Lucy Connolly appeal Rejected

I am in total agreement that our prison system needs overhauling, that we lock too many people up and prison is inappropriate and unhelpful for many prisoners, that's not the issue that I have raised. I have questioned why this particular case of a woman inciting others to burn refugees is worthy of a reduction in her sentence. I would have had a little more respect for her if she had shown contrition and an understanding of why what she had done was so absolutely wrong than claiming ignorance of what a guilty plea would entail or for clemency because of what her daughter must be suffering. She is entirely responsible for the predicament that her 12 year old daughter finds herself in, not the police nor the justice system. For the Free speech society to support this odious woman is IMO is appalling. We value our free speech so we can speak truth to power not so we can incite harm to others and then pretend we didn't really mean it although it was one of many vile messages written by this woman.

She is white, she is middle class, she is married to a conservative politician. Of course she had to have a long sentence. I think the whole thing is sickening and unjust and the legal people involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. She is a political prisoner. Of course she did the wrong thing and should have had to attend some sort of re education but not a long,long sentence. China gets criticised for this sort of thing .

I would vote against any party which wanted further controls of social media for adults.

nanna the sentence was not determined by her being white, middle class, whom she married, its determined by law.

I've posted this before, its the complete record of all said at the appeal
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf

(it was the source of my post above about all the tweets Connelly made, ^but also the great care taken to look at her individual circumstances^)

please read it and then say what was "unjust". The sentence she received was at the very lowest end of the crime she pled guilty to. The option of non custodial is not applicable for the charges.

I think that her decision to take it to an appeal on the sentence was "egged on" by the Free Speech Union. Making it a "cause celebre" - did it really help her and her family? It meant all the posts she'd written came out into the public gaze, her child of 12 into a public situation,

The FSU say they supported her, but according to the family the lawyers fees have reduced them to penury.

I do actually feel for them all particularly for the sake of the child at home as I feel she does need some kind of help and hope she gets it despite her remarks about "playing the mental health card".

Galaxy

I would vote against any party which wanted further controls of social media for adults.

I recognise and accept why you feel as you do, (yes really, having read many posts) but are there not vulnerable adults too? In a society that still has so much abuse against women, the misogyny of the Andrew Tates of this world (or lesser but similar figures).

Or the everyday victims of racist hatred, the muslim women that have been spat at, the constant barrage that migrants are all rapists, the conflation of migrants with UK citizens who are not white...

Whilst I think we should have the right to criticise governments and to protest about what we see as injustice, I am not in favour of giving carte blanche to incitement to violence or murder. That is not about freedom of speech, but about criminal behaviour.

The only way you can fight against the likes of tates messaging is through speech. Who would get to decide what social media should be controlled? those who have got the law wrong for 15 years in terms of protecting women, those whose misogyny and homphobia enabled men in women spaces, it was social media that ensured women and gay people had a voice. Always when the state tries to control speech, it ends in disaster, and those who suffer are the most vulnerable.

My post was in reference to a plea for controls of social media, not particularly in relation to lucy connolly.

nanna8

She is white, she is middle class, she is married to a conservative politician. Of course she had to have a long sentence. I think the whole thing is sickening and unjust and the legal people involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. She is a political prisoner. Of course she did the wrong thing and should have had to attend some sort of re education but not a long,long sentence. China gets criticised for this sort of thing .

Absolutely. She is a political prisoner!

I posted earlier on here about a woman with about 30 previous convictions for stealing etc who was caught again by staff at a shop who she then hurled very offensive racist abuse at. She got a suspended sentence.

This whole sentencing business needs a thorough overhaul.

nanna8

She is white, she is middle class, she is married to a conservative politician. Of course she had to have a long sentence. I think the whole thing is sickening and unjust and the legal people involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. She is a political prisoner. Of course she did the wrong thing and should have had to attend some sort of re education but not a long,long sentence. China gets criticised for this sort of thing .

It's not a long, long sentence. It's not even a long sentence. A white, middle class wife of a Conservative should know better and I am glad that she was not child minding any of my family.

I think it is a racist imprisonment.

And to try and demonstrate some impartiality, I deeply dislike Linneker, but I don't want him sacked either , or forced to move on however you want to describe it. It makes me very uncomfortable. I suppose you can argue the BBC are perfectly entitled to have standards of behaviour for presenters but there is something in the authoritarian approach that makes me uneasy.

primrose, you've read in my long post above the really disgusting things she said as reported in the court - and the care taken because of her circumstances.

Was it really the best thing for her - and her family for it all to come out publicly at the appeal and politicise the issue?

As you've said yourself, as nanna did you can't agree it was OK for her to say what she did, and what she said was against the law,

Racist imprisonment? That’s absurd nanna8. The. ‘Legal people’ as you call them are judges following the strict rules of justice in this country.
Just as your judges do the same in your country.

I was further appalled to read her saying that she planned to " play the mental health card".
Like many others, I know someone whose life has been utterly blighted by her poor mental health. Ms Connolly, fit and well I understand, should hang her head in shame for this also: but she doesn't seem to do shame.

There was a psychiatric report (it's mentioned in the full court report) for the original hearing ie the guilty plea in the magistrates court.
However the defence in the magistrates court did not submit it as evidence as it would not have helped in her favour sentence wise.
I still think its a disturbed thing to do to put your family through the appeal knowing what would come out so very publicly in the interests of a political/idological battle in the free speech debate.

Galaxy

And to try and demonstrate some impartiality, I deeply dislike Linneker, but I don't want him sacked either , or forced to move on however you want to describe it. It makes me very uncomfortable. I suppose you can argue the BBC are perfectly entitled to have standards of behaviour for presenters but there is something in the authoritarian approach that makes me uneasy.

The main thing is the BBC has to be seen as impartial. You wouldn't expect someone like Sophie Raworth to post on how great Reform is, and Lineker, who is hired to present football shows, isn't supposed to get into political rows. Obviously both after they've left the BBC can do what they want, but not when they're supposed to be impartial.
Going way back, the radio DJ Pete Murray turned up on Breakfast Time in 1983 and told viewers that voting Labout was a vote for communism, and while Labour were completely unelectable then, he wasn't supposed to use a news programme for his own opinions. Not surprisingly Murray didn't have his show renewed.

nanna8

I think it is a racist imprisonment.

Quite right nanna, she's racist and she's been imprisoned. One of your more sensible opinions.

Doodledog

Whilst I think we should have the right to criticise governments and to protest about what we see as injustice, I am not in favour of giving carte blanche to incitement to violence or murder. That is not about freedom of speech, but about criminal behaviour.

I agree with you. It's been hijacked as a "freedom of speech" issue when it isn't. It's about incitement to murder.

Her Tweet was retweeted by at least one other person, who went a step further and gave advice about what to do and not get caught. That person had already been sentenced to 38 months.

It's naive to think that people don't get into an echo chamber on social media and that words on a screen are just "hurty".

Primrose53

nanna8

She is white, she is middle class, she is married to a conservative politician. Of course she had to have a long sentence. I think the whole thing is sickening and unjust and the legal people involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. She is a political prisoner. Of course she did the wrong thing and should have had to attend some sort of re education but not a long,long sentence. China gets criticised for this sort of thing .

Absolutely. She is a political prisoner!

I posted earlier on here about a woman with about 30 previous convictions for stealing etc who was caught again by staff at a shop who she then hurled very offensive racist abuse at. She got a suspended sentence.

This whole sentencing business needs a thorough overhaul.

Probably true. Personally, I think a more appropriate punishment would have been cleaning toilets in an asylum hotel for 31 months.

nanna

your own laws in Australia are not so very different from ours and include imprisonment for same sort of offence ie racially aggravated incitement

"In Australia, making online threats, especially those with a racial motivation, can be considered a criminal offense. This includes threats to kill or cause serious harm, as well as other forms of online harassment and cyberbullying. These offenses are often addressed under state and federal laws, including the Criminal Code Act and the Online Safety Act, and can carry significant penalties".

www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=law+australia+online+threats+to+murder+racial&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Isn’t it wonderful that we can all air our very different views without resorting to insults.Very rare for SM.

Yes it is rare, I agree. We are more mature perhaps? I think this woman should have had some sort of re education and perhaps a fine, not jail. She lost a child, her daughter is motherless and now living with her grandparents. A tad excessive when you compare it with shorter sentences for child molestation and actual bodily harm. I am certain I wouldn’t particularly like this lady but she has been treated very shoddily and I just hope that horrible man isn’t behind it.

Depending on topic being discussed