The article is gibberish. It* states:*
The British state is perpetrating systematic injustice
And the only evidence of systematic injustice is two cases that aren't really comparable. It also accuses Jones of being racially motivated and says the only evidence Connolly is is because she says 'bastards.' She pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred and had a history of racist Tweets.
Despite standing a strong chance of going free at trial, she was thus pressured into pleading guilty. She did so in the knowledge she would get a shorter sentence, expecting to be out by Christmas.
This is pure fiction. Connolly wasn't pressured into doing anything and what her solicitor advised is on record. She chose to plead guilty to the charge, signed her acknowledgement of her consent and the appeal judges confirmed that she had willingly pleaded guilty.
In short, Connolly had the book thrown at her because the British state doesn’t like her views.
Fiction. Connolly pleaded guilty and received a sentence within the guidelines for that crime.
Jones, meanwhile, faced little censure for his apparent animosity to anti-immigration protestors — who were understandably angry at the murder of three little girls
Jones didn't express a view about the racist rioters.
Denounced as “far-Right” by the prime minister and the whole political establishment, they were denied fair treatment and made an example of for nakedly political reasons.
Fiction. The author needs to give actual evidence and not tenuous opinions.
The blame for her two-tier treatment lies with the actions of the whole British state: the police, the CPS, her solicitor, the judges — both at her sentencing and her appeal — the prison authorities. And most importantly, the authoritarian human rights lawyer double act of Lord Hermer and Sir Keir Starmer.
That's a pretty big claim from someone with absolutely no evidence and little grasp of the facts. Someone who minimises racism and sees it as a political opinion.