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.

  • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    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.

    • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        3 months ago

        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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • SRo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Why? It was obviously a lie to rile people up. Why shouldn’t it be considered cyber terrorism?

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

            • ripcord@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I think the problem is - who decides what speech qualifies and is arrestable?

              What if it’s Trump? Or congressional Republicans?

              What if they claim that talking negative about Trump is hate speech and is arrestable? Or saying Vance fucks couches?

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

                I take it that you can see a distinction between “Vance fucks couches” and “burn those people in their hotel”. They are not the same thing.

                If the distinction is hard to determine - that’s why there’s a judicial process.

                • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Except no one said “burn those people in their hotel”.

                  That’s kind of the point being made by all of the dissenters in this thread.

                • ripcord@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Do you have a source for her saying that? I haven’t heard any reports that she did.

                  • davidagain@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    It’s a paraphrase. Read the tweet, not as if you’re her defence lawyer, but ask yourself if a reasonable person would interpret it as a racist argument that violence was justified.

      • FelixCress@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

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

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

        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.

    • Damage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

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

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

            • Melllvar@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m not confusing them. But I’m also not a fan of using the power if the state to punish people I disagree with, even if they say vile things. Such power will inevitably be abused, turned against me, etc.

              It’s safer in the long run to preserve free speech and expression, even if it means people get away with being asshats.

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

                They’re not being punished for disagreeing with the government - that was when the conservative government made it illegal to protest climate change. No, they’re being punished for causing violence. It’s not that the opinion is wrong, it’s that the far right lies caused far right rioting. I don’t know why anyone thinks that should be consequence free. It’s crazy that you would think it should be allowed.

                • Melllvar@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It’s not a question of what speech I think should be allowed, but rather a question of what powers I think the state should have.

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

                    Well I think the state should have the power to jail people for starting nationwide riots. I don’t see why you don’t. It’s weird. You think the rioters should go to jail but the ones that kicked it off shouldn’t? Really odd.

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

        There’s a logical reasoning thing called modus ponens (it has a latin name because it’s not exactly new). It goes
        A. If A then B.
        Hence B.

        That’s exactly how she called for all hell to break loose. You can’t claim that you didn’t mean B when you say “A. If A then B.” It’s just that A was false and “If A then B” was also false. Nevertheless, a lie-ridden far right call to violence over the murder of innocent children is what it was, and it was heeded by the far right nut jobs who rioted over the issue, targetting the immigration lawyers that had nothing to do with the deaths of the children until she posted the lie. She incited violence. Jail. Good riddance.

        Keep your far right racist lying incitements to violence to yourselves, or you’ll end up in prison, fascists! You’re not welcome in the UK and you never have been. Thousands of ordinary people counter protested against hundreds of racist agitators. Good.

          • davidagain@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            No she wasn’t. She already unequivocally stated A.

            My friend has a UK driver’s licence.

            If she has a UK driver’s licence, she must be at least 17.

            Now, can you honestly claim I’m sceptical about whether she has a driver’s licence or whether she’s over 16?

            Please Google modus ponens before coming back again. She even used it in the classical form.

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

              “If that’s true” pretty clearly implies skepticism. She wasn’t stating a theorem. She was conversing.

              • davidagain@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                You’re not prepared to change your mind, you’d rather contradict literally thousands of years of logical thinking. 2+2=3. Got it. I really really wasted my time talking to you.

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

                  I read what I read. I’m not saying it’s definitely what she meant, but if it’s how I interpreted it, it may be what she meant. Language after all is largely fluid, and not a mathematical equation. But sure, just insult me instead.

                  • davidagain@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    But sure, just insult me instead

                    OK, you’re a right winger who spends his time online defending racist liars who post inflammatory lies stirring up hatred and violence in my country and you won’t listen to reason and literally deny logic.