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/

So?

Whether he copied it from the source or a retweet, screenshot or news report, he copied the substance of LC’s tweet.

She is still culpable for producing the tweet in the first place.

It’s not like she doesn’t understand how the internet works, is it?

It's not weirdly specific at all. You are the one being specific in multiple posts without full confirmation of the facts - claiming that Lucy Connolly 'got legal advice, went against it', 'she was advised to plead guilty by barristers' and her husband 'consulted barristers' - whereas the Telegraph article says Connolly pleaded guilty 'after taking advice from her solicitor', the source of the barristers' opinion is unclear and she didn't have contact with said barristers.

Ergo, she ignored legal advice to plead not guilty.

Presumably she didn't ignore the legal advice from her solicitor or the barrister instructed by that solicitor?

She is still culpable for producing the tweet in the first place.
It’s not like she doesn’t understand how the internet works, is it?

She had deleted the tweet a week earlier - Tyler Kay copied the wording from the BBC report - he would not have seen it otherwise.

Dumbdog
She was still given the very minimum sentence

It's not the very minimum sentence if the range starts at 2 years.

A legal opinion from a barrister is likely to cost thousands of pounds. It is quite obvious that she didn’t have such an opinion from a number of barristers. She followed the advice of the duty solicitor and the plea was entered before the category of the offence was determined by the court.

The judge said that sentencing started at 3 years. She should have got 3.5 years but due to mitigation, she got 31 months.

He also said that there was no proof her mental health had anything to do with her crime. Seems like 'using the mental health card' didn't work for her.

Maitri108
The judge said that sentencing started at 3 years

The judge can adjust upwards or downwards from the starting point;

The guidelines provide non-exhaustive lists of aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the context of the offence and to the offender. Sentencers should identify whether any combination of these, or other relevant factors, should result in an upward or downward adjustment from the starting point.

He also said that there was no proof her mental health had anything to do with her crime.

Although the Telegraph report states that the psychiatrist commissioned by her solicitor didn't ask her about her dead child - so perhaps her new legal team will commission a second psychiatric report.

The judge said:

24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half
years imprisonment.

He also said that he had read the original psychiatric reports and they were taken into account. No evidence was found that her mental health had anything to do with the crime.

Would she have instructed a barrister if she was pleading guilty?

I stand by the essence of what I wrote - she had several barristers’ opinions (however she came about them) and her husband’s that she shouldn’t plead guilty - but she ignored it.

The advice from her solicitor could have been as simple as ‘you'll
get a reduced sentence if you plead guilty’, which is what happened.

But whatever, fact remains that she pleaded guilty to a crime and was sentenced well within the guidelines, getting the minimum sentence available given her circumstances. Perhaps it could have been 2 years if her mental health card had been platinum.

It seems to be the minimum for her specific circumstances. You get 25% off for pleading guilty, then further reductions for mitigating factors.

If she didn’t have all the mitigating factors required to reduce it further, then the judge gave her the minimum.

Maitri108
The judge said

That still doesn't alter the fact that the range for this category starts at 2 years - it's up to the sentencing judge to balance aggravating and mitigating factors.

You are changing the goalposts somewhat - earlier you posted;

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

Which is what he did by weighing the mitigating factors with the probable sentence.

Yes, I know but that wasn't the claim I was originally responding to. In any case, Lucy Connolly is appealing her sentence.

Yes she is. Lots of people appeal their sentences.

I meant to quote - 'advised to plead not guilty by barristers'

No I’m not.

They can’t reduce her sentence if she didn’t meet the criteria for further reduction, so they gave the minimum sentence they could.

If they had given her a further reduction without cause, that would be unfair - and one thing we can all agree on is that we don’t want unfairness in the justice system.

Unless we do for white mums but only when it’s in their favour?

No I'm not.

I'm pretty sure you are.

Unless we do for white mums but only when it’s in their favour?

It's just as well some of the Islamist terrorist supporters you linked to up thread had their sentences reduced on appeal to even things out a bit.

I haven’t linked to anyone, so I think you are mistaken.

I find your posts unnecessarily snippy, so I won’t be responding to you again.

And yet the sentencing remarks say the defence agreed the category was correct 🤷

Dumbdog
I haven’t linked to anyone, so I think you are mistaken

Apologies, the link was from randomchap

12. 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.

Dumbdog
I find your posts unnecessarily snippy

That's a bit rich when two of your posts to me this evening begin;

And?
So?

And yet her counsel is quoted as saying this at the sentencing hearing;

Tom Muir, defending, said: “Whatever her intention was in posting the offending tweet, it was short-lived, and she didn’t expect the violence that followed, and she quickly tried to quell it.”

"And yet her counsel is quoted as saying this at the sentencing hearing;
Tom Muir, defending, said: “Whatever her intention was in posting the offending tweet, it was short-lived, and she didn’t expect the violence that followed, and she quickly tried to quell it.”"

Well defending counsel are kind of expected to paint their client in the best light possible.....

As has been discussed in this thread she didn't delete the tweet out of a sense of remorse; she probably realised how viral it was going and worried it " would bite me on the ass, lol"