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.

  • atro_city@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month 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!

      • khannie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        They’re confident enough that they feel they won’t get a libel suit and that has to count for something, even if it is a rag because honestly if they have the name wrong I’d love to be that woman: Instant mortgage paid off and at least one full board holiday to Magaluf.

        I heard someone say it was that khannie fella from gemmyverse or something.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 month ago
    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.News

    https://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

    • sramder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Fine. You get an upvote for self improvement and being useful for once… but I’m still going to be bitchy about it 😊

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 month 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month 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.

      • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        But that is why, if they catch you, and you haven’t obliterated a family, you still catch heat.

        This lying bitch isn’t likely to catch nearly enough to deter future drunk driving at the keyboard. When we catch you driving drunk you lose your fucking license.

    • kralk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      You don’t think we should blame the one person who made up the lie and sparked racist riots across the country?

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      well, ya it isn’t, those are home-grown British patriots running around with machetes

  • militaryintelligence@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month 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.

      • jabjoe@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I think it’s also regulation and a legal system. Anarchy doesn’t work. It’s a Tragedy Of The Commons problem. It’s always ruined by a few ass holes. The Commons need a mechanism to weed itself. I.e. Rules and enforcement of those rules.

        Problem is Xitter is a centralized closed monopoly thing owned by a crazy near trillionaire. The Commons has no control of it. It’s a diseased setup.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          Fun fact, the tragedy of the commons is a fictitious construct invented by British nobility to justify their taking ownership of commonly held land

          • jabjoe@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            It has many appliances and no doubt many names. But it’s easy to work out on first principals. Without a system of enforced rules, ass holes take over and ruin it for everyone (including themselves). Places without law and order are a mess and normally end up with laws set by war/drug lord. Until they are murdered and the next one takes over.

  • FelixCress@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • nogooduser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      lol. We’re short of prison space so get the deal with Rwanda for immigrants changed to be criminals instead.

  • AidsKitty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    1 month ago

    Thin line between opinion, free speech, and a lie. I do not want to follow the example being set in Europe. This is the road that leads to authoritarian rule. Who defines truth, hate speech, and opinion. When the other side wins an election are you now the criminal? Will different truths exist in red and blue states? City and rural? No thank you.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      why do people pretend there isn’t or shouldn’t be any human element in legal situations? who decides what’s free speech or a lie? how is this even a question? who decides what’s a murder or self defense? who decides what’s assault or not?

      this is why there’s a court system. you can’t automate law.

    • svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Thin line between opinion, free speech, and a lie.

      And yet, it’s there. Just as it is in defamation law.

      Who defines truth, hate speech, and opinion[?]

      A jury of your peers and the Public Order Act 1986.

      The US has free speech. Apart from all the exceptions it carves out and designates not protected speech, including but not limited to incitement, threats and harassment, sedition, and obscenity. Obscenity in particular was famously ‘defined’ for a while as “I know it when I see it”. So why draw the line at hate speech?

      Is it not a weird state of affairs when saying “X is a paedo” is legally actionable but saying “trans people are all paedos and X is trans” isn’t, even week when X’s house gets burned down either way?

      When the other side wins an election are you now the criminal?

      Sure, the UK parliament could pass a law saying criticising the prime minister is now illegal. The courts will inevitably issue a declaration of incompatibility with human rights law, but the government, in theory, could ignore it. If the public swallows it. But there’s nothing really stopping that happening in the US either. Congress could pass a law making it illegal to criticise the president, and since the president gets to pick the judges, it could almost certainly come under the sedition exception to the first amendment if the president really wanted it to pass. If the public swallows it.

      And that’s what it comes down to at the end of the day. Whether or not the public swallows it. For all the US right wing likes to harp on about freeze peach that sure doesn’t seem to apply if you want to say something bad about America or use the word cisgender. Do you really think the American public is much less likely to support authoritarianism than the British public?

  • StarlightDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    One thing that isn’t really touched on because it never got published is that Spofforth has been an active organizer for the far right since 2020. Since then she has been active in anti Drag Queen Story Hour harrasment and targeting hotels. Another example is Yorkshire Rose (Amanda Smith) who has been doing the exact same but to a larger extent.

    My main concern is that these fascist agitators have been placed into prisons with people of colour and leftwing activists for an extended period of time.

  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Karens been lying fr centuries but becuase middle aged white woman can do no wrong, many people got killed or imprisoned over it.

    Only now has society admitted that they lying a lot for stupid reasons like racism or just BC fuck you due to camera phones…

    Similar to the story with cops. About time botha team held accountable for exploiting the system.

  • Treczoks@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

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

  • cynthorpe@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      1 month ago

      Careful what you wish for. Our freedom of speech is a pretty big thing we have. You want the guy who tweeted that Vance was a couch fucker to be thrown in prison or some shit?

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I mean Rogan and Kyle Rittenhouse got canceled this week by trumpers for daring to not say trump is their favorite weirdo. Free speech is mostly a bludgeon that is currently only allowed to be wielded by in groups.

        If you spread a knowingly false fact with the intent of causing riots, imo that’s a good law. Nobody is going to riot over the couch fucking tweet.

        • Jarix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          When you are calling these fucking assholes weirdos, do you realize how fucking many kids have had to live through that stigma being slung at them unfairly and hurtfully?

          Do you know why one of the worlds most loved and celebrated humans calls himself Weird Al Yankovich?

          Yes im venting im sorry but this new tactic against the enemies of humanity is going to cause damage to people who are already and always have been vulnerable.

          Shame on everyone who is jumping on this band wagon with absolutely no understanding of the consequences you are having.

          I hope you can live with yourself for being part of the reason kids feel like they need to take a gun, go to school, and start shooting their bullies. While thats not the motivation of all these school shootings it was very much a big part of Columbine happening.

          So go ahead and keep doing harm to a small group of people you didnt give enough thought to before you propagate this moniker for people are some of the worst people in history

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            As somebody who grew up being called weird for having head trauma as a kid, you missed the ball here. Kids have a way of cutting egos with even harmless words. Bullies should be weird. Assholes should be weird. As in they shouldn’t be normalized. The word does have a meaning and its not inherently bad, but it can be with the correct intonation and facial expression

            • Jarix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              I’m not missing the ball thank you very much.

              But you are obviously my point because you just restated everything i was talking about.

              I couldn’t agree with you more

      • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Calling a dude a couch fucker is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.

      • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Only those too propagandized to realize it believe you actually have the right to free speech in the USA. You’re guilty of something, all the time, in the USA. If they want to get you for something, they can. It’s that simple. It’s not hyperbole and it is the fascist playbook used in the USSR before as well.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          You’ll be hard pressed to find people in the US who get in trouble for criticism of the government or most other things. I can freely say the president sucks and cops are dirty, and no one will lift a finger in the US. I’m allowed to say this. There’s a good many countries where you can’t.

          • Veneroso@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            It’s hyperbole but it’s not out of the realm of possibility for that to change, given someone’s litigious nature, to declare that activity to be treasonous…

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              That’s a tall hill to climb. It’s literally been protected by the Supreme Court that you can fly a flag that says something like “Fuck Biden”(I think biden did a fairly good job, fyi). There are limitations to freedom of speech, but criticism and opinions aren’t any of them.

              • Veneroso@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                I hope so. I really do. There seems to be interest in ignoring the constitution that they claim to protect…

      • rsuri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah the reality is if the courts start letting the government arrest people for speech, it’s those going on about “woke mind viruses” who are gonna be the first to weaponize that. Without free speech, the left ceases to exist.

      • axh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Freedom of speech should not equal to the freedom of consequences. You should be able to say whatever you want, but when you lie with intent of causing harm, you should be accountable.

        • realitista@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          I’m okay with this phrase except for the word “intent”. If we give someone the power to try to assess our intent, it can easily go the way of totalitarian states where they say you have a bad intent any time you criticize the government.

          You should be punished for outcome, not intent. If you say something provably untrue that results in riots or murders, you should be held accountable for the outcomes of those statements. This is not that different from our current libel laws.

          • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 month ago

            But all criminal law already has a concept of Mens rea (guilty mind) baked in. The reasonable proving of intentions is nessisary for the severity of the sentencing in almost all cases under review and has been at least as long as anyone here has been alive. It isn’t the sole factor of creating a criminal charge because - as you stated you also need to prove harms but saying people are not punished for intent and treating that as only the tool of strictly authoritarian government is factually untrue.

            • realitista@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Yes my point was that “guilty mind” alone shouldn’t be enough to charge you with a crime.

              • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 month ago

                Agreed, but you also said :

                I’m okay with this phrase except for the word “intent”. If we give someone the power to try to assess our intent, it can easily go the way of totalitarian states where they say you have a bad intent any time you criticize the government.

                And I am pointing that the power to assess intent is actually a norm in the justice system. Too many people on here are very quick to catastrophize things that are actually very culturally normal and stable in systems of law. Your point is not the same one I was making, hence why I referenced your likely intended point in my post.

                • Jarix@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Furthermore if outcomes are what gets punished, then what happens if people get hurt because you said something provably true? Poeple aren’t rational at the worst of times.

                  Untrue does not automatically mean its a lie. For an untruth to be a lie it also must intend to deceive.

                  All lies are untrue but all untruths are not lies in the same way all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

                  But even untruths that intend to deceive aren’t automatically lies, could be a joke though it’s probably debatable with regards to joking. But then that’s exactly why intent must be determined when considering the totality of any situation/incident

                  Something can be done for amusement that isn’t a joke. And we all should be aware of the nature of Trolls at this point online

      • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        If the hard right propaganda machine isn’t shut down we will deal with the risk of a fascist takeover every four years for the rest of our country’s existence.

        Free speech is not absolute, and the ‘fighting words’ precedent certainly applies to fascist instigators.

        • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          We almost had to deal with the free speech limitations of KOSA. The power to limit free speech will eventually be abused.

          • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            We have always lived with exceptions to freedom of speech. Libel, slander and obscenity law as examples. The sanctity of medical records is another.

            The UK also technically does not and never has had any freedom of speech enshrined in law and the government has always been able to squash print and media publications that post things deemed a danger to security.

            Russia on the other hand holds a constitutional freedom of speech and the press… But will also send you to prison for publishing “LGBTQIA propaganda”

            Americans treat this misplaced concept of freedom of speech as this full access pass as a universal good that is the only thing holding us all back from totalitarian regimes. In reality however speech has both never been totally free even in America as plenty of exceptions have always existed and having those protections is way more optional in other democratic nations then they would believe. It also does not protect from abuse on it’s own.

            Remember that any and all tenants of free speech aren’t nessisarily a universal good. If there are measurable harms being done to people your nation is allowed to carve out an exception. It’s on you to critically evaluate the individual exception for potential issues but not specifically on the basis of a dogmatic adherence to an idea of free speech. Totally free speech itself could actually be harmful to a society and in fact has already proven to be hence libel/slander laws.

      • shiroininja@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 month ago

        When you spread outright lies about someone what sparks violence, it’s a bit different, right? Or are you on the side of the woman who lied about Emmet Till and got him killed? Because if it was known she lied about the thing at the time, I’d say she should have been jailed the same as his killers.

      • cynthorpe@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Obviously when it works out in my favor… I’m all for it.

        But really, slander is slander. JD has plenty to make fun of that’s real. Just dig a little.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        UK has freedom of speech, but there are limits. Been a Nazi is not covered.

          • gedhrel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            In which case, perhaps unqualified “freedom of speech” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

            (I appreciate that Chomsky’s opinion resonates more with 1968 than now.)

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              In which case, perhaps unqualified “freedom of speech” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

              I believe it is. But if you don’t that’s your belief, but at least admit you therefore do not believe in freedom of speech.

              • gedhrel@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                I think unqualified freedom to say anything can lead to negative utility, pragmatically speaking. Malicious lies bring less than nothing to discourse.

                I’m concerned that the libel system can be abused, of course; and I don’t approve of arresting octogenerians under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for shouting “nonsense!” at Jack Straw. But I don’t see there being a need to draw a distinction between online and in person speech, and I think that incitement to riot isn’t something I’d typically defend.

                Having said that: I hope the woman in question (who has a history of being a deniable pot-stirrer) gets a trial rather than copping a plea, because the bounds of these things are worth testing.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Malicious lies bring less than nothing to discourse.

                  I don’t trust anyone to evaluate that is the problem.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I personally believe it is. Legally it isn’t in the US. But luckily courts are pretty hesitant to actually prosecute it most of the time

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          My understanding is that it was a made up name, so there is no “him”. But also, she’s claiming she heard it from someone else, so why is she the one getting in all the trouble, as opposed to everyone else who spread it around?

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          This is the first time i have seen someone with an Israeli flag on Lemmy. Congratulations.