The judicial system may have got their man. Or woman, that is.
The person to be blamed (in the public mind) for first ‘spreading’ the fake news about the attacker being a migrant, not long off the apocryphal boat, has been named to be shamed.
Except that she didn’t really - not quite.
Seems a small point among the noise, that although she did post the claim, she also added “if the claim is true…”
In other words what she actually posted was the news that there had been a claim to this effect.
Now she is being widely blamed for sparking the riots, and has been arrested.
The media reporting is much less accurate than Spofforth’s original post, which gave the correct context.
Typical is the Sun, wot says (Oh dear, imagine adding emphasis to the Sun. The shame!):
“Bernadette Spofforth wrongly claimed the Southport attack suspect was an asylum seeker who had arrived in Britain by boat last year.”
"…Before the victims had even been named, Spofforth tweeted: "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.”
Spofforth, 55, added: “If this is true, then all hell is about to break loose.” "
Hmm. “If this is true…” so, she is not spreading the claim itself, but the news that there had been a claim.
If a this results in a firm claim, then that claim is made by anyone who makes the claim without the “If this is true” disclaimer.
People like RT news and Andrew Tate. As far as I know neither the European extradition treaty nor Nato have been urged to act.
The claim wasn’t true - therefore logically she did not cause “the hell” to break loose, as that was -as stated - conditional on it being true.
Of course, it was unwise - but maybe she hasn’t read her Mark Anthony speech.
Always one to give extra value, only the BBC has made the link to…anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown activism.
Hello, Marianna.
Spring’s report tracked down what is more likely to be the real source of the story - ie the moment the conditionality of the rumour was dropped - as being the dodgy Channel3Now.
The ‘Channel’ (from one of its phone boxes no doubt) has issued an apology, and gives a link to the ‘original’ report, but only to an update so that the original offending claim is no longer there, making the Channel look rather innocent.
However, the original, original report has been archived. It says
17-year-old Ali Al-Shakati arrested in connection with the stabbings in Southport, England
with the fake part in the byline (emphasis added)
Ali-Al-Shakati was on MI6 watch list and was known to Liverpool mental health services. He was an asylum seeker who came to UK by boat last year.
Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240729191002/https://channel3now.com/2024/07/29/17-year-old-ali-al-shakati-arrested-in-connection-with-the-stabbings-in-southport-england/
It says “Published 1 hour ago on 29 July 2024.”
Can’t get the timings but it seems to be around the same time.
Spofforth said she saw a post online which was later deleted. Could well have been a derivative of the Channel3Now claim - which unlike Spofforth’s did not contextualise the claim as being just a claim.
The Spofforth post strongly resembles the Channel4Now news post.
Either way Spofforth is not guily of causing the riots, as the state media want you to think.
Maybe Marianna has got the timings - she’s paid enough to be able to get them - and can resolve the matter. She refers to the timings on the sites social media postings. Isn’t she able to say if these preceded Spofforth’s social media post?
But either way, why isn’t the Channel3Now site the real culprit?
Why was this woman arrested?