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

I think it probably is. If you have 10k followers you have a very different expectation of garnering attention such that action will result from your words than if you have 65.

she’s not a danger to the public

No, she just incites other people to burn the public alive.

It is ridiculous that she is spending three years in prison

Unfortunately she won't spend anything like three years in prison. She'll do 40% and then be out on licence, so she'll be out before the end of this year. The only ridiculous thing is that they haven't increased her sentence because of the frivolous appeal.

Vile woman has got off comparatively lightly all things considered.

I’m not sure, but I haven’t looked. We’re posting on here with high numbers reading, who’s responsible for some awful stuff I’ve seen against particular politicians

The virtue signalling on this thread is sickening. Listen to yourselves. Some of you will be demanding blood next.

Hotels are a specific place. Where I live everyone knows that the holiday inn express has asylum seekers housed there. We’ve got eyes.

She has received a harsher punishment than rapists and child sex offenders. What do you think of that?

Whataboutery.

Yes, but there is no evidence that those visiting the site are likely to be paying any particular attention to specific posters. I have no reason to believe that my views are endorsed by or even of interest to any specific number of Mumsnetters or visitors. If one has 10k followers on Twitter on the other hand, it is very clearly the case that a specific number of site users are interested in your content and likelier therefore to disseminate it more widely or act on your suggestion.

The number of followers is relevant. A tweet to 500 followers is very likely to get far less traction than 19k. Lord McAlpine recognised that when he sued Sally Bercow and others (not a criminal case admittedly) and didn't take action against people who retweeted from an account t with few followers.

Plus she is the wife of a councillor so locally would have some sort of profile.

"Some of you will be demanding blood next."

Don't be absurd. Most posters simply agree with the verdict of the appeal court and quite content with her being given the prison time she has.

She very clearly holds hateful views and even now is being dishonest and deceitful.

"That" tweet aside she's clearly a nasty gobshite and anyone giving money to her needs a head wobble.

So maybe the Labour guy who has standing will get similar. Although he’s not the wife of, but an actual councillor.

Their sentences being lenient doesn't mean hers is overly harsh

Being the wife of someone seems an odd addition. Is it part of a ruling

It does seem a very harsh sentence.

It not about being part of the ruling, no one said that. Its about how it might have contributed to her number of followers and profile and consequently the traction the tweet gained. The traction which I think was mentioned in the judgement.

Not necessarily, no. But I think that sentencing ought intuitively to make some sort of sense or the law begins to feel arbitrary or, worse, politicised. When we see rapists, paedophiles, MPs who beat their own constituents to the ground (people, in other words, whose crimes were unquestionably violent with clear, immediate victims) go free whilst a grieving woman who made a stupid, ugly remark online at a time of high emotion nationally without thinking enough about the potential consequences is sentenced to three years in prison it undermines faith in the justice system’s impartiality and fairness.

And what about Kneecap, a band with a clear following who urged their fans to kill a Tory MP? No sign they’re being charged, is there?

I don’t think so. They issued a sorry / mistake statement maybe. They do have a following.

No, it’s not just whataboutery. The point is that the justice system ought generally to seem fair and that the perception of fairness is partly connected with whether the sentences handed down for one crime seem consonant with those handed down for another. When you set her sentence against the decision not even to prosecute others for, say, carrying signs saying ‘decapitate a TERF’ or calling for crowds to slit throats or murder Tory MPs, that does not seem fair. Likewise when you set it against the fact that violent criminals who fully intended their actions to cause harm are not given jail terms whilst she, who may not have expected or intended her words to result in harm, is in prison. It is not simple whataboutery to state that against this background neither her sentence specifically nor the justice system in general seems fair.

Do you think the situation is exactly the same?

Connolly had a history of racist comments on social media, followed far right activists, stated that she wanted people burnt alive on the eve of racist riots. Pled guilty to racial incitement and received an appropriate sentence.

I find it hard to believe people are defending her. She committed an offence. She could have pled not guilty and taken a gamble on a sympathetic jury to get her off. She decided not to do that and was sentenced in accordance with the law.

Maybe people think she should have got a telling off over a nice cup of tea?

Perhaps they got a nice cup of tea and a telling off as in pp, although maybe not the latter even. Some support in a few cases.

Yes, that slightly undermines any contrition she showed tbh.