3 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Lucy Connelly or the cannabis smuggler?  Assuming the former, you might remember there were riots in many cities at the time, with threats being made to burn down places where asylum seekers were staying.  

 

Do you think the rioters were waiting for permission from a housewife before they tried to burn the hotel down?

 

IMO there's clearly no cause and effect link. Lets put it another way:

 

If she hadn't 'tweeted' what she did, would they have still tried to burn the hotel down? 🤔

6 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Good question? Nobody knows!

Try reading up on the case.

 

“Publishing or distributing written material (1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if – (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Connolly v R (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. … (3) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.”

 

"As is clear from section 19(1), the offence may be committed either by publishing the offending material with intent to stir up racial hatred, or by publishing it without such an intent but in circumstances where it is likely to stir up racial hatred. In the present case, the prosecution made it entirely clear, from the outset of proceedings, that the allegation against the applicant was that she had acted with intent to stir up racial hatred."

 

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf

On 7/25/2025 at 5:04 AM, dinsdale said:

I always thought ignorance was not a defence.

The judge's ignorance can be a solid defence.

11 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Try reading up on the case.

 

“Publishing or distributing written material (1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if – (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Connolly v R (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. … (3) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.”

 

"As is clear from section 19(1), the offence may be committed either by publishing the offending material with intent to stir up racial hatred, or by publishing it without such an intent but in circumstances where it is likely to stir up racial hatred. In the present case, the prosecution made it entirely clear, from the outset of proceedings, that the allegation against the applicant was that she had acted with intent to stir up racial hatred."

 

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf

I did read up on the case.

Lucy Connolly was charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 for publishing or distributing threatening or abusive written material with the intent to stir up racial hatred, or where such hatred was likely to be stirred up given the circumstances. This stemmed from her X post on July 29, 2024, which called for mass deportation and setting fire to hotels housing immigrants, viewed 310,000 times in 3.5 hours.

 

The problem is the law is very ambiguous, on purpose.

The law in question, particularly Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 is ambiguous because terms like “insulting material,” “intent,” and “likely” to stir up racial hatred are inherently open to interpretation. 

Insulting material: The Act doesn’t precisely define “insulting,” leaving it to courts to decide based on context. In Lucy Connolly’s case, her use of “b*******” and calling for arson against hotels housing immigrants was deemed insulting and abusive, as it dehumanized a racial group. But what’s “insulting” can vary—courts rely on a “reasonable person” standard, which critics argue is subjective and risks overreach. 

Proving intent to stir up racial hatred is tricky. The law allows conviction if intent is present or if the material is likely to cause hatred, even without intent. Connolly’s defense claimed she was venting anger, not inciting, but the court inferred intent from the post’s violent language and timing post-Southport attack. This dual threshold (intent or likelihood) lowers the bar for prosecution, making it  vague.

The “likely to stir up racial hatred” clause is again ambiguous!

No one was incited to do anything, no one was physically harmed. The sentence, 31 months,  was a total disgrace!

It was just for personal. That's why it was vacuum-packed.

 

Good on her. Prisons should be abolished except for the most violent.

On 7/27/2025 at 8:15 AM, mikeymike100 said:

I did read up on the case.

Lucy Connolly was charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 for publishing or distributing threatening or abusive written material with the intent to stir up racial hatred, or where such hatred was likely to be stirred up given the circumstances. This stemmed from her X post on July 29, 2024, which called for mass deportation and setting fire to hotels housing immigrants, viewed 310,000 times in 3.5 hours.

 

The problem is the law is very ambiguous, on purpose.

The law in question, particularly Section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 is ambiguous because terms like “insulting material,” “intent,” and “likely” to stir up racial hatred are inherently open to interpretation. 

Insulting material: The Act doesn’t precisely define “insulting,” leaving it to courts to decide based on context. In Lucy Connolly’s case, her use of “b*******” and calling for arson against hotels housing immigrants was deemed insulting and abusive, as it dehumanized a racial group. But what’s “insulting” can vary—courts rely on a “reasonable person” standard, which critics argue is subjective and risks overreach. 

Proving intent to stir up racial hatred is tricky. The law allows conviction if intent is present or if the material is likely to cause hatred, even without intent. Connolly’s defense claimed she was venting anger, not inciting, but the court inferred intent from the post’s violent language and timing post-Southport attack. This dual threshold (intent or likelihood) lowers the bar for prosecution, making it  vague.

The “likely to stir up racial hatred” clause is again ambiguous!

No one was incited to do anything, no one was physically harmed. The sentence, 31 months,  was a total disgrace!

The Court of Appeal disagreed.

12 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

The Court of Appeal disagreed.

Yes and that speaks volumes!