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

Well, you obviously get a far better outcome if you punch someone.

Just because it rhymes doesn’t mean it’s clever or true.

Two tier Keir? Make an argument, don’t quote stupid headlines.

Fee speech yes, but not hate speech which could incite violence

I'm guessing they took her intention to "play the mental health card" into consideration.🤨

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.🤷‍♀️

Exactly this. You can plead not guilty and be held on remand.

It would be interesting to know how many people:

• disagree with the verdict
• disagree with the sentence (presupposing they agree with the verdict)
• Have a clue as to the distinction

Quite happy to say that I have no problem with the verdict. And am happy to admit that taken in the round the sentence seems harsh. However (thanks to years of public pressure) I am also aware that judges discretion in sentencing has been heavily constrained.

Given the fact that this lady had zero care as to who could have burned alive in line with their incitement (I mean she didn't post "but don't hurt the children" did she ?) then I would revive that catch phrase from the 2000s and say of her punishment "if it saves one child".

I agree with your first statement but it’s a moniker that has stuck. A bit like Tony Bliar and Margaret Thatcher Milk Snatcher

It would be amusing if on the sheet working out the sentence there is an additional 6 months for being a bit dim. Although I normally side with Queenie about punishing people for being stupid 😀

That’s not an equivalent though as she gave no address to target a specific place.

....no one was physically harmed based on her tweet...

Nobody was harmed (physically isn't relevant - there are other types of harm)?

How about 250 people inside a hotel whilst the far right try to burn it down? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/05/a-dark-day-anger-in-rotherham-after-riot-at-hotel-housing-asylum-seekers
How about the police attacked by thugs in balaclavas?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c36n1x2dr9ko
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/rotherham-south-yorkshire-police-police-b1174682.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/110-police-officers-injured-uk-33416644
What about the employees and local residents who were terrified for their lives and their communities? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz73333nq4po

It doesn't matter one jot whether she took the tweet down. ^This^ is what she advocated. The fact that nobody died is down to sheer luck, not intent.

She deserves everything she got.

If you think that justice isn't being served in relation to other crimes, deal with that. It has nothing to do with her sentence or what she did.

Connelly tried to throw her defense lawyer under the bus, claiming he didn't advise her properly/ she didn't understand the implications of pleading guilty.

The appeal court hasn't fallen for it.

She tweeted something racist and incendiary against a background of racists rioting. The sentence was always going to be harsh. Look at the sentences handed out in 2011 for petty thieving.

Connelly tried to throw her defense lawyer under the bus, claiming he didn't advise her properly/ she didn't understand the implications of pleading guilty.

Attacking your lawyer publicly seems a bit dim squared to me. I wonder how she coped with velcro ?

Defendants who genuinely cannot understand the implications of their plea would (well as always with law, "should") not be put on trial. Ideally they should be kept in a safe environment, safe from their own actions.

If the far right and their clingers-on really want to whip up sympathy, they really need to find someone who is less dim and ideally more sympathetic.

I think this is partly to do with the different laws and sentencing regimes governing online publication versus in person statements. In my view, the former needs revision. When most people post on Twitter they’re thinking about it as the equivalent of saying something loudly in a pub. They don’t imagine, with their 72 followers, 30 of whom are old school friends or long forgotten colleagues and 16 of which are bots, that their tweet will achieve virality or significance or influence. But the law/sentencing regime addressing the ‘offence’ doesn’t appear to take this into account. To me it seems obvious that someone without a significant online following is going to be less influential than a politician or a band (cough KNEECAP cough), and sentencing guidelines should reflect that. I don’t think what Lucy Connolly said was very nice at all. But she deleted it, and she’s a nobody who could not have reasonably imagined that her tweet would actually cause people to do the things she described.
Then there’s the question of whether she could reasonably have thought she was committing an offence based on how tweets are generally policed. She made a bad mistake, but it’s also not unreasonable for her to have thought it was a mistake outside the purview of the law. If all tweets inciting violence are to be treated this why isn’t India Willoughby in prison or on trial for the time she fantasised on Twitter about abducting TERFs including J K Rowling? Why aren’t the many trans activists who have called for TERFs to be murdered or raped subject to court proceedings? How does what Connolly said actually differ? I’m prepared to be persuaded otherwise if someone can give me clear legal reasons, but I do think it looks like her conviction and sentence were politically influenced/loaded.

Isn't it because hes awaiting trial whereas she pleaded guilty?

This article explains well why she was given the sentence she was:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/southport-sheldon-court-of-appeal-kay-english-defence-league-b1228807.html

Hotels with asylum seekers, which are not in secret locations, is quite specific. People did in fact try to burn them down. Her tweet was used in another prosecution.

It is not unreasonable for her to have said she was unaware of the implications of her plea if her lawyer advised her that it would likely lead to leniency, which plainly it did not. Someone with more experience of the law, or with a more pugnacious lawyer, might well have advised her to go to trial. That doesn’t make her dim, it makes her frightened and inexperienced with the legal system.

It is worth reading the appeal judgement. It is illuminating.

See para 43 of the judgement.

Are you saying she was too stupid to understand what she was signing? Plus she pleaded guilty 4 weeks after being arrested, so she would have had ample time to change her mind.

@RoseAndGeranium I agree with you re the awareness of committing an offence. i've seen so much offensive stuff on social media, there is definitely mixed messages. Haven't people on MNs expressed that they wished or hoped someone would take out Putin or Trump?

This

Look at the sentences handed out in 2011 for petty thieving.

I thought they were harsh too.

is there evidence that any of the physical offenders acted because of the tweet?

@Dreambouse

"added that in the three-and-a-half hours between Connolly publishing and deleting the post, it was “widely read”, having been viewed “310,000 times with 940 reposts, 58 quotes and 113 bookmarks”."

I think the dissemination bit is what I struggle with as presumably she had no idea of the traction it would get?

I also read the part where she said she was mostly worried about her daughter and sought the fastest way back to her. I think she panicked. I think she possibly also thought about the news stories about people like Huw Edwards who commit serious offences and receive zero jail time because of mitigating circumstances, or rapists who have lenient sentences handed down on the grounds that they didn’t understand it was illegal or similar. A lot of what people see in the papers and on social media gives the impression that there is a great deal of flexibility in sentencing, and that her own circumstances in conjunction with a guilty plea would lead to a much lighter sentence. Again, someone with more experience might have understood better how the courts and sentencing work and chosen to stand trial.

It is not unreasonable for her to have said she was unaware of the implications of her plea if her lawyer advised her that it would likely lead to leniency, which plainly it did not.

We have no idea what the sentence would have been had she pleaded not guilty though.

Also - as many people have found to their cost - a barristers opinion is just that. It has zero influence on the court.