1 hour ago, James105 said:

Well it seems due to the short sighted nature of that idiot PM in his attempt to silence the likes of Lucy Connolly, he has now given her the loudest voice in the country.   The injustice of her absurd sentence for an angry tweet in the aftermath of 3 little girls being slaughtered will be seen all around the world, including the white house who have already expressed grave concerns about the (lack of) free speech in the UK.   She is all over the news now showing the world how far the UK has fallen.   

 

But, but, but... she pleaded guilty they shriek.   Yes well, mothers of children tend to do that (even if innocent) if told by their state sponsored legal advisor that this will be the fastest way to see her child again as the only alternative would be remanded in custody until a trial at least a year away.     

 

The optics of jailing a mother of a 12 year old girl for a words in a tweet, denying her bail for a first offense of any kind, a non violent one at that, and with a disabled husband she cares for is really quite something.   Especially when compared to others who pleaded guilty for actual crimes such as Huw Edwards who despite having 1000s of images of pedophilic nature on his computer merely get suspended sentences.  

You are absolutely correct.

Lucy Connolly was denied bail twice, remanded for 284 days, and pleaded guilty in October 2024, reportedly under pressure to secure release. BlackBeltBarrister argues this violated the Bail Act 1976’s presumption of bail, as her lack of prior record and family ties (e.g., caring for a 12-year-old daughter) made her a low risk for absconding or reoffending. He contrasts this with Ricky Jones, who got bail and was acquitted after a 30-minute jury deliberation, suggesting a “two-tier” system.

The bail denial limited her defense options, and i believe she was 'railroaded' This erodes trust in judicial fairness, a core democratic value.

 

Now she is out and had already done several interviews and her evidence is damming.

 

Lucy Connolly is scheduled to meet with representatives of the Trump administration on August 23, 2025, to discuss her case and the  “crackdown on free speech” in the UK. This was confirmed in her interview with Dan Wootton on his YouTube show.

Let us hope President Trump gets involved and gives Starmer a well needed tongue lashing, on camera!

 

 

15 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Come on, man, we all know why she pled guilty. Just for the reduced sentence.

She knew her text was recorded. Had she gone to trial it would have gotten a lot worse.

That's all.

In the UK you should never plead guilty (even if you are).

The police and the DPP are not that competent, push up their expenses, maximize their paperwork and waste as much court time as you can. Make your statement as bland and as lacking in detail as you can get away with, never chat or explain or try to justify your actions. I don't remember, I'm not sure, I'm a little confused, I don't think I was there should feature strongly in all your answers.

The police/DPP officials often fail to turn up, run out of time and money, or just drop cases that are a bit difficult.

 

Confess and you lose!

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Twelve Good Men and True, disagree.

 

Do try to come to terms with that reality.

 

Why do you think they were all men? probably a mix but mostly brown labour voters

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

In the UK you should never plead guilty (even if you are).

The police and the DPP are not that competent, push up their expenses, maximize their paperwork and waste as much court time as you can.

They often fail to turn up, run out of time and money, or just drop cases that are a bit difficult.

 

 

 

That can happen.

 

The thing is Lucy Connolly had made social media texts that were on record. There was no way she could argue herself out of "burn the hotels for all I care". So she had no real defense.

 

If she had opted to go to trial the judge would have handed her a harsher sentence still than what she got with the guillty plea, which was already harsh.

 

So she probably made  the right decision.

14 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

That can happen.

 

The thing is Lucy Connolly had made social media texts that were on record. There was no way she could argue herself out of "burn the hotels for all I care". So she had no real defense.

 

If she had opted to go to trial the judge would have handed her a harsher sentence still than what she got with the guillty plea, which was already harsh.

 

So she probably made  the right decision.

Obviously 'argue herself out' is always a wrong approach as it involves you making definitive declarations and is a losing strategy in UK courts. So many people not understanding UK laws enforcement.

 

"I don't remember typing that"

Would be better, as they would then need to prove it wasn't her husband or 12yo daughter using her phone.

 

My brief always used to say, "I wasn't there", "I don't remember doing that", "That isn't me in the CCTV footage", "I'm not sure" are the way to go.

 

She says her so called solicitor told her if she did not plead guilty she was looking at a 5-7 year sentence, for a racist post with no mention of race, how Orwellian was that. She was Starmers political prisoner

 

 

49 minutes ago, proton said:

 

Why do you think they were all men? probably a mix but mostly brown labour voters

It’s a turn of phrase.

 

Look it up.

15 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

I really don't think she did, because she called for those hotels to be burned down and her post was recorded. So pretty much a guaranteed incitement conviction. Which is why she pled guilty no doubt.

Agreed, banged to rights guilty.

19 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The biggest mistake Lucy made was pleading 'guilty' to a judge. If she had gone to jury, she would not have been found guilty at all; IMO.

 

As for Sir Kier Starmer. 

 

''The Prime Minister faced questions regarding Connolly's sentence, and whether it was a fair use of judicial resources. Sir Keir Starmer stood by the court's decision, stating that while the UK values free speech, incitement to violence cannot be tolerated."

 

Did he not say it was OK to cut off energy and water to civilians?

 

Her biggest mistake was he online hate mongering.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s a turn of phrase.

 

Look it up.

 

It's an outdated mysoginist one, you ought to be ashamed of yourself comrade

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Her biggest mistake was he online hate mongering.

 

There was no hate mongering, you just want there to have been to support your being in favour of political prisoners and the curbing of free speech. Some things need to be hated- like illegal immigrants sexually attacking children and little girls being murdered at a dance class.

46 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

That can happen.

 

The thing is Lucy Connolly had made social media texts that were on record. There was no way she could argue herself out of "burn the hotels for all I care". So she had no real defense.

 

If she had opted to go to trial the judge would have handed her a harsher sentence still than what she got with the guillty plea, which was already harsh.

 

So she probably made  the right decision.

 

I can only presume that English is not your first language if you are unfamiliar with the usage of "for all I care".  Examples of usage:

 

"For all I care,  shoot Nigel Farage", or "Shoot Nigel Farage, for all i care".

 

It's basically saying "I don't care if someone shoots Nigel Farage".   

 

Should people (in your opinion) be jailed for expressing ambivalence to something horrible happening?    Is that the world you are happy to live in?

3 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

I can only presume that English is not your first language if you are unfamiliar with the usage of "for all I care".  Examples of usage:

 

"For all I care,  shoot Nigel Farage", or "Shoot Nigel Farage, for all i care".

 

It's basically saying "I don't care if someone shoots Nigel Farage".   

 

Should people (in your opinion) be jailed for expressing ambivalence to something horrible happening?    Is that the world you are happy to live in?

Stripping Connolly’s inflammatory remarks of all context to paint her as a victim.

 

 

On 8/21/2025 at 9:05 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

I have no problem with you exposing your lack of arguments by resorting to school bike shed taunts.

 

 

What's a school bike shed? Sounds very briehsssh.

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Her biggest mistake was he online hate mongering.

Plenty of it on here Chomper.

42 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

I can only presume that English is not your first language if you are unfamiliar with the usage of "for all I care".  Examples of usage:

 

"For all I care,  shoot Nigel Farage", or "Shoot Nigel Farage, for all i care".

 

It's basically saying "I don't care if someone shoots Nigel Farage".   

 

Should people (in your opinion) be jailed for expressing ambivalence to something horrible happening?    Is that the world you are happy to live in?

 

Sorry, but that's an extremely flimsy argument. The spirit of Lucy Connolly's texts was very obviously not meant to convey her indifference to burning immigrants or hotels, but rather it is quite obvious that her message was meant to convey extreme  anger, disgust and that message would be interpreted as incitement by 99% of judges.

 

Her text was not meant to convey "ambivalence", it was very clear what she was saying. She also tweeted, commenting on a sword attack  "I bet my house it was one of these boat invaders.”  So there's really no question that her texts were incitement under the laws in the UK.

 

Otherwise she wouldn't have pled guilty of course. 

 

And by the way, I have successfully argued legal matters in the Senior Courts of England, so my English is vastly superior to yours.

I do wonder had it been a muslim who posted what she did, would it have been classed as terrorism?

 

Idiots did literally go to hotels and try to set them on fire. 

 

She got of lightly. 

Please note, all Americans will never, ever, ever send our sons to die for the UK again if you guys continue this nightmare of sending an old lady to prison.  

 

You are on your own.  Listen to JD Vance, we are not going to support Europe or the UK if you continue down this path.

 

No more blood for Europe. 

 

 

49 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Stripping Connolly’s inflammatory remarks of all context to paint her as a victim.

 

 

 

She was a victim, Starmers victim

37 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Plenty of it on here Chomper.

 

Where?

She needed longer inside. 

 

TWO TIER JUSTICE. Had it been a muslim who posted this they would have been jailed on terrorism charges and held for years. 

57 minutes ago, proton said:

 

There was no hate mongering, you just want there to have been to support your being in favour of political prisoners and the curbing of free speech. Some things need to be hated- like illegal immigrants sexually attacking children and little girls being murdered at a dance class.

 

 

FREE SPEECH? She told people to go burn down a hotel that had migrants (including children in there). 

 

There's no such thing as free speech in the UK, USA, Europe or even Thailand.

 

If you think there is free speech in Thailand and you can say anything you want i'd like you to put that to the test and see the consquences. 

21 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

One more time for the hard of comprehension, how is posting "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.” NOT inciting violence?

 

She obviously thought is was as she did plead guilty after all.

She was advised by her lawyer probably because it was easier for the lawyer 

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

You are absolutely correct.

Lucy Connolly was denied bail twice, remanded for 284 days, and pleaded guilty in October 2024, reportedly under pressure to secure release. BlackBeltBarrister argues this violated the Bail Act 1976’s presumption of bail, as her lack of prior record and family ties (e.g., caring for a 12-year-old daughter) made her a low risk for absconding or reoffending. He contrasts this with Ricky Jones, who got bail and was acquitted after a 30-minute jury deliberation, suggesting a “two-tier” system.

The bail denial limited her defense options, and i believe she was 'railroaded' This erodes trust in judicial fairness, a core democratic value.

 

Now she is out and had already done several interviews and her evidence is damming.

 

Lucy Connolly is scheduled to meet with representatives of the Trump administration on August 23, 2025, to discuss her case and the  “crackdown on free speech” in the UK. This was confirmed in her interview with Dan Wootton on his YouTube show.

Let us hope President Trump gets involved and gives Starmer a well needed tongue lashing, on camera!

 

 

 

 

America does not have free speech. speech that incites violence, defamation, obscenity, and harassment is against the law. The exact crime this woman was done for. 

 

There is literally no free speech in America. You had students being arrested and deported for protesting about Palestine (peacefully). You have John Bolton being raided by the FBI this week, with most commentators saying it's because of his constant attacks on Trump. 

 

Let's be honest these 'free speechers' are just wanting to be racist and don't like it when they can't. 

 

 

Just now, Photoguy21 said:

She was advised by her lawyer probably because it was easier for the lawyer 

 

 

She was only advised. She's the idiot for listening to him or her. If she felt she did nothing wrong, then stand up for yourself. She was pretty loud before hand. 

21 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

One more time for the hard of comprehension, how is posting "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care… if that makes me racist so be it.” NOT inciting violence?

 

She obviously thought is was as she did plead guilty after all.

She NEVER set set fire she said I dont care if someone does. Not the same thing and certainly not inciting violence. I think you need to learn how to read.

1 minute ago, Photoguy21 said:

She was advised by her lawyer probably because it was easier for the lawyer 

 

Or because she had no defence. She wrote it. 

7 minutes ago, proton said:

 

She was a victim, Starmers victim

Counter factual nonsense.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Taboo2 said:

Please note, all Americans will never, ever, ever send our sons to die for the UK again if you guys continue this nightmare of sending an old lady to prison.  

 

You are on your own.  Listen to JD Vance, we are not going to support Europe or the UK if you continue down this path.

 

No more blood for Europe. 

 

 

Who bothers listening to JD (ten names) Vance?

 

 

 

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Counter factual nonsense.

 

 

 

Don't you have an execution of a 'far right bigot' to attend today Chomper? 😆