Hear hear Andrew. This case shames our country and signals to the world that the oldest modern democracy is no longer a bastion of free expression. The fact that Starmer directed the judiciary to mete out harsh sentences should concern all of us, whatever our opinion of the tweet. We are all of us, now having to think twice before expressing an opinion and we can no longer sneer at authoritarian regimes and say ‘that couldn’t happen here.’
Criminal law has definitely changed since I practised law. I only once had to do a bail application in the mags. and the grounds for bail were very easily met (dredges memory) - risk of absconding, risk of committing further crimes etc - common sense stuff. In no way would this lady not have been bailed in 1984 (hah! that was actually the year I last made a bail application). The idea that someone like this would have been remanded in custody back then would have been beyond ludicrous. What has happened?
Every stage of the Lucy Connolly case is insane. The police investigation; the decision to charge; the CPS decision to proceed with prosecution. Most egregiously the decision to hold her on remand while waiting for trial (I am obviously desperately naive as I assumed this would only ever happen for people accused of violent offences or those who pose a flight risk)
What does worry me though is that a narrative seems to be taking hold that the blame lies with the appeal judges. Reading the judgment there is a highly dubious statement about her tweet being a clear incitement to violence, but apart from that it's difficult to see how they could have decided the case differently in the legal framework they are obliged to work in. The law is broken, and only Parliament can fix it, which they almost certainly won't. Dark days ahead.
I'm not sure that the test of "clear incitement to violence" was met in this case. She said "for all I care". Also - who was reading it? A bunch of other mums? Plus, there are demonstrations all the time with placards exhorting people to kill Jews or "Terfs" - reaction? Crickets. ....
Yes! And had caring obligations...and a job....she is so obviously a political prisoner. I wonder if her husband had been a Labour councillor, would she have been picked on in this way? I doubt it, given the recent example of that Labour MP actually assaulting someone and walking free. It's all so banana republic - what have we come to?
While you cannot blame her for her decisions, in retrospect Lucy pleading guilty and then ( as accepted by the Court of Appeal though not her version of events) accepting the highest category of seriousness under the sentencing guidance was most unfortunate. However, despite all that, how can any judge read that ( quickly deleted) tweet and decide it deserves a prison sentence or, indeed, any sentence.
Andrew, we’ve all said things in the heat of the moment which could very well be described as “indefensible”. The fact of the matter is that in a combination of poor legal advice and political expediency she was made an example of. As you rightly say Andrew, allowing her appeal would have reflected very badly on Starmer. Yet let us not forget what he said last week on immigration which, if said by someone else last year, could have led to a similar sentence. The question is not “is what she said indefensible” but should be “why was she sentenced to 31 months inside for a rash outburst of words”? Why is a Labour councillor walking the streets after clearly inciting violence and not inside? Why has his trial been kicked into the long grass? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. We are governed by corrupt hypocrites who put someone in jail for 31 months and rejected an appeal because of a poor choice of words, but who do nothing about the industrial scale rape of young girls and do everything they can to protect the perpetrators.
If she were black or Muslim she would have got off, without a hint of a jail sentence. Just look at that violent ex Labour MP who assisted, on camera, some innocent man.
Our two tier "Justice " system is bringing shame on our country and what it's done to Lucy Connolly ,among others ,is beyond cruel and I can't help wondering what would've happened to her ( and Peter Lynch ) if they were non white !! Dei should DIE as fast as possible because it's the cause of anti White racism and designed to destroy our civilization !! I'm beyond angry and I suppose that makes me a "thought criminal ". Thanks ,Andrew x
It boggles the mind what your country has become. Mine, Canada, is not much better these days but upon reading how this case and also the police arresting a police officer for his reading “Brexity things” is plain ludicrous!
Hear hear Andrew. This case shames our country and signals to the world that the oldest modern democracy is no longer a bastion of free expression. The fact that Starmer directed the judiciary to mete out harsh sentences should concern all of us, whatever our opinion of the tweet. We are all of us, now having to think twice before expressing an opinion and we can no longer sneer at authoritarian regimes and say ‘that couldn’t happen here.’
Criminal law has definitely changed since I practised law. I only once had to do a bail application in the mags. and the grounds for bail were very easily met (dredges memory) - risk of absconding, risk of committing further crimes etc - common sense stuff. In no way would this lady not have been bailed in 1984 (hah! that was actually the year I last made a bail application). The idea that someone like this would have been remanded in custody back then would have been beyond ludicrous. What has happened?
Every stage of the Lucy Connolly case is insane. The police investigation; the decision to charge; the CPS decision to proceed with prosecution. Most egregiously the decision to hold her on remand while waiting for trial (I am obviously desperately naive as I assumed this would only ever happen for people accused of violent offences or those who pose a flight risk)
What does worry me though is that a narrative seems to be taking hold that the blame lies with the appeal judges. Reading the judgment there is a highly dubious statement about her tweet being a clear incitement to violence, but apart from that it's difficult to see how they could have decided the case differently in the legal framework they are obliged to work in. The law is broken, and only Parliament can fix it, which they almost certainly won't. Dark days ahead.
I'm not sure that the test of "clear incitement to violence" was met in this case. She said "for all I care". Also - who was reading it? A bunch of other mums? Plus, there are demonstrations all the time with placards exhorting people to kill Jews or "Terfs" - reaction? Crickets. ....
Exactly, plus there are extenuating circumstances such as the fact that she had recently lost a child.
Yes! And had caring obligations...and a job....she is so obviously a political prisoner. I wonder if her husband had been a Labour councillor, would she have been picked on in this way? I doubt it, given the recent example of that Labour MP actually assaulting someone and walking free. It's all so banana republic - what have we come to?
My thoughts exactly. Two tier justice is alive and kicking.
Or, perhaps, if she hadn't been a woman, would she have been given a lighter sentence?
While you cannot blame her for her decisions, in retrospect Lucy pleading guilty and then ( as accepted by the Court of Appeal though not her version of events) accepting the highest category of seriousness under the sentencing guidance was most unfortunate. However, despite all that, how can any judge read that ( quickly deleted) tweet and decide it deserves a prison sentence or, indeed, any sentence.
Dusty
Andrew, we’ve all said things in the heat of the moment which could very well be described as “indefensible”. The fact of the matter is that in a combination of poor legal advice and political expediency she was made an example of. As you rightly say Andrew, allowing her appeal would have reflected very badly on Starmer. Yet let us not forget what he said last week on immigration which, if said by someone else last year, could have led to a similar sentence. The question is not “is what she said indefensible” but should be “why was she sentenced to 31 months inside for a rash outburst of words”? Why is a Labour councillor walking the streets after clearly inciting violence and not inside? Why has his trial been kicked into the long grass? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. We are governed by corrupt hypocrites who put someone in jail for 31 months and rejected an appeal because of a poor choice of words, but who do nothing about the industrial scale rape of young girls and do everything they can to protect the perpetrators.
As Lucy Connolly’s tweet was “liked” by 8.8k people and reposted 940 times perhaps Lucy’s overly-harsh sentencing is rooted in Mao Zedong's
“Kill one, frighten ten thousand.”
That's exactly what an authoritarian government would do.
Oh, what, they DID???
If she were black or Muslim she would have got off, without a hint of a jail sentence. Just look at that violent ex Labour MP who assisted, on camera, some innocent man.
Our two tier "Justice " system is bringing shame on our country and what it's done to Lucy Connolly ,among others ,is beyond cruel and I can't help wondering what would've happened to her ( and Peter Lynch ) if they were non white !! Dei should DIE as fast as possible because it's the cause of anti White racism and designed to destroy our civilization !! I'm beyond angry and I suppose that makes me a "thought criminal ". Thanks ,Andrew x
George Orwell must be birling so much in his grave he’ll feel that he’s back in the Corrievreckan!
This shows was a hateful, spiteful man Starmer is. The sooner he is voted out of power, the better for all of us.
It boggles the mind what your country has become. Mine, Canada, is not much better these days but upon reading how this case and also the police arresting a police officer for his reading “Brexity things” is plain ludicrous!
Totally agree with all of that, Andrew and have already posted on the issue:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/thought-crime-the-lucy-connolly-appeal
Have also now cross posted your piece:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/a-woman-saying-no-888
Dusty