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.

  • Mechanize@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month 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.

    • Wimopy@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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.

      • AreaSIX @lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Meanwhile here in Sweden, everyone’s criminal record is public, and even available to search online. Unless the crime is something minor punished with a fine. It’s really ridiculous, everything is publicly available online, like addresses, phone numbers, the cars or pets people own. Unless you have a protected identity, it’s all available to everyone online. I tried to apply for a protected identity on account of being a public servant that is involved in making decisions many people very much dislike. But I couldn’t provide a concrete threat so it was denied. It’s like the system is still geared towards pre-internet times. The system itself in fact doxxes every resident in the country.