Oct 19, 2024

The Armchair Rioters – Part 4

Iain Davis

This is the final article in a four-part series. The first three parts are available here, here and here.

In his 1859 essay “On Liberty” the British political philosopher Sir John Stuart Mill provided a rationale defining the crucial importance of free speech and expression.

Mill convincingly argued that:

the source of everything respectable in man either as an intellectual or as a moral being” is our collective ability to rectify “mistakes, by discussion and experience.”

He said that censors and those that silence debate commit “a peculiar evil” because they are guilty of “robbing the human race” not only of its “opportunity of exchanging error for truth” but, perhaps more importantly, its chance to expose bad ideas as “errors” through truth’s “collision with error.”

Mill outlined what we today call the harm principle. He wrote:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Mill differentiated between legitimate and illegitimate “harm.” When he spoke about preventing harm to others—in respect to freedom of speech and expression—he was referring to what we used to call the crime of incitement. The only legitimate use of power to stop free speech is where that speech leads directly to the real physical harm of others.

Mill’s arguments established the importance of freedom speech 165 years ago. He understood that tyranny thrives when its ideas are left unchallenged. Therefore, the ability to examine and question all ideas was so important we should never allow anyone to censor any speech, no matter how repugnant we might find it.

Expressing racial hatred—vile though it is—should not be censored unless it directly incites, or directly “encourages,” others to commit real acts that cause real physical harm. If, absent any of that, we allow state censorship to prevail, Mill reasoned, we commit the “great evil of adding unnecessarily to [government] power.”

Doing so would, he highlighted, inevitably give rise to tyranny:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. [. . .] [T]he dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes. History teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed for ever, it may be thrown back for centuries.

Testing the Censorship Waters

As we discussed in Part 1 and Part 2, most of the arrests, charges and convictions for online activity in connection with the recent unrest were for offences under legislation that has been on the statute books for decades. Most commonly the Public Order Act 1986.

While there are questions to ask about the seemingly excessive sentences and the purported links to the disorder, these convictions are not particularly relevant to the issue of state censorship. People have been misled in that regard.

Among this number, however, there are a few that do give rise for genuine cause for concern. It appears that sections of the British public are focusing their attention on cases that present little or no threat to civil liberty while more serious attacks on our freedom of speech and expression are slipping by under the radar.

In March 2024, the first to be convicted under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA)—please read Part 3—was a known paedophile who sent indecent images to a child—so-called “cyberflashing.” This was in keeping with the claimed purpose of the OSA.

The government and the legacy media have been at pains to stress that the OSA is not censorship legislation. It is all about protecting children and keeping people safe online they claim.

So far, there have been very few convictions under the OSA. It comes as no surprise to those who have been warning about the OSA since it was first mooted, that the bulk of the first OSA prosecutions are for suspected “false communication” offences. In light of the recent disorder, three people have supposedly fallen foul of the new OSA regime. According to the Financial Times (FT), Bernadette Spofforth (See Part 1) is one of them.

Omar Abdirizak—stage name Twista Cheese—posted a video of himself alleging that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—aka Tommy Robinson—encouraged the “far-right” to attack Mosques. The legacy media—including the Financial Times—initially reported that Abdirizak had been arrested for posting “false communications” in contravention of Section 179 of the OSA.

The FT added that Abdirizak “denied conveying information that he knew to be false.” It seems extremely odd that Abdirizak was ever charged with the OSA offence of sending false communications.

It was evident, from the video he posted, that Abdirizak also threatened to shoot people, possibly including a direct threat made against Tommy Robinson’s life. When he was arrested, West Midland’s police stated it was on suspicion of making threats to kill.

Reporting his not guilty plea, the BBC later claimed the “previous charge of conveying false information was dropped.” Nothing was offered to explain why this charge was considered viable in the first place.

It seems absurd to consider prosecuting someone for “false communications” when they posted videos of themselves saying “we’re going to artillery you” while using hand gestures to simulate shooting people. Abdirizak was not arrested for “conveying false information” and clearly the police thought he would be prosecuted under Section 181 of the OSA.

The story becomes stranger still. While a number of people have been swiftly convicted for encouraging racial hatred—or have been remanded in custody facing similar charges—Omar Abdirizak, who still has videos of himself toting automatic weapons on Google’s YouTube, who describes himself as a “Somali pirate” and says he wants to die, was granted unconditional bail which wasn’t opposed by the UK state prosecution.

This suggests that the state’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) initially wanted to test the lesser charge of sending false communications, regardless of the likelihood of a more serious offence possibly being committed. There appears to be a strong political impetus for the prosecution. Something which definitely is “illegal” in the UK.

Dimitrie Stoica pleaded guilty to sending a false communication with intent to cause harm. He was immediately imprisoned for three months under Section 179 of the OSA. Once again, he didn’t appear to cause any discernible “harm.”

Stoica posted a video on TikTok in which he pretended to run away from rioters claiming he was in fear for his life. When he was interviewed by Derbyshire Constabulary he said his post was a “joke.” The official statement on the conviction from Derbyshire police raises a number of issues:

Dimitrie Stoica had been livestreaming to 700 followers, although how many watched it is unknown, as he walked around Derby on Wednesday 7 August – the same evening that potential protests and disorder had been feared might take place in the city. While there was no disorder at all that evening, Stoica’s livestream suggested otherwise.

Again, the “context” was considered an important component of the Stoica’s offending. The alleged harm he caused was seemingly determined by the wider sociopolitical environment in which his social media post was made. Yet, as noted by the police, that “context” was merely the fear felt by others—which ultimately proved unwarranted. This was entirely beyond Stoica’s control and had nothing to do with him.

Derbyshire police continued:

[Stoica’s social media] stream had come to the attention of officers monitoring social media from the area.[…] Officers in the area were directed to speak to Stoica who confirmed that he was not being chased and that he was not afraid for his safety. With the situations seen around the country in recent days and the manner in which social media had been used to promote significant disorder, Stoica was immediately arrested. In interview Stoica […] admitted that his comments had been a “joke”. He was charged the following day with one count of sending a false communication with intent to cause harm contrary to Section 179 of the Online Safety Act 2023.

It is worth pausing to consider this sequence of events.

The police were actively monitoring the public’s use of social media and sent officers to Stoica’s address to arrest him after flagging the content he posted. This was based on the police’s belief that social media was used to “promote significant disorder” but Derbyshire police simultaneously conceded there was “no disorder at all.”

In addition, there was no basis—other than legacy media reports and political statement claiming a falsehood to be true—for the police’ belief that social media caused any disorder anywhere else either.

The imprisonment of Stoica led Assistant Chief Constable Michelle Shooter to say:

[…] the right to freedom can be limited – in particular where it is required to prevent crime and disorder. As has been made clear by forces across the country any criminal actions relating to the disorder, whether they be in person or online, will be dealt with quickly and robustly. Whether it is spreading misinformation or being involved in disorder the message is clear.

The “message” does not make any sense. There was no crime or disorder associated with Stoica’s social media post. His “right to freedom” was limited—by virtue of Section 179 of the OSA—for what Chief Constable Shooter seemingly believes to be his crime of spreading “misinformation.” No such crime exists.

Furthermore, the UN definition of misinformation is “information that is false, but not created with the intention of causing harm.” Stoica was convicted of the “intent to cause harm.” To be clear, this meets the UN definition of “disinformation” and Stoica was imprisoned, under Section 179 of the OSA, for spreading said “disinformation.”

“Disinformation” was deemed applicable in his case because, despite the fact that there was “no disorder at all,” the court presumably read his mind and was satisfied that he was thinking about causing harm. Primarily, it seems, because Stoica admitted his thought crime.

Irrespective of supposedly protecting children, policing social media and convicting people of a new crime—which practically amounts to an allegation of spreading “disinformation”—is what the OSA has delivered. This is precisely as envisaged by the UN.

The reported “context” of Stoica’s OSA offending is called “crisis-driven disinformation” by the UN:

Disinformation online expands significantly during times of political, economic and social grievances. In that way, it contributes to further polarising the public debate, to eroding public trust, to inciting violence and hatred against minorities. [. . .] Emergencies and natural disasters show us the weaknesses of social resilience against information pollution.

It is patently obvious that the real “context” of these new OSA offences is UN member states’ desire to protect the legacy media “gatekeepers of information and news” and deter the “non-traditional actors” from publishing anything member states chose to label “disinformation.” Stoica’s was evidently a test case.

Governments around the world are highly motivated to regain control of information. The manner in which the OSA is being applied in the UK exposes its undeniable purpose. It is censorship legislation, pure and simple.

While details on Bernie Spofforth’s case are scant, she was reportedly accused of a “false communication”—disinformation—offence under Section 179. As we have already discussed, the basis for her prosecution appears to be extremely murky.

Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that the so-called riots have provided the claimed “context” to enable these prosecutions to proceed. That is to say, the civil disorder suits the UK state’s evident objective of testing the OSA in court.

We are led to believe that the unrest is the result of “far-right influencers,” allegedly including Spofforth, committing false communication offences. But, as we discussed at the start of this series and throughout, there I no evidence whatsoever to support this contention.

In Part 1, we noted state propagandists like Marianna Spring based nearly the entire edifice of the state’s claim on a subjective interpretation of Spofforth’s X-posts. There was never any evidence showing causation between the social media posts and the unrest. Nor is there any provable legal case to be made against Spofforth. Unlike Stoica, Spofforth will not be prosecuted and all charges have been dropped. Put simply, the claim that social media caused riots is nothing but propaganda.

It is abundantly clear that the real purpose of most of the harsh convictions for “encouraging” racial hatred are intended to frighten the public into imagining their opinions can be “legally” censored by the state.

Meanwhile, through tentative attempts to enforce the OSA for its true purpose—censorship—the UK state, in league with its global governance partners, is testing the dictatorship waters. The problem for the state is that it cannot maintain it is a democracy—of sorts—while simultaneously destroying the essential democratic ideal—proven by Mill and others—of freedom of expression.

There is no doubt that the limited unrest we saw in late July and early August 2024 has been exploited by the state and its legacy media propagandists in their bid to lay the foundations for the dictatorship that will protect the global governance regime’s “gatekeepers of news and information.” This is necessary because the UK state, and its parent global state, are losing the information war and find themselves increasingly unable to control public opinion. Therefore, the UK branch of the global public-private partnership has unleashed its “great evil” on the UK population to stifle dissent and establish the tyranny it wants.

There is no such thing as an “armchair rioter.” It is a pure propagandist construct designed to convince you to passively give away your absolutely essential right to question power.

Please don’t fall for it.

Iain Davis is an independent journalist a researcher from the UK. You can read more of Iain’s work at his blog IainDavis.com (Formerly InThisTogether) or follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his SubStack. His book Pseudopandemic, is now available, in both in kindle and paperback, from Amazon and other sellers. You can claim a free copy of his new book “The Manchester Attack” by subscribing to his newsletter.