From BBC News, a few days ago:
A businesswoman who was arrested after sharing a fake name for the Southport attacker online will face no further action.
Bernadette Spofforth, from Chester, was arrested on 8 August after reposting the fake name, commenting that if it were true there would be “hell to pay”.
The 55-year-old, who has more than 50,000 followers, later deleted the post and apologised after realising the information was incorrect.
I discussed the case previously here – Spofforth was suspected not just of having “shared” the fake name, but of being the first person to have put it online. The name, “Ali Al-Shakati” (double-hyphenated by Spofforth as “Ali-Al-Shakati”), apparently means “I have to go to my apartment” in Arabic, but it created the impression that the Southport attacker was a Muslim. Spofforth’s post also claimed that he was an asylum-seeker on an “MI6 watchlist”, which was then amplified in a general way by Nigel Farage when he referred to “reports” that the suspect was “being monitored by the security services”.
I thought at the time that it was unlikely that the arrest would lead to any charge, although it was matter of public concern where the false name had originated. Spofforth’s own explanation has been vague, and friendly populist-right interviewers since the case was dropped (Dan Wootton and Julia Hartley-Brewer) aren’t pressing her on the point. Inconsistences and anomalies have been noted by Sunder Katwala here and earlier here. However, it appears that Cheshire Police were concerned only with whether a case could be built against Spofforth, rather than who else might be culpable, and so it may be that we will never know who invented “Ali Al-Shakati” or why. (1) Despite her interview round, Spofforth hasn’t said a great deal about what specific questions were asked during her police interview.
Some commentators have suggested that the phrase “if this true” in Spofforth’s post proves that she did not knowingly spread false information, and thus should never have been suspected of incitement. The logic of this, it seems to me, amounts to saying that it can never be incitement to ask a question, which would be preposterous. However, in the wake of the arrest various populist-right figures (Dan Wootton, Bev Turner, David Vance) posted a notice which they apparently believe would give them immunity from successful prosecution. (2)
It should also be noted that Spofforth has a blue-tick verified Twitter/X account, which creates a financial incentive to sensationalise rather than exercise caution and discernment.
Note
1. The fact that it wasn’t a real Arabic name suggests a mixed motive – not just to spread disinformation, but also to feel a sense of superiority by including an “in joke” that most people wouldn’t understand.
2. The notice reads as follows: “None of the information posted or repeated on this account is known by its author to be false, nor intended to stir racial or any hatred of, nor cause psychological or physical harm to, any person or group of people (howsoever identified)”. This is a sovereign-citizen adjacent approach to the law, in which a form of words amounts to an incantation that somehow confounds the the power of the authorities.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »
