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.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
    86·
    5 months ago

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

      • gedhrel@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        5 months 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.worldEnglish
          1·
          5 months 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.worldEnglish
            1·
            5 months 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.worldEnglish
              1·
              4 months ago

              Malicious lies bring less than nothing to discourse.

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

              • gedhrel@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                4 months ago

                I think it’s like the distinction between art and obscenity; it’s not a nuanced distinction in the case in question. If it were, I’d largely trust UK courts to get it right (they are by-and-large capable of this, and much less politicised than their US counterparts).

                • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  4 months ago

                  I think it’s like the distinction between art and obscenity

                  I agree in that its an inherently individual decision.

                  If it were, I’d largely trust UK courts to get it right (they are by-and-large capable of this, and much less politicised than their US counterparts).

                  What makes you think this?

                  I don’t think this was right

                  Nor this

                  Nor this

        • aidan@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          5 months 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