• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Rhianan Rudd: Autistic teenager who became the youngest girl charged with terror offences in the UK

Aeolienne

Well-Known Member
(Not written by me)

Rhianan Rudd: MI5 had evidence teen terror suspect was exploited

Evidence showing the grooming and sexual exploitation of a schoolgirl was handed to MI5 months before she was charged with terrorism offences, a BBC investigation has found.


The prosecution of Rhianan Rudd was later dropped after the Home Office concluded she was a victim of exploitation.

Rhianan, who was 15 when she became the youngest girl charged with terror offences in the UK, took her own life in a children's home in May 2022.

Her mother says investigators should have treated her daughter "as a victim rather than a terrorist".

The case raises questions about how the UK deals with the problem of children involved in extremism, according to the senior lawyer responsible for reviewing terror laws.

At the age of 14, Rhianan Rudd became absorbed by right-wing extremism. Her mother Emily Carter remembers her as a "lovely girl" who adored horses. But then she began to express racist and antisemitic beliefs, Ms Carter says.

"If you didn't have blonde hair and blue eyes - Aryan as they say - she didn't want to know you, you were an inferior race, you shouldn't have been alive," her mother recalls.

She says her daughter was taking in extreme views "like a sponge". "She was changing herself, that's not Rhianan," she says. "She was a child who fixated on things."

Rhianan, who was born in Essex and later moved to Derbyshire, had difficulty building relationships and "struggled in life", Ms Carter says. She was also diagnosed as autistic.

Rhianan had run away from home in the past and there was social service involvement with the family. Her mother acknowledges she made mistakes but "always tried to do her best".

By September 2020, Ms Carter had become so concerned by Rhianan's mindset that she referred her to Prevent, the government de-radicalisation scheme, after she admitted downloading a bomb-making manual.

Within a month, Rhianan was arrested by counter-terror detectives and her brief engagement with Prevent had to end. She was questioned, bailed as a terrorism suspect, and was no longer able to attend school.

For some time, she had been talking to older people online, including American Christopher Cook, who promoted a terrorist form of neo-Nazism, and formed a combat cell to carry out attacks.

Evidence shows the then-partner of Rhianan's mother also had an influence. Ms Carter says this was kept from her.

The partner, American Dax Mallaburn, had been part of a white supremacist prison gang in the US. He met Rhianan's mother via a pen pal system for prisoners.

Before Rhianan was arrested, Mallaburn's relationship with her mother had broken down and he returned to the US. But the BBC has discovered that Cook and Mallaburn had been in contact, with Cook telling him to teach Rhianan the "right way".

During police interviews, Rhianan described being coerced and groomed, including sexually, and having sent explicit images of herself to Cook. The abuse she described would eventually result in a formal government finding of exploitation.

Under modern slavery laws, certain public bodies like the police are required to notify the Home Office about any potential victims of exploitation they encounter.

However, in the months before Rhianan was charged, none of the organisations involved referred her to the specialist Home Office unit that considers such cases.

This was not due to a lack of information.

The BBC has found that, around the time of Rhianan's arrest, MI5 received evidence showing she had been exploited - including sexually - by Cook.

An FBI investigation had uncovered messages and images from Cook's devices showing Rhianan being groomed, coerced and exploited. The FBI handed the material to MI5.

Rhianan spent over six months on bail waiting for a charging decision. Her mother says this period led to a decline in Rhianan's mental health, with instances of self-harm, running away, and attempted suicide. Derbyshire social services were involved and she was moved into care.

In April 2021, more than six months after the arrest, she was charged with six terrorism offences for having earlier possessed instructions for making explosives and weapons. Prosecutors alleged one set of instructions were connected to a potential planned attack.

Days after she was charged, when newly-appointed defence lawyers intervened, Derbyshire Council referred Rhianan to the Home Office as a possible victim of exploitation.

It took a further seven months for a decision to be made. When it came, the Home Office concluded she had been trafficked and exploited.

In late December 2021 the prosecution was halted.

Rhianan is part of a trend of growing numbers of children, often involved in online right-wing extremism, being investigated by MI5 and police.

Convictions in the past two years include a Cornish boy who led his own online terror cell aged 14 and a boy from Darlington arrested aged 13.

... continued below ...
 
... continued from above ...

In the case of another boy, a pre-sentence report from experts said it was "likely that he did not see the wider ramifications of his activities, now seamlessly replaced apparently by interests such as Dad's Army".

Cases involving children are complex. A child might have been groomed and exploited, but nevertheless pose a genuine risk of harm to other people.

Debates about trafficking and exploitation are also taking place in immigration cases concerning young women appealing the removal of their British citizenship after they went to Syria to join the Islamic State group.

In the case of Shamima Begum, who travelled aged 15, the government has argued against claims of trafficking and said she is a security threat. Her lawyers say she was trafficked and sexually exploited.

Few children who are charged with terror offences end up being imprisoned. The process of investigation, arrest and prosecution can take many months, and well over a year in some cases.

Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, says that in 2020/2021 only one child who committed a terrorism offence was jailed, with all the others "eventually given non-custodial sentences".

He says the question needs to be asked about whether the current approach is effective. He suggests changes in the law that would allow police to say to a child terror suspect that they would either be prosecuted or they could accept an injunction. He says these could, for example, limit mobile phone use, require the use of monitoring software and engagement with a mentor.

"That can be done really quickly, and keep them out of the criminal justice system altogether," he says.

Rhianan's mother thinks her daughter should never have been charged.

She says police "obviously" have to investigate and search for evidence, but she believes they should have subsequently dealt with it "completely differently".

"They should have seen her as a victim rather than a terrorist. She's a child, an autistic child. She should have been treated as a child that had been groomed and sexually exploited."

A government spokesperson told the BBC: "MI5 takes its responsibilities in relation to those who may be at risk of harm very seriously.

"In accordance with long-standing government policy, MI5 can neither confirm nor deny involvement in individual cases.

"More generally, if in the course of work to protect national security someone in MI5 obtains information that an individual is or may become at risk of death or serious harm, this will be passed to the relevant authorities."

Cook, the American who exploited Rhianan, has pleaded guilty in the US to a neo-Nazi terrorist plot along with others to destroy a power grid. He had been on bail awaiting sentencing.

But the BBC has established that the court in Ohio only recently became aware of Cook's predatory conduct towards Rhianan, which had not been part of the original case against him despite the FBI's long-standing knowledge of his abuse. After the court learned of his behaviour, Cook was placed in custody in December ahead of sentencing.

After the prosecution of Rhianan was abandoned, she chose to continue living in her Nottinghamshire children's home and began engaging with the Prevent scheme.

But there were signs that all was not well.

In the weeks before her death, Rhianan asked her mother to help her contact a neo-Nazi extremist in the US. Her mother reported it to the children's home, which is run by private firm Blue Mountain Homes. She says she was then told social services and police had decided to let contact take place. It is unclear if it did.

Her mother had warned Derbyshire Council about the risk of Rhianan taking her own life. In emails to a social worker in 2021, she wrote: "I hope she doesn't try kill herself when in her room on her own."

She stated in the emails that Rhianan had access to ligatures.

Ms Carter says she saw Rhianan days before her death and was so concerned by her appearance that she contacted the home.

She says she warned staff that her daughter was "going to do something" and asked them to watch her. The manager said they would "find out what's going on" and told her not to worry, she says.

But later that week, she says, three police officers were "standing in my living room telling me that my daughter died by hanging".

In Rhianan's room at the children's home, access to items that could be used as ligatures were banned due to the risk of self-harm and suicide, but she gained access to one.

Aged 16, she was found dead in May over 12 hours after she retired to her room the night before.

An inquest is due to take place into her death. No date has been set.

The organisations contacted by the BBC said they could not comment on the details of our investigation until the inquest is complete.

Source: BBC News
 
Very sad. Though I'm inclined to think that's a psychological dynamic that can apply to anyone regardless of a particular neurological profile. When I think of tragic personalities like Patty Hearst, it's about the "Stockholm Syndrome" rather than conditions like autism. A kidnapping victim turned SLA terrorist with no apparent prior mental issues.

Often compounded by government prosecutors who are often keen to accuse much of anyone of terrorism whether its warranted or not, given the visceral impact of such accusations. Reminding us of personalities such as Nelson Mandela and Gerry Conlon. Where all too often any mitigating circumstances (neurological or not) are often swept under a rug.

It all makes at times for a very unclear scenario as to the real "what or whys" of such occurrences if actually perpetrated by the suspects in question.
 
Last edited:
I have come to strongly believe that the Internet as a whole causes a lot more harm than benefits, a whole lot more.

And that there are a lot of people that by virtue of their age and/or mental or emotional issues or circumstances that are at special risk of harm or degradation to the point that from any rational point of view they should not be allowed on the Internet.

Of course, there's no practical or objective way to define who should fall under such category and much less to enforce such a thing within a liberal democracy but it's just so pointlessly harmful that I think that if we were a rational species the Internet would simply not be allowed to exist as it is.
 
I have come to strongly believe that the Internet as a whole causes a lot more harm than benefits, a whole lot more.

And that there are a lot of people that by virtue of their age and/or mental or emotional issues or circumstances that are at special risk of harm or degradation to the point that from any rational point of view they should not be allowed on the Internet.

Of course, there's no practical or objective way to define who should fall under such category and much less to enforce such a thing within a liberal democracy but it's just so pointlessly harmful that I think that if we were a rational species the Internet would simply not be allowed to exist as it is.

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." - Benjamin Franklin

A philosophy in which this society continues to live by. Quite often for better or worse. Making the Internet appear as both a "Pandora's Box" or an "Encyclopedia Gallactica". Take your pick...
 
I have a friend who's become increasingly right wing who is on the spectrum. He's struggled socially and is an "incel" and is growing increasingly frustated by that fact, and self-loathing.

I met him twice, and each time he was with his dissident right wing group. I talked to a bunch of them, and guess what? Clearly most of them were on the spectrum too.

Seems like if you struggle to fit in, and find a group of similar people, and direct this self-loathing and anger towards a group of people who are to "blame" and wish to go about changing society so you feel more comfortable living within it. I liken it a bit like hardline religious followers who are on the spectrum. If a group or book can say in black and white - this is "good" and this is "bad" - well, that's an easy and clear way for people to live their lives, especially with all the struggles being on the spectrum comes with.

To be honest, I chatted to them, and avoided politics and current events entirely because I have no vested interest in any of it. I actually said at one point, after hearing them blaming the "leftists" once again - that being an alt-right wing group has a lot more in common with the alt-left than they might wish to admit. They're both angry with the way the world is, they read the news too much, they blame the opposite side of the political spectrum, they want change, but feel like they're not being represented in government, they feel that their beliefs will "fix" things.

I don't know really. A lot of groups out there often prey upon people who are struggling, or have a naivity to them.

Ed
 
This whole thing puts an exclamation point on how monstrous the system is. Not on purpose, of course, but when dozens of people handle these thing - people who largely do the minimum to get their paycheck - inefficiencies abound and powerless people are casually crushed underfoot. No one cares until it threatens them, but it's only a matter of time until the crosshairs are on you...so why ignore it? Uhg. Disgusting.

But, look at the bright side: this is a financial lottery for the mom. Isn't that magical.


I have a friend who's become increasingly right wing who is on the spectrum. He's struggled socially and is an "incel" and is growing increasingly frustated by that fact, and self-loathing.

I met him twice, and each time he was with his dissident right wing group. I talked to a bunch of them, and guess what? Clearly most of them were on the spectrum too.

Seems like if you struggle to fit in, and find a group of similar people, and direct this self-loathing and anger towards a group of people who are to "blame" and wish to go about changing society so you feel more comfortable living within it. I liken it a bit like hardline religious followers who are on the spectrum. If a group or book can say in black and white - this is "good" and this is "bad" - well, that's an easy and clear way for people to live their lives, especially with all the struggles being on the spectrum comes with.
If the person in this news article were a boy no one would have cared. Dudes really are disposable, especially when they don't have well-off parents and few social skills - there's nothing hinting at their potential to be a good citizen or mate, so they are ignored and never given the chance to fill a social role. So they rage against it instead.

Making things worse, lots of social groups love to hate these people and scapegoat them, enforcing the idea that incels etc. are irredeemable. Even the autocorrect feature in forums refuses to recognize incel as a real word. These dudes are systemically forged into whipping posts. It's so fun and popular to bin these people that they're often prematurely pushed into this "lifestyle" before they even know what it is.

And I agree being on the spectrum is an indicator of falling into a social identity such as these. We tend to see love, affection, and acceptance as reasonable propositions, when really they are nonsensical biological reactions. I confess it broke my little spectrumy heart when I observed close friends/acquaintances largely chose a partner based on proximity and little else. This isn't a reasonable ask for someone who sees the world as a logic puzzle...and when there's no solution in sight a common reaction is self-hatred.
 
Very sad. Though I'm inclined to think that's a psychological dynamic that can apply to anyone regardless of a particular neurological profile. When I think of tragic personalities like Patty Hearst, it's about the "Stockholm Syndrome" rather than conditions like autism. A kidnapping victim turned SLA terrorist with no apparent prior mental issues.

Often compounded by government prosecutors who are often keen to accuse much of anyone of terrorism whether its warranted or not, given the visceral impact of such accusations. Reminding us of personalities such as Nelson Mandela and Gerry Conlon. Where all too often any mitigating circumstances (neurological or not) are often swept under a rug.

It all makes at times for a very unclear scenario as to the real "what or whys" of such occurrences if actually perpetrated by the suspects in question.

Well, yes. There are any number of reasons children and adults do or say strange or harmful things:

Ignorance
Naivety or immaturity
Peer Pressure/Wanting to fit in
Irrational thoughts, distorted or illogical thinking
Need to unleash their anger/rage
Lack of empathy
Black and White thinking or tendency to generalize/stereotype to reduce anxieties
Follower of/Need to please certain groups that interest them
Need for fame
Thirst for more power/to be in control
Need to blame others to take away from own issues or to elevate themselves
Some instant gratification
Other condition
Anti-rules or anti-establishment
Follower, not leader type
Unique Life experiences
Abuses against them
Manipulation from Others

Those are a few I can think of.
 
I came across this article yesterday. I’m bewildered the police and social services allowed contact with an extremist to continue, especially given how obviously vulnerable Rhinan was... in fact, I was under the impression it’s an offence to meet people from a terrorist group?
 
I miss the days when even landline phones weren't in every household.
And that there are a lot of people that by virtue of their age and/or mental or emotional issues or circumstances that are at special risk of harm or degradation to the point that from any rational point of view they should not be allowed on the Internet.
Children under the age of 18 aren't allowed to sit in a pub, even if they're not drinking. Nor are they allowed inside a gambling house, even if they're not gambling. Venues get heavy fines for breaking these rules, and if they break the rules repeatedly then they get shut down. Business closed permanently and owners/managers banned from operating another business for a minimum of 10 years.

But there seems to be absolutely no accountability for the owner/operators of the large media platforms. None whatsoever. If TikTok/Facebook/Twitter/Google started facing 10 year bans in different countries perhaps they might take their responsibilities a little more seriously.
 
But there seems to be absolutely no accountability for the owner/operators of the large media platforms. None whatsoever. If TikTok/Facebook/Twitter/Google started facing 10 year bans in different countries perhaps they might take their responsibilities a little more seriously.
Agree. There is a huge problem. In the US, alone, these "social media" company leaders have been hauled in front of government officials, 10 times that I am aware of. 10 times nothing has been done. "Freedom of speech". How does one "regulate" speech without impinging upon freedom of speech? When you start digging into the "how" and "why", it becomes a Constitutional issue that is very difficult to navigate with regards to policy making.
 
"Freedom of speech". How does one "regulate" speech without impinging upon freedom of speech?
This is where these large corporations have pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. Banning these media platforms does not prevent people from speaking, it merely removes their anonymity.

And fining these corporations a few million when their profits range in the billions per month? What's the point of that?

News service providers are equally culpable, they create propaganda for their own agendas and tell everyone it's "News". One of my own homegrown countrymen is one of the worst on the planet for this and singlehandedly responsible for much of the polarisation in US communities.
 
Furthermore, social media platforms give "voice" to narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths that just love nothing more than to make "provocative" statements and to make posts, especially photos and video content, that showcase themselves in order to gain "followers" and "likes". You end up with a social media community that rewards the "maladjusted", and in some cases, influences some "at risk" people to act out.
 

How does one "regulate" speech without impinging upon freedom of speech? When you start digging into the "how" and "why", it becomes a Constitutional issue that is very difficult to navigate with regards to policy making

In fact, it IS very difficult to navigate/adjudicate under US law.

- In theory, the landmark decision of Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969.

"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

In practice, no prosecutor has sought to establish that such speech in question led to an "imminent, lawless action". At least up until 1/6/21. In the meantime it hasn't kept prosecutors from making serious threats to corporate-run social media platforms which tend to take them rather seriously, regardless of what their members think or want.

 
Last edited:
This is incredibly sad. Many autistic people have extreme right political views due to feeling so excluded and disliked if they can find a way to blame groups of people (just as they have been blamed) for why their lives are bad it's more simple than talking about things like ableism and autism advocacy. She should have been treated with more empathy but there is also no ignoring she could have ended up seriously harming people. It's unfortunate that the children used as puppets by actual nazi's don't get treated with more care as her brain is simply not developed enough to protect herself from manipulation and exploitation.

What she did is not right but most likely this was the first place she felt like she was just as good if not better than others (hence the prevalence of incel and aspie supremacy in our community) and that her problems had clear cup answers. This problem will not be solved by arresting children and harassing them till they die. It will be solved by changing how we treat autistic people. For every extremist in our community there are 100 that are instead depressed, isolated, in and out of mental hospitals, and being exploited in other ways. We often ignore the root of our problems but nothing is solved then. Autistic people (even more those who have low self esteem) are easy to take advantage of (just like the autistic teen who got arrested for bringing an undercover cop weed because the cop pretended to be his friend and then asked for it).

I have a ton more to say about this but I have a busy morning so I may add more to this later...maybe not who knows.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom