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.

  • FelixCress@lemmy.worldEnglish
    83·
    4 months ago

    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 Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldEnglish
      74·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
        41·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          4 months ago

          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.

      • FelixCress@lemmy.worldEnglish
        53·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • candybrie@lemmy.worldEnglish
          41·
          4 months ago

          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?