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/

But was she really worried?

Or just playing the mental health card, LOL?

The fact that her counsel didn’t challenge the categorisation of the offence will no doubt be part of her appeal.

It was still up well after the riots started - someone o follow posted about it, I went onto her TL & reported it (it apparently didn’t break Twitter’s conduct rules) and it was still up for a few days after, til she locked and then deleted her account

I don't think that saying "whatever her intention was" is much of a defence of the category tbh. If he's trying to defend it, I'd use a much more robust "She had no intention to...." but he couldn't do that because she'd plead guilty to the offence of distributing material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred.

Walkden
she probably realised how viral [her tweet] was going and worried it " would bite me on the ass, lol

That can also be true but it's not mutually exclusive with her not intending to incite serious violence.

No it wasn't - she tweeted the evening of 29 July - the tweet was deleted 3-4 hours later and protesters gathered in Southport the evening of 30 July.

You’re wrong. I saw a post complaining about it at least the morning after she tweeted & I went to her account to report it. I kept checking and it was still there til she locked her account

But did she intend to 'incite serious violence' - her counsel said; “she didn’t expect the violence that followed, and she quickly tried to quell it.”

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.

Well, according to the judge, prosecution and defence at the time...yes.

"That can also be true but it's not mutually exclusive with her not intending to incite serious violence."

That is one interpretation.

Another is having posted that comment about burning hotels etc, ( while civil unrest was going on) she could have deleted it, posted commiserations and sympathy with the grieving families and acknowledging that she had been triggered and had posted in haste etc (!as some posters suggest)

That's not what she did though was it? She lit the fuse, stepped back and prepared to play the "mental health card"

police established [the tweet] was available for at least three and a half hours

Walkden
Another is having posted that comment about burning hotels etc, (while civil unrest was going on)

Civil unrest had not started.

Well yes, that's a contradiction from her defence counsel - although I am still of the opinion that there is a possible pause after 'both prosecution and your counsel agree'.

Even if you're right (which makes no grammatical sense to me as because you intended to incite serious violence was the end of the sentence), the judge is still saying everyone agrees it was a category 1 offense...which means the sentence was within guidelines and so not excessive or unjust.

And I guess we won't know any more until after the appeal hearing.

"Civil unrest had not started".

Guess she did help light the touchpaper then...

'At LEAST three and a half hours'. However long it was up, it did go viral. Many did a screenshot of her tweet which circulated for days across all social media platforms. I did see her original tweet and reported it. It was horrific then and still is now.

unbelieveable22
'At LEAST three and a half hours'

That's not what the previous poster claimed though - she claimed to have been monitoring Lucy Connolly's account over a number of days.

Incidentally, I've just had a brief look at the newly published parliamentary report into the riots - specifically at the section on ‘Two-tier policing’ (as reported in the media) and the paragraphs regarding the Black Lives Matters protests.

There is an obvious bias in how the report downplays the attacks on police officers over the weekend of 6–7 June 2020 - but with graphic quotes from the Home Secretary regarding the violence over the weekend of 13–14 June 2020 involving counter-protesters - with 38 officers initially reported to have been injured that weekend. The report then says there were a total of 35 injuries to police officers during the Black Lives Matter protests [in total] - implying there were no injuries over the weekend of 6-7 June.

However, I remember reports of 49 police officers being injured during the weekend of 6-7 June 2020 before the counter-protesters turned up - so how can the total number of injuries to police officers during the BLM protests only add up to 35?

https://news.sky.com/story/police-call-for-apology-from-bosses-after-49-officers-injured-during-anti-racism-protests-12002875
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8395227/Police-horse-bolts-thousands-clash-police-Black-Lives-Matter-demonstrations-London.html
https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/08/police-chased-whitehall-cenotaph-damaged-12-arrested-blm-protests-12819394/

There is no reference to Harehills in the 'Two-tier policing’ section either. Two-tier reporting if nothing else.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/

There’s no “claims” about it - I saw it via QT well after she posted it & once I reported it, I kept checking to see if Twitter had removed it. They didn’t because it didn’t violate their code of conduct according to them. A local reporter saw my tweets about it & contacted me to write an article about it. You said yourself the police said it was up at least 3.5 hours. She and her Far Right supporters are struggling to take responsibility for her and their behaviour, not sure why you’re putting your time and energy into arguing the toss for her 🤷🏽‍♀️

Yes it is fascinating how the violence and looting was only 'protesting' in 2020. Wonder how many were sent prison for tweets?!

I think it's pretty obvious why the poster is fighting her corner.

Tommy Robinson is also appealing his sentence and playing the mental health card. Seems like Connolly is in good company.

I’m not sure what point you’re making? People were arrested for their violent conduct at to se protests? Rightly so? The reason it was protesting then and rioting this time is because the majority of the attendees went to the organised protest with the intention to do just that. The violent morons that attended were rightly arrested.

The rioters in 2024 went out deliberately to cause trouble. No one was there for any legitimate reason, there was no organised protest. And the ones that were charged with inciting racial hatred, were doing just that.

As has been said about a million times on this thread, whataboutery is totally irrelevant. Lucy Connolly committed (and admitted) a crime and was sentenced within the framework for that crime. If she thought what she was doing was unlikely to be punished becuase in some people’s opinion others have got away with it, or done worse, more fool her 🤷

The point I'm making <which I thought was clear> is how many went to prison for their tweets regarding 'protests' in 2020?

I don't know what QT refers to. It has been widely reported that Connolly deleted the tweet from her own account after a few hours.