Lucy Connolly appeal Rejected

25Avalon

Wyllow3

I agree about Huw Edwards but we cant compare different crimes, its up to the criminal justice system - perhaps to take his crimes more seriously.

I also think Avalon there should be no "let or right" in justice.

But the court, on the sentencing appeal, did very much take her circumstances into account. I posted this a couple of pages back
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf

Its the full court report and not too long, but it gives considerable time to psychiatrists reports and the personal circumstances and does specifically recognise it in the sentence.

I have read all of that Wyllow3 and like most legal cases it is not that simple with several nuances. The judge said from the start however that it was about punishing and deterring. I doubt that Connolly’s remarks did actually incite the riots that then ensued but the fact that there were violent protests and riots did her case no good.

Losing a child in the circumstances that Lucy Connolly did can indeed change you and leave you with anger that can resurface. That anger does, however, need to be controlled or we cease to be a civilised society. The public see compassion extended to others but that was never going to be applied in this case from the start because there were too many very violent riots threatening the fabric of society. It is a very sad case really. I would have liked to see more compassion now things have quietened down. Or have they? The authorities must be very concerned that there are no repeats so it’s the deterrent aspect.

Good comments 😃

I suppose none of us really know what was going on behind the scenes post the Southport tragedy. Like so much news, it is edited.
Terribly sad the tragedy and the ensuing outpouring of abuse and hatred.

👍

Inciting violence - a prison sentence.

Participating in the abuse of small children even if by viewing child pornography - a slap on the wrist.

🤔

Inciting racially motivated violence carries a greater sentence than inciting violence because of the dangers of hate crimes like anti semitism and anti muslim sentiments.

Certainly its time to review sentences as regards child pornography.

Allira

Inciting violence - a prison sentence.

Participating in the abuse of small children even if by viewing child pornography - a slap on the wrist.

🤔

I happen to agree that viewing child porn deserves a tougher sentence. However, judges don't play Top Trumps. The judge in the Lucy Connolly case followed sentencing guidelines and the appeal court upheld that decision after she entered a guilty plea.

What grounds did she have for appeal? Do people really think that others should have the freedom to incite racial hatred? A psychiatric report was prepared before the original sentencing and, while not denying that she was traumatised by the death of her son 12 years ago, there was no reason to suggest that it affected her mental health to the extent that racial hatred was justified.

She knew very well that her Tweet was racist, but she thought she was justified. Other examples of racism were found, so her opinions can't be denied. She "joked" that she would play the mental health card if found guilty, which suggests cynicism on her part.

She and her husband were well-known figures in the community and her Tweet was viewed thousands of times. Nobody knows whether that encouraged others in the ensuing violent episodes.

The US have become involved now with Charlie Kirk, whoever he may be, accusing the UK of eroding a person's right to free speech. I would think they have quite enough to be going on with in the US.

Sarnia

The US have become involved now with Charlie Kirk, whoever he may be, accusing the UK of eroding a person's right to free speech. I would think they have quite enough to be going on with in the US.

He's the founder of Turning Point USA, which promotes "conervative" politics.

*conservative

Sarnia

The US have become involved now with Charlie Kirk, whoever he may be, accusing the UK of eroding a person's right to free speech. I would think they have quite enough to be going on with in the US.

Ha, yes he really needs to look at the erosion of free speech across many areas of his own country - on university campuses; in the White House Oval Office to name just two places!

Allira

Inciting violence - a prison sentence.

Participating in the abuse of small children even if by viewing child pornography - a slap on the wrist.

🤔

Huw has friends in the right places. Dreadful.

LizzieDrip

Sarnia

The US have become involved now with Charlie Kirk, whoever he may be, accusing the UK of eroding a person's right to free speech. I would think they have quite enough to be going on with in the US.

Ha, yes he really needs to look at the erosion of free speech across many areas of his own country - on university campuses; in the White House Oval Office to name just two places!

University campuses are Charlie Kirk's main focus. His concern is for the right kind of free speech.

lafergar

Allira

Inciting violence - a prison sentence.

Participating in the abuse of small children even if by viewing child pornography - a slap on the wrist.

🤔

Huw has friends in the right places. Dreadful.

Off topic I know but there's a move to refrain from calling photographs and videos of the sexual abuse of children 'child pornography' The children are not willing participants, they are being used and abused by the most depraved men. Viewing these images is not such a lesser crime than the originator's, without the demand there'd be no point creating them. Judges who are giving suspended sentences to offenders with thousands of much worse images than those in Huw Edward's possession need close examination in my opinion. Too many of the convicted have come from positions of influence and power.

Thank you Rosie, I ‘d planned to make a similar request, in fact I will.

Language matters. We should never use ‘child pprnography’. We should always refer to child sexual abuse material. There is no such thing as child pornography. Child sexual abuse material is the result of children being groomed, coerced and exploited.
In the UK it’s legal to sell, share adult pornography with other adults (providing it’s nit categorised as extreme). It’s always illegal to make, distribute or possess indecent photographs of a child under age 16.

Adults exploited in this way as children, remain distressed knowing those images continue to be used by sex offenders

As for inciting violence - adults can decide whether or not to be incited to join in.

Rosie51

lafergar

Allira

Inciting violence - a prison sentence.

Participating in the abuse of small children even if by viewing child pornography - a slap on the wrist.

🤔

Huw has friends in the right places. Dreadful.

Off topic I know but there's a move to refrain from calling photographs and videos of the sexual abuse of children 'child pornography' The children are not willing participants, they are being used and abused by the most depraved men. Viewing these images is not such a lesser crime than the originator's, without the demand there'd be no point creating them. Judges who are giving suspended sentences to offenders with thousands of much worse images than those in Huw Edward's possession need close examination in my opinion. Too many of the convicted have come from positions of influence and power.

I agree.

You are right, I will try to remember that, Iam64.

Allira

As for inciting violence - adults can decide whether or not to be incited to join in.

Quite right Allira

Allira

As for inciting violence - adults can decide whether or not to be incited to join in.

A number of the people prosecuted after the Southport attacks were under 16 ie not adults.

Easily led, but they were not being forced into depravity by adult men against their will.

Allira

Easily led, but they were not being forced into depravity by adult men against their will.

Yes, easily led, as are some adults. Do some research into the history of propaganda and herd/mob mentality.

There wouldn't be a law on incitement to racial violence were it not necessary.

There is a history of being incited, hence, the law.

Clearly some adults are incited.

The "why's" are more complex. all of us carry around different POV, different psychologies, backgrounds as to whether we are more or less inclined to be incited. Some are inclined to follow people they agree with, even to violence, others not so.

Some people have an emotional response, others a rational one.

It's being human. Often it's like a rock that rolls and gathers moss and reaches a critical point, it just needs a trigger, a series of triggers, and words can be very powerful at crucial points.

The riots were organised mainly online, (probably by phone in friendship circles).

The laws are there to protect the public at large from violence of different kinds and thank goodness they are. Provoked by and for a whole different number of reasons, and words, insults, decisions to post hateful views, part of that.

Domestic violence. Political violence. Street violence. Hate based violence. Knife violence. Alcohol or drug induced violenceThrowing fire bombs.

So yes, adults can decide whether to act on triggers of various kinds, but as I pointed out above, there is the necessity for laws to protect us all, and these were acted on.

Allira

Easily led, but they were not being forced into depravity by adult men against their will.

Why only adult "men"?

I doubt I will say anything that hasn't been said already, but I think that anyone calling for burning down buildings with people in them deserves prison, and those calling for that to happen to people of particular races or religions even more so.

Free speech means being able to criticise laws or speeches or points of view - it does not mean inciting violence or racial hatred, and it never has.

The whole 'two tier' mantra that is being parroted now is just a reaction to a harder line on such incitement to murder. If
immigrants suggested setting fire to a building housing 'white people' they would fall foul of the same laws and would be punished accordingly.

I agree that child abuse is serious and that the likes of HE should have much harsher sentences (and have said so on here). That is irrelevant to sentencing on racism though, as AFAIK HE was not found guilty of racist crimes.

I think you and I want to live in the same kind of society Doodledog.

Why would anyone believe that it's ok to incite others to burn down buildings with people in them? That's what I can't understand. Why would anyone defend the right of someone to do that in the name of "free speech"? Why do people think it's appropriate to use the argument of "free speech" to protect people who are threatening the right of others to be safe from violent rioting? This vile woman knew exactly what she was doing and deserved to be punished, why would anyone try to defend her?