Daniel “Tommo” Thomas charged, no bail.

Ownership if not DT's biggest problem. He was not the boat owner.

In UK law, the maximum sentence if convicted of the criminal damage charge and the boot is valued at over £5,000 to replace is 10 years in prison. If convicted of criminal damage and boat valued at under £5k to replace - the jail time could be a fine and three months jail time.

Then there are his other charges.

And he has already been convicted of a crime.

17:23Maremia

'Hurty words'?
Was that the offical charge?
Are you actually aware of what she tweeted?

Google it *Maremia if you are unsure what the offical charge was or the tweet😉

According to Google they don’t. French authorities actively seize smuggling equipment and physically disable small boats on beaches under the current UK-France security agreements. While there is no official "seize and destroy" treaty clause by that exact name, the formal bilateral deals—including a £662 million three-year pact signed in April 2026—explicitly fund and mandate the French police to intercept, seize, and incapacitate vessels before they can successfully cross the English Channel.

Sorry, wrong thread.

No, not the wrong thread just multiple discussions on the same thread.

Yes there are a variety of aggravating factors- as his KC would have advised DT. His KC admitted in court last week a jail term is expected if convicted on this charge alone.

Some other charges DT has admitted. Can't really see how he can justifiably deny failing to provide his mobile PIN to police. He will be on video by body cam on arrest and at the custody sergeant's desk at the police station and in the room in whcih he ws interviewed 🤷‍♀️

According the Crown Prosecution website DT has been charged contrary to the Section 53 RIPA ( Regulation of Investigatory Power Act) 2000, ie for failing to provide his PIN. To issue that charge the Police had to first issue a formal section 49 notice under RIPA then if he refused that go onto more serious charge, ie section 53 RIPA breach.

The maximum penalties for that section 53 charge depends on the seriousness of. the primary charges and what has been found. Eg up to 5 years in prison if underlying investigation relates to national security, terrorism or child exploitation/indecent images of children.

Up to 2 years in prison for standard criminal investigations.

Peacelilydilly

17:23Maremia

'Hurty words'?
Was that the offical charge?
Are you actually aware of what she tweeted?

Google it *Maremia if you are unsure what the offical charge was or the tweet😉

She wasn't charged with 'hurty words" PLD- no such charge exists in UK law. Surely you are aware what she was convicted of?

Not sure how LC deflects from DT or conflates and DT's criminal charges though anyway.

It was DT that intercepted and de-capacitated this particular vessel -whilst a rescue worker was on board. No pact or agreement required.

The authorities do not de-capacitate vessels with rescue workers on board- for obvious reasons 😊

Of course I know I was being tongue in cheek as well you know 🤔

'Tongue in cheek' deflection from DT? Nice try 😉

You know what she actually said but seem to approve of her?
Tongue in cheek again?

Didn't she advocate burning women and children alive or something along those lines?

Yes- and her post was reposted 940 times before she then decided to delete . LC admitted her charge of inciting racial hatred towards “the bastards” as referred to the people she sought to be burned.

Lucy Connolly was charged with inciting racial hatred contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986.

Section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence for a person to publish or distribute written material that is threatening, abusive, or insulting, if they intend to stir up racial hatred or if racial hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result.

She pleaded guilty.

So can we cut the hurty words nonsense. You can read the judge’s sentencing remarks here:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Connollysentence.pdf

Note the sentence that says:

In relation to your culpability this is clearly a category A case – as both prosecution and your counsel agree, because you intended to incite serious violence.

Your counsel agree.

The starting point after a trial is therefore one of 3 years imprisonment. There is a further significant aggravating factor namely, the timing of the publication when there was obviously a particularly sensitive social climate. It would be difficult to think of a more sensitive such time than during the evening of the 29th July of this year. All of those factors would require a significant increase in the sentence beyond the starting point.

She’s lucky she got off as lightly as she did.

Graphite

Lucy Connolly was charged with inciting racial hatred contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986.

Section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence for a person to publish or distribute written material that is threatening, abusive, or insulting, if they intend to stir up racial hatred or if racial hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result.

She pleaded guilty.

So can we cut the hurty words nonsense. You can read the judge’s sentencing remarks here:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Connollysentence.pdf

Note the sentence that says:

In relation to your culpability this is clearly a category A case – as both prosecution and your counsel agree, because you intended to incite serious violence.

Your counsel agree.

The starting point after a trial is therefore one of 3 years imprisonment. There is a further significant aggravating factor namely, the timing of the publication when there was obviously a particularly sensitive social climate. It would be difficult to think of a more sensitive such time than during the evening of the 29th July of this year. All of those factors would require a significant increase in the sentence beyond the starting point.

She’s lucky she got off as lightly as she did.

Got off lightly?

It was political, she was made an example of!

Starmer was determined there would not be a terrorist slant on the Southport killings, he shut everybody down by making an example of Lucy Connolly.

In alternative reality.

*It was political, she was made an example of!

Starmer was determined there would not be a terrorist slant on the Southport killings, he shut everybody down by making an example of Lucy Connolly*

I thought is was an incredibly sad point in our history and KS did well to act decisively.

That’s nonsense, Sago.

She was arrested, charged and pleaded guilty. That’s how the law works.

Both prosecution and her counsel agreed it was a Category A offence. She could have been sentenced to six years.

sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/racial-hatred-offences-hatred-against-persons-on-religious-grounds-or-grounds-of-sexual-orientation/

The law is the law and in terms of sentencing terms she could have got six years.

Her post was definitely political Sago.