755

Woman 'who first shared lies that sparked UK riots' arrested (metro.co.uk)

submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

255 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 195 points 4 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.

[-] fox2263@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

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

[-] Wimopy@feddit.uk 17 points 4 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 (5 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Crikeste@lemm.ee 149 points 4 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 70 points 4 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 4 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 31 points 4 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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 17 points 4 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 115 points 4 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 14 points 4 months ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (55 replies)

[-] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 78 points 4 months ago

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

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 40 points 4 months ago

Fox News FAFOed 787 million legal consequences.

[-] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 4 months ago

Eh, the fact they're still at it means it was just the cost of doing business.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] OwlPaste@lemmy.world 38 points 4 months ago

Now do newspapers next!

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 44 points 4 months ago

Good, fuck Nazis.

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 41 points 4 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 22 points 4 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 19 points 4 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 41 points 4 months ago

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

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 31 points 4 months ago

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

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 40 points 4 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 19 points 4 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)

[-] rsuri@lemmy.world 19 points 4 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.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] StarlightDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 4 months 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.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024

755 points (97.7% liked)

World News

39387 readers

2262 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

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.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.