Often, when shopping at the local kosher supermarket where Melvin Cravitz – so brutally murdered in the terrorist attack at Heaton Park synagogue last Yom Kippur – used to work, it’s hard not to experience a spasm of incredulity: how could a kind, devoted family man, whose life was rooted in such an ordinary, familiar setting have been taken in this unspeakable way?
Even when rushing in for that last-minute tub of chopped liver or packet of smoked salmon the sense of shock, however momentary, is there. Not just because this harrowing tragedy was local to our community in Manchester. But because the reminder endures since the events of that terrible October day are frequently (and rightly) referenced in news stories, social media posts and platformed discussions about antisemitism.
As such, even those with scant, page-turning interest are likely to be familiar with the facts. How Islamic extremist Jihad al-Shamie, intent on butchering Jews on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, fatally stabbed Mr Cravitz multiple times as he arrived at the shul. And that fellow shul-goer Adrian Daulby also lost his life, slain by a stray bullet fired by armed police as he valiantly helped to block the synagogue doors to prevent the terrorist from entering the building.
So when Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently announced that there would be a public inquiry into the atrocity at the Heaton Park because “what happened that day must be fully understood”, there should be concern that this will be the scope of its ambition.
For if the inquiry’s aim is to simply pick across the timeline of the attack and to indulge in retrospective accountability, it will be a costly and frustratingly pointless exercise.
After all, thanks to extensive unsparing media interviews with survivors – including my own conversation with Heaton Park’s outstanding rabbi, Daniel Walker, for the Daily Mail – there can be little need to puzzle together what unfolded during those horrifying hours last Yom Kippur.
Moreover, it`s already a matter of public record that Greater Manchester Police missed an opportunity to potentially prevent the attack. Namely that though al-Shamie’s mobile phones had been previously seized in February and September 2025, following his arrests for separate offences (he was on bail for an allegation of rape at the time of the Heaton Park attack) the contents were never scrutinised.
When the devices were eventually examined, they revealed evidence of an extremist mindset and a preoccupation with terrorism. Material that could – should – have warranted further investigation.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct is now investigating all previous contact between Greater Manchester Police and al-Shamie prior to the Heaton Park attack.
Above all, we hardly need an independent investigation, funded by the already beleaguered taxpayer, to establish what is already widely recognised: Islamist extremism poses a deadly threat to British Jewry and, indeed, to the wider community.
Which is why the remit of the public inquiry must be clear. Of course to give answers to those families so grievously affected by the atrocity. But also to deliver, with unflinching focus, a concrete plan to tackle extremists with specific, enforceable recommendations. Principally, at its conclusion, the investigation must show that things will be different and that there will be no wriggle room for the government and associated agencies to kick the can down the road or hide in never-never land promises.
So how should this take shape? Key to the inquiry must be proposals for rooting out the pathways to radicalisation. Greater and more informed minds than mine must surely have creative ideas for achieving this. But it seems obvious that there should be the establishment of a specialist body to assess credible reports of mosques or schools that preach hatred towards the Jews. There also needs to be a safe protocol for whistleblowers without fear of compromising their safety. Such information should then be readily available to share between relevant agencies, securities services and the police.
Even in schools or communal organisations where there hasn’t been previous evidence of incubating extremism, training is vital so that teachers, youth workers and other front-liners are able to pick up on any potential indicators of radicalisation (how often do we hear the troubling, post-facto refrain: “But they came from such a nice family”?)
Another key focus for the inquiry must be combatting online radicalisation. This is all the more urgent given the House of Commons home affairs committee’s report in April 2026, highlighting how rapidly the landscape for snaring vulnerable audiences is changing. Extremists no longer rely on blatant in-your-face propaganda. Rather, with tactical treachery, they have tapped into the zeitgeist to marshal more insidious ways to spread their poison such as gaming platforms, memes and even humour.
Ultimately, the public inquiry, which needs to happen quickly, must be a game-changer.
As a Jewish community we have had our fill of performative gestures and solemn promises about our protection. (Perhaps best captured, I can report, by the deafening silence that followed Angela Rayner’s speech at the memorial for the Heaton Park victims in August.)
We know what happened in the past. What we want to know is what will be done to de-fang extremists, close down platforms for radicalisation, and prevent mistakes recurring.
To ensure that the innocent lives of two kind and blameless men, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, were not lost in vain.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.