Lucy Connolly appeal Rejected

You’re right there Galaxy my answer is NO.I shall ignore any poster telling me to go elsewhere.
Free speech anyone?

Galaxy

They are being told to go and post about it on another thread. The answer if it was me ( am sure Oreo can speak for herself) would be no.

Not at all! Just pointing out that comments are irrelevant and might elicit more responses if they had a thread of their own. Stop making stuff up!

Doodledog

Galaxy

Or alternatively carry on posting what you like within the guidelines.

Everyone is posting what they like within the guidelines, and that includes pointing out that there is a lot of false equivalence in comparing (eg) Huw Edwards to Lucy Connolly.

That's the point. Most of know what the guidelines and ethos of GN are. Maybe we don't know the guidelines to the letter, but it's relatively rare for somebody to overstep the mark, so there must be some kind of awareness. We know we don't have "free speech" to give our honest opinions of other posters, for example. It doesn't matter that we all have usernames and post online. As a result, GN is relatively civilised, especially when compared with some other social media sites. We don't have threads with hundreds of posts just slinging insults, using ever increasing obscene language.

Nationally, there are also "guidelines" enshrined in law, so that society can function relatively harmoniously. Lucy Connolly broke the law by inciting murder and is paying the price. I have no sympathy for her.

They are being told to go and post about it on another thread. The answer if it was me ( am sure Oreo can speak for herself) would be no.

On the news this morning it had an item on The White House is monitoring the Lucy Connolly case amid concerns regarding free speech

Apparently there are items in several newspapers this morning.

Hasn’t he got enough troubles without interfering in U.K. affairs?

Galaxy

Or alternatively carry on posting what you like within the guidelines.

Everyone is posting what they like within the guidelines, and that includes pointing out that there is a lot of false equivalence in comparing (eg) Huw Edwards to Lucy Connolly.

Galaxy

Or alternatively carry on posting what you like within the guidelines.

Or do both!

Or alternatively carry on posting what you like within the guidelines.

Oreo

Well, we will never agree on this will we.I don’t believe mentioning other crimes and sentences is a distraction at all to this case, more a case of ‘the law is an ass’. I read just yesterday that a rapist got a 21 month suspended sentence, does anyone really think this is a lesser crime than than a racist tweet.I could go on, detailing crimes that got a slap on the wrist but won’t bother.
The sentences handed down to many of the people who joined riots last year whilst within the letter of the law were disgraceful in my view.

You'd have judges ignore the law!

Go and start another thread about rapists. This isn't a race to the bottom.

We are not discussing rape or Huw Edwards or any other person are we? Feel free to start a discussion.

I suppose a racist tweet would be something along the lines of " send them back to where they came from"

Suggesting setting fire to temporary accomodation full of people ( women and children) is something else. On its own now, it would be vile but at a time of hysteria it was dangerous.

But it wasn't just a "racist tweet" that's the point . Generally the minimum sentence for rape is 4 years so 21 months suspended seems very odd. Why not post a link or start a new thread about it.

Well, we will never agree on this will we.I don’t believe mentioning other crimes and sentences is a distraction at all to this case, more a case of ‘the law is an ass’. I read just yesterday that a rapist got a 21 month suspended sentence, does anyone really think this is a lesser crime than than a racist tweet.I could go on, detailing crimes that got a slap on the wrist but won’t bother.
The sentences handed down to many of the people who joined riots last year whilst within the letter of the law were disgraceful in my view.

Agreed, Rafichagran. I agree that, as one example amongst many, Huw Edwards should have had a harsher sentence, but that is irrelevant to this case.

Dragging in sentences for different crimes committed by other people is just an attempt to distract from the fact that what LC did was criminal.

Lucy Connollys tweets were offensive, I am pleased her appeal was not allowed.
Arguing that certain other criminals get less jail time is ridiculous she was sentanced according to the law, she should not get less, but maybe other criminals should get more.

Yes I've seen other horrible posts from her

See page 10 which gives details of the tweets the court reported.
Won't repeat them one is so disgusting.

There's a report on the BBC website which includes the tweets that Connolly had made prior to the one which got her imprisoned. They are horrible and really demonstrate what this vile woman thought, just disgusting.
"In his sentencing remarks, external, Judge Melbourne Inman said Connolly's offence was "category A" - meaning "high culpability" - and that both the prosecution and her own barrister agreed she "intended to incite serious violence".

Iam64

No surprise that I’m with Wyllow in not believing gransnet is an appropriate place to crowd fund for a person convicted of a serious offence. Her recent appeal was rejected.

Agreed!

Totally inappropriate to crowd fund on GN for this woman who is, like it or not, a convicted criminal.

No surprise that I’m with Wyllow in not believing gransnet is an appropriate place to crowd fund for a person convicted of a serious offence. Her recent appeal was rejected.

I don't think it's the proper place on GN to advertise a crowdfunding address for such a politically contentious issue. Its not hard to find if people want to contribute but its basically advertising.

Thanks Chardy. It helps to understand the legal framework rather than start implying this woman was wrongly imprisoned

Primrose53

democracythree.org/helplucyconnolly

£93,000 now. A lot of people feel she has been punished enough. As her husband is ill and she has no income, they are in danger of losing their home.

140k now

She could have got 7 years

From Appeal Judge
'It is convenient to note at this stage the statutory provision which creates the offence
with which the applicant was charged. Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 contains
provisions relating to racial hatred. Omitting some words which are irrelevant for
present purposes, section 19 provides:
“19 Publishing or distributing written material
(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which
is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if –
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely
to be stirred up thereby.
…
(3) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of
written material are to its publication or distribution to the public
or a section of the public.”
15. By section 27(3), the maximum penalty for such an offence is 7 years’ imprisonment.'

Her post was viewed over 300,000 times

As they say in the USA. FAFO. Now she understands the consequences. The fact that people have raised all that money for her leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I think you are right, it's being imported. Using and fostering "hurty words" then denying they have an effect.

ABC News finds 54 cases invoking 'Trump' in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults

I think my rhetoric brings people together," he said last year, four days after a 21-year-old allegedly posted an anti-immigrant screed online and then allegedly opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 22 and injuring dozens of others

But a nationwide review conducted by ABC News has identified at least 54 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault.

After a Latino gas station attendant in Gainesville, Florida, was suddenly punched in the head by a white man, the victim could be heard on surveillance camera recounting the attacker’s own words: “He said, ‘This is for Trump.'" Charges were filed but the victim stopped pursuing them.

When police questioned a Washington state man about his threats to kill a local Syrian-born man, the suspect told police he wanted the victim to "get out of my country," adding, "That’s why I like Trump."

Reviewing police reports and court records, ABC News found that in at least 12 cases perpetrators hailed Trump in the midst or immediate aftermath of physically assaulting innocent victims.

In another 18 cases, perpetrators cheered or defended Trump while taunting or threatening others. And in another 10 cases, Trump and his rhetoric were cited in court to explain a defendant's violent or threatening behavior.

there's a good short video

abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889