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/

Unclear to me.

The only tweet mentioned in the Metro article shared is from Warwickshire police tweeting that the M6 is shut. Presume you don’t want anyone arrested over that?

Were there tweets inciting racial hatred in relation to this event in 2020? If so, yes they should have been punished within the framework, the same way Lucy Connolly was.

But my <very clear> point remains that if 1000 other people get away with a crime, doesn’t make her crime less punishable.

I don't support Tommy Robinson in the slightest and I am surprised that you see Lucy Connolly as the female version of Tommy Robinson.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating yourself. Connolly had a history of racism online, her tweet was viewed over 300k times and cited in another case of inciting racial hatred.

The judge said it was obvious from things she'd said to the police and probation service that she hadn't taken on board the seriousness of her offence.

'Its bitten me in the arse LOL' speaks for itself.

They're all the same to me.

Maitri108
I'm not sure why you keep repeating yourself

It's pretty obvious I was replying to Drummergirl1971

Why do you keep repeating yourself?

Because you aren't taking on board what you're being told. It's obvious you haven't read the sentencing remarks and are just repeating the same thing over and over again.

Why on earth someone would expend so much energy defending a racist who admitted her intentions to stir up racial hatred, is a mystery.

Maitri108
Because you aren't taking on board what you're being told

I haven't been told what QT refers to - perhaps you could oblige.

QT = quote tweet
That may have been widely reported, but if it’s by “journalists” of the “calibre” of Alison Pearson, they rarely report accurately or honestly. I don’t read Rightwing rags as a rule and I haven’t seen those reports.

Maitri108
It's obvious you haven't read the sentencing remarks

Yes, I have;

From enquiries made by that police they were able to establish that the individual tweet the subject of this offence remained available for at least three and a half hours.

'Taking on board what you are being told'

The pp disagrees with you so is very patiently correcting you and debating points.

LC was made an example of, we can only hope the appeal is successful.

How was she made an example of if the sentencing guidelines were followed?

The poster is disagreeing with the facts of the case. Facts aren't subjective.

LC has been made an example of in your opinion.

I'm not just referring to that particular aspect of the case as you're aware.

I copied those lines in part to reply to Drummergirl1971

You are confident then that her sentence will not be reduced on appeal?

I just don’t understand the claims that “whataboutery” is irrelevant in relation to LC. The principle that “justice must not only be done but it must be seen to be done” with the emphasis that justice must be fair, open and transparent is surely accepted by everyone. That’s the fundamental problem with this case, the outcome just doesn’t seem fair given her circumstances (first time offender, deletion of the tweet, diagnosed with ptsd, a mother with a dependent child etc). The denial of bail was astonishing.

I just can’t understand why people are of the view that she should have been locked up for almost 3 years rather than receive a community order or suspended sentence.

I understand she pleaded guilty but surely it’s obvious that this wouldn’t have happened if bail hadn’t been denied to her.

Apologies I wasn't clear. You've spent some time arguing the same things which contradict the facts of the case over many posts.

I'm not referring to one particular post, I'm referring to all your posts. You're saying that Connolly deleted the post.

We're all aware she deleted the post. There's no need to keep repeating it. You're saying that she deleted the post because she regretted it.

You're saying that she regretted it despite having read the judge's sentencing remarks which clearly say that it was obvious she hadn't taken on board the seriousness of her crime.

Despite her remarks saying it bit her on the arse LOL, despite her saying she'd play the mental health card. Despite her having a history of online racism and following far right figures like Tommy Robinson.

Despite all the evidence, you're repeatedly saying she didn't mean it because she deleted it. She admitted to it in court. She admitted that her intention was to stir up racial hatred.

She won't be locked up for 3 years nor did the judge say she would be.

@whippy1981 well ok, sentenced to 31 months imprisonment and serving 40% then. What does this achieve that a community order or suspended sentence wouldn’t have done? Particularly as regards her surviving child and ill husband.

What seems fair to you is irrelevant. Read the sentencing guidelines, some of those were accounted for as mitigating factors. She was deemed to have no mental illness which affected her decision to commit the crime (point 21 in the remarks).

The whataboutery is irrelevant because our justice system doesn’t sentence people based on other peoples actions. Despite how you may feel, judges have to work with the very strict sentencing rules they are given, they can’t have opinions or thoughts on what would be better. Her crime (to which she plead guilty) was sentenced within those guidelines, with the appropriate reduction for a guilty plea.

All criminals should be held to account, yes. Inevitably they won’t be, but that shouldn’t reduce the sentences of those who are.

Maitri108
We're all aware she deleted the post. There's no need to keep repeating it.

Why am I not allowed to reply to Drummergirl1971?
May I suggest that you read another thread if this one bores you or stop interjecting in my replies.

Despite all the evidence, you're repeatedly saying she didn't mean it because she deleted it.

So, you are confident then that she intended to incite serious violence and her sentence will not be reduced on appeal? A one word answer will suffice to avoid repetition in your reply.

@Mumble12 it has been reported that the person preparing the psychiatric report on her didn’t even ask about the death of her son Harry.

Justice has to be seen to be fair. The fact that she was denied bail appears to have been manifestly unfair.

Actions have consequences. Consequences prevent repeat actions. Hopefully she will not do it again. We live in a world where we think we can prevent any consequences at all or want them reducing if we put sad faces on.

She could've been sentenced to 31 months of community orders building and supporting the lives of those she harmed. But that would be too much for some and want that reducing as some on here want a 2 tier system. 31 months graft in the community she harmed to me would be suitable.

She should've thought about her child and husband before she did what she did. She was the one who didn't care about her child or husband when she did what she did. She did this to them.

I'm a middle class mother and my Dad was born in, and lived the first 7 years of his life as a refugee. She's talking about people like my lovely kind father who loves babies and animals and cries when he sees suffering on the news.

She can rot in jail as far as I'm concerned.

If you're directing a post at me it would be helpful if you could @ me. It means that I'm alerted to the comments.

It's not for you to instruct me on what I can or can't say on a public forum. There is a private messaging facility if you want to have a private conversation.

So, you are confident then that she intended to incite serious violence and her sentence will not be reduced on appeal?

I think I've made it pretty obvious what I think, the evidence makes it pretty obvious on what Connolly's intentions were and the fact that she admitted to those intentions in court.

Not being psychic, I don't know what will happen in the event of her appeal.