A deadly attack led to riots, fuelled by falsehoods. The police were smeared for doing their jobs. And those who spread the lies that made Southport burn—from anonymous websites to billionaires—are still unchecked. It’s time for a digital watchdog with real power.
Why should ‘influencers’ get away with the lies that made Southport burn? And be in no doubt: Southport burned because of a lie.
On July 29, 2024, three young girls—Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe, and Alice da Silva Aguiar—were killed in a brutal attack during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class.
The attacker, Axel Rudakubana, was not a Muslim.
He was not an asylum seeker.
But that didn’t stop false claims from spreading like wildfire online.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
Within hours, a website called Channel3Now falsely claimed Rudakubana was a refugee with extremist ties. It was entirely made up—but the consequences were all too real.
Far-right mobs attacked asylum hotels, mosques, community centres and even public libraries. People were injured. Property was torched. The police, faced with coordinated violence, stepped in.
And then came the next lie.
High-profile right-wing voices began accusing the police of “two-tier policing”—claiming they cracked down on far-right rioters more harshly than they would have on left-wing protesters.
The biggest megaphone came from Elon Musk, owner of the very platform where most of the misinformation had flourished.
He dubbed the Prime Minister “Two-tier Keir” and used his reach to amplify conspiracy theories that undermined the legitimacy of the police response.
But this week, a report from the Home Affairs Select Committee debunks all of it.
The claim that rioters were targeted because of their politics? False.
The idea that the attacker was a Muslim or asylum seeker? False.
And the suggestion that police overreacted? Laughable, given they were being pelted with missiles and dealing with arson.
“Those participating in disorder were not policed more strongly because of their supposed political views,” the report states, “but because they were throwing missiles, assaulting police officers and committing arson.”
And yet—those who helped stoke the violence and spread the lies are still walking free. Still tweeting. Still influencing.
Different rules for different people
If any ordinary person had spread lies that led to riots, they would likely have been banned from social media—or worse. Yet the powerful operate under a completely different set of rules.
Elon Musk owns X (formerly Twitter), so he doesn’t just post on the platform—he defines what is or isn’t considered a breach of its rules.
That’s how he can spread dangerous disinformation without fear of moderation.
Contrast that with what happens to small, independent voices: shadow-banning, throttled reach, accounts suspended for minor infractions or even simply reporting truth that cuts against platform bias. This Writer knows about these measures because they have been used against Vox Political.
It is a digital class system. And the Southport case proves just how dangerous that imbalance can be.
This isn’t about censorship—it’s about accountability
Some will scream “free speech,” but let’s be clear: misinformation that incites violence isn’t free speech—it’s public harm. And when those lies come from massively influential accounts, the impact is exponential.
A recent academic paper from the LSE describes this tactic as “reverse victimization”—where the far right positions itself as the real victim, even when it’s responsible for spreading hate and triggering chaos.
We saw that exact tactic play out in the aftermath of Southport.
The claim of “two-tier policing” wasn’t just wrong—it was a calculated attempt to discredit the very people trying to keep the peace.
We need an independent digital watchdog—with real power
The solution? Not government censorship. Not corporate control. But a truly independent watchdog, backed by law and transparent in its governance. Here’s what it would look like:
-
Independent from government and corporations: No ministers, no shareholders—just a mix of legal experts, tech professionals, civil society reps and randomly selected citizens (like jury duty for the internet).
-
Legally empowered: Able to enforce rules on platforms operating in the UK, with fines, content restrictions, and public transparency mandates.
-
Transparent moderation: Platforms must publish decisions, notify users when content is removed or throttled, and allow appeals.
-
Equal standards for all: Whether you’re a billionaire, a journalist, or an activist—rules apply equally.
-
Oversight of algorithms: To ensure content amplification isn’t biased toward sensationalism or political manipulation.
-
Covers all misinformation—human and AI: As deepfakes and synthetic content rise, the watchdog must be equipped to deal with AI-generated lies, too.
This isn’t about silencing anyone. It’s about restoring balance, fairness, and accountability to the public square—something that’s been missing for far too long.
Regulation isn’t the enemy of business—it’s the only way to protect it
Keir Starmer has recently been making the case for de-regulation as the key to boosting British business.
But when it comes to social media platforms, the lack of regulation is actively suppressing trade—especially for small, independent publishers like Vox Political (and you may consider that a declaration of interest).
Social media is now the primary route through which news reaches the public.
But if a platform like X or Facebook decides—through automated systems or politically motivated moderation—that your content should be hidden, throttled, or buried beneath corporate fluff, you lose income, visibility, and access to your audience.
No warning. No explanation. No appeal.
This isn’t a “free market”—it’s an unregulated monopoly, where a handful of tech giants can decide who sinks and who survives. If you’re outside the mainstream, critical of the powerful, or reliant on crowdfunding and reader reach, you’re out of luck.
Proper regulation wouldn’t kill business. It would level the playing field.
Independent media outlets, especially those doing real investigative work, need fair access to the digital public square.
That doesn’t just serve democracy—it serves the economy too.
A watchdog wouldn’t stifle innovation; it would stop abuse, bias, and the algorithmic rigging that currently holds independent journalism hostage.
So if Starmer wants to support business, he should start by protecting small media from the tech platforms that are quietly putting them out of business.
The Southport riots can’t be allowed to repeat
The people who spread lies about the Southport attacker, then smeared the police for doing their jobs, have not faced consequences.
That’s not just unjust—it’s dangerous.
What happens when the next lie circulates? The next violent mob forms? The next public servant is accused, harassed, or assaulted for doing what’s right?
If nothing changes, the cycle will repeat. And each time, trust in institutions, truth, and each other erodes a little more.
It’s time to draw a line. Not with censorship, but with accountable, transparent regulation. If the government won’t do it, the public must demand it.
Write to your MP and demand an independent digital regulator. If we don’t hold influencers and platforms accountable, this will happen again.
Because the question isn’t just, “Why did Southport burn?”
It’s: “Why are the people who started the fire still being allowed to play with matches?”
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Why should ‘influencers’ get away with the lies that made Southport burn?
A deadly attack led to riots, fuelled by falsehoods. The police were smeared for doing their jobs. And those who spread the lies that made Southport burn—from anonymous websites to billionaires—are still unchecked. It’s time for a digital watchdog with real power.
Why should ‘influencers’ get away with the lies that made Southport burn? And be in no doubt: Southport burned because of a lie.
On July 29, 2024, three young girls—Bebe King, Elsie Dot Stancombe, and Alice da Silva Aguiar—were killed in a brutal attack during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class.
The attacker, Axel Rudakubana, was not a Muslim.
He was not an asylum seeker.
But that didn’t stop false claims from spreading like wildfire online.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
Within hours, a website called Channel3Now falsely claimed Rudakubana was a refugee with extremist ties. It was entirely made up—but the consequences were all too real.
Far-right mobs attacked asylum hotels, mosques, community centres and even public libraries. People were injured. Property was torched. The police, faced with coordinated violence, stepped in.
And then came the next lie.
High-profile right-wing voices began accusing the police of “two-tier policing”—claiming they cracked down on far-right rioters more harshly than they would have on left-wing protesters.
The biggest megaphone came from Elon Musk, owner of the very platform where most of the misinformation had flourished.
He dubbed the Prime Minister “Two-tier Keir” and used his reach to amplify conspiracy theories that undermined the legitimacy of the police response.
But this week, a report from the Home Affairs Select Committee debunks all of it.
The claim that rioters were targeted because of their politics? False.
The idea that the attacker was a Muslim or asylum seeker? False.
And the suggestion that police overreacted? Laughable, given they were being pelted with missiles and dealing with arson.
And yet—those who helped stoke the violence and spread the lies are still walking free. Still tweeting. Still influencing.
Different rules for different people
If any ordinary person had spread lies that led to riots, they would likely have been banned from social media—or worse. Yet the powerful operate under a completely different set of rules.
Elon Musk owns X (formerly Twitter), so he doesn’t just post on the platform—he defines what is or isn’t considered a breach of its rules.
That’s how he can spread dangerous disinformation without fear of moderation.
Contrast that with what happens to small, independent voices: shadow-banning, throttled reach, accounts suspended for minor infractions or even simply reporting truth that cuts against platform bias. This Writer knows about these measures because they have been used against Vox Political.
It is a digital class system. And the Southport case proves just how dangerous that imbalance can be.
This isn’t about censorship—it’s about accountability
Some will scream “free speech,” but let’s be clear: misinformation that incites violence isn’t free speech—it’s public harm. And when those lies come from massively influential accounts, the impact is exponential.
A recent academic paper from the LSE describes this tactic as “reverse victimization”—where the far right positions itself as the real victim, even when it’s responsible for spreading hate and triggering chaos.
We saw that exact tactic play out in the aftermath of Southport.
The claim of “two-tier policing” wasn’t just wrong—it was a calculated attempt to discredit the very people trying to keep the peace.
We need an independent digital watchdog—with real power
The solution? Not government censorship. Not corporate control. But a truly independent watchdog, backed by law and transparent in its governance. Here’s what it would look like:
Independent from government and corporations: No ministers, no shareholders—just a mix of legal experts, tech professionals, civil society reps and randomly selected citizens (like jury duty for the internet).
Legally empowered: Able to enforce rules on platforms operating in the UK, with fines, content restrictions, and public transparency mandates.
Transparent moderation: Platforms must publish decisions, notify users when content is removed or throttled, and allow appeals.
Equal standards for all: Whether you’re a billionaire, a journalist, or an activist—rules apply equally.
Oversight of algorithms: To ensure content amplification isn’t biased toward sensationalism or political manipulation.
Covers all misinformation—human and AI: As deepfakes and synthetic content rise, the watchdog must be equipped to deal with AI-generated lies, too.
This isn’t about silencing anyone. It’s about restoring balance, fairness, and accountability to the public square—something that’s been missing for far too long.
Regulation isn’t the enemy of business—it’s the only way to protect it
Keir Starmer has recently been making the case for de-regulation as the key to boosting British business.
But when it comes to social media platforms, the lack of regulation is actively suppressing trade—especially for small, independent publishers like Vox Political (and you may consider that a declaration of interest).
Social media is now the primary route through which news reaches the public.
But if a platform like X or Facebook decides—through automated systems or politically motivated moderation—that your content should be hidden, throttled, or buried beneath corporate fluff, you lose income, visibility, and access to your audience.
No warning. No explanation. No appeal.
This isn’t a “free market”—it’s an unregulated monopoly, where a handful of tech giants can decide who sinks and who survives. If you’re outside the mainstream, critical of the powerful, or reliant on crowdfunding and reader reach, you’re out of luck.
Proper regulation wouldn’t kill business. It would level the playing field.
Independent media outlets, especially those doing real investigative work, need fair access to the digital public square.
That doesn’t just serve democracy—it serves the economy too.
A watchdog wouldn’t stifle innovation; it would stop abuse, bias, and the algorithmic rigging that currently holds independent journalism hostage.
So if Starmer wants to support business, he should start by protecting small media from the tech platforms that are quietly putting them out of business.
The Southport riots can’t be allowed to repeat
The people who spread lies about the Southport attacker, then smeared the police for doing their jobs, have not faced consequences.
That’s not just unjust—it’s dangerous.
What happens when the next lie circulates? The next violent mob forms? The next public servant is accused, harassed, or assaulted for doing what’s right?
If nothing changes, the cycle will repeat. And each time, trust in institutions, truth, and each other erodes a little more.
It’s time to draw a line. Not with censorship, but with accountable, transparent regulation. If the government won’t do it, the public must demand it.
Write to your MP and demand an independent digital regulator. If we don’t hold influencers and platforms accountable, this will happen again.
Because the question isn’t just, “Why did Southport burn?”
It’s: “Why are the people who started the fire still being allowed to play with matches?”
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
you might also like
A good day’s work: Lying and libellous plots to attack Jeremy Corbyn seem set to fail
Bryant gets burnt over ‘gammon’ gag
The twisted logic of Jonathan Sacks