Lucy Connolly Ist Interview

[soulman101]

I viewed the interview with an open mind , couldn't watch all of it didn't like her at all .

[On Balance]

As Baggiematt has made reference to and touched by Omeg, trying to indicate that there is a two tier system is ridiculous and scrapping the very bottom of the barrel to try to justify one’s stupidity.

As stated by Nazir Afzal, a former chief crown prosecutor for north-west England, who said claims of two-tier justice were wrong. He posted: “Ricky Jones was charged, pleaded not guilty & was prosecuted before a jury of 12 randomly selected British strangers and found Not Guilty. Others pleaded Guilty & were sentenced accordingly, they too could have elected jury trial There’s nothing 2 tier about it.”

And as for those that believe Trump is good for America, again I have to agree with Baggiematt. Trump is very much the opposite. He is a dangerous loud mouthed Yank with only one agenda, which is to promote himself at the cost of the country he has been elected to lead.

[baggieal]

Agreed-but given the similarities of the comments made by Connolly and Jones-all be they from opposite ends of the political spectrum-it is understandable that some are questioning the consistency in the application of the law (e.g. 1986 Public Order Act). That said, it was juries who decided the outcomes not any "politically motivated" judges and so the whole "2 tier Britain/Starmer" stuff seems just red top click bait by the more right wing press (who continue to peddle the line even as they report on the several arrests of pro-Palestinian protesters).

Certainly no great fan of Starmer, but to my mind Bad Enoch and Farage would be far worse.

Good post. You can?t call women protesting outside these hotels as far right though when girls have been s exually assaulted.

The Americans fly their national flag with absolute pride on every public building and many residential properties. Sadly again many take down our flags for their own agenda.

[kettering_baggie]

She’s entitled to her opinion and has been jailed for it but the vile Labour MP gets off scot free. Free speech is being eroded in this country but it shouldn’t surprise you, we have a socialist government led by a moron.

[WBA123]

She’s entitled to her opinion and has been jailed for it but the vile Labour MP gets off scot free. Free speech is being eroded in this country but it shouldn’t surprise you, we have a socialist government led by a moron.

boingy
Watch what you post. Dont joke, dont vent. Behave to the agenda the Government promotes. Both communism and democracies control the people but in different ways. Communism is up front, democracies use smoke and mirrors.

Incredible posts these are. How daft are you both?

On Balance has already posted this, but I'll do it again to remind you again....
She pleaded GUILTY.
The Labour Councillor pleaded NOT GUILTY.

She was sentenced appropriately by a judge - and correctly in my opinion if she's stupid enough to write what she did on social media.

He was found NOT GUILTY by an independent jury of 12 people, which is a key foundation of our judicial system.

Do you understand how our legal system works? Genuine question by the way.


How dumb are people that they seriously think free speech is under attack....nope, just don't post any racial hatred incitement of violence on social media and you should be fine.

It staggers me people think the way you do, but this is where we are as a country. People too stupid to think critically for themselves.

[WBA123]

If a Muslim promoted the burning down of a white attended hotel, would a years prison sentence seem out of place?

They would be dealt with as a terrorist, not have paid interviews and be made out to be a martyr upon release.

That is two-tier for you.

Spot on.

This post is too intelligent for many on here though.

[kettering_baggie]

Incredible posts these are. How daft are you both?

On Balance has already posted this, but I'll do it again to remind you again....
She pleaded GUILTY.
The Labour Councillor pleaded NOT GUILTY.

She was sentenced appropriately by a judge - and correctly in my opinion if she's stupid enough to write what she did on social media.

He was found NOT GUILTY by an independent jury of 12 people, which is a key foundation of our judicial system.

Do you understand how our legal system works? Genuine question by the way.


How dumb are people that they seriously think free speech is under attack....nope, just don't post any racial hatred incitement of violence on social media and you should be fine.

It staggers me people think the way you do, but this is where we are as a country. People too stupid to think critically for themselves.

I fully understand how things work, maybe you have been fitted with blinkers? I just can?t be bothered to go into chapter and verse to explain to you why you are misguided.

[kettering_baggie]

Spot on.

This post is too intelligent for many on here though.

Does arrogance come naturally to you?

[baggieal]

Whether someone aligns to the left or right it?s their decision. That comment though 123 was shocking!! I think everyone and his dog knows how our legal system works and certainly hope I do with my legal qualification!

No it?s NOT two tier but it?s inconsistent by verdicts and many lawyers would agree with this.

Consider:

Connolly posted a horrible tweet on the day of the Southport massacre in July last year. A bereaved mother herself, she was horrified by the murder of three little girls at a holiday club and expressed her distress on social media. When she?d calmed down, a few hours later, she deleted the tweet. It did not represent who she was as a person, as a wife, a loving mother to a twelve-year-old daughter, as a devoted and hugely popular childminder to small children of many different nationalities.

Connolly has paid a high price for a moment of anger and many would agree with this. Keir Starmer threatened there would be heavy punishments for anyone arrested in connection with the Southport riots. He called them ?far right thugs?. Connolly was arrested, she was denied bail to which she was entitled as a person of previously exemplary character and taken to prison. She was petrified. Connolly was advised by her solicitor to plead guilty because she?d be ?out by Christmas?.

Tragically, the judge clearly decided to make an example of Connolly according to a huge amount of the public , giving her a horrifying 31-month sentence which shocked experienced lawyers. He appeared to give her no credit for several mitigations:

The fact she had a diagnosis of PTSD after her toddler Harry died in 2011 due to catastrophic medical negligence.
The fact that, ever since, she has been triggered by the suffering and deaths of children. She had an anxiety attack on the day of the Southport massacre.
The fact that immigrant parents wrote many glowing testimonials about their children?s carer - ?The kindest British person we?ve met,? one said. She was expressing the anguish and frustration felt by millions of British people.

Compare and contrast with the treatment of a *****phile BBC broadcaster. Huw Edwards got just six months suspended for two years. He served no time in jail at all for publishing the worst category of child-***ual-abuse images. Former Labour MP Mike Amesbury punched a constituent and kicked him as he lay on the floor. Amesbury received 10 weeks in jail, his appeal was heard within days and his sentence was suspended.

How is a single tweet worse than a violent assault let alone *****philia? It?s insane, and a vast majority of the public know it according to the petitions.

Even the protesting at hotels many are saying it?s the Far Right. Are mothers and daughters protesting Far Right because of the safety of women? Even today on the news an illegal who entered the country assaulted a 14 year old and said he wanted to give her a baby. Is this normal?

Consider this - I don?t vote and have never voted as my sleepy little life won?t change in a beautiful town where hotels are always overbooked.

Perhaps your intelligence dig should be directed to a bright politician by asking why do they feel Reform are getting to be a leading party! Not difficult to work this one out 😂

[Omegstrat6]

Watch what you post. Dont joke, dont vent. Behave to the agenda the Government promotes. Both communism and democracies control the people but in different ways. Communism is up front, democracies use smoke and mirrors.

The issue around free speach and what you can and cannot say or post on social media is unfortunately not helped by both click bait stories in the press and uncertainties around what the law says.

In the workplace, the main relevant piece of legislation is the 2010 Equalities Act that aims to prevent discrimination, harassment and offensive behaviour towards the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage/ civil partnership, pregnancy/ maternity, race, religion or belief, *** and ***ual orientation. It does not provide a specific definition of offensive comments but, as union reps, we are taught that the law sides with those who perceive themselves offended and any arguments around intent are irrelevant. Of course, there are some circumstances where most people might well consider that it is the person making a complaint who has the issue but it is extremely difficult to write "common sense" into law and so I understand that the default in law is to protect the individual who feels offended. In practice, this means that some-one making such a complaint will lead to those accused of making the comment to be investigated BUT it does not necessarily follow that any disciplinary action will follow and any intent will also be considered under mitigating circumstances. The recent (2013) amendment to section 5 of the Public Order Act helps here.

The 1986 Public Order Act was initially enacted to address some of the failings of previous laws to deal with the public disturbances of the late 70s and early 1980s like the miners strike and various riots across the country such as those in Brixton and Toxteth but it is also the Act that now covers posts on social media. The relevant original wording, in terms of Hate Speach, made it an offence for a person to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" or intend to "stir up hatred". With the rise of vocal minorities and a perceived "cancel culture" a campaign supported by many high-profile activists (notably Rowan Atkinson) eventually led to an amendment to Section 5, removing the word "insulting" on the grounds that this effectively constituted censorship. An example of this would be some-one posting on social media that they believed that there are only 2 biological ***es-male or female- and then a transwoman claiming that they were insulted/ offended by this and that this comment was therefore to be considered " hate speach" even though there was no threatening or abusive language or incitement to hatred but merely an expression of opinion. Even after this seemingly common-sense amendment was made however, there have been instances of employers tying themselves up in knots over deciding what may be legal or not.

As regards "Hate Speach" on social media or elsewhere, guidelines from the CPS stress that any criminal prosecutions must be "in the public interest" and the tolerance bar is generally set quite high-although any prejudice or hatred shown against any of the "protected characteristic" groups may "sometimes elevate" such comments that "might not otherwise meet the high threshold". So yes, Connolly pleaded guilty to the offence but also -given the volatile circumstances of the time-she probably was given a stronger sentence than she might otherwise have received as the judge may have felt this to have been in the public interest to help prevent others from making similar comments.

So, certainly be mindful about what you post but it is entirely lawful for some-one to post that their personal belief is that "there are only two ***es" or that they do not believe in God or that they think Darnel Furlong is a brilliant Right Back. You can even wear a tin foil hat and say you believe that the world is flat and that the Windsors are alien lizards in disguise but just be careful to make clear the distinction between saying you believe something to be true and actually claiming that it is or is not true. Denying the Holocaust happened, for example, could easily be construed as supporting right-wing anti-Semitism. You can express beliefs/ opinions on topics provided you are not using threatening or abusive language or intending to stir up hatred. Yes, you may possibly get away with some of the latter if you are talking about the Vile or Dingles but just do not apply it to any of those covered by "protected characteristics"

[baggiematt]

Whether someone aligns to the left or right it?s their decision. That comment though 123 was shocking!! I think everyone and his dog knows how our legal system works and certainly hope I do with my legal qualification!

No it?s NOT two tier but it?s inconsistent by verdicts and many lawyers would agree with this.

Consider:

Connolly posted a horrible tweet on the day of the Southport massacre in July last year. A bereaved mother herself, she was horrified by the murder of three little girls at a holiday club and expressed her distress on social media. When she?d calmed down, a few hours later, she deleted the tweet. It did not represent who she was as a person, as a wife, a loving mother to a twelve-year-old daughter, as a devoted and hugely popular childminder to small children of many different nationalities.

Connolly has paid a high price for a moment of anger and many would agree with this. Keir Starmer threatened there would be heavy punishments for anyone arrested in connection with the Southport riots. He called them ?far right thugs?. Connolly was arrested, she was denied bail to which she was entitled as a person of previously exemplary character and taken to prison. She was petrified. Connolly was advised by her solicitor to plead guilty because she?d be ?out by Christmas?.

Tragically, the judge clearly decided to make an example of Connolly according to a huge amount of the public , giving her a horrifying 31-month sentence which shocked experienced lawyers. He appeared to give her no credit for several mitigations:

The fact she had a diagnosis of PTSD after her toddler Harry died in 2011 due to catastrophic medical negligence.
The fact that, ever since, she has been triggered by the suffering and deaths of children. She had an anxiety attack on the day of the Southport massacre.
The fact that immigrant parents wrote many glowing testimonials about their children?s carer - ?The kindest British person we?ve met,? one said. She was expressing the anguish and frustration felt by millions of British people.

Compare and contrast with the treatment of a *****phile BBC broadcaster. Huw Edwards got just six months suspended for two years. He served no time in jail at all for publishing the worst category of child-***ual-abuse images. Former Labour MP Mike Amesbury punched a constituent and kicked him as he lay on the floor. Amesbury received 10 weeks in jail, his appeal was heard within days and his sentence was suspended.

How is a single tweet worse than a violent assault let alone *****philia? It?s insane, and a vast majority of the public know it according to the petitions.

Even the protesting at hotels many are saying it?s the Far Right. Are mothers and daughters protesting Far Right because of the safety of women? Even today on the news an illegal who entered the country assaulted a 14 year old and said he wanted to give her a baby. Is this normal?

Consider this - I don?t vote and have never voted as my sleepy little life won?t change in a beautiful town where hotels are always overbooked.

Perhaps your intelligence dig should be directed to a bright politician by asking why do they feel Reform are getting to be a leading party! Not difficult to work this one out 😂

The case is more complex than the ‘right’ or whatever they are, are making it. She made other racist tweets and joked about being in trouble over it.

She also said she would play the mental health card if they charged her. Not a care in the world for what she wrote and the impact it had.

The judge found that she intended to incite violence towards others. It was read by 300,000 people and what she suggested others do, actually happened.

This is not a nice person, a lovely mother who made a mistake.

[baggieal]

The case is more complex than the ‘right’ or whatever they are, are making it. She made other racist tweets and joked about being in trouble over it.

She also said she would play the mental health card if they charged her. Not a care in the world for what she wrote and the impact it had.

The judge found that she intended to incite violence towards others. It was read by 300,000 people and what she suggested others do, actually happened.

This is not a nice person, a lovely mother who made a mistake.

The point in question though Matt is the total inconsistency in legal cases and unfairness applied in many. My view is her tweet was shocking but that length of sentence - come on! I was with two lawyers today and they agree.

Consider this

Comments at the 2025 Glastonbury Festival sparked controversy when UK punk-rap duo Bob Vylan led chants of "death, death to the IDF" during their set, which was broadcast by the BBC. Organisers and the BBC condemned the "appalling hate speech" and "incitement to violence". The comments led to widespread criticism, government condemnation, and a subsequent police investigation into the incident. I would say around the 300,000 people ( the figure you mention ) were in attendance and this was broadcast to millions no doubt.

How should our Jewish communities have reacted to this? How would Jewish mothers have reacted to this with son?s in the IDF?

Regardless on thoughts of Gaza ( I don?t have any ) the fact this was not even considered to to be a case by the CPS was a joke.

I rest my case!

[baggiematt]

The point in question though Matt is the total inconsistency in legal cases and unfairness applied in many. My view is her tweet was shocking but that length of sentence - come on! I was with two lawyers today and they agree.

Consider this

Comments at the 2025 Glastonbury Festival sparked controversy when UK punk-rap duo Bob Vylan led chants of "death, death to the IDF" during their set, which was broadcast by the BBC. Organisers and the BBC condemned the "appalling hate speech" and "incitement to violence". The comments led to widespread criticism, government condemnation, and a subsequent police investigation into the incident. I would say around the 300,000 people ( the figure you mention ) were in attendance and this was broadcast to millions no doubt.

How should our Jewish communities have reacted to this? How would Jewish mothers have reacted to this with son?s in the IDF?

Regardless on thoughts of Gaza ( I don?t have any ) the fact this was not even considered to to be a case by the CPS was a joke.

I rest my case!

Get that case open again Al as its quite a lot different.

I mean, he had a point: challenging a genocidal, now famine causing army that kills kids, stops aid from entering the country, highly skilled but somehow inaccurate with artillery fire etc.

Youll have a job on to find a middle aged lady called Karen who got on a plane to Gaza to fight them…

I make this point again. You wouldnt be here sticking up for a Muslim who wrote to burn down hotels with white people in it. Regardless of whether they had lost kids, clean record….and all the rest.

[Omegstrat6]

As a union rep I quite often see different cases which, on the face of it, appear to be very similar yet can have quite differing outcomes. However, each individual case is (rightly) treated as its own entity and and on its own merits, the exact details of which are only known to those directly involved. These details are those that can directly influence outcomes but those outside of the case will not be privy to them. That said, I do not think that this then fully explains the number of apparently similarly serious cases we are seeing with very variable outcomes. Despite claims in the Mail or Sun, we do not have an actively 2 tier legal system in this country but I have to agree with Al that there do indeed seem to be too many cases where the application of the law is too inconsistent.

[baggieal]

Get that case open again Al as its quite a lot different.

I mean, he had a point: challenging a genocidal, now famine causing army that kills kids, stops aid from entering the country, highly skilled but somehow inaccurate with artillery fire etc.

Youll have a job on to find a middle aged lady called Karen who got on a plane to Gaza to fight them…

I make this point again. You wouldnt be here sticking up for a Muslim who wrote to burn down hotels with white people in it. Regardless of whether they had lost kids, clean record….and all the rest.

He had no point other than his own view point.

Not getting into Gaza although will say - there?s famine and Genocide in other countries but they are ignored. The very rich Arab countries should be providing most of the help - they are not! What did we learn from Afghanistan? Hamas are no better than ISIS yet still they hold the hostages and won?t surrender!

So going back to Glastonbury - it was very loud and clear - disgusting incitement to hate. Many innocents in the Jewish communities were appalled regardless of their views on Gaza.

Any hatred is bad regardless of race although I do get the frustration of all these illegals in hotels with attacks on girls which they feel is the norm in their countries. I do work for the homeless and believe me - many don?t choose to be homeless and it?s usually a mix of unfortunate circumstances. For me our homeless should be housed in comfort being the first priority.