British laws are not ‘suitable for the social media era’, says report on summer riots

British laws that limit what the police can say about criminal cases are “not suitable for the age of social media,” said a government committee a report On Monday released in Great Britain, which emphasized how uncontrolled wrong information caused riots last summer.

Violent condition, fed by the far right, Involved various villages and towns for days after a teenager killed three girls on July 29 during a dance class with Taylor Swift theme in Southport, England. In the hours after the stabbing, False claims that the attacker was a Muslim immigrant without papers, quickly spread online.

In a report that is viewed according to the riots, a parliamentary committee said that a lack of information from the authorities after the attack “created a vacuum where wrong information could grow.” The report blamed the decades of British laws, aimed at preventing jury advantage, which the police prevented from correcting false claims.

By the time the police announced that the suspect had been born in British, those false claims had reached millions.

The Home Affairs Committee, which brings together legislators from the entire political spectrum, published its report after questioning police chiefs, government officials and care providers for four months of hearings.

Axel Rudakubana, who was sentenced to life in prison For the attack, was born and raised in Great Britain by a Christian family from Rwanda. A judge later discovered that there was no evidence that he was driven by a single political or religious ideologybut was obsessed with violence.

Karen Bradley, the legislator of the Conservative Party leading the Home Affairs Committee, said that “Bad Trouw actors” exploited the attack. But she added that a lack of accurate information could spread lies.

“By not making it known to make information known to the public,” she said, “false claims filled the gap and flourished online, thereby further undermining confidence in the police and the government.”

The committee’s report has indicated two false claims that were shared on X. One, posted about two hours after the attack, claimed that the suspect was a “Muslim immigrant.” It received more than 3.8 million views.

The second, posted about five hours later, wrongly suggested that the suspect was an asylum seeker called “Ali-AL-Shakati” who was on a “Mi6 watch list”. The post received about 27 million views on X within a day. The police of Merseyside, the local force that the attack investigated, did not announce that the name was wrong until noon on 30 July.

Hours later the first riot from Southport broke out. The condition took place in several villages and towns, and many protests were aimed at mosques and hotels with asylum seekers. Two buildings were set on fire while people were inside. More than 300 police officers were injured during the riots, and the reaction cost the police an estimated 28 million pounds, or around $ 36 million, according to the report.

It added that the Merseyside police were “placed in a very difficult position” because they were not legally excluded from revealing the identity of the suspect and received “inconsistent advice” from prosecutors about whether they could confirm that he was not a Muslim.

The committee’s report acknowledged that it was impossible to determine “whether the condition could have been prevented, more information was published.”

But it concluded that the lack of information after the stabbing “created a vacuum where wrong information could grow, which further undermined the public trust, and that the law on contempt was not” suitable for the age of social media. “

In Great Britain, a law prohibits the naming of suspects under the age of 18, unless a judge makes an exception. Mr. Rudakubana was 17 at the time of the attack. Another law, designed to protect the right to a fair trial, prohibits the publication of information that a jury could influence. That rule, part of the contempt of the 1981 court law, is canceled as soon as a suspect is found guilty or innocent.

Serena Kennedy, the most important agent of Merseyside, told the committee that the police revealed on the evening of July 29 that the attacker was born in Wales, but the wrong information had already spread.

Mrs. Kennedy said she was planning to make an announcement two days later, so that Mr. Rudakubana was not a Muslim and that his parents were Christians. After he has informed the Crown Prosecution Service, the body told that criminal prosecution in England entails, an official told her that the information should not be made public, she said.

“This case emphasizes why we should look at how we deal with information from information to the public, while we also ensure that we do not influence the process of criminal law,” said Mrs. Kennedy, adding that disifify laws do not “take into account where we are in terms of the impact of social media.”

In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said that although an official expressed ‘other views’ about the disclosure of Mr Rudakubana’s religion, they did not tell the police that it would prescribe a jury.

The declaration added: “We support proposals for the reform of the law that will make the application of Division legislation clearer and easier – especially when linked to increased matters of general public interest, such as public security or national security.”

Since the Southport attack, the Law Commission of England and Wales have been revising the contempt of the court law.