Lucy Connolly appeal rejected

[WitchesCauldron]

Let me get out my tiny violin. Just because she's sorry now doesn't change the fact she's a racist who incited violence

Good.

That Fox has involved himself says it all.

She entered a guilty plea, so arguments that her comment was not an offence are irrelevant. If she had entered a not guilty plea you could argue with the verdict. And remember, she was charged with inciting racial hatred, not with inciting violence, so the fact she did not give a time and place is irrelevant. She wasn't inciting people to attack immigrants. She was inciting people to hate them.

Because of her plea, the only question is over her sentence. Her defence at trial agreed that her offence fell into category A1, which means the starting point for sentencing was 3 years. Having agreed that in the trial, arguing for a lower category on appeal was unlikely to work.

Absolutely pathetic. She’s serving less time than someone who killed an old man by throwing a firework into a 76 year old pensioners home last year, something I’ve just read about today. He got 2 years 8 months. This whole system is pathetic.

You are comparing an adult with a youth. Young offenders always get lighter sentences. The 18-year-old in that case got 6 years.

Can we have a few less facts, please ? They only muddy the debate.

There’s also huw Edwards, possessed 41 child abuse images of children as young as 7 and zero prison time for him.

He got six months suspended for two years. This is normal for this offence. If he had been involved in distributing or producing the images he would be in jail, but simply possessing such images only leads to jail in the most serious of cases.

More facts ?

😀

Feels very corrupt to me. I know who I would have have in prison

Rather have *

You may disagree with the sentence, but it is not in any way corrupt. That implies Edwards got a lighter sentence because he bribed the judge or because of who he is, which is not true. Anyone convicted of the same offence on the same or similar facts would get a similar sentence. If you think this should change, make your views known to the Sentencing Council. They set the guidelines judges must follow when passing sentence.

But I think your real issue is that you want to minimise what Connolly did. At her trial, the prosecution argued that her offence was in the highest category for inciting racial hatred. Her defence agreed. If it had not been in the highest category, she would probably have avoided spending any time in prison.

Th use of 'for all I care' shows she was expressing an opinion not issuing an instruction. I can't understand how this constitutes a category A offence?

To repeat, the offence was inciting racial hatred. People keep posting as if she was convicted of directing the attacks. She was not, but her post clearly encouraged them.

Yes fgs. Incitement is inclusive of encouraging targetted attacks. She admitted it!

That may not necessarily be a reflection on the legal system though.

I have no idea how evolutionary biology works. But I don't think scientists are mistaken.

And yet, two teenagers killed an innocent elderly man in a racially motivated attack, and the girl of the pair isn’t even getting jail?!? Unbelievable!

The judge found the attack was not racially motivated, despite the racist language. The girl was 13 and did not play a leading role in the attack. She encouraged the assault and filmed it, but she did hit Mr Kohli. Jail sentences for 13-year-olds are vanishingly rare.

Why is this understandable?

Agreed. What she said/posted was simply awful.
Buy also a stern reminder thst free speech is no longer permitted.

All rights are qualified.

Just noticed that there is a "not" missing in my last post - it should say she did NOT hit Mr Kohli.

Freedom of speech is important and is recognised in human rights law. However, despite some who think it should be unrestricted (often, but not invariably, those wanting to make racist statements, who often argue that any restriction at all means we don't have free speech), the reality is that there are always limitations - libel, slander, obscenity, hate speech, the right to privacy and so on.

Free speech is permitted. Your rights are enshrined in the law (Human Rights Act) and derives from Article 10 of the ECHR. But that right is not unrestricted.

All rights are qualified. 😀