There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Woman 'who first shared lies that sparked UK riots' arrested

The woman accused of being first to spread the fake rumours about the Southport killer which sparked nationwide riots has been arrested.

Racist riots spread across the country after misinformation spread on social media claiming the fatal stabbing was carried out by Ali Al-Shakati, believed to be a fictitious name, a Muslim aslyum seeker who was on an MI6 watchlist.

A 55-year-old woman from Chester has now been arrested on suspicion of publishing written material to stir up racial hatred, and false communication. She remains in police custody.

While she has not been named in the police statement about the arrest, it is believed to be Bonnie Spofforth, a mother-of-three and the managing director of a clothing company.

FelixCress ,

I would like to suggest that Rwanda would be an appropriate place to serve her sentence.

Mechanize ,

While she has not been named in the police statement about the arrest, it is believed to be Bonnie Spofforth

This, I don’t like. If you - the newspaper, the means of information - are not sure about a name you should really refrain from using it.

It would be not the first time people get their lives ruined by some careless journalist because of a namesake or just an error.

It’s not that different from “spreading rumors”.

That aside, in this case, it is probably a rumor from an inside source. Still. Not a fan.

zaph ,

They literally did the same thing she got arrested for.

The_Picard_Maneuver , (edited )
@The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world avatar

Spofforth, 55, posted the false claim at 4.49pm on Monday, July 29, the day of the attack, saying: ‘Ali Al-Shakati was the suspect, he was an asylum seeker who came to the UK by boat last year and was on an MI6 watch list. If this is true, then all hell is about to break loose.’

Not defending this woman, but as an American, the thought of being arrested for lying on the internet (or repeating a rumor, as she claims) seems insane.

baggins ,

Do u guys also yell fire in crowded theatres?

The_Picard_Maneuver , (edited )
@The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world avatar

I get what you’re saying, but I really expected the post to be something more direct, like a specific threat.

I don’t think anyone would be arrested here for saying “people are going to go crazy if X turns out to be true”.

It would have to be more like “Let’s burn things down!” or “Somebody should take care of (blank)”.

hypna ,

Sure I guess if there’s a fire, or at least believe there’s a fire. Hard to figure out who’s deliberately lying to start shit, and who’s just gullible and vocal on social media.

Deestan ,

Spreading outrageous lies that result in harassment and violence is clearly not something to tolerate.

The US is not a good example to bring up if you want to argue it is fine to allow it.

The_Picard_Maneuver ,
@The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world avatar

Allowing others’ speech is the default. The ethical question is where we draw the line in silencing or punishing someone’s speech.

In the US, the line would generally be specific threats or calls for violence. Someone being hateful or spreading awful rumors online could be a lawsuit by the wronged party, but you aren’t going to have cops show up at your door with handcuffs.

FelixCress ,

Allowing others’ speech is the default

Freedom of speech is not a freedom to lie.

ThePowerOfGeek ,
@ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world avatar

Actions should have consequences. Her lie set of at least a week of needless chaos and destruction. It gave racist shit-heads an excuse (in their minds at least) to vandalize property, attack police and counter-protesters, and terrorize innocent people.

If she was the person who originated this lie then I hope they throw the book at her. If she just publicized a lie she heard from elsewhere she should still be punished, but probably not as much.

Freedom of speech should not equate to impunity for spreading egregious lies and hate-mongering. We should be coming down harder on people here in America who deliberately spread lies with bad faith intentions. Skin color, religion, etc should have any sway in when we apply such actions and when we don’t.

ETA: I didn’t downvote you, by the way. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I feel like your point is a gateway to deeper discussion.

The_Picard_Maneuver ,
@The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world avatar

I appreciate the discussion. I knew this wouldn’t be a popular take and almost deleted it before commenting.

Again, I think spreading lies on the internet is an appalling thing to do, but I just wanted to share my disbelief that someone could be arrested for it. Like, imagine if the cops showed up with handcuffs for everyone’s grandparents for every racist email forward (or Facebook post) they shared.

I know it’s tempting to want bad things to happen to people we don’t like, but I think situations like this are a test of our ethics and values.

PP_BOY_ ,
@PP_BOY_@lemmy.world avatar

I’m on your side. Without a direct call to action that breaks some laws, the idea that you can be arrested for “false communication” is straight up dystopian to me.

FelixCress ,

Deliberately lying with an agenda of misleading the public in order to achieve certain goal should 100% be a criminal offence.

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

The problem is in who decides what speech should be punished.

kevindqc ,

If you lie and say I stabbed 3 children, you open yourself to libel.

But if you do it for a fake person and it starts riots, what should happen? There are no damages to an individual like libel, instead it’s for society as a whole. So do nothing when the outcome is worse? Seems backward.

The_Picard_Maneuver ,
@The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world avatar

I think the difference is whether there’s a specific threat or call to action. “If (blank) is true, (blank) will likely happen” is a sentiment I see online frequently, even here.

I would consider that different than, for example, Trump instructing a mob of people to “march on the capital” on January 6th. That’s a call to action that resulted in deaths.

This lady sounds like someone’s racist mom who shared misinformation on social media and her post went viral. She deserves to be shunned, but I don’t think jail is the right answer.

FelixCress ,

thought of being arrested for lying on the internet

Why? If you spreaded false rumor which nearly resulted in a couple hundred people being burned alive, you 100% should be arrested. Words have consequences.

AmbiguousProps ,

Good, fuck Nazis.

Sibbo ,

Wow. That would be a first that spreading misinformation actually has legal consequences.

OwlPaste ,

Now do newspapers next!

FlowVoid ,

Fox News FAFOed 787 million legal consequences.

MediaBiasFactChecker Bot ,

Metro UK - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Metro UK:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://metro.co.uk/2024/08/08/woman-first-shared-fake-southport-suspect-rumour-sparked-riots-arrested-21389346/
https://metro.co.uk/2024/08/08/riots-last-night-25-000-counter-protesters-give-country-hope-21379938/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •