British laws restricting what the police can say about criminal affairs “is not suitable for social media age,” said a government committee a report Released in Great Britain on Monday which stressed how uncontrolled disinformation fueled riots last summer.
The violent disorders, fed by the far right, affected several cities for days after a teenager killed three girls on July 29 in a dance class on the theme of Taylor Swift in Southport, England. In the hours that followed the stabs, the false people claim that the attacker was an undocumented Muslim immigrant spread quickly online.
In a report examining the riots, a parliamentary committee said that a lack of information from the authorities after the attack “created a vacuum where disinformation could grow”. The report blamed British laws old, for several decades, aimed at preventing the jury, which prevented the police from correcting false complaints.
As the police announced that the suspect was born in British, these false allegations had reached millions.
The Internal Affairs Committee, which brings together legislators from all over the political spectrum, published its report after questioning the police chiefs, government officials and emergency workers over four months of hearings.
Axel Rudakubana, who was sentenced to life prison for the attack, was born and grew up in Great Britain by a Christian family in Rwanda. A judge later discovered that there was no evidence that he had been motivated by a single political or religious ideology, but was obsessed with violence.
Karen Bradley, the conservative party legislative that heads the internal affairs committee, said that “the actors of bad failure” exploited the attack. But she added that a lack of precise information allowed lies to proliferate.
“By not disclosing information to the public,” she said, “false allegations have filled the gap and prospered online, further compressing confidence in the police and public authorities.”
The Committee’s report identified two false complaints shared on X. One, displayed about two hours after the attack, said the suspect was a “Muslim immigrant”. He received more than 3.8 million views.
The second, displayed about five hours later, falsely suggested that the suspect was an asylum seeker called “Ali-Al-Shakati” who was on a “MI6 surveillance list”. The position received around 27 million views on X in one day. Merseyside police, the local force investigating the attack, did not announce that the name was false before noon on July 30.
A few hours later, the first riot broke out in Southport. The disorder continued in several cities, and many demonstrations have targeted mosques and hotels housing asylum seekers. Two buildings were burnt down while people were inside. More than 300 police officers were injured in the riots, and the response cost the police about 28 million pounds, or about $ 36 million, the report.
He added that the Merseyid police “had been placed in a very difficult position” because they were legally prohibited from disclosing the identity of the suspect and received “inconsistent advice” from prosecutors to find out if they could confirm that he was not Muslim.
The Committee’s report recognized that it was impossible to determine “if the disorder could have been avoided if more information had been published”.
But he concluded that the lack of information after the stab wounds “created a void where disinformation could grow, more about public confidence” and that the law on contempt was not “fit at the age of social media”.
In Great Britain, a law prohibits the name of suspects under the age of 18 unless a judge is an exception. Mr. Rudakubana was 17 years old at the time of the attack. Another law, designed to protect the right to a fair trial, prohibits the publication of information that may influence a jury. This rule, which is part of the law on outrage in the 1981 court, is lifted once a defendant is found guilty or innocent.
Serena Kennedy, chief agent of Merseyside, told the committee that the police had revealed on the evening of July 29 that the attacker was born in Wales, but that disinformation had already proliferated.
Ms. Kennedy said she had planned to make an announcement two days later, clarifying that Mr. Rudakubana was not a Muslim and that her parents were Christians. After notifying the Crown prosecution service, the organization that carries criminal charges in England, an official told him that the information should not be made public, she said.
“This affair underlines why we must see how we process information versions to the public, while ensuring that we have no impact on criminal legal trial,” said Kennedy, adding that the Outraight laws “did not take into account where we are in terms of social media impact”.
In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said that although a person in charge has expressed “different opinions” on the disclosure of Mr. Rudakubana’s religion, he did not tell the police that she would bionne a jury.
The press release added: “We support the reform proposals that will make the application of the law on outrasts clearer and simpler – in particular when it is linked to increased questions of general public interest such as public security or national security.”
Since the Southport attack, the law commission of England and the country of Wales has examined the law on the tribunal.
