Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

A teacher was sacked after saying Lucy Connolly’s prison sentence was an example of “two-tier policing”.

151 replies

MrsGuyOfGisbo · 06/08/2025 15:23

Terrifying!
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/03/teacher-sacked-preston-college-two-tier-lucy-connolly/?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwMARFBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHkzVENZ7Uuj5t683HKQF_DzYMCjcNAyXrug8djqeWVi30-Us_ALPBq3XIanb_aem_Wo-H97tP5dRGbhHDYGRSSA&ICID=continue_without_subscribing_reg_first

OP posts:
JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 10:30

I think if we routinely reach a place though where we jail for tweets then we will have to open MANY more prisons, something which clearly isn’t going to happen. An aspect of the criminal justice system is to look at the public interest - is it in the public interest to take up a prison cell imprisoning a mother of a small child for a non-inciting tweet which was deleted a few hours later when she had cooled down? No. A heavy fine, public shaming in the newspaper and a criminal record would’ve been perfect adequate in my opinion. Does the public need protecting from Lucy Connolly? No.

The Levi Bellfield thread lefties say over and over that prisoners should be able to have whatever they like in prison as ‘the point of prison isn’t to punish but to keep the public safe’. By that rhetoric they should also support the release of Lucy. But I bet they won’t?

pointythings · 08/08/2025 10:32

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 10:30

I think if we routinely reach a place though where we jail for tweets then we will have to open MANY more prisons, something which clearly isn’t going to happen. An aspect of the criminal justice system is to look at the public interest - is it in the public interest to take up a prison cell imprisoning a mother of a small child for a non-inciting tweet which was deleted a few hours later when she had cooled down? No. A heavy fine, public shaming in the newspaper and a criminal record would’ve been perfect adequate in my opinion. Does the public need protecting from Lucy Connolly? No.

The Levi Bellfield thread lefties say over and over that prisoners should be able to have whatever they like in prison as ‘the point of prison isn’t to punish but to keep the public safe’. By that rhetoric they should also support the release of Lucy. But I bet they won’t?

Edited

The legal system didn't think it was a non-inciting tweet.... And she had a choice of whether or not to plead guilty. The apologism is nauseating.

Notonthestairs · 08/08/2025 10:36

Not jailed for tweets. Jailed for publishing material intending to stir up racial hatred contrary to s 19 of the Public Order Act 1986.

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 10:39

pointythings · 08/08/2025 10:32

The legal system didn't think it was a non-inciting tweet.... And she had a choice of whether or not to plead guilty. The apologism is nauseating.

She didn’t say ‘go and set fire to the hotels’, she said ‘I don’t care if they do’. There’s definitely a fine line between those things - but she wasn’t jailed for conspiracy to commit arson, or for threats to kill, she was jailed for ‘publishing or distributing threatening, abusive, or insulting written material’. This would’ve been uplifted for the hate crime element (‘hate crime’ isn’t a crime in itself, but an uplift applied to existing offences if they believe it was racially motivated).

Now how many people distribute such material on a daily basis? I’ve had plenty, in response to even toned messages left on public articles and similar. Can we really jail all these people? Or should we address the source of the anger?

goldenquestion · 08/08/2025 10:41

pointythings · 08/08/2025 10:32

The legal system didn't think it was a non-inciting tweet.... And she had a choice of whether or not to plead guilty. The apologism is nauseating.

The offender didn't even think it was a non-inciting tweet...given that she plead guilty to the charge

goldenquestion · 08/08/2025 10:42

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 10:39

She didn’t say ‘go and set fire to the hotels’, she said ‘I don’t care if they do’. There’s definitely a fine line between those things - but she wasn’t jailed for conspiracy to commit arson, or for threats to kill, she was jailed for ‘publishing or distributing threatening, abusive, or insulting written material’. This would’ve been uplifted for the hate crime element (‘hate crime’ isn’t a crime in itself, but an uplift applied to existing offences if they believe it was racially motivated).

Now how many people distribute such material on a daily basis? I’ve had plenty, in response to even toned messages left on public articles and similar. Can we really jail all these people? Or should we address the source of the anger?

If the people distributing such material, are doing so during a current and ongoing riot, where the chances of someone acting on said incitement is a very real possibility, then yes.

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 10:48

goldenquestion · 08/08/2025 10:42

If the people distributing such material, are doing so during a current and ongoing riot, where the chances of someone acting on said incitement is a very real possibility, then yes.

Ok so anyone who posted ‘I don’t care if they wipe the floor with the lot of them, racists are c*nts and should get it’ the other day when the masked men attacked the ladies at the pink protest, you would support them being imprisoned as well? I’m just checking you support the same stance when it isn’t in line with your political views.

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 10:50

Because essentially what I’m saying is 30 men in balaclavas attacking a group of women peacefully resulting in only 1 arrest seems very much an underreaction compared with jailing a 40 year old mum for a swiftly deleted tweet? Would you agree with this double standard?

www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/canary-wharf-family-protest-migrant-asylum-hotel-thugs/

goldenquestion · 08/08/2025 10:51

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 10:48

Ok so anyone who posted ‘I don’t care if they wipe the floor with the lot of them, racists are c*nts and should get it’ the other day when the masked men attacked the ladies at the pink protest, you would support them being imprisoned as well? I’m just checking you support the same stance when it isn’t in line with your political views.

You don't know my political views.

But yes, my view on the law is that it applies to everyone.

pointythings · 08/08/2025 10:55

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 10:48

Ok so anyone who posted ‘I don’t care if they wipe the floor with the lot of them, racists are c*nts and should get it’ the other day when the masked men attacked the ladies at the pink protest, you would support them being imprisoned as well? I’m just checking you support the same stance when it isn’t in line with your political views.

Yes, they should. But as you well know, two wrongs don't make a right.

And the Public Order Act is pretty clear on that. It should absolutely be applied to the Pink Ladies attack.

goldenquestion · 08/08/2025 10:56

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 10:50

Because essentially what I’m saying is 30 men in balaclavas attacking a group of women peacefully resulting in only 1 arrest seems very much an underreaction compared with jailing a 40 year old mum for a swiftly deleted tweet? Would you agree with this double standard?

www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/canary-wharf-family-protest-migrant-asylum-hotel-thugs/

I don't know what these people did or didn't do in terms of criminal behaviour, the article isn't clear on that. It says they swarmed the protest. That language isn't very useful for me trying to determine who should have been arrested.

But if anyone committed criminal acts, they should absolutely be arrested & charged, yes. I don't think the people on either side of that interaction align with my morals, but even if they did it wouldn't change how I felt.

For example, I would consider myself pro Palestinian. However, the Palestine Action group has been proscribed. Whether or not I think that was correct, the people showing support for the group after this, did break the law and therefore deserved to be arrested.

MyDeftHedgehog · 08/08/2025 11:31

The outcome of the Ricky Jones trial will be interesting. Given that he was filmed whipping up violence and hate, it's difficult to see why he would plead not guilty, although with some of the verdicts and sentencing i have read about, it would surprise me not one bit if he was found not guilty 😡

goldenquestion · 08/08/2025 11:35

Kyle Clifford pled not guilty despite being seen on CCTV leaving the house with a crossbow & injuring himself with said crossbow. People will do all sorts.

pointythings · 08/08/2025 11:41

goldenquestion · 08/08/2025 11:35

Kyle Clifford pled not guilty despite being seen on CCTV leaving the house with a crossbow & injuring himself with said crossbow. People will do all sorts.

Edited

Exactly this. Lots of very clearly guilty people plead not guilty. It's not unusual at all and I don't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

I expect Ricky Jones will be found guilty if the video evidence is as described. However, someone wedded to the idea that there's two tier justice and that lefties/Labour supporters/immigrants get an easier ride isn't going to believe that.

Uniworries · 08/08/2025 11:46

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 10:50

Because essentially what I’m saying is 30 men in balaclavas attacking a group of women peacefully resulting in only 1 arrest seems very much an underreaction compared with jailing a 40 year old mum for a swiftly deleted tweet? Would you agree with this double standard?

www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/canary-wharf-family-protest-migrant-asylum-hotel-thugs/

Except they didn't attack a group of women protesters. You need to understand the difference between the the word attack, and hijack, though I suspect you do, and are trying to rewrite facts to suit your agenda.
The women where doing one protest outside a hotel and asylum seekers, and wern't weren't being violent, and the ballyed up men used the women's presence and lowered police presence, to 'unexpectedly' launch an aggressive protest against the same hotel and asylum seekers, the police and delivery drivers and riders servicing the hotel, not the women.

Whether any of the women where part of coordinating this or not, or whether the men just decided to ramp up the women's protest with violence, or take advantage of it with or without their knowledge, is unknown.

At least two women got involved in more than standing around chanting and flag waving once the police tried to stop the men ramping it all up.

The police went for containment, and called for backup to be deployed from dealing with other crime. They searched some men after flares where discharged in a crowd. No more flares where found.
The one arrest was for assaulting an officer by pushing them.

Don't want to lose your job? Don't break your contract.

Don't want to get arrested? Don't break the law.

Married to someone a position of responsibility? Doubly don't break the law.

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 11:56

Uniworries · 08/08/2025 11:46

Except they didn't attack a group of women protesters. You need to understand the difference between the the word attack, and hijack, though I suspect you do, and are trying to rewrite facts to suit your agenda.
The women where doing one protest outside a hotel and asylum seekers, and wern't weren't being violent, and the ballyed up men used the women's presence and lowered police presence, to 'unexpectedly' launch an aggressive protest against the same hotel and asylum seekers, the police and delivery drivers and riders servicing the hotel, not the women.

Whether any of the women where part of coordinating this or not, or whether the men just decided to ramp up the women's protest with violence, or take advantage of it with or without their knowledge, is unknown.

At least two women got involved in more than standing around chanting and flag waving once the police tried to stop the men ramping it all up.

The police went for containment, and called for backup to be deployed from dealing with other crime. They searched some men after flares where discharged in a crowd. No more flares where found.
The one arrest was for assaulting an officer by pushing them.

Don't want to lose your job? Don't break your contract.

Don't want to get arrested? Don't break the law.

Married to someone a position of responsibility? Doubly don't break the law.

You don’t think men in balaclavas throwing flares to intimidate women and children is concerning? This is that classic ‘hurty words matter more than actions’ type thing that frustrates so many people. It’s not news that the police are cowed by angry men yet think nothing of intimidating or arresting women - do you remember them throwing women to the floor and arresting them at Sarah Everard, but practically participating in BLM?

goldenquestion · 08/08/2025 11:59

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 11:56

You don’t think men in balaclavas throwing flares to intimidate women and children is concerning? This is that classic ‘hurty words matter more than actions’ type thing that frustrates so many people. It’s not news that the police are cowed by angry men yet think nothing of intimidating or arresting women - do you remember them throwing women to the floor and arresting them at Sarah Everard, but practically participating in BLM?

How in the world have you read that post and said 'so you don't think people throwing flares is intimidating'.

pointythings · 08/08/2025 12:25

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 11:56

You don’t think men in balaclavas throwing flares to intimidate women and children is concerning? This is that classic ‘hurty words matter more than actions’ type thing that frustrates so many people. It’s not news that the police are cowed by angry men yet think nothing of intimidating or arresting women - do you remember them throwing women to the floor and arresting them at Sarah Everard, but practically participating in BLM?

Wow. Read the post you quoted again, because you clearly haven't understood it. She's agreeing that the men should have been arrested.

However, just because they should have been but weren't doesn't mean that the Lucy Connolly arrest and sentence were wrong.

TooBigForMyBoots · 08/08/2025 13:37

JamesMacGill · 08/08/2025 11:56

You don’t think men in balaclavas throwing flares to intimidate women and children is concerning? This is that classic ‘hurty words matter more than actions’ type thing that frustrates so many people. It’s not news that the police are cowed by angry men yet think nothing of intimidating or arresting women - do you remember them throwing women to the floor and arresting them at Sarah Everard, but practically participating in BLM?

Did you even read the article you posted @JamesMacGill? The racist thugs didnt attack the protest, they hijacked a peaceful protest against housing asylum seekers and turned it into a violent protest against housing asylum seekers.

Only one person was arrested at the time and it's prossible/probable that other arrests will take place over the coming weeks as is usual in such situations.

What exactly is your point here?Confused

SupportSimon · 10/08/2025 23:24

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TooBigForMyBoots · 10/08/2025 23:35

Sure he'll be all right. He can always submit his application for asylum in America.😆

RosieBurdock · 10/08/2025 23:41

Uniworries · 06/08/2025 17:44

This is the teacher who thinks we should be deporting the Manchester airport thugs as they're brown, because he either assumed that meant they cant be British born and bred, or that their ethnicity means they have lower rights as British citizens. Stupid is as stupid does.

Bad enough from a teacher at any time, but it being linked with defending the stupid woman who encouraged violence against immigrants based on the Southport murderer being black, therefore must be an immigrant, so if they get murdered too that's ok, yes he absolutely should be sacked.
He's not got enough common sense for his post.

His views on who is British and who isn't are clear.
His views on ignoring the rules around his profession are also clear.
He's entitled to think what he wants, but those who loudly voice divisiveness don't belong in teaching.

Teachers have higher restrictions on lots of things that bring their profession, schools and colleges into disrepute. He knew that and didn't care.
I don't want to find what other rules that are there to protect the young people he teaches, don't matter to him.

I agree with this

GrammarTeacher · 11/08/2025 07:12

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I won’t be signing as he has failed to follow Teaching Standards. There are consequences to this. Some professions still try to follow the Nolan Principles.

LlttledrummergirI · 11/08/2025 07:37

No, I won't be signing. I'm not a racist.

He failed to meet his employer's social media standards and potentially brought his employer into disrepute. Employment tribunal would be his recourse.

I disagree with him.

Mewling · 11/08/2025 08:07

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Nah you’re alright. That’ll teach him not to be a twat.