likely to be classed as terrorism – is because of an explosion in a taxi outside Liverpool Women’s Hospital in 2021, which was initially declared a terrorist incident.

After a long investigation, however, detectives eventually concluded there was no evidence the Liverpool bomber held extremist views of any kind and that his precise motive remained unknown, but it was likely driven by anger towards the British state for repeated rejections of his asylum claim and exacerbated by his own mental health struggles.

Despite such examples, the central focus for MI5 and police is terrorism as defined by the law, rather than a broader group of people presenting a more general risk of violence.

If the government is now going to ask that more time be devoted to this wider group, MI5 and the police may well ask for more resources.

As things stand, both are currently devoting increasing time to investigating state espionage in the UK, particularly from Russia, Iran and China, which means they’re spending less time on terrorism investigations.

Within those investigations, detectives focused on the extreme right spend an increasing amount of time dealing with young people who engage in a range of harmful activity, including sexual offences.

Certain online spaces have seen a blending with the occult, Satanism, misogyny, and a general ultra-violent misanthropy, creating toxic new groups that bleed back into the real worlds.

Some of those involved are often mentally vulnerable, creating additional sensitivities around interventions, whether they involve criminal investigations or not.

Some neo-Nazi groups created by teenagers and young people online have been outlawed as terrorist organisations, joining a list that includes Hamas and the IRA.

The challenge of preventing lone attackers in the UK is nothing new. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the main threat was from elaborate plots directed by groups like al-Qaeda, such as the plan to blow up transatlantic planes using bombs disguised as drinks.

This era saw the creation of the main terrorism laws now in use, which defined a series of offences – including preparing acts of terrorism and possessing terrorist instructions – that we see in the courts, used to disrupt and stop people before they commit acts of violence.

But with the emergence of the Islamic State (IS) group over a decade ago, the threat moved away from plots directed by organisations and towards acts of violence by individuals inspired by online propaganda and instructions from groups like IS, but who might have no direct contact with them.

In the decade since there have been multiple plots and attacks by lone actors, including people using knives and vehicles as weapons, making it harder to spot their plans because the preparations are relatively low-key.

Extreme right-wing violence, which has emerged as a major issue, has predominantly followed the same pattern: plots and attacks by lone actors, often very young, who are typically inspired by material accessed online.

For years, counter-terror police have been registering their concerns about this group. (Indeed, they are only a group because the authorities have defined them as such.)

The point is illustrated by the number of them referred to Prevent, the government-led counter-extremism programme. In the year to March 2020, 51% were for individuals with a “mixed, unstable or unclear ideology”, of which almost half had no concern identified following an initial assessment.

In the years since, the way in which that group is classed has changed, with newer categories for concerns about school massacre radicalisation and the misogynistic incel ideology, which makes direct comparisons over the years difficult.

However, the government’s own figures for 2023/2024 show the largest single group referred to Prevent – 36%, meaning 2,489 people – were defined as individuals with a vulnerability present but no ideology or counter terror risk, with 19% classed as extreme right-wing, 13% as Islamist radicalisation, and 2% relating to concerns regarding school massacres.

From these thousands of Prevent referrals, 7% were adopted as cases requiring intervention by a multi-agency panel. But the figures for interventions show how the largest group of original referrals – the mix of people with a general interest in violence but no clear ideology – get increasingly filtered out of the programme.

For cases involving intervention, 45% related to extreme right-wing radicalisation, 23% to Islamist radicalisation, 18% to individuals with “conflicted concerns”, and 4% for school massacre concerns.

The Southport attacker himself was referred to Prevent three times by “education providers” because of concern about his interest in violence and extremism, but each time officers assessed he did not need meet the threshold for intervention – assessments since found to be wrong by an official review.

When you get to actual investigations by MI5, which is the UK’s lead agency for counter terrorism, the figures change again, with the organisation’s director general Ken McCallum saying last year that 75% relate to Islamist extremism and 25% to the extreme right.

However, he acknowledged that “straightforward labels like ‘Islamist terrorism’ or ‘extreme right wing’ don’t fully reflect the dizzying range of beliefs and ideologies we see,” and that MI5 is encountering more people accessing “both extreme right wing and Islamist extremist instructional material, along with other bits of online hatred, conspiracy theories and disinformation.”

What the figures show is that a large group of people – about whom there are real concerns – neither end up in Prevent, nor being investigated by MI5 or counter-terror police.

The prime minister said this week it may be that such people are “harder to spot,” adding that we “can’t shrug our shoulders and accept that”.

But what his government is proposing to do about it is currently unclear.

The government could consider broadening the definition of terrorism or creating new offences to tackle the threat of violence from non-terror offenders.

It could also change the way in which the threat of violence from non-terror suspects is monitored and managed.

Neil Basu, the Met’s former head of counter-terror policing, this week said that a “Prevent for non-terrorists” is now necessary and will require a “big bill” if we want to be safe.

The government has appointed Lord Anderson KC, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, to review the Prevent scheme, although it was the subject of a highly critical review two years ago commissioned by the previous government.

Jonathan Hall KC, the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has been asked by the government to consider whether the definition does need to change. Speaking to the BBC, he says: “There appear to be three reasons for expanding the definition of terrorism.

“The sense that only terrorism captures the horrors of attacks like the one by Rudakubana; because doing so brings in counter-terrorism powers; and because terror laws focus on pre-cursor offences and preventing attacks in the first place.

“However, to change the definition you would need to work out what violence to include, and what to exclude.

“If it was no longer necessary to prove a political, religious, racial or ideological cause, would the touchstone be methodology, or number of victims, or desire for notoriety or terrorising impact? Would serial killers like Lucy Letby be included or not?”

On the question of which resources are used to tackle the threat, he argues that “we must ask who is responsible for the risk posed by people like Rudakubana. This is about risk management and public protection by law enforcement, not welfare interventions.

“We can learn from how terrorist subjects of interest are managed by every mechanism available, such as non-terrorism prosecutions or use of civil orders.”

Now the Southport attacker has been sentenced, the focus will be on what the government next does to tackle the issues articulated by the prime minister.

Top picture credit: Merseyside Police and PA

BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.

Some online sites are prescribing men a hair loss drug that has potentially risky side effects without consistent safety checks, the BBC has found.

The side effects of finasteride can include suicidal thoughts and impotence, yet some big brand companies will send the pills in the post without seeing or chatting with the customer.

Kyle, who is 26 and from Wakefield, regrets buying the pills online after filling out a ‘tick-box’ form.

He says his life has been turned upside down by an all too quick decision.

Kyle started taking finasteride last spring, after it was recommended to him by a mate who was on it.

He says he did a bit of research beforehand, but buying it online was simple.

“I just typed it in on Google and it came up with all these online pharmacies,” Kyle says.

“It’s everywhere. It’s so easily accessible.”

The prescription pills arrived on his doorstep within a week of ordering them.

“I had no consultation with a doctor. No zoom meeting. I didn’t have to send any pictures to them or anything like that to actually make sure I did have male pattern baldness.

“I started it and, yeah – that was the biggest mistake of my life.”

Since taking the drug, Kyle says he’s been having problems with his sexual, mental and physical health – problems he had never experienced before and which have persisted since he stopped the medication.

“Life just feels grey. It’s, like, castrated my emotions,” Kyle says.

“It just stripped everything from me – all my personality and everything. I stopped going out with my mates, stopped playing football and started having all these issues.”

Finasteride is one of the most common pills for hair loss, taken by tens of thousands of men in the UK. It is only available by private prescription.

It works by stopping testosterone turning into another hormone, called dihydrotestosterone (DHT), that can stop hair growing.

Kyle took it for about six weeks, but stopped after experiencing problems including suicidal thoughts.

In late April 2024 – just weeks after Kyle got his prescription – UK regulators took urgent action over finasteride, saying packs must contain a special safety alert card warning of the small risk of severe side effects including suicidal thoughts and sexual dysfunction.

After being contacted by other men like Kyle through Your Voice, Your BBC News, we asked a male colleague to buy finasteride from three leading online providers to see what the checks now involved.

Online prescriber ‘Hims’ mentioned the side effects.

Superdrug also offered the option to chat with a doctor – that cost extra.

Only Boots pharmacy asked for a photo of hair loss.

When some packs arrived, none contained the new patient alert card that drug makers were asked to add.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory agency says manufacturers have been given up to a year to comply, but it might take longer.

Boots, Hims and Superdrug say online finasteride customers are asked to confirm that they have read and understood the possible risks.

They say until the alert cards are “rolled out” and put in packs, users can read the long patient information leaftlet already included with the medicine to learn about side effects.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society says online prescribing can be very useful for a lot of patients, particularly if they are too embarrassed to visit a doctor. But the checks must be robust.

James Davies, RPS director for England told BBC News: “It’s really important that regardless of whether it’s online or face to face, these thorough checks are taking place.

“That means that a full medical history is taken, there’s an opportunity to understand the medication that may be prescribed, the side effects, the risks and the benefits.”

He said sharing photos of the hair loss with the prescriber and having a video call to discuss all of the issues could be useful.

The British Association of Hair Restoration Surgery (BAHRS) believes patients shouldn’t get the drug just by filling out an online form.

Greg Williams, hair transplant surgeon and vice president of BAHRS, says although finsasteride is a good treatment for many, the small chance of serious side effects must be explained and closely monitored.

“There will be some patients who have risk factors that might make finasteride a risky prescription. I’m not saying it can’t be prescribed, but patients need to be appropriately counselled.”

Europe’s drug regulator is doing its own safety review of finasteride which could include a ban.

Nearly a year since first ordering the drug, Kyle says he deeply regrets taking finasteride.

“It’s just a little pill. You take it and don’t really think about what it can do to you,” he says.

“Every day I beat myself up saying like ‘You had a perfect life, you didn’t have to risk something over hair’.

“It was vain of me…but when you get insecure you do stupid things.

“If I were made aware of what it can do I never would have took it.”

Two Russian ships linked to its military have docked at the Kremlin’s naval base on the Syrian coast at Tartous, with experts suggesting that an anticipated evacuation of the facility has finally begun.

The Sparta and the Sparta II docked in Tartous on Tuesday. Both ships are sanctioned by the US and have been linked by Ukraine to the transportation of Russian arms.

Analysts anticipated that Russia would reduce its military footprint from Syria following the fall of the Assad regime in December – which it supported throughout the civil war.

Large quantities of military hardware have been moved to the port in recent weeks and have been visible in satellite photos analysed by BBC Verify.

The imagery appears to show dozens of vehicles and other equipment sitting at the port. The hardware first appeared in mid-December following footage of large columns of Russian vehicles moving north towards the base – indicating they had been redirected from other outposts across the country.

The ships arrival coincides with reports in Syrian media that Russia’s lease for the port has been cancelled. The new transitional government in Damascus refused to confirm the reports to the BBC, while Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov also declined to comment when asked during a news conference in Moscow.

Tartous has been a key base for Russia in recent years, allowing it to refuel, resupply and repair vessels in the Mediterranean.

The Kremlin has appeared keen to retain control over the base, and said in December that Russian officials were speaking to the new authorities about a continued presence.

Analysts have suggested that the Sparta and the Sparta II – which are ultimately owned by Oboronlogistika LLC – a shipping company which operates as part of the Russian ministry of defence, were denied permission to dock at Tartous while discussions continued. The ships have spent several weeks off the coast of Syria in the Mediterranean Sea.

Marine tracking sites show the ships finally docked on Tuesday evening, after which they switched off their transponders.

The weather in recent days has made it difficult to obtain clear satellite pictures. But images from the EU’s Sentinel radar satellites – which are low resolution but capable of penetrating cloud cover – revealed that the ships were in the military section of the port.

Until now, no Russian military vessels had been spotted at Tartous since the fall of Assad regime in early December. In earlier high-resolution satellite imagery dozens of military vehicles could be seen parked near where the vessels are now docked. Also nearby were cranes which may be used to load equipment.

It is possible that two other Russian naval vessels are also present in the port, naval analyst Frederik Van Lokeren told BBC Verify. He said the vessels, Ivan Gren and the Alexander Otrakovsky, could also be involved in an evacuation – a sentiment echoed by Ukrainian military intelligence to BBC Verify.

“With the 49 year lease being cancelled it has become very clear for Russia that it can no longer hope to maintain a military presence in Tartous and as such, there appears to be no point in staying there and delaying the maritime evacuation any longer,” Mr Van Lokeren added.

The evacuation of all of Russia’s equipment may take some though, according to Anton Mardasov from the Middle East Institute’s Syria programme.

“Over the years much more has been brought in there than these ships and vessels can take,” Mr Mardasov told BBC Verify.

Meanwhile, there has also been continued activity at the main Russian airbase in Syria, Hmeimim. Satellite images have shown large Russian aircraft being loaded with military equipment on various dates since the fall of the Assad regime.

Ukrainian military intelligence said Russia flights had transferred military personnel and equipment from Hmeimim to airbases in Libya at least 10 times since mid-December. The Kremlin is already supporting the Tobruk-based warlord Khalifa Haftar in the east of Libya.

Moscow has long maintained a presence at two of the bases mentioned by Ukrainian intelligence – Al-Khadim and Al-Jufra. A former member of the UN’s working group on mercenaries, Dr Sorcha MacLeod, told BBC Verify that the facilities were previously run by the Wagner Group.

She said that Russia’s defence ministry has taken over responsibility for the bases through its new Africa Corps. The force is run directly by Moscow and has taken over much of the Wagner Group’s former role.

Dr Macleod added that the relocation of Russian forces to the country “makes sense given that Libya has become such a big hub for Africa Corps operations and access into West Africa”.

Additional reporting by Ned Davies and Joshua Cheetham. Graphics by Mesut Ersoz.