The Armchair Rioters – Part 1

Building on my previous Substack post, where I discussed how the “Great Replacement conspiracy theory” is exploited, and the recent article on my website, where I discuss the real reasons for the civil unrest in the UK, over the next four posts, including this, I will continue to explore the febrile propaganda environment surrounding the UK’s so-called “far-right riots.”

I hope all of these articles will collectively outline the evidence which poses some serious questions about what happened and who was really shaking the jar that led to the unrest. A forthcoming deep-dive article will explore the jar-shakers in some detail.

Following the outbreak of disorder, the propagandists introduced us to a new concept: the armchair rioter.

Obviously, from every perspective, this is totally absurd. It is akin to the “underwater skydiver” or “rubber chisel.” It is nonsensical, self-contradictory and blatantly ridiculous. But for propagandists that doesn’t matter. All that matters is that they can create a narrative that will lead enough people to imagine the preposterous credible.

The legacy media coined terms like “armchair rioter” or “armchair thugs” to encapsulate their propagandist argument that social media users can cause civil unrest by posting content online.

For example:

An armchair thug who stirred up racial hatred on TikTok is among dozens in court over their part in violent riots.

Or:

Armchair rioter gets 20 months in jail for his Facebook posts

On 8th August 2024, the BBC reported:

The violence, in towns and cities across England and in Northern Ireland, has been fuelled by misinformation online, the far-right and anti-immigration sentiment. [. . .] [S]ocial media posts falsely speculated that the suspect was an asylum seeker who arrived in the UK on a boat in 2023, with an incorrect name being widely circulated. There were also unfounded rumours that he was Muslim.

The widely read London newspaper, the Metro, wrote:

Racist riots spread across the country after misinformation spread on social media.

Following the funeral of one of the reported Southport stabbing victims, Alice da Silva Aguiar, EuroNews which is the outlet for the European Broadcasting Union, blankly stated:

The riots were fuelled by social media users.

Again, the BBC’s Kara O’Neill, also reporting on the unrest, said:

There have been widespread riots across the country since the Southport knife attack, which has been blamed on misinformation shared online.

The Sun “newspaper” wrote:

The fake news about the Southport suspect sparked a week of far-right riots across the UK.

Sky News stated:

The riots across the UK were – in part – fuelled by a series of digital deceptions which spread like wildfire on social media. They have raged for a fortnight but were sparked by false claims online that an asylum seeker had carried out the Southport stabbings. [. . .] The pace of the spread of disinformation, and the ease at which some believed it, is a major concern for the government and law enforcement.

Cheshire Constabulary’s Chief Superintendent Alison Ross said:

We have all seen the violent disorder that has taken place across the UK over the past week, much of which has been fuelled by malicious and inaccurate communications online. It’s a stark reminder of the dangers of posting information on social media platforms without checking the accuracy. It also acts as a warning that we are all accountable for our actions, whether that be online or in person.

Assistant Chief Constable Alex Gross from Merseyside Police said:

There has been much speculation and hypothesis around the status of a 17-year-old male who is currently in police custody and some individuals are using this to bring violence and disorder to our streets. We have already said that the person arrested was born in the UK and speculation helps nobody at this time.

In response to the civil unrest, the new UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said:

[. . .] let me also say to large social media companies and those who run them [. . .] violent disorder [was] clearly whipped up online. That is also a crime.

None of us should be in any doubt. According to the UK establishment, including the prime minister and senior police officers, “real” riots were sparked by people posting “misinformation” or “disinformation” on social media. This narrative is consistent and has been promoted by the entire UK legacy media.

To give yet another example, the Guardian published an article titled Online Safety Act not fit for purpose. We’ll discuss the Online Safety Act in more detail in Part 3.

Referencing the comments of the London mayor Sadiq Khan and supporting his calls for further online “regulation,” the Guardian alleged that “a week of disorder across the country” was “whipped up by far-right activists online, who falsely claimed that a Muslim immigrant was behind the mass stabbing in Southport.”

The Guardian added:

The Guardian understands that more sentences are expected on Friday for people who have admitted online incitement linked to the riots.

The Guardian either doesn’t understand much at all or is deliberately seeding a false narrative. No one has been, or indeed can be, sentenced for “incitement.” Furthermore, we shall see, there is no evidence that civil unrest was “whipped up by far-right activists online.”

Framing the armchair rioters

The initial claim, first establishing the idea that people using social media and communicating online provoked mass protests that turned to riots, was based upon a very specific assertion.

The reported story was that so-called “fake news,” from unknown sources, reported by an amateurish website, was picked up and amplified on social media, notably on ‘X,’ by alleged conspiracy theorists and so-called “far-right influencers.” This purported “disinformation” allegedly caused riots.

The Southport murders, attempted murders and aggravated assaults, on the children and their adult supervisors, were said to have occurred at approximately 11.45 on 29th July 2024. Merseyside Police declared the attack a major incident and Chief Constable Serena Kennedy issued a public statement at 19:18 on 29th July:

A 17-year-old male from Banks in Lancashire, who was born in Cardiff, had been arrested on suspicion of murder and attempted murder.

The so-called Southport riot happened the following day on 30th July, after Merseyside police stated the suspect was born in Cardiff.

Earlier, on the 29th, a few social media accounts posted false rumours about the suspect. This alleged “disinformation” and “misinformation” became the focus of the legacy media and the UK government. If, however, we examine the timeline of events, it is clear that these rumours did not contribute to the disorder in Southport, nor anywhere else.

Marianna Spring is the BBC’s first social media and disinformation correspondent. On 8th August 2024, the BBC published Spring’s article The real story of the news website accused of fuelling the riots. This piece was met with great fanfare and Marianna was widely congratulated for her fantastic, if largely inaccurate, investigative journalism.

Spring’s piece focused on an article from the website Channel3Now that Spring alleged the source of false claims “widely blamed for contributing to riots across the UK.”

The Channel3Now article was posted on 29th July and incorrectly stated that “17-year-old Ali Al-Shakati from Banks” had been arrested in connection with the murders and that this individual “was on the MI6 watch list and known to Liverpool mental health services.”

Channel3News subsequently posted an apology on 31st July 2024 and stated they had removed the erroneous information from the updated article. Offering contrition to their readers, the site owners did not reveal who told them “Ali Al-Shakati” was thought responsible or that this presumably fictitious character was known to MI6.

In her article about the Channel3Now claims, Spring hinted strongly that a man she named only as Farhan wrote the Channel3Now piece. Subsequently, the BBC reported that Farhan Asif had been arrested in Pakistan for alleged cybercrime offences.

The BBC initially said Farhan Asif had been charged and then issued an apology because that information was also incorrect. The BBC stated Pakistani investigators told them that Farhan Asif had essentially misled Spring and the BBC—without referencing Spring’s report directly—and implied much of Spring’s report was wrong as a result.

The UAE outlet Gulfnews cited “Pakistan’s English daily The Dawn” as reporting where the “Ali Al-Shakati” claims had originated. Gulfnews said “the disinformation was first published on July 29 by kossyderrickent[.]com.” In turn, the Dawn reported that investigators in Pakistan had informed them “the disinformation was first published by kossyderrickent[.]com, a little-known tabloid on July 29th.”

The Pakistan-based Express Tribune, which is a partner of the International New York Times, said, when he was arrested, Farhan Asif claimed “he had simply reposted a tweet from another account titled Bernie.”

The corresponding post on Kossyderrickent cited the rumours posted by Bernadette Spofforth—Bernie or @Artemisfornow—as the origin of the false claims although Kossyderrickent reported the claims as factual.

Kossyderrickent stated:

Information reaching Kossyderrickent has it that [a] Father 17-year-old Knife stabber, Ali-Al-Shakati, stabbed 30 kids with fatal wound at holiday club in Hart Street, Southport. According to information, Ali-Al-Shakati is a Muslim terrorist suspect.”

Kossyderrickent, is a Google News-approved blog. This means it has received Google approval because it adheres to Google’s news content policies. For example, Google has judged that Kossyderrickent does not publish “hateful content.”

In her Channel3Now piece, Spring turned her attention to those who shared the rumours online. She claimed these people have “a track record of posting disinformation.” Spring alleged this “disinformation” included questioning the “the pandemic, vaccines and climate change.” Her insinuation combined distinct opinions on separate issues under one “disinformation” umbrella.

The United Nations’ (UN’s) definition of “disinformation” deems it “information that is false and deliberately created to harm a person, social group, organization or country.” Therefore, Spring was asserting that some accounts shared the false rumours to “deliberately” cause “harm.”

Marianna Spring also claimed that questioning vaccine safety or official state narratives about the pseudopandemic and climate change also supposedly amount to deliberately causing harm.

In particular, Spring alleged that the ‘X’ account run by Spofforth had “been accused of making the first post featuring the false name of the Southport attacker.” Indeed Spofforth was accused, notably by Spring herself.

Spring wrote:

One profile – belonging to a woman called Bernadette Spofforth – has been accused of making the first post featuring the false name of the Southport attacker. [. . .] The false claim that Ms Spofforth posted about the Southport attacker was quickly re-shared and picked up by a loose group of conspiracy theory influencers and profiles with a history of sharing anti-immigration and far-right ideas.

Spring’s claims were false. Spofforth was not the first to post the rumour.

Had Marianna Spring bothered to look, she would have seen that Spofforth shared a LinkedIn post from a man from Latham—eleven miles from Southport—who apparently said he was the father of children who attended the community centre where the murders are said to have occurred.

While the Latham man’s LinkedIn post has also been removed, the same account also shared a go-fund-me page for the family of one of the victims.

The false claim that Spofforth was the first to discuss the Ali Al-Shakati rumour was also pushed by Stephanie Lamy. Lamy is the co-founder of Danaides, a government contractor and “information broker.”

Lamy also contradicted Spring’s reporting:

FYI channel3NowNews is not the original source. It’s far worse than that. Spoof news website generates text (AI) from X data. That data originates from an anti-vaxx/far-right account [of] Bernie Spofforth.

Lamy’s allegation, that Spofforth used AI to spoof content and was the original source of the false information, also appears inaccurate.

A number of other accounts, some with reasonably large numbers of social media followers, shared the same Ali-al-Shakati rumours, citing the same Latham man’s post, before Spofforth. The Latham man’s account appears to be authentic and, given the other posts he shared in relation to the attack, it is distinctly possible that he made the original post about the Southport murders that Spofforth and others later re-posted.

As noted by the Sun, Spofforth added an important caveat at the beginning of her post. She said “if this is true.” Spofforth was not stating a fact. She acknowledged that the information may not be true. Spofforth was spreading rumours but seemingly clarified that’s all they were.

Advisories such as “I cannot verify this” were a common feature of many of the posts, preceding Spofforth’s, that shared the same rumours. This does not meet the UN definition of “disinformation,” contrary to the legacy media’s claims.

After clearly stating that she could not substantiate the rumours, and while she wasn’t named by police, on 8th August, the UK legacy media widely reported that Spofforth had been arrested and was being questioned by Cheshire Police for suspected “false communication” offences under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA). Spofforth said she had “first received this information from somebody in Southport.” We might speculate this is the presumed father from Latham whose LinkedIn post she shared. This comports with the claim on Kossyderrickent that the information came from a “father.”

On 29th July—the day before the unrest—the BBC was among the legacy media outlets that reported the police did not consider the attack terror-related and the 17-year-old suspect was from Cardiff. Yet, the day after the outbreak of disorder, the BBC alleged that people “rioted” because they believed social media posts that had already been contradicted by the police and, indeed, by the BBC and other legacy media outlets.

On 31st July 2024, Spring posted an article titled Did social media fan the flames of riot in Southport. Completely ignoring the fact that the BBC were among the many legacy media outlets that had already clarified the suspect’s personal details before the outbreak of any unrest, Spring wrote:

The fact that some of those at the rally decided to target Southport Mosque suggests that they may have been influenced by the unfounded online accusations that this had been an Islamist terror attack.

It is possible that “unfounded online accusations” led to the attack on the Mosque but it is extremely unlikely. By the end of the day, on 29th July, practically everyone knew the rumours were not true.

So, writing after the so-called “riots,” what evidence did Spring, or any other legacy media outlet, politician, police officer or state officials—who all made the same allegations—provide to substantiate their assertions that those involved in the violence were inspired by the “fake news” allegedly “spread” on social media?

What, other than assumption and insinuation, has anyone offered to substantiate any of these allegations?

The answer, to all of the above, is nothing at all.

While analysis by Lynn.global correctly identified that the man from Latham was the likely source for the false claims, the behavioural science researchers, led by CEO Shayoni Lynn, went on to allege:

The aftermath of this tragedy [the Southport murders] led to one of the most prolific disinformation campaigns that the UK has seen, leveraged particularly by far-right groups and individuals. [. . .] By the time the alleged killer was named as Axel Rudakubana, the disinformation had already taken a grip of the nation. [. . .] High-profile far-right figures amplified these false narratives. [. . .] These false narratives triggered a series of violent riots across the UK.

There isn’t a scrap of evidence to support this interpretation of events. There is no evidence of any “disinformation,” merely unsubstantiated rumours. Nor is there any evidence that these rumours took “a grip of the nation” nor that they “triggered a series of violent riots.”

In order to substantiate this leg of its narrative, Lynn.global falsely claimed the police clarified the correct personal details of the suspect at lunchtime on 30th July. Lynn.global added a completely groundless theory that the damage was already done and that it was too late for government to “get a handle on it to fact check and debunk.”

To reiterate and to be clear: The rumours had already been “debunked” by the police and the legacy media on the 29th July—the day before the unrest.

Are we supposed to believe that only the government can establish the facts? Everyone knew the suspect was born in Cardiff and was not a first-generation immigrant, and that the incident was not terror-related, on the 29th July.

These facts alone are enough to suggest the whole “disinformation” narrative is complete rubbish. Furthermore, the alleged “research” from groups like Lynn.global indicates a deliberate attempt to manipulate public opinion and convince people otherwise.

Not only is the idea of the “armchair rioter” completely idiotic, there isn’t a scrap of evidence to substantiate the claim that anyone spread “disinformation” that “caused” any civil unrest.

Clearly there is an agenda at play here. Which is what we will start to explore in Part 2.