To think Lucy Connolly has been made an example of?

[SouthernFashionista]

Have any of you read this article about Lucy Connolly who tweeted inflammatory comments following the Southport murders? I have to admit that at the time I was fully supportive of having her locked up, with the key thrown away. But reading this article made me view it all a little differently. Surely she has done her time?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/04/lucy-connolly-southport-riots-axel-rudakubana-taylor-swift/

What are the eligibility criteria?

Is it like probation where you can apply once you’ve done a certain proportion of your sentence, but only get it if you demonstrate other things - like contrition, rehabilitation or whatever?

In which case, how can you possibly know she has done this?

"It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t seem unfair to you, Lucy has been eligible since November"

It doesn't matter whether you think it's unfair either to be fair. You were the one posting about the supposed unfairness, and after all the perceived unfairness of her sentence is the whole point of this thread.

If she is eligible but permission has been denied this doesn't mean it's unfair either. It simply means they it being granted is subject to some conditions which she hasn't met. Principle of these I'd imagine is some sign of remorse or contrition.

At the end of the day neither of us know why the release has been denied so can't really judge if it's unfair or not.

It’s already been mentioned she received terrible legal advise. Nobody is defending a racist. Give it a rest

She did meet the criteria, she was eligible

Her husband consulted several barristers who told her to plead not guilty.

She ignored them all.

This is in the Telegraph article.

Lucy Connolly pled guilty to racism and had a history of racism on social media. Ergo you are defending a racist who called for brown people to be burnt alive. She admitted to inciting violence which endangered lives.

Perhaps you should give it a rest.

How do you know?

Being eligible to apply does not equal being assured to get it.

People can be eligible for parole but not be granted it.

What was the criteria and how has she met it? She's done her 40%?

"She did meet the criteria, she was eligible"

Eligible to apply perhaps but she has clearly not met whatever conditions/ guidelines there are for it to be approved....

@Maitri108 again, there is no such crime as “racism”.

Obviously the plea is entered before the category of crime is determined by the court. The judge’s decision on the category was unexpected.

She never mentioned brown people, why is everyone so determined to twist what was actually said. There is such a thing as white asylum seekers too

"Obviously the plea is entered before the category of crime is determined by the court. The judge’s decision on the category was unexpected."

This is far from obvious and seems very wrong to me.

If someone pled guilty to manslaughter say the judge would not turn be able to change the charge/crime to murder.

Doing so would invalidate the guilty plea surely

Lucy Connolly you have pleaded guilty to the offence of distributing material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred.

I love the smell of pedantry in the morning.

You really are determined to fight her corner aren't you.

Well then why didn’t she listen to the several barristers and her husband who told her to plead not guilty?

She could have pled not guilty then changed it to guilty once the category was determined.

But she didn’t.

And she faced the lowest possible sentence for that offence.

She is now appealing it.

I still fail to see where there is any evidence of unfairness.

What the defenders of this racist really want is an exception to be made for poor little Lucy.

Too sad to stop herself tweeting hate.

Too upset to listen to the legal experts who told her to plead not guilty.

Too staunch in her racist beliefs to show enough contrition for day release.

But it’s all about fairness, right?

It’s done in less serious crimes.

And in this case, the crime is the same, it’s just the level that is different.

but she was still free to listen to the barristers and her husband when they said to plead not guilty.

She was even free to change that plea to guilty once the category was determined.

But she didn’t and here we are.

You’re really determined to lie aren’t you

It took you a long time to come up with that zinger.

Okay

Is Suella Braverman defending a racist then? Or is just disagreeing with the sentence given.
www.thesun.co.uk/news/34313351/suella-braverman-southport-murders-mum/

Would someone accused by her own party of "racist rhetoric" defend a racist...

Braverman is just using this case to attack Labour. Just playing politics. It's pathetic

@Dumbdog It is at the discretion of the court to allow a change in plea from guilty to not guilty and this is used sparingly. Happy to be corrected but I do not think this was an option for Lucy Connolly.

I’m not talking about guilty to not guilty - I’m saying she could have plead not guilty (as she was advised to by barristers and her husband) then changed it to guilty once the exact charge, including severity, had been agreed.

There is nothing unfair about her case.

She got legal advice, went against it, was given the very minimum sentence they could for the crime she admitted to, and has been given leave to appeal.

The wheels of justice are turning as they should…

Although, one of the arguments for changing a guilty plea to not guilty is mental health - so she could have played her mental health card then, I guess.