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

It was hate speech which is a crime.

She has freedom of speech - just not freedom of consequences if she chooses to exercise it to commit a crime.

Her appeal failed because she lied in her pleadings. It was found what she said about the legal advice she had been given was untrue.

She deserves what she got. Indeed I would increase her sentence for the blatant lies within the appeal which has wasted court time.

31 months is a huge sentence for this crime.

Increase her sentence? God almighty

The sentence for inciting people to burn others alive isn't excessive. It is indeed dreadful other criminals are getting sentences that are too short. Campaign against that instead.

As I said, don't try and mix logic an jurisprudence.

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that you can't please all of the people all of the time"

I disagree. Hate crimes based on race are vile.

We have free speech, but there are always legal limits around inciting violence and spreading disinformation.

What benefit to society having her in jail? She’s lost her livelihood and reputation. Why can’t she be tagged?

She has been made an example of hasn't she. obviously she did wrong but the sentence is ridiculous when you see what some people who actually physically hurt others get.

I think her tweet was disgusting and I’m not condoning it. However, I’ve seen way worse trolling, often directed at individual women and vulnerable people, where the sender gets nothing worse than a rap on the knuckles. She also regretted what she sent enough to delete her tweet, too late to undo the damage unfortunately. This should never, ever have been an imprisonable offence.

How many of us can honestly claim never to have said, done or written something awful in the heat of the moment? I wrote something ill-judged (one of my brother’s RAF jokes) when I was 14 which turned the entire class against me. Thank heaven social media didn’t exist back then.

Jails are overcrowded. Violent criminals can be out on tag, why can't she?

She pled guilty, he didn't. So the process is different. He will face a trial, possibly, and therefore there needs to be an investigation. Whereas she admitted it,so it does not need to go to court.

I’m clearly not saying that .. I said she deserved to be punished .. just that the punishment of three years in prison was excessive. If this was the states it wouldn’t be but sentences for violent crimes are v v low so it seems excessive for a non violent crime.

Also, the fact that her husband is a Conservative councillor leaves a nasty taint of political weaponisation on both sides. These judges must have known such a harsh sentence would only inflame tensions.

Women’s prisons aren’t quite so overcrowded I’m guessing. Convenient for some.

The sentence and the conviction are two separate things.

She was found guilty of the crime. That is a black and white decision - you either are or you are not guilty.

Having been found guilty, there is the question of whether the sentence is appropriate.

I have no problem with the guilt - it's a high threshold, and not someone anyone would be accidentally convicted of.

31 months ? I'll admit it sounds harsh. However, there are generally supposed to be many factors at play when courts impose a sentence.

• Punishment
• Protection for the public
• Rehabilitation
• As an example for others ... "pour encourager les autres"

Personally I think that judges should be required to state in their sentencing exactly what proportion of the sentence is addressing which element. However I'm none too bright, so best ignored.

If, as a result of this case, other people find themselves not posting hate-filled incitements to bestial violence, then I can make it work. As could anyone who knows the anguish desolation and horror of losing a loved one to an attack of hate.

Well, yes. But now we really are arguing over the price.

Whatever happened to the whole "if it saves one child" supporters of yesteryear ?

This absolutely.

"She also regretted what she sent enough to delete her tweet, too late to undo the damage unfortunately. This should never, ever have been an imprisonable offence"

Well obviously the court of appeal disagreed with you.

It is obvious from the original sentencing remarks she never showed contrition or regret for the content; if she deleted it, it was out of concern for how widespread it had been retweeted.

Even now she is being dishonest. Not exactly the actions of someone with remorse and regret

She will serve 40% of the 31 months in prison and the remainder on license.

In an interview today Keir Starmer was asked about this case. He claimed he didn’t know any of the details. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 He just gets worse and worse. As if his advisors weren’t all over this story. Two Tier Keir indeed.

It would be more sinister if he said "I know all about the case ....".

And I suspect you'd be unhappy about that.

You can still be on remand regardless of what your plea is. There’s been other cases where people pleaded not guilty and they were kept on remand but obviously they were not labour MP’s.

You're not sure that someone who, in a highly febrile atmosphere, urges excitable and agitated mobs to set fire to hotels that house children?

Not all speech should be protected - it's not what Voltaire had in mind!

I wonder why they were advised differently.

He was clearly fibbing. A fairer response would be that he would not be discussing a legal judgment.