Woman 'who first shared lies that sparked UK riots' arrested
Woman 'who first shared lies that sparked UK riots' arrested
It comes after millionaire mum Bonnie Spofforth said she was 'mortified' to be accused of being the first to spread the false rumours.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
Do u guys also yell fire in crowded theatres?
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)".
That's the thing about dog-whistles.
The defence you posit is the same as a politician chosing words carefully to imply one thing, while technically not lying: for aome reason they think that's a defence, but were a six-year-old try it they'd be straight off to the naughty step.
She lit a fire which was fanned by agents provocateurs from outside the country (ie, Farrage and Yaxley-Lennon). The useful idiots picked it up and rioted with it.
Farage is a Member of Parliament. He is not outside the country.
Was at the time (as per usual).
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.
“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
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Why? It was obviously a lie to rile people up. Why shouldn't it be considered cyber terrorism?
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.
Quite a dystopian world you're pining for.
Damn a world where I'm free from baseless hate being openly spread.
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?
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.
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.
Cf. previous comments about dogwhistles.
Do you have a source for her saying that? I haven't heard any reports that she did.
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.
Deliberately lying with an agenda of misleading the public in order to achieve certain goal should 100% be a criminal offence.
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.
She literally ended with "If this is true"
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.
But she was saying if A. As in, questioning A...
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.
"If that's true" pretty clearly implies skepticism. She wasn't stating a theorem. She was conversing.
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.
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.
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.
you won't listen to reason and literally deny logic.
Your reasoning is that that is the phrasing in formal logic. My point is how people converse doesn't necessarily follow formal logic. So that may not be what she meant. I can't say she definitely meant what I said- but that is the impression I got. And as I said if it's how I as a fluent English speaker interpreted it, then it may also be how she meant it.
The problem is in who decides what speech should be punished.
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.
I don't think that would do a lot in terms of protecting unpopular speech.
There's unpopular speech and there's speech that starts nationwide riots. I don't get how you're confusing them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
did she repeat it? or was she the source?
The article implies she was the sources and thus, despite her claims, made it up
I wouldn't be surprised if she's the one who made it up.
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.
Trump riled up a mob and told them to march on the capital. He absolutely should be in jail for that.
This random racist lady on the internet basically said "If [lie that she either repeated or made up] is true, I bet people are going to be mad!" and was arrested.
My point is that I see nonsense like that posted everywhere in the aftermath of tragedies, and I don't think all of those redditors/lemmings/etc are criminals either. Trolls, escalators, maybe astroturfers, but not criminals. It's just a bit of a culture shock to me to see someone arrested for it.
Trump only said they were going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. But we know what happened.
It's a culture shock that it's illegal to say certain things in the UK, but I suspect that you're used to all manner of evil being justified as freedom of speech because for some reason it plays well as a justification in North America. You should have freedom of religion, but not if your freedom involves physical harm to others. Same for speech. You should have freedom of speech, but not if your speech causes physical harm to others.
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.
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.
Allowing others' speech is the default
Freedom of speech is not a freedom to lie.
Yes it is.
It's morally wrong, but people who lie on the internet are not criminals.
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.
People's brains fall out of their heads on this one hey? Like wtf, you're actually responsible for what you say seems pretty basic. Nobody is arguing for prosecuting anyone who expresses opinions, or what they earnestly believe to be true and communicate in good faith. Just, if you make shit up and people get hurt well then, you did that hey.
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 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.
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 an icy road and you kill someone, you go to prison for a long time as you should be able to predict you may kill someone.
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 beyond the boundary.
She should have been able to predict the consequences of her spreading lies.
Adults are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
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?
You're basically saying
wow she only got arrested because she got caught
And there's a difference in magnitude in most crimes too. Like if you steal a grape from a supermarket as you do your weekly shop, that's very different to stealing an entire chicken, which is also different to stealing a TV.
My point was more that we're looking at the situation in hindsight and applying knowledge that she didn't have to her intent.
This woman's action (typing the tweet) ended at the time she hit send, and we should determine if we think that alone is criminal.
The first amendment rights don't necessarily protect you from the consequences of speech.
Speech can facilitate crime, e.g. libel and slander.
Look up the original judgement on the Maya Forstater tribunal. "In a functioning democracy, some beliefs are not worthy of respect," or words to that effect. If you think inciting racist riots shouldn't be criminal, then write to your MP about it.
As an American, I wish out right lying and libel was more prevalently an arrestable offense.
I believe you lied, I will now report you to the police. Even if it's not true it'll still make your life miserable
Whereas the true insanity is to let people get away with openly inciting race hate which leads to life threatening real-world consequences for the people on the receiving end of the lies.
Absolute free speech is the refuge of those without the common sense and maturity to realise it has led to deaths. It is entirely appropriate to legislate for those who want, or encourage, life threatening harm to come to others.
I suggest you look into what Chomsky has said on it
There are different levels of lying though aren't there. This woman had a history of stirring trouble, and if the motive AND outcome of this lie were to stir up trouble on as large a scale as possible, then to not oppose this behaviour would be to invite more unrest.
The whole country just rioted based on a complete fabrication; a racist lie, cynically fabricated for the purpose of provocation. That needs to be addressed, and if she is the provocateur then she needs to be punished, because that type of behaviour is evidently destructive to society.The UK doesn't have the same freedom of speech as in the US. You're much more accountable for what you say. If you're inciting violence, intentionally or unintentionally, you should be held to account.
I'm not suggesting we start imprisoning people for resharing misinformation, but sometimes people need a refresher on how to think critically instead of mindlessly reposting because of an emotional reaction. Hopefully that's what she gets.