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.

  • davidagain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Iceblade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      …and how exactly is the intent going to be proven? The post itself isn’t an incitement to violence, she isn’t even claiming that what she posted was the truth, merely saying “if this is the truth”.

      The people who need to go to jail are the rioters, not some random woman who (in a charitable interpretation) simply reposted something online.

      • davidagain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        She was the first to post the incendiary racist lie, and she posted it claiming it should result in violence. I think Farage and Tate should also be charged for amplifying it (but Tate isn’t in the country).

        You think that the people who rioted should go to prison but not the woman who started the ball rolling and first suggested the rioting online? Punish the footmen but not the ringleaders? Your morality is screwy.

        Words can have power. Don’t use them to start violence in the streets of the UK. We’ll put you behind bars for that and not be sorry.

        • Iceblade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Ringleaders? Again you claim there is intent, where is the proof of this? Also, where is she inciting violence?

          Compare this to Aaronovitch tweeting (allegedly as a joke) that Biden should have Trump murdered a few days before the assassination attempt. Did he get arrested?

          If one online post of (potentially innocent) misinformation is enough to rile up riots on the streets of your country, clearly your society is pretty severely fucked up and needs a reality check.

          Needing to lock up random civilians because they said something inconvenient is not exactly a sign of strength or morality, at least in my book.

          • davidagain@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Far right nut jobs rioting for political purposes isn’t the same as the whole country going crazy. It’s not society in general that’s fucked up and needs a reality check, it’s the far right nut jobs. (Far, far more people turned up for the Hope not Hate counter protests, which were peaceful.)

            Again you claim there is intent, where is the proof of this? Also, where is she inciting violence?

            I think this is an absurdly naïve reading of the tweet in which she quite clearly expresses that violence is the inevitable result of the wrong immigration status of the suspect. It’s very clearly a lie designed to stoke anger and foment violence. Which it did. Far right nut jobs go to prison for rioting. Far right nut jobs that incite the violence go to prison. Good.

            Needing to lock up random civilians because they said something inconvenient is not exactly a sign of strength or morality, at least in my book.

            She’s not a random civilian, she’s the one at the start of the chain of events.

            “saying something inconvenient” and calling for violence on a false racist narrative are not morally equivalent. You’re not winning the moral argument by equating them.

            Please try not to use words like “inconvenient” in a discussion about far right street violence. It’s a bit insensitive and comes across as trivialising the issue.

            • Iceblade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              4 months ago

              You keep dodging my question. You claim that the poster knew that this was false and intended to incite violence, can you cite any external proof for this at all or is it just a hunch?

              Occam’s razor would point to the simplest explanation - A mistake by the poster originating from hearsay or… a hunch (something that happens thousands of times) rather than some conspiracy to incite riots and violence.

              • davidagain@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                You keep dodging my question.

                You’ve addressed a total of zero points I raised. It’s like I didn’t say them.

                Occam’s razor would point to the simplest explanation - A mistake

                Again with the absurd naivety. She initiated it. The calls for riots. With her words. This wasn’t an accidental brush across the keyboard, and it’s illegal in UK law to do that.

                can you cite any external proof for this at all

                Are you her lawyer?! No. What a strange question. Why the sudden asymmetry in standards of proof between us? Did you quote any external evidence for any of your opinions? Is this a court of law or an internet discussion? Weird.

                • Iceblade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  You’ve addressed a total of zero points I raised.

                  I addressed a total of one.

                  …and how exactly is the intent going to be proven?

                  The original question that you still haven’t adressed, probably because you can’t. Thing is, the rest of your arguments are moot if there is no intent. You assume she is malicious, but she very well mightn’t have been, and even if she was it’ll be difficult to prove.

                  “All hell will break loose” really isn’t an incitement to violence. It might mean political scandal, flame wars on social media, protests etc., none of which are riots.

                  If anything, what I see is politicians wanting somebody to blame for their own mistakes, a convenient scapegoat, one person who they can pin the blame on instead of taking responsibility.

                  She wasn’t anywhere near the “start” of this, merely one (potentially innocent) link in a chain of events starting years prior with gross political mismanagement.

                  • davidagain@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    4 months ago
                    1. The police arrested her, not the politicians.
                    2. The Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes her and proves her guilt, not me.
                    3. The judge ensures the jury knows what the CPS need to demonstrate, not you.
                    4. The jury decides her guilt or innocence, not us.

                    You keep demanding proof of me and never proving anything at all that you claim.

                    If proof is important for internet debates, where’s your proof that she wasn’t anywhere near the start of this batch of far right violence? That’s a bold unsubstantiated claim that contradicts the police. Where’s your proof that the police falsely claimed that they traced online calls for violence following the child murders back to her? That’s an even bolder unsubstantiated claim. You claim she’s a political scapegoat. Where’s your proof that there was political interference in her arrest? That’s another bold unsubstantiated claim.

                    Incitement to violence is a crime in the UK. I’m not sure that you’re entirely clear on what incitement is. She’s subject to UK law. I hope she goes to prison for it. The more people know they can go to prison for this shit the less rioting we’ll have.

                    Don’t write your race hate on the internet and don’t invent a lie about child murders and call for violence. If the far right nut jobs heed your call, the police will correctly come for you.