Lucy Connolly appeal Rejected

Yes, I know what you mean - it's interesting if we can detach from the horror of the incident.

I think she is just a racist. There is no other explanation that makes sense to me.

Allira

Fair enough and a well-reasoned post, Doodledog.
Suggesting that mothers who lose children are prone to that sort of behaviour is an insult to the many women who suffer their losses without inciting others to murder.
No, it is not, as we don't know the exact circumstances of anyone's loss. You don't know mine, I don't know yours and some women may have PTSD, unresolved anger issues and have required counselling which they did not receive. Others may cope better.

I was musing as to why she acted as she did and did say she was wrong, what she did was shocking but apparently discussion is verboten by some posters.

Go on then! Name and shame! Which posters on this thread have tried to stop discussion? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if I'm one of the "some posters". If that's the case, I haven't tried to shut anybody down. I have stated my reasons for thinking as I do. I'm sure anybody advocating free speech would agree that I have every right to do that.

Doodledog

'Some posters'?

I am not forbidding (is that 'verboten'?) discussion, just giving an opinion. I know women who have lost children, and they wouldn't use that as an excuse for anything much. Crying at nativity plays or similar, maybe, but not murder or incitement thereto.

You are right that we don't know anyone's circumstances, but the judge knew LC's, and took account of it (see Wyllow's posts for detail) and still decided that a custodial sentence was appropriate. How can we on this thread assume that we know more than the judge?

No, not you.

I do not condone what she did, but it intrigues me to know why people act as they do.

'Some posters'?

I am not forbidding (is that 'verboten'?) discussion, just giving an opinion. I know women who have lost children, and they wouldn't use that as an excuse for anything much. Crying at nativity plays or similar, maybe, but not murder or incitement thereto.

You are right that we don't know anyone's circumstances, but the judge knew LC's, and took account of it (see Wyllow's posts for detail) and still decided that a custodial sentence was appropriate. How can we on this thread assume that we know more than the judge?

Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty on the advice of counsel in order to receive a lesser sentence. In what way is that a mistake Oreo?
She committed a serious offence, she was sentenced according to guidelines. People, including mothers suffer trauma, it doesn’t lead them to post incitement to burn people alive

Fair enough and a well-reasoned post, Doodledog.
Suggesting that mothers who lose children are prone to that sort of behaviour is an insult to the many women who suffer their losses without inciting others to murder.
No, it is not, as we don't know the exact circumstances of anyone's loss. You don't know mine, I don't know yours and some women may have PTSD, unresolved anger issues and have required counselling which they did not receive. Others may cope better.

I was musing as to why she acted as she did and did say she was wrong, what she did was shocking but apparently discussion is verboten by some posters.

eazybee

All the gathering support, culminating in American intervention, is working against Lucy Connolly. I doubt very much that Starmer will do another u-turn; he seems to be taking a personal interest with another statement released today, I think.
Best let the publicity subside and concentrate on a possible natural reduction of her sentence for good behaviour.

I agree, I think it is not only working against Lucy Connelly, but very very much, her daughter.

Imagine her situation at school and the constant glare of publicity and the situation just gets more and more crazy when Trump starts climbing on the bandwagon.

In the US which is trying to abolish Habeas Corpus - oh the irony - we're hearing

"A spokesman for the state department said: “We can confirm that we are monitoring this matter.

“The United States supports freedom of expression at home and abroad, and remains concerned about infringements on freedom of expression.”

Of course Starmer had to respond to that as in its up to the courts. If he hadnt we'd have had the usual circus.He's the PM - it wasn't a "personal interest" to comment on a move by POTUS.

I challenge anyone to read the report of the appeal but argue it was not conducted with due care for her circumstances and fully in accordance with UK law.

As said, she will likely be out in August - if people just let her get on with serving the sentence and for all the political gerrymandering die down and she and her family might then be able to get on with life.

Is it really good for them all for her to come out of prison with the press and fgs the USA surrounding the family and any chance of resuming a family life where it left off?

being able to work again as a childminder after all this glare in the spotlight?

If she hadn't tried to challenge the sentence (and I most definitely believe she was at least partly pushed into it to try and point score on freedom of speech, not meet her and her families needs) she might have worked instead towards consideration with prison authorities to be released even earlier with a leg or wristband...

Allira I don't think she'd ever been charged before but the police found the previous messages and I'm assuming they were taken into account. They were certainly included in the appeal case which is where I found them, all in the official court documents. I'm absolutely for keeping people out of jail if at all possible and under the newly proposed sentencing regime, I doubt she'd have got a custodial sentence but she did more than just post racist tweets and frankly seems to have shown little contrition, which won't have helped her appeal.

I agree, we may post daft stuff. Hard to imagine this mentality though. It wasn't a moment of madness either.

lafergar

For God's sake many , many people suffer hideous trauma, including the loss of a child.

Does that make them incite violence against people in shared accomodation? At a time when a cool head was needed.

Its insane.

It is. I think most people who post on SM a lot will have said things they've regretted. I know I have. Sometimes people have had a few drinks, sometimes they are in a bad mood, sometimes the person they are replying to has rubbed them up the wrong way, and there are some extremely antagonistic people in some parts of the internet.

If the forum they are posting on allows, they can delete or edit their posts, and if not, depending on their personality they might apologise, or lie low for a while. Some double down and insist they are right, and others reinvent themselves and come back under a new name.

If the site is moderated, people get suspended, or, if they sail close to the legal wind might even get banned if they ignore warnings.

I have been round the block a few times when it comes to discussion boards. I've posted, moderated and been admin, but I have never come even slightly close to seeing someone advocate burning people alive in their place of refuge. This wasn't 'just' a distressed woman mourning her lost child. It wasn't 'just' a maudlin or argumentative drunk, or someone with some sort of personality disorder (although all of those things may have also applied). It was a vicious, racist incitement to violence and murder, and it was rightly dealt with by the law.

The fact that LC was a mother is not relevant, and the fact that she is a councillor's wife is even less so. She knew her post was racist, and said she didn't care. She knew she could be prosecuted, and said she would 'play the MH card'. She knew exactly what she was doing, and she was doing it at a time when emotions were running high already, because of misinformation about the man who murdered those poor little girls.

Suggesting that mothers who lose children are prone to that sort of behaviour is an insult to the many women who suffer their losses without inciting others to murder. Luckily, the ones who manage not to behave as LC did form the vast majority of bereaved mothers.

Allira

growstuff

Oreo

I get it growstuff you have no sympathy for her whatsoever.
Some do and no amount of ‘it was all legal and above board’ or the fact she pleaded guilty ( mistake on her part) affects my or others thinking that she was treated very very harshly.

The opinions of others is none of your business and doesn't support your case. I get it that you support a person's right to incite murder. You have the right to free speech, so you can say that.

What an unpleasant post, growstuff.
It's beneath you.

I do wonder if Lucy Connolly's post, although wrongly targeted and should never have been posted on social media, was triggered by her distress caused by the horrific murders but, once posted on social media, is there for the world to see. Irrational, yes, and one psychiatrist says that her own loss of a child had nothing to do with this. However, how often have psychiatrists disagreed?

She was wrong and is being held up as an example to others to be careful about what they post on social media. It may make others think twice before they post inflammatory, unfounded posts but she is not, in fact, the only person to do this.

No, it's not beneath me - don't try to gaslight me.

Defending Connolly is supporting somebody who incites murder - not the world I want to live in.

Casdon

Allira

growstuff

Oreo

I get it growstuff you have no sympathy for her whatsoever.
Some do and no amount of ‘it was all legal and above board’ or the fact she pleaded guilty ( mistake on her part) affects my or others thinking that she was treated very very harshly.

The opinions of others is none of your business and doesn't support your case. I get it that you support a person's right to incite murder. You have the right to free speech, so you can say that.

What an unpleasant post, growstuff.
It's beneath you.

I do wonder if Lucy Connolly's post, although wrongly targeted and should never have been posted on social media, was triggered by her distress caused by the horrific murders but, once posted on social media, is there for the world to see. Irrational, yes, and one psychiatrist says that her own loss of a child had nothing to do with this. However, how often have psychiatrists disagreed?

She was wrong and is being held up as an example to others to be careful about what they post on social media. It may make others think twice before they post inflammatory, unfounded posts but she is not, in fact, the only person to do this.

A number of others were also imprisoned at the same time for similar offences. She has been chosen by a section of the media as a ‘cause’, to make a point to suit a specific political agenda.

Exactly! Connolly hasn't been held up as an example to be careful or for any political reason. She's been held up by a certain section of the media as part of their own agenda, which is political.

foxie48

Allira LC had posted a number of really horrible messages on social media before these children were killed and these vile messages were part of the prosecution's case against her. That's the really awful thing about this case, she used the deaths of innocent children to spread the hatred that she was already demonstrating. Not a one off!

Thanks foxie48

Was she charged with the previous offences too? Usually previous offences are not disclosed in court except in exceptional circumstances, as they could prejudice the case.

Allira

growstuff

Oreo

I get it growstuff you have no sympathy for her whatsoever.
Some do and no amount of ‘it was all legal and above board’ or the fact she pleaded guilty ( mistake on her part) affects my or others thinking that she was treated very very harshly.

The opinions of others is none of your business and doesn't support your case. I get it that you support a person's right to incite murder. You have the right to free speech, so you can say that.

What an unpleasant post, growstuff.
It's beneath you.

I do wonder if Lucy Connolly's post, although wrongly targeted and should never have been posted on social media, was triggered by her distress caused by the horrific murders but, once posted on social media, is there for the world to see. Irrational, yes, and one psychiatrist says that her own loss of a child had nothing to do with this. However, how often have psychiatrists disagreed?

She was wrong and is being held up as an example to others to be careful about what they post on social media. It may make others think twice before they post inflammatory, unfounded posts but she is not, in fact, the only person to do this.

A number of others were also imprisoned at the same time for similar offences. She has been chosen by a section of the media as a ‘cause’, to make a point to suit a specific political agenda.

Allira LC had posted a number of really horrible messages on social media before these children were killed and these vile messages were part of the prosecution's case against her. That's the really awful thing about this case, she used the deaths of innocent children to spread the hatred that she was already demonstrating. Not a one off!

She was wrong

Oh sorry, are you running the show then?

Do not for God's sake at me, thank you very much.

For God's sake many , many people suffer hideous trauma, including the loss of a child.

Does that make them incite violence against people in shared accomodation? At a time when a cool head was needed.

Its insane.

growstuff

Oreo

I get it growstuff you have no sympathy for her whatsoever.
Some do and no amount of ‘it was all legal and above board’ or the fact she pleaded guilty ( mistake on her part) affects my or others thinking that she was treated very very harshly.

The opinions of others is none of your business and doesn't support your case. I get it that you support a person's right to incite murder. You have the right to free speech, so you can say that.

What an unpleasant post, growstuff.
It's beneath you.

I do wonder if Lucy Connolly's post, although wrongly targeted and should never have been posted on social media, was triggered by her distress caused by the horrific murders but, once posted on social media, is there for the world to see. Irrational, yes, and one psychiatrist says that her own loss of a child had nothing to do with this. However, how often have psychiatrists disagreed?

She was wrong and is being held up as an example to others to be careful about what they post on social media. It may make others think twice before they post inflammatory, unfounded posts but she is not, in fact, the only person to do this.

foxie48

Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty because she was guilty. She was given the best advice by her barrister which meant she had a reduction in her sentence. She was not treated harshly, she was treated fairly and according to the law. No, I don't have any sympathy for her. I do have sympathy for her daughter though. I can't imagine what it must be like to have a mother who harbours such hate for others and shares it on public forums. As a mother I felt so sad for the mothers of the children who died, it was an appalling act of violence committed against innocent children, however, it did not for one second make me want to incite hatred towards a group of people who clearly had nothing to do with this dreadful event. What sort of person does that?

Well said Foxie.

Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty because she was guilty. She was given the best advice by her barrister which meant she had a reduction in her sentence. She was not treated harshly, she was treated fairly and according to the law. No, I don't have any sympathy for her. I do have sympathy for her daughter though. I can't imagine what it must be like to have a mother who harbours such hate for others and shares it on public forums. As a mother I felt so sad for the mothers of the children who died, it was an appalling act of violence committed against innocent children, however, it did not for one second make me want to incite hatred towards a group of people who clearly had nothing to do with this dreadful event. What sort of person does that?

You never know with Starmer eazybee as he seems to blow with the wind 💨
She has less than three months now to serve and unlikely that anything will now happen in her favour but yer never know!

All the gathering support, culminating in American intervention, is working against Lucy Connolly. I doubt very much that Starmer will do another u-turn; he seems to be taking a personal interest with another statement released today, I think.
Best let the publicity subside and concentrate on a possible natural reduction of her sentence for good behaviour.

Oreo

I get it growstuff you have no sympathy for her whatsoever.
Some do and no amount of ‘it was all legal and above board’ or the fact she pleaded guilty ( mistake on her part) affects my or others thinking that she was treated very very harshly.

The opinions of others is none of your business and doesn't support your case. I get it that you support a person's right to incite murder. You have the right to free speech, so you can say that.