Is There More to the Lucy Connolly Case Than Meets the Eye?

f93a8ca8daecf23b700de9fdc6429868-picsay_1_optimized_450

Is there more to the Lucy Connolly case than meets the eye?

RHODA WILSON

Miri Finch believes that Democracy 3.0 is a sham crowdfunding platform used to funnel money to establishment figures, rather than supporting genuine dissidents. She suggests the platform is used as a money laundering front to compensate intelligence assets and crisis actors participating in staged events, allowing them to receive payments without leaving a suspicious paper trail.

Finch is sceptical of Lucy Connolly’s case, who was sentenced to prison for a tweet, and believes it may be a staged PsyOp to frighten people into self-censorship. She believes Connolly’s use of Democracy 3.0 to raise funds adds weight to this theory.

Lucy Connolly, a 42-year-old Northampton childminder, was sentenced to 31 months in prison for inciting racial hatred after posting a tweet calling for the deportation of asylum seekers and setting fire to hotels housing them. Her appeal against the sentence was dismissed on 20 May 2025, by the Court of Appeal. Connolly remains in prison, with her release date set for August at the earliest.

The case has sparked fierce debate over free speech and the proportionality of her sentence. It has also drawn international attention, with the US State Department expressing concern about infringements on freedom of expression and the White House is monitoring the matter. British politicians, including Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe, have condemned Connolly’s imprisonment, with Farage stating, “Lucy Connolly should not be in prison.”

Supporters of Connolly argue that she is a victim of a two-tier justice system and that her sentence is disproportionate compared to sentences for violent crimes.

The Dirty Laundry of Democracy 3 (Aired By Lucy Connolly)

By Miri Finch (“Miri AF”), 16 May 2025

Back in July 2023, I wrote an exposé of the deeply dodgy fundraising platform – beloved of “alternative” celebrity multi-millionaires such as Andrew Bridgen and Laurence Fox – Democracy 3.0.

What I uncovered in this report (a lot of which was paraphrased the subsequent month, by investigative journalists at OpenDemocracy*) was essentially that Democracy 3.0 is a sham: an inept shopfront posing as a legitimate crowdfunding platform, which exists solely to funnel money away from genuine dissidents, and straight back into the pockets of the establishment. It’s the same phenomenon I wrote about in my piece, ‘The Conspiracy Tax’.

*Note from The Exposé: Bear in mind that OpenDemocracy has been funded by grants from organisations such as the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Google News Initiative and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

In the past, it has also received grants from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and Open Society Policy Centre, a lobbying group associated with the Open Society Network and the Open Society Foundations. For example, in 2021-2022, OpenDemocracy received $785,000 from Open Society Foundations.

Unlike relatively new outlets such as The Exposé, OpenDemocracy is not “independent” as claimed; it is highly unlikely to be free from the influence of the large (globalist) organisations that fund it and is more likely to be a Globalist mouthpiece pushing Globalist agendas. All their articles should be viewed through this lens and tested to establish whether they are pushing an agenda, including their investigation into Democracy 3.0.

Further reading: ‘George Soros’ Open Society: A century-old plan for a world without borders under a global oligarchy’.

The establishment is, obviously, well aware there’s a large and growing dissident class, consisting of millions of people. This cohort could have very real political and cultural power if they simply got organised and directed their money to support real grassroots initiatives.

Therefore, to thwart this legitimate anti-establishment threat from ever rising to real prominence – and, therefore, real power – the establishment captures and redirects it at every turn, by promoting its own high-profile “dissident heroes” and “political martyrs” for us to focus our attention – and money – upon instead.

This has the predictable effect of keeping legitimate projects languishing in obscurity, starved of the resources they need to thrive, whilst all dissident attention is kept on the theatrical antics of the high-profile manufactured “heroes” the establishment provides (“whenever the people need a hero, we shall supply him” – Albert Pike, 33rd degree Freemason, allegedly).

That is why, for instance, the establishment set up fake shopfront “political party,” Reclaim, headed by actor and descendant of the Fox acting dynasty, Laurence Fox.

The Reclaim Party does not accept members (making it a dictatorship, as there is no way to vote Fox out), and, since its inception in 2020, has stood just three candidates, all of them establishment celebrities (Fox himself, stand-up comic, Leo Kearse, and former editor of Loaded, Martin Daubney).

For reference, a genuine alternative political party, Freedom Alliance, which was also founded in 2020, has stood several hundred candidates in the same timeframe.

Despite these facts, Reclaim has enjoyed acres of coverage from all the mainstream national newspapers, whilst Freedom Alliance and other legitimate pro-freedom parties like Heritage and ADF, get essentially none.

Reclaim, therefore, is simply there to function as a distracting, neutralising release valve: to make people think, “something’s being done, high-profile people like Fox are fighting for us,” so they invest their energies in that, rather than in becoming more active themselves, in lower-profile, but legitimate, projects.

Famously, other high-profile “dissident hero”, Andrew Bridgen, briefly joined Reclaim as their first, only, and very likely last, sitting MP, before swiftly exiting again after a row about a car.

I asked Mr. Bridgen at the time he joined Reclaim why he was completely torpedoing his own political credibility and career by joining such an obviously inept, defunct, joke of a political party.

I queried whether it had anything to do with the vast fortune of his “mate,” Jeremy Hosking, the sole bankroller of Reclaim (to date, Hosking has given Reclaim some five million pounds, but nobody has any idea what they’ve done with it. They certainly haven’t used it to field candidates, having only ever stood three).

Andrew Bridgen is also a beneficiary of Jeremy Hosking’s immense wealth and currently owes him over £4 million.

It is, therefore, clearly not incidental that Jeremy Hosking has recently purchased the Democracy 3.0 platform (which now functions as a trading name of Hosking’s Reclaim The Media company), from its former owner, Andrew Hawkins (Hawkins runs another business with ARC co-founder, and member of the House of Lords, Baroness Phillipa Stroud).

Note from The Exposé: For different perspectives on Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (“ARC”), read HERE and HERE.

So, to be clear, Jeremy Hosking – the financier behind the Reclaim Party, Laurence Fox and Andrew Bridgen – now owns the very same platform that all these figures, and their celebrity pals, use for their relentless cash appeals. Which celebrity pals?

There’s Calvin Robinson on there, fundraising for a new house, of all things (he’s currently raised over $46,000).

There’s Lozza Fox himself, requesting yet more money for his never-ending legal wrangles (despite the fact Jeremy Hosking pays him the eye-watering sum of £300,000 a year to “run ” Reclaim, the inert, memberless political party).

And previously, Democracy 3.0 hosted a fundraiser for the scandal-soaked Dan Wootton, although that funder has since completely disappeared, and nobody knows what’s happened to the money.

I have, therefore, long since been of the opinion that Democracy 3.0 is a big smoking gun for controlled opposition, and that anybody who utilises this strange, shady and wholly opaque platform to raise money, should immediately be cast under extreme suspicion.

So, you can imagine my thoughts when I discovered today that “persecuted political prisoner,” Lucy Connolly, is using it.

In the unlikely event that you are unaware of this extremely highly publicised person, Lucy Connolly is the 42-year-old wife of Conservative councillor, Ray Connolly.

Mr. Connolly was profiled in the press in 2021, as reportedly “Northampton’s first covid patient” (mm-hmm…), with this sensational news (“man has cold”) even making the BBC.

Mr. Connolly told the news service that he realised he had the deadly plague when his apple and cinnamon breakfast cereal didn’t taste very apple-y.

Three years after this completely true story, which definitely wasn’t just made-up propaganda and the overlords laughing at us, Mr. Connolly’s wife, Lucy, Tweeted after the “Southport attacks“: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care, while you’re at it, take the treacherous government & politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”

We are told that – despite having no previous criminal convictions – Connolly was sent to prison for these remarks, where she was ordered to serve a sentence of 31 months (hey, at least it wasn’t 33).

I was, rather unsurprisingly, quite suspicious of the Connolly case from the start: too high-profile, too much corporate media attention (“if it’s headline news, it’s a ruse“), and too, frankly, implausible.

I simply don’t believe that there is any risk of anyone, much less an upstanding councillor’s wife with no criminal record, being sent to prison for a Tweet. I certainly believe, however, that the establishment would like you to thinkthere is such a risk, to frighten you out of sharing your thoughts online.

So, how do they successfully sew this behaviour-modifying fear into you?

They do what they always do: Stage a PsyOp. It’s the Tommy Robinson / Julian Assange playbook. And just as people often say, “but Robinson and Assange are definitely legit, I know people who’ve visited them in prison,” they say the same about Connolly, too.

And I’m not saying they’re lying. I am saying that, for an establishment that can successfully stage an entirely fake plague and get millions of people to willingly inject themselves with bioweapons, staging a prison visit is not really that hard.

And, sure, maybe Connolly really is in prison. Method acting is a thing, after all, and high-profile crisis acting, like other forms of high-profile performance art, likely pays very well (more on that later).

To be honest, I think quite a lot of people would happily agree to spend a few months in a low-security women’s prison, replete with a gym, library and other leisure facilities, for a handsome pay cheque.

So, onto the matter of Connolly’s conviction that apparently landed her in prison, let’s have a look at the sentencing judge, shall we?

According to Jonathan Miller, writing in The Spectator: “The sentence was imposed by Melbourne Inman KC, apparently aged 68, the Recorder of Birmingham, apparently a bigwig at a provincial chambers before his elevation to the bench. Details are scarce. I have consulted 24 sources for this article and can find nothing substantial whatsoever about this judge, his legal scholarship, not even where he was born.”

Well, that’s, er, “interesting,” isn’t it? Indeed, details about the background of this alleged judge are so scarce that upon Googling his name, the first result that comes up is the aforementioned Spectator article, pointing out that details are scarce.

There’s almost nothing about him online. Almost like … he didn’t exist before the Connolly case, and is simply a fictional character created for the purposes of play-acting in this PsyOp.

[Related: His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, Ministry of Injustice]

And, talking of scripted characters on the world stage, Lucy Connolly’s fundraiser – which, as of 6 pm today, has already raised over £25,000 – has immediately been shared by such high-profile establishment celebrities as Alison Pearson, Dan Wootton … and, of course, Laurence Fox.

Toby Young and his Free Speech Union are all over it too, and I think we know what we think about him, now Baron Young of Acton, member of the House of Lords.

This is very clearly an op. It can’t be anything else. All our favourite controlled opposition, limited hangout gatekeepers are all over it, promising they’re “fighting for our rights,” when, in fact, our rights to post mean Tweets have never realistically been in danger. These duplicitous actors and deceivers are simply fanning the flames of fear, to stir up anxiety that you too could be banged up in chokey for years simply for sending an ill-advised Tweet, just like that nice, everywoman mum.

(They always carefully select relatable, appealing “everywoman” types for these ops, and they seem to like the name Lucy.)

Meanwhile, and with deep irony, many of the same people objecting to Lucy Connolly being severely penalised for a Tweet, are cheering on ex-Reclaim MP, Andrew Bridgen, as he drags Matt Hancock through the courts for the very same “offence.”

Bridgen has taken tens of thousands of pounds from the public, using Democracy 3.0 of course, in an attempt to sue Matt Hancock – not for his crimes against humanity – but for calling Bridgen a nasty name on Twitter. Despite having access to the multi-millions of Jeremy Hosking, Bridgen nevertheless claims to need a quarter of a million pounds from the public to pay for this.

And, as I speculated earlier, Lucy Connolly may also soon be the recipient of a fat wad of cash, as compensation for her star turn as persecuted political prisoner.

But how do you get money to crisis actors performing in staged events, without leaving a very incriminating paper trail, and rumbling the whole operation? After all, a big fat cheque from CrisisCast.Com or HM Government would obviously look a wee bit suspicious …

So, instead, a shopfront “fundraising platform” is established by shadowy, untouchable members of the elite (those with House of Lords connections, perhaps), and a fundraiser is set up for the “poor victim” of the “crisis” in question.

Then, the intelligence agency that hired the crisis actor diversifies the actor’s payment across hundreds of different accounts, who all then anonymously “donate” to the fundraiser, donations which are intermingled with plenty of genuine donations from the beguiled public, and voila! You have now successfully washed clean your ill-gotten gains, and nobody will ever know where the money really came from.

Receipts will show you haven’t been paid by the government, intelligence or acting agencies for your role in a staged hoax, but rather, you have been paid by a crowdfunder for your stint as a poor victim … Which is exactly why these high-profile PsyOps always have high-profile, very lucrative, crowdfunders attached. Put simply, it’s a form of money laundering. What they do may not be strictly illegal, but the aim of concealing the true origins of large sums of money is the same.

That’s why Democracy 3.0 is so opaque and so lacking in transparency when compared to legitimate fundraising sites like Crowd Justice.

Democracy 3.0 has one or two legitimate campaigns on there to give the site a sheen of credibility, but primarily, the operation exists, I believe, as a front to clean money that is used to compensate intelligence assets (both controlled opposition and crisis actors) who participate in manipulated and staged events. That’s the only viable conclusion to be drawn regarding why high-profile celebrity multi-millionaires would use such an obscure, inept platform, with almost no online visibility, for their fundraising endeavours.

Consider the fact that Democracy 3.0 – fundraiser to the stars – has a rather pitiful 466 followers on Twitter (for comparison, fundraising platform GiveSendGo has 74,000); a frankly embarrassing 26 on Instagram (GoFundMe has 194,000). And just 213 followers on Facebook (on a page that hasn’t been updated in nearly a year).

In short, Democracy 3.0 makes no genuine attempts to promote itself beyond its small inner circle, because it has no need to. That is because it is not really a crowdfunding platform that makes its money simply by appealing to those looking to start a crowdfunder. Rather, it is a money laundry for intelligence assets, which is why no realistic attempts are made to publicise it, beyond a small number of controlled, connected “in the club” people.

With Jeremy Hosking’s millions behind it, Democracy 3.0 could have huge online visibility and hundreds of thousands of followers on social media – as Hosking’s assets Fox and Bridgen do – if it aspired to. But it doesn’t, for a very specific and strategic reason: namely, that when you are running a money laundry, you don’t want to attract too much dirt.

Lucy Connolly, wife of “Northampton’s first covid patient” and with a media profile going back years, is just the latest controlled asset to use the platform’s services.

The last article I wrote about Democracy 3.0 was entitled: ‘What the devil is the deal with Democracy 3.0?’.

So, if we’re at all tempted to dismiss Democracy 3.0 as “just an innocent crowdfunding platform,” as it may initially appear, we have to remind ourselves that the devil, as he always lurks, is in the details.

About the Author

Miri Finch is the founder of the website Miri AF, where she publishes her letters, articles, commentaries, campaigns and, occasionally, satirically rewritten song lyrics. Her website is entirely reader-supported. If you’d like to contribute to help her site keep going, you can subscribe monthly via Patreon or Substack, or make a one-off donation via BuyMeACoffee or bank transfer (details for which are provided at the bottom of Miri’s FAQ page.)

Featured image: Lucy Connolly. Source: Racial hatred post did not break X rules, BBC (Marianna Spring), 3 September 2024

This article (Is there more to the Lucy Connolly case than meets the eye?) was created and published by The Expose and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Miri Finch and Rhoda Wilson

Featured image: Reddit

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.