750
submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Mechanize@feddit.it 203 points 3 months ago

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@sh.itjust.works 32 points 3 months ago

They literally did the same thing she got arrested for.

[-] Glytch@lemmy.world 45 points 3 months ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

That's not true at all.

She literally made shit up out of nowhere with no evidence.

The website is posting actual credible information based on available evidence I.e. journalism.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Wimopy@feddit.uk 20 points 3 months ago

I've also said this before and I'll say it again: names of suspects and even convicted criminals should not be shared unless necessary*. That just makes no sense for rehabilitation as it opens people up for judgement in a court of opinion. Justice is the job of the justice systems and should not generally involve the wider public.

Could there be issues with the judgement or other events where the only way to achieve justice is via the press? Sure, probably, but I don't think the default should be that if I google the name of someone I can find if they or someone with a similar name (and god forbid, appearance) were involved in a crime.

*: unless necessary here can cover cases like trying to find an individual on the run, or when their previous crime is meant to exclude them from specific lines of work, although even that should be on a need-to-know basis imo, not public info.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] fox2263@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

Ironically, the reason for all this in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Crikeste@lemm.ee 154 points 3 months ago

You know what I don’t give a flying fuck about? Her being a mother of three. Why is this sympathy baiting bullshit in an article about a woman who helped incite violent racist riots all over the country?

Maybe she should have thought about her kids before being a conservative.

[-] Clent@lemmy.world 71 points 3 months ago

Being a mother of three plays against her in my mind.

She didn't do this for her children but her own selfish reasons. Her children will suffer from her actions and therefore she is an irresponsible parent that does not consider the well being of her children.

[-] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

She’s trying to ensure that her kids grow up in a more hateful and racist country, this is the legacy she’s trying to leave her children.

[-] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 33 points 3 months ago

For me, the being a mother of three and that being mentioned just has descriptive value. It doesn't affect my judgement of her. It just helps me place who did this in the context of society and this anecdote, for whatever that matters - haters/bigots come in all shapes and sizes of course

[-] chumbalumber 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's also just commonly done in UK newspapers. Age and familial status is always given. Terry Pratchett made a joke about it in one of his books, though I can't remember the quote.

Edit: found one (not exactly the gag I wanted but CBA to look further)

'Exc--' he began. But the citizen's eyes had already detected the notebook. 'I saw it all,' he said. 'Did you?' 'It was a ter-ri-ble scene,' said the man, at dictation speed. 'But the watch-man made a deathdefying plunge to res-cue the old lady and he de-serves a med-al.' 'Really?' said William, scribbling fast. 'And you are--' 'Sa-muel Arblaster (43), stonemason, of The Scours,' said the man. 'I saw it too,' said a woman next to him, urgently. 'Mrs Florrie Perry, blonde mother of three, from Dolly Sisters. It was a scene of car-nage.'

[-] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago

They never use that argument for men.

"He's a father of 3"

They're always coming up with an excuse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cynthorpe@discuss.online 119 points 3 months ago

Oh man, we need some of that shit in the US. Arrest these right wing media nut jobs and their Jewish laser bullshit.

[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 15 points 3 months ago

They arrested the guy too. And I'm all for it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 78 points 3 months ago

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

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 47 points 3 months ago

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.

They really shouldn't be naming people like that without being sure of it. "Believing" isn't knowing and if it's not her, then she could be in for a lot harassment online and offline.

[-] Rekhyt@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago

The irony of naming someone as the "woman shares name of man she believes was the one arrested for crime before the police released the name" before the police release the name is incredibly ridiculous.

[-] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago

It's "Metro" it's a free newspaper that's available on every bus in the UK owned by the same people as the infamous paper: the Daily Mail. It has the same low-quality journalism but with the opposite spin (centre-left).

I wouldn't trust those two papers to wipe my arse clean because there'd be more shit smeared onto my cheeks!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works 45 points 3 months ago

Surprisingly balanced and civil discussions in these comments. Super proud to be here 💪 this would not happen elsewhere

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 35 points 3 months ago

She's a millionaire, so not a lot of support for her.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 40 points 3 months ago

Social media is a huge fucking problem. Maybe not as serious as climate change, but people are dying because of a few bad faith actors. Something needs to be done but I'm not sure what.

[-] Decoy321@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

This is just the current tech's version of a timeless problem, though. People have always been able to just say shit and cause problems because others believed them.

Examples:

Emmett Till was lynched back in the 1950s due to a lying white woman, becoming an iconic part of the civil rights movement.

In the late 1930s, the War of the Worlds story freaked a bunch of people out when it was first broadcast.

In 1897, Mark Twain's death was falsely reported enough that he publicly commented about it.

There's also the Great Moon Hoax in 1835.

William Anderton is a famous example of fake news from the 1700s.

we've even got fake news in ancient Rome involving Octavian, Marc Antony, and Cleopatra.

People will always be doing this dumb shit, whether it's a town crier, a printing press, or a social media site.

The key is to exercise critical thinking and promote its use to everyone.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 3 months ago

“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

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

load more comments (47 replies)
[-] kevindqc@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[-] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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.

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 40 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
  1. Being ordinary shouldn't protect you from legal consequences of starting nationwide riots.
  2. Blaming Starmer for far right riots is super weird.
  3. The rioters are the ones who want to turn it into a police state. This is just justice.
  4. You have this strange notion that it can't be criminal to say a thing, but how many war criminals did the deeds themselves? How many evil leaders were more hands-on than their followers? The worst criminals use words and let their followers go to jail for carrying out their wishes.
  5. Hooray! The more people that know YOU CAN GO TO JAIL in the UK for inciting a riot on Xitter, Faceschmuk or Telegrunt, the better. Actually hooray. Actual firestarters going to jail rather than just saying they were "asking important questions". Farage next please.
[-] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's almost like you don't comprehend the situation any more than you were able to understand what I actually said.

The situation has been building for a couple of decades, but it was created almost entirely by politicians and the media. The same ones who are now pearl clutching, including Starmer.

The same politicians and media outlets who are writing with indignation and feigned horror at the "violent mobs", will suffer no consequence, especially with the attitude you just expressed.

Because, at least in my view, being part of the media class or a politician shouldn't protect you from the legal consequences of fomenting nationwide riots. Clearly you feel differently.

So yeah, this lady and those like her are shit buckets. I genuinely don't care what happens to them, but I do care that people like you are pretending that they are the start and the end of this problem, when that couldn't be further from the truth.

Oh and P.S., it's already a police state. Look no further than their treatment of Muslims the past two decades, including stripping citizenship and imprisoning without trial, or that they're the most surveilled country on earth.... The fact that you think this is a new, or yet to come development, speak volumes.

[-] davidagain@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You say I didn't comprehend you, but in fact what happened was that I understood you and disagreed. Disagreeing with you does not equate misunderstanding you. You should try to clear those two up in your mind.

Still trying to blame Starmer for this loses you such a lot of credibility.

There's nothing in what I said that says politicians should be exempt. Nothing. I even said Farage next please. I didn't say that she is the start and the end of the problem. But inciting riots should send you to prison. famous or not. Especially if famous. The bad news in this is that Farage isn't in a cell and GB News for some inexplicable reason still has a licence to broadcast.

By police state you seem to mean state with a lot of bad police. I mean more totalitarian states like North Korea. You're BoTh SiDESing hard there. Let me be clear that I think that there are a lot of problems with racism in the UK police force, partly because of what's been emphasised over the last while by the Conservatives and partly because there's a lot of old racism that's being protected, but at least you don't get shot in the UK by the police for being black behind the wheel of a nice car.

Over surveillance, there's some cultural assumptions you seem to think are universal but aren't. Americans think it's fine to let insurance companies choose who lives and dies and take everything you ever owned if you commit the crime of having cancer, Brits think it's fine to let the state watch you on CCTV, intercept your tweets and put you in prison if you plan terrorism. Americans sometimes act like freedom of speech is top of the human rights scale whereas British folk might well put the right to live in peace higher than the right to say absolutely anything. British people think that people should be allowed (by the state) to wear whatever they like as long as it covers what underwear normally covers whereas many Iranians think women should go to prison if you can see more than their eyes. Cultures are different. So we might be heavily surveilled but we don't feel as oppressed by that as Americans would, and we see state intervention as genuinely good in some places, like having consumer protections against corporate nastiness and free healthcare and stuff.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago

As much as this behavior is appalling, blaming it on one individual is absurd. Social networks provide incentives to lie and stir people up, it can even be profitable. As long as that's the reality, there will be lies that cause riots.

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 21 points 3 months ago

I look at it the way I look at drunk driving. If you drink and drive, most of the time you're going to be fine. You're not going to get in an accident, and you're not going to get caught. But what you're doing is still dangerous and wrong.

If you do get caught because you were swerving all over the road and a cop saw you, you're going to be in some shit, but it probably won't ruin your life. If you cross the divider into oncoming traffic and obliterate a family in a minivan, on the other hand, once you're out of the hospital you should be dragged to court and then to prison for what you actually did.

Deliberately spreading misinformation online is like driving drunk. You're going to get away with it 99% of the time, and nothing major will actually come from the lies you spread specifically. However, if you're so reckless with your lies that you cross that metaphorical divider and start a series of escalating race riots that do demonstrable damage, then you get to suffer the consequences for what you've done.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

Not if they start facing repercussions for their actions, like this woman is.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Treczoks@fedia.io 16 points 3 months ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
750 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38987 readers
1546 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS