The Armchair Rioters – Part 2

In Part 1 we examined the silly concept of the “armchair rioter” which has been offered to suggest people can start riots from the comfort of their favourite recliner.

As we discovered, not only is the notion stupid, there is no evidence to uphold any part of the “online disinformation causing civil unrest” propaganda.

This is not to say that information isn’t being manipulated online and most particularly on the major social media platforms. But it isn’t being manipulated by “Joe average” user.

Concerns have been expressed on social media about the convictions of people for saying things on the internet that supposedly constituted “anti-establishment rhetoric.” It is evident that this online conversation has also been manufactured.

There is so much propaganda enmeshed in our perception of “the truth” that it is important to first differentiate between reasonable cause for a conviction—though often not the sentence—and those that are extremely concerning from a sociopolitical perspective.

Under UK legislation, the Serious Crimes Act 2007 defines how an expressed opinion or statement crosses the line and becomes illegal. If any of us say or write anything with the intention of “encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence” we have broken the law. This publication offence is relatively simple to establish and understand.

For example, if I published an article urging readers to burn down someone’s house then, obviously, I would have encouraged others to commit serious offences and would also have put the homeowner at increased risk of real, physical harm. Perhaps most of us can appreciate why this is considered socially unacceptable.

In common law jurisdictions, such as the UK, we have traditionally called such direct attempts to encourage criminality—through published material or the spoken word—“incitement.” The Serious Crimes Act 2007 effectively removed “incitement” from the statute books. Instead the notion of “encouraging or assisting a crime” was created.

The important difference between “incitement” and “encouragement” is that the common law crime of incitement requires that the crime incited was actually committed. Under the 2007 Act, you can be found guilty of your intention to encourage a crime, whether or not the associated crime happens.

UK “law” moved away from clear identification of causation—between a crime and those said to have incited it—to the far more subjective judicial interpretation of encouragement. The courts now judge the accused’s “intent,” which means establishing what they “believed.” So-called “encouragement” is, in no small measure, a thought crime.

We will use initials to identify people we’ll discuss as examples of those convicted for communication offences in the UK that were said to be related to the outbreak of disorder.

The Alleged Armchair Rioters

W’O’ admitted to “publishing written material to stir up racial hate,” contrary to section 19 (1) Public Order Act 1986. This offence is not the same as the commonly held concept of incitement, but rather concerns the degree to which W’O’ “encouraged” people to commit possible violent offences.

Reportedly, W’O’ conceded he posted content with that intent on social media, notably on Elon Musk’s ‘X’ platform.

Almost entirely divorced from this legal position, people then shared posts on social media suggesting W’O’ was convicted for expressing “anti-establishment rhetoric.” This prompted official “fact checkers,” such as Reuters fact check, to report:

A man in Britain was arrested and charged for publishing written material to incite racial hatred, not for expressing “anti-establishment rhetoric”, as suggested in misleading social media posts.

Reuters fact check was wrong. W’O’ was not convicted of inciting racial hatred. He was convicted of “encouraging” racial hatred because the court was persuaded that was his intention—belief.

Nor was it social media users who gave the impression that “anti-establishment rhetoric” was considered a component of his offending. The BBC posted a short article stating “Nottingham Magistrates’ Court heard the posts were alleged to contain anti-Muslim and anti-establishment rhetoric.” Social media users then shared this article and commented on it.

If the public, via social media, were spreading “misleading” information, it was the “trusted” news purveyors at the BBC, not social media users, who seeded that information into the conversation. Reuters defended the BBC by claiming:

The posts shared a screenshot showing three paragraphs of a BBC article about [W’O’] but omitted the charge against him.

While this was true, the BBC nonetheless suggested W’O’s offending posts contained “anti-establishment rhetoric.” If Reuters consider this “misleading” then, by disavowing the BBC’s role in spreading this “misleading” information and blaming only social media users for disseminating the same information, and by claiming W’O’ was convicted of “incitement,” Reuters own alleged fact check was equally misleading.

The first so-called armchair rioter to be convicted in relation to social media comments supposedly stoking “riots” was J’P’ who wrote “every man and his dog should smash [the] f*** out of Britannia hotel [in the City of Leeds].” This is another example of “encouragement.” That said, as we have already discussed in Part 1—in relation to Spofforth’s arrest—there are legitimate questions about the alleged link between the disorder and J’P’ s post.

It is worth reiterating that there does not need to be an actual crime committed for the accused to be found guilty of encouragement or the intention to encourage.

J’P’ posted the comment on Facebook on the 4th August after a minor disturbance at the Leeds hotel reportedly took place on 3rd August. Stones were thrown at the hotel and one window was smashed on the 3rd. No one was arrested in connection with that incident and we do not know who supposedly smashed the window of the hotel.

On 4th August—the day J’P’ posted his comment—Police attended the same Leeds hotel where similar disturbances were said to have occurred. There was no damage and no arrests were made on the 4th. Regardless of his “encouragement,” as with Spofforth, there does not appear to be any clearly established causation of disorder as a result of his social media activity.

In his subsequent sentencing remarks, made in Leeds Crown Court, Judge Guy Kearl KC spoke about “civil unrest in many parts of the United Kingdom” that had targeted “refugees and asylum seekers.” Judge Kearl noted:

The context of your offending is that it arises out of the civil unrest in many parts of the United Kingdom. [. . .] Coverage of the disorder and accompanying scenes of violence has been extensive, both in mainstream media and online on social media platforms.

None of this extensive coverage had anything to do with the J’P’. In the separate case of T’K’—who was tried in Northampton Crown Court—in her sentencing remarks, Judge Adrienne Lucking KC said:

Your offending must be seen in the context of the widespread and extensively reported scenes of disorder, violence and criminal damage which have taken place around the country. [. . .] There has of course been coverage of this disorder in mainstream media and online.

Every case should be judged on its individual merits. Despite this, there are evidently marked similarities to the “context” applied to the offending of both J’P’ and T’K’. The “context” was the legacy media’s reporting of the disorder which apparently provided the judiciary with a coordinated contextualisation for sentencing.

There are serious questions to ask about the stated “context” of legacy media’s “coverage of the disorder,” referenced in these rulings. For example, with regard to the alleged disorder in the city of Leeds, on 3rd August, the legacy media reported:

Leeds has descended into chaos after two groups of protesters began hurling insults at each other this afternoon. Around 150 people carrying St George’s flags shouted “you’re not English any more” and “pedo Muslims off our streets” outside the city’s central library and art gallery. But they were greatly outnumbered by hundreds of counter protesters shouting “Nazi scum off our streets.”

But Leeds had not “descended into chaos” as falsely reported. Following the protests West Yorkshire Police issued a situation update:

It is believed there was a total of around 400 people on the Headrow [Leeds city centre] and the event passed off largely without incident with one arrest being made. As people were leaving the area, a fight broke out on Millennium Square between around 10 to 12 males. [. . .] Officers would like to thank all those who protested peacefully and allowed the wider public to go about their business unaffected.

What were subsequently called “riots” in Leeds actually took the form of a street brawl between “10 to 12 males.” Four men were subsequently convicted—reportedly including J’P’—in relation to the “far-right riots” in Leeds, despite the fact there were no riots. The men, two of whom were of Asian heritage, were subsequently convicted for affray in contravention of section 3 (1) of the Public Order Act 1986.

The Coordinated Context

The “misleading” report that Leeds had “descended into chaos” was published by the UK Daily Express, which is a tabloid owned by Reach PLC. Reach is one of just three corporations—DMG Media, News UK and Reach—to control 90% of the UK’s print media.

Recent research by the Media Reform Coalition found:

71% of the UK’s 1,189 local newspapers are owned by just six companies. The two largest local publishers – Newsquest and Reach – each control a fifth of the local press market, more than the combined share of titles owned by the smallest 173 local publishers. 10 of the top 15 online platforms used to access news in the UK are owned by Meta, Google and X Corp (owners of X/Twitter). Meta and Google command around four-fifths of all online advertising spend, giving these two tech giants unparalleled power over how online news is found and funded. [. . .] Two companies – Bauer Radio and Global Radio – own 65% of the UK’s local commercial analogue radio stations. Bauer, Global and Wireless Group (owned by publishers News UK) also control more than three-quarters of the UK’s national commercial DAB radio market.

The UK media and social media landscape is dominated by a small handful of powerful corporations. The centralised control of information in the UK is an evident fact. These corporations can leverage so-called “news reporting” and form an incredibly powerful influence on public opinion.

Presumably, many people in the UK think Leeds descended into chaos and “riots” broke out when rival demonstrations clashed. That isn’t true but that is what was widely “reported.” This “context” was then considered an exacerbating factor in the sentencing of people who supposedly encouraged disorder on social media.

Ordinary citizens, posting comments and videos online, do not possess any notable “influence.” Certainly nothing that comes anywhere near the influence exerted by the corporate-owned legacy media. Though, given the recent rulings, you could be forgiven for imagining otherwise.

With regard to the sentencing of J’P’,  Judge Kearl said that his post had received six likes. The judge added he had “1500 Facebook friends” and stated that his messages were “therefore spread widely.” Consequently, the judge ruled J’P’ culpable for “encouraging” harm, though identifiable harm didn’t transpire. This aspect of the ruling was apparently based upon a false assumption.

Internet marketers increase their clients’ social media “reach”—for obvious commercial reasons—where “reach” means the number of people who see a particular piece of content. This can either be “organic” or “paid” reach and social media platforms like Meta’s Facebook—which is where J’P’ posted—prioritise sharing paid content over organic content. For professional brand pages on Facebook, organic reach has been declining for years and has now dropped below 2% of their follower numbers.

For individuals, posting nothing but organic content on their own timelines, reach is significantly less than that achieved by brand pages. The number of followers does not equate to the number of impressions, or views, a post will get. It is somewhat proportionate but, as highlighted by most online social media marketing companies:

When most people talk about Facebook reach, they’re typically referring to organic.[. . .] This type of reach is the hardest to earn. You have to compete with paid ads, viral posts from major accounts and constant changes to the platform’s algorithm. As a result, many marketers note that organic reach has been falling for years now.

The possibility of making a “viral post” on Facebook is now more-or-less restricted to brand marketing companies and NGO’s—who employ marketing companies—and governments and their agencies which also employ teams of professional online marketers.

For ordinary citizens, social media is not generally a platform where their opinions can be “spread widely.” Most people would have more “reach” if they discussed their views with friends down the pub. The fact that J’P’ only garnered six likes for his post is probably a reasonable reflection of the number of people who actually saw it.

Therefore, the degree to which J’P’s “role” had any “impact” upon potential victims appears minimal. Especially seeing as the attack on the hotel occurred the day before he posted his “encouraging” if appalling comments.

Shortly after “winning” the UK 2024 General Election, the new UK Labour government’s Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced an early sentence release program to alleviate the chronic overcrowding in UK prisons. W’O’ was sentenced to three years, T’K to thirty-eight months and J’P’ to twenty months in prison. The early release plan was in place before the recent unrest occurred.

All three of the defendants we have discussed directly called for places where innocent people were living to be attacked. That said, none of them were convicted of the crime that used to be called “incitement.” They were all imprisoned for “publishing written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, intending thereby to stir up racial hatred.”

In addition, the claimed “context” of their offending is highly questionable. As is the alleged extent of their culpability for any supposed harm caused as a direct consequence of their online “publications.” That said, none of their convictions have anything to do with anyone being censored for expressing their opinion.

There are a number that do provide deeper reason for concern. P’L,’ who the BBC referred to as a conspiracy theorist, was sentenced to thirty-two months in prison essentially for waving a placard that was deemed offensive by the state and shouting abuse at police officers. While he pleaded guilty to a charge of “violent disorder” under the Public Order Act 1986, the judge stated:

You did not yourself attack any police officer, as far as can be detected, but what you did was encourage by your conduct others to behave violently and you were part of this mob.

Selling the Censorship Myth

In a highly unusual move, a live courtroom video, showing the ruling handed down by Judge Kearl in J’P’s case, was genuinely “spread widely” on social media. UK courts can grant discretionary approval to do this. The sentencing video was shared on social media by the UK “public service broadcaster” Channel 4. This allegedly “independent” broadcaster is owned by the UK taxpayer and is supported by the UK government.

Following the very public sentencing of individuals found guilty of public order offences, UK Treasury Minister James Murray—whose constituency is Ealing North, in London—travelled the 195 miles to Leeds to reportedly thank the local authorities for their swift response.

Murray said:

We need to make sure people on social media are aware, what they say and misinformation they spread has consequences. [. . .] So people who may not be on the streets but feel they are somehow protected if they are instigating violence from their keyboard or handheld device, they are not safe. We will pursue them as well.

Clearly, Murray—representing the UK government—wanted to instil fear in the UK public. The threat from government is that you are “not safe” if you spread “misinformation” online. Yet neither W’O,’ J’P,’ , T’K,’ nor P’L’ were found guilty of spreading “misinformation.” Murray’s insinuation that J’P,’ or any of the others, were found guilty of the alleged crime of spreading “misinformation” was false.

Amidst all the misdirection and manipulation regarding why people were convicted, the legacy media has blatantly spread falsehoods and encouraged speculation about the reasons for the sentences in a number of cases. This has led some on social media to wrongly assume that people have been imprisoned for questioning government policy or the establishment.

Rather like the reported “context” of riots that often didn’t happen, this false impression has been perpetuated by the government and the legacy media. This enabled the so-called “fact checkers” to easily debunk what are essentially strawman arguments.

People think that individuals have been convicted for “questioning the establishment” when, in fact, they have been convicted for real offences, most commonly under the Public Order Act 1986.

Simultaneously, fallacious arguments have been erected, by the BBC and Reuters among others, giving the impression that these individuals have been imprisoned for questioning the state. Government ministers have been dispatched around the country to bolster this false impression, claiming they were imprisoned for spreading “misinformation.”

The question is why?

The UK state is erecting a censorship and information control system but the legislation it has initially devised to do this, most notably the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA), has many problems. The OSA—a monumentally contrived and, in many respects, weak piece of legislation—needs help to get off the ground.

Consequently, the legacy media and the politicians are willing, in the meantime, to simply use propaganda to claim a legal environment, that currently does not exist, is already operational. Clearly, the hope is to accustom us to a future, planned and imminent dictatorship.

Amidst all the false claims about people being prosecuted for spreading mis or disinformation, there are a few prosecutions that have been used as test cases for the OSA. These are genuine attempts to convict people for expressing the wrong opinion and questioning the establishment.

As we shall see in Parts 3 and 4, the state’s censorship baby is having some teething problems.