Good point @LocalYokel. Always start with the treasurer’s report!
I’m (almost) intrigued by the Tommy Robinson connection. Happened to be on a beach, but was rather carefully stirring it up. Meanwhile he’s funded by Israeli lobbyists. Fits in somewhere in the orchestra, where the government plays delightful competing strains of Islamophobia - one of them its own, anytime anybody mentions genocide - and anti-antisemitism.
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?
"After the speakers, the march set off for Downing Street when we saw that most of the placards were SUTR’s and Weyman Bennett, SUTR convenor, was at the front stewarding. He said “I’m in charge”.
Together with an IJAN (International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network) member, we spoke with people letting them know that SUTR was an organisation that promoted groups representing Israel’s apartheid state. Most dropped the SUTR placards or tore off SUTR lettering, horrified that those in charge of the march have been undermining the Palestinian movement. How did this happen? SUTR has no business leading an anti-racism march or operating under the name Black Lives Matter".
This is bonkers.
I have to say, after @LocalYokel pointed me to channel3 news that my strong suspicion is that the original fake story was auto- created by an AI.
There’s a whole cottage industry now of people "“writing” articles by putting the topic into an AI chat bot, lightly editing and submitting the result. I have a strong feeling that channel3 isn’t hiring a lot of reporters or paying a lot of attention to the truthfulness of any particular story. It’s a perfect outlet for someone to use as a gig job by submitting AI generated stories.
Just a feeling though…
But, as you correctly point out, reporting in an existing story and saying “if this is true…” Is no reason to be arrested!
As I struggle under my sister in-laws car (French sigh), it’s occurred to me that this channel3 now is one of hundreds of not thousands of sites that maintain an air of legitimacy. Like a disposable social media account.
It’s not exactly implausible that intelligence agencies do this sort of thing.
Edit
Yep
That might be a better hypothesis than. Maybe I just see AI everywhere these days…
Even without the bail aspect - arrested if you are watching? When did that become an offence.
What about journalists? Witnesses?
How can anyone defend themselves against a false charge if nobody independent is around to give evidence? It means police can make up what they like.
Edit: Just to add to LY’s post
"A judge has warned that anybody present at a riot will be remanded in custody, even if they were only a “curious observer”.
District Judge Francis Rafferty said that someone’s presence at a riot made them involved in the riot as he refused two bail applications.
The judge spoke as four men appeared in Belfast magistrates’ court charged in relation to disorder in the city."
Cameron Armstrong, 18, from Belfast, was charged with rioting in the Connswater area of east Belfast, which saw “violent disorder, petrol bombs, fireworks and different projectiles thrown at police and extensive damage caused to property”, the court heard.
Armstrong’s solicitor said that his client had never come to the attention of the police before, adding that while he admitted he was on the “periphery” of the scene, he denied being involved in any of the disorder.
When asked by the judge what he was doing at the scene, the defence solicitor told the court that Armstrong had gone to the area “to have a look”, adding that he had left when petrol bombs were thrown.
Judge Rafferty said: “He doesn’t have to throw a petrol bomb or brick to be involved in disorder, if he’s present at disorder.”
Refusing bail, the judge said: “Anybody involving themselves in this type of behaviour, this type of disorder, as an active participant or a curious observer can expect to be, save for the most exceptional circumstances, remanded into custody, and this defendant is remanded into custody.”
Maybe Judge Rafferty was thinking that anyone accused by the police should be considered guilty if they were present. Not that that cuts any ice, obviously.
Sounds to me like this judge is making up laws from the bench to suit his own case. There have been all sorts of press reports of scenes where there has been violenceby the right wing people while the anti-racist majority turned up to show solidarity. There has not been any suggestion that all the anti-racists are as guilty as the alleged rioters, just for being there.
Loose cannon judges aside, someone in the government or the media needs to challenge this.
Ah Bernie Spofforth is already known to the system as a troublesome - in the legal sense - character. Somehow that may have increased the probability that she would be arrested.
Pity there’s no legacy media who will just report what they know, rather than follow a meme.
Reminds me of an old business saying, the stages of a major project. The last three stages are:
Search for the guilty
Punishment of the innocent
Promotion of the non-participants
Another Angry Voice posts the following:
"Why are the BBC stoking culture war grievances?
This profoundly irresponsible BBC headline implies that the 67 year old man was jailed for chanting “you’re not British anymore” at police. In reality he was jailed for violent disorder"
AAV is blaming a BBC story that begins
“A 67-year-old man has been jailed after chanting “you’re not English any more” at police officers during a violent demonstration.”
According to the story the headline original said something like this - ie he was jailed FOR chanting at police. It’s said the BBC article was changed to reflect the charges.
(I’ve not been able to find this, despite accessing an article from the same day on the web archive.)
Following (what looked like) a Twitter reaction to the implied harshness, a fact check is shown saying
Fact check:
" David Notley was jailed after pleading guilty to violent disorder and racist abuse "
AAV continues:
"David Notley was jailed for violent disorder, so the assertion “67-year old man jailed after chanting ‘you’re not English anymore’ at police” is profoundly misleading, and seemingly designed to whip up grievances.
If the intention of this misleading BBC London headline was to provoke outrage, it worked an absolute treat, with the replies to their Twitter post absolutely teaming with far-right outrage, based on the falsehood that this man was jailed for the chant, rather than his violent misconduct during a riot (which the article notes he pled guilty to)."
But here’s the thing. Though Notley pleaded guilty to a charge of violent disorder, this was based on the chant - no violence was involved in his actions.
“On video footage shown to the court, Notley can be seen moving around with the crowd, and someone else in front of him was pushed into police officers. The judge said: “You very much joined in calling police officers c*s, you joined in a chorus of ‘You’re not English anymore’, and 'Allah, who the fk is Allah.’ These things are deeply regrettable and are seriously aggravating. The harm caused by your actions and by others taking part did cause serious disruption and had a seriously detrimental impact on the community.””
It used to be legal to swear at police. He may have been gesturing aggressively as well (I may have seen that, a guy going back and forward towards police lines).
So he wasn’t jailed FOR violent disorder - it’s just what the court called it.
What I find worrying is not only has the court charge overwritten the facts, but the altered facts are accepted as the real facts, and used to denounce those who complained based on the actual facts.
The accused had a criminal record, I wonder if he was plea-bargained into his guilty plea under threat of a long stretch.
But courts do not replace the functions of our eyes and ears.
Wherever one’s sympathy lies in this particular case, this is a dangerous development in recent years.
Like the guy who was found guilty of “beating” Matt Hancock, for merely touching him.
ED
Very likely. I also know they are not being offered any chance of bail if they decide to fight the proceedings. I’m willing to bet anyone who does get remanded will find their case moving at the exact opposite of what the current guilty trails are moving.
It’s designed to stifle the masses. I don’t think it’s going to work long term. We shall see. Is the popcorn meme illegal yet?
Edit. The touching of Hancock can be viewed legally in that definition. You and I know that there was no actual assault, but he’d be within his grounds to punch the toucher. Be definition we don’t tend to touch each other without permission unless accidental.
