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.

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.

inbeesee ,

But now internet people can harass her and the newspaper can make a little more money! /s

Glytch ,

They know it’s her, they’re just shielding themselves from libel claims. The same way they’ll say “allegedly” until a conviction.

zaph ,

If they were trying to shield themselves they could have not dropped a name. This is different than saying allegedly about someone who was arrested and the name released.

haunte ,

She tweeted it from her known account. They know it was her 100%. They’re just being careful because she hasn’t been charged yet.

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.

AmbiguousProps ,

Good, fuck Nazis.

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.

The_Picard_Maneuver ,
@The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world avatar

Yes it is.

It’s morally wrong, but people who lie on the internet are not criminals.

FelixCress , (edited )

It absolutely isn’t.

If a sales person sells you a faulty car claiming it works, it’s a fraud, not a freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech covers opinions and ideas, not factual lies.

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.

TSG_Asmodeus ,
@TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world avatar

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.

How is it really different from starting a white supremacy group and calling to ‘expel immigrants’ in posters around a city? The only difference from any other racist/terrorist action is that it was placed online. Do we really need to allow that to be okay?

The_Picard_Maneuver ,
@The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world avatar

The only difference from any other racist/terrorist action is that it was placed online.

I’d consider another big difference that one was a tweet with misinformation and the other is a call to action to “expel” people. The tweet is appalling but hardly terrorism.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@quokk.au avatar

Like, imagine if the cops showed up with handcuffs for everyone’s grandparents for every racist email forward (or Facebook post) they shared.

If only. Wouldn’t that be fucking grand.

The amount of harm and loss of live those stupid things lead to has no place in society and people should be held responsible for it.

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

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

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@quokk.au avatar

How about we get both sides of the argument to meet in a big large room, we can present the facts of what happened, and allow trained professionals and/or a selection of her peers to judge what should be punished on a case by case basis?

Nah sounds ridiculous, let’s just do nothing.

charonn0 ,
@charonn0@startrek.website avatar

I don’t think that would do a lot in terms of protecting unpopular speech.

davidagain ,

There’s unpopular speech and there’s speech that starts nationwide riots. I don’t get how you’re confusing them.

Damage ,

I mean, you’re pointing the finger at the spark while ignoring the barrels of fuel stored in dangerous conditions. These people WANTED to riot, if she hadn’t given them the reason, they’d have found another soon.

davidagain ,

Yeah, and the rioters who were caught are in police custody. But the person going in the fuel depot with the lit match absolutely is not innocent of causing the inferno.

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.

yeahiknow3 ,

I don’t think that’s quite right, because there’s no instruction associated with spreading lies about someone. You don’t have to say “you should attack this person based on this [random lie]” to be guilty of libel. The lie itself causes the bad consequences that now make you guilty.

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.

The_Picard_Maneuver ,
@The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world avatar

The fault I find with this reasoning is that it only works retroactively. The determination of whether or not this random woman committed a crime when she tweeted a rumor relies on the actions that other people decided to take.

If her tweet hadn’t gone viral, would it have still been a crime? That’s an unsettling way to determine whether someone is a criminal who needs to be locked up or not.

FelixCress ,

The fault I find with this reasoning is that it only works retroactively. The determination of whether or not this random woman committed a crime when she tweeted a rumor relies on the actions that other people decided to take.

You appear somehow ignorant how the law works. It is about adult humans being able to predict consequences of their actions.

If you are travelling at speed (but still below the speed limit) on icy road and you kill someone, you go to jail for a long time as you should be able to predict you may.

If you shoot a projectile and it goes beyond the boundaries of your land, you may end up in jail again - you should be able to predict the projectile may go behind the boundary.

She should have been able to predict the consequences of her spreading lies.

Adults are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

candybrie ,

I think that predictability is the crux of the surprise about her being charged. I don’t think I could say anything to start national riots. Maybe that isn’t true, but I would never assume that would be the consequences of one of my tweets. Who is this woman that she should have expected she had that kind of influence?

masterofn001 ,

The Picard Maneuver is a the owner and organiser of a secret pedo ring operated by Mormons in Utah.

If this is true (wink wink), you better hide the entrance to your secret basement.

…

Imagine if intentionally sending crazy people on crazy missions to intentionally cause harm wasn’t OK.

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

I understand the point you’re making, but the fact that you are able to type this with full confidence that cops aren’t going to show up at your door tomorrow is my point.

Lying is wrong, but the police arresting someone for repeating/creating a made up name of a murderer on twitter is bizarre to me.

(edit: for clarity, because she might have been the one who made up the fake name)

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy ,

did she repeat it? or was she the source?

The article implies she was the sources and thus, despite her claims, made it up

The_Picard_Maneuver ,
@The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world avatar

I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s the one who made it up.

davidagain ,

And as a result, rioting across the UK. Why shouldn’t the police turn up and arrest the person who started the national violence?

Trump started insurrection, but it was only words so he’s innocent? No he’s not. He should be (a) in jail and (b) barred from standing for president, as per the constitution.

yeahiknow3 ,

“As a German, I find myself groaning when I see this discussion come up. Conspiracy theorists are not rational. If fascists could be swayed by facts and reason, they would not believe what even the most minor bit of fact checking would disprove. Allowing them to spew their nonsense freely or join a coalition won’t disabuse them of their notions; it will help them seek and build echo-chambers and become further radicalized.We see the echo chamber effect on every online platform. Whether or not the holocaust happened, for example, is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Making up your own facts is called lying. And when your lies are so malicious and harmful that they actually pose a threat to other people or the nation itself, then yes, that should absolutely be punishable. It’s no different than slander or libel.

“What value is there to allowing holocaust denial? Serious question. And I don’t mean appealing to the slippery slope of how it leads to other worse prohibitions. There’s a lot of arguing for Free Speech for its own sake - that Free Speech is the highest virtue in and of itself that must never, ever be compromised, for any reason, and that this should be self-evident. But I ask, what’s the harm in not allowing holocaust denial, specifically? What is the benefit in allowing it? There is none. Nothing good will ever come out of someone spewing holocaust denial. Ever. You won’t get a thoughtful debate beneficial to both parties. They’re wrong, simple as that. The “best” outcome you’ll get out of it is that you can convince a denier or someone on the fence that they’re wrong. Great. The best outcome involves suppressing it. There are, however, a hell of a lot potentially bad consequences in that their stupidity can infect others and shift the Overton window their way.

“The reason that the majority of modern Germans look at the Nazi flag and feel nothing but revulsion whereas a sizable portion of US southerners actually fly the confederate flag and defend it (Heritage, not hate, or It was about states’ rights, not slavery, or Slaves weren’t treated so bad) is that Germans were forbidden from telling each other comforting lies about their past."

— quote I stole from unknown redditor

The_Picard_Maneuver ,
@The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world avatar

That’s a very well written quote that makes a good point.

Conspiracy theorists form echo-chambers to repeat their ridiculous claims amongst themselves and it poses a challenge to the rest of us to figure out how to prevent this without compromising our own values.

The sentiment I was trying to communicate is that involving the police as enforcers of truth on the internet is simply a foreign concept to me as an American. It feels heavy handed and I think carries an obvious risk.

It’s easy to cheer on when it’s happening to someone we dislike, like the racist lady in question, but I think it’s important to take a step back and make sure it truly aligns with our basic principles of freedom.

davidagain ,

No, it’s never OK to incite violence. The crime here isn’t lying on the internet, it’s spreading misinformation in order to incite violence.

deadbeef79000 ,

The first amendment rights don’t necessarily protect you from the consequences of speech.

Speech can facilitate crime, e.g. libel and slander.

circuscritic , (edited )

Everyone here who’s cheering this on is missing the point.

Does this person and the other agitators, suck? Yes. Are they vile? Yes.

But putting aside the morality of the UK’s lack of free speech, the press and politicians, including the current Labour administration are you using these arrests to pretend that they had no culpability.

Don’t think this begins and ends with the Daily Mail and Farage. Starmer made his bones on being anti immigrant just the same, including giving speeches about this shit in the last few weeks.

So if you really do believe in the UK’s police state approach to speech for commoners, than at least taken to account that the very rags you’re reading while they clutch their pearls, and you all cheer, are in fact the original culprits and exponentially more guilty than any dipshits they’ve arrested, or will arrest.

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

FelixCress ,

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

Treczoks ,

I hope all people suffereing from the rampage by this mob will sue this woman for damages.

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