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/

Defending a racist, definitely.

SB is a horrible woman.

I'd say Braverman is another kindred spirit given her views on asylum seekers.

Zero sympathy

"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"

It wasn't that unexpected if the judge, prosecution and defence agree

I think given that she finished her carefully crafted tweet with "if that makes me a racist, so be it" we can assume she didn't think the migrant hotels were full of white people.

Probably

But she didn't go with the advice of the professionals or her husband who told her to plead not guilty?

“Notably, some of the most senior judges were drafted in to handle cases which would normally be dealt with in a magistrates’ court. But magistrates could only impose sentences of up to 12 months – clearly not what the PM, who had set up a violent disorder unit to look like he was in charge, had in mind”

very interesting

The irony of a Tory complaining about “two tier policing” when A LOT of the too lenient sentences posters complained about on here were under a Tory government.

Again, I ask … why is LC specifically getting so much attention? There were plenty others jailed for “just a tweet”. Why is she the face of two tier policing and “political prisoner”?

Because she’s (on the surface) a more sympathetic character than the likes of Tyler Kay, jailed for 38 months for posting an identical tweet and re-tweeting similar ones.

As I understand it Tyler Kay had a criminal record, did not delete his tweet and did not have a diagnosis of PTSD.

No one needs to be labelled abnormal and stigmatised to have trauma in their history. You can have trauma and not be labelled and stigmatised. We do not know this person's trauma history.

He grew up in care and was a victim of domestic violence so he does indeed have past trauma.

@whippy1981 don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he should be in prison either for a social media post but having a criminal record obviously changes things compared to being a first offender.

His criminal record was for theft so a completely different crime. He could've stolen because of his trauma. Knee jerk reaction and all that. He probably was triggered and just took something! You know how it is!

So what is the two tier policing you want in this country then?

@whippy1981 I’m sure you’re aware that it doesn’t matter whether a previous conviction is for a separate offence, a criminal record is nonetheless taken into account. And yes I would like to see people like Tyler treated with more consideration by the justice system. I don’t see who will benefit from him being imprisoned for a tweet.

And one that was because of his trauma so clearly we cannot hold him to account?

You do not see the benefit in keeping people safe in society from being burnt alive? Maybe we should go gentle criminaling like gentle parenting. Sit him on the naughty step for 26 minutes will do!

@whippy1981 my apologies, I’ve clearly missed the evidence that his tweet directly led to someone being burned alive.

I’m leaving it here and will keep my fingers crossed for the appeal.

Luckily no one was burnt alive but they most certainly burnt a hotel as a result of what was shared online. There were lives at risk and it was lucky no one died.

So these 400 strong gangs just randomly met up to burn the hotel down all of their own accord did they? How bizarre that happened eh?

Odd that they all met in the same place and time without any organising after people had said to do it online. There was absolutely no influence at all.

Care to explain how that came about? Also care to explain how setting fire to a building with people inside is not a risk to life?

Also I never said anyone was burnt alive. I said keeping people safe from being burnt alive.

The Telegraph article says;

'After taking advice from her solicitor, Lucy pleaded guilty to ...'

The article doesn't actually say her husband consulted several barristers. This would need to be clarified as one or more barristers may have stated their legal opinion in the media and he was relying on that information.

Dumbdog
she was given the very minimum sentence they could for the crime she admitted to

The starting point for the category was 3 years' custody but the category range was 2 - 6 years.

Dumbdog
How do you explain the link to Tyler Kay? He copied her tweet almost verbatim, used ‘stand with Lucy Connolly’ as a hashtag and also tweeted specific instructions for unrest.
So here we have a very clear link between LC’s original tweet and someone who repeated it and took it further.

Tyler Kay copied the tweet from a BBC News report after Lucy Connolly was arrested. Kay tweeted Wednesday, 7 August - more than a week after Lucy Connolly had deleted her tweet (Monday, 29 July).

What a weirdly specific point to argue.

He got legal advice - from whatever source - that said she should plead not guilty.

Now (I am presuming here, but I’m confident it’s correct) that he didn’t keep that legal advice to himself - he shared it with his wife and told her where it came from.

Yet she ignored it.

Ergo, she ignored legal advice to plead not guilty.

And?

She was still given the very minimum sentence - complete with reductions - that could be given to her for the crime she admitted to.

The judge started at the starting point and made reductions. Her sentence fell within the category range.

I’m not sure how this can be seen as unfair.