Lucy Connolly: an exercise in making an example

Never Forget: Guilty Pleas Are Not Advisable

DOGMATIC SLUMBERS

There aren’t many clicks and likes to be had in the message, “Things aren’t as bad as they are made out to be.”

This headline in The Times is striking:

Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages

along with rent-a-quotes from Big Brother Watch and Toby Young of the Free Speech Union:

Sir Keir Starmer emphatically denied there is a free speech crisis in Britain when JD Vance raised this with him at the White House, but this data suggests we have a serious problem.

To be clear up front: the purpose of this short article is not to suggest that there is no problem about living in a country where the police can lock you up for a tweet, still less condone it; and, for the avoidance of doubt, I do not think there should be any punishment for saying something into the aether, even (whisper it) something racist. What I am trying to do here is to provide an example of how the system works to reinforce such suppression, by police and courts and media, and looks for the maximum impact at the lowest cost (widely defined).

The first thing to note is that the substance of the Times piece is at odds with its form: namely the shock headline and obligatory interjections from the free speech warriors. It is by no means hidden, in fact illustrated in two stark graphs. The Times looks at arrests made under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, over time:

compared to sentences received (note the different time axis – it’s a very sloppy article):

Thus, whilst the number of arrests has roughly doubled from the pre-Covid era to 2023, the number of convictions has remained broadly flat. Fewer than one in ten of the number arrested in 2023 were actually sentenced. Not only that, the number of sentences received is substantially (c.45%) below the peak number of the first Cameron government: when (in 2013) Sir Keir Starmer, as Director of Public Prosecutions, revised guidance to the effect that ‘that offensive social media messages should only lead to prosecution in “extreme circumstances.”’

The data presented by The Times ends, of course, before 2024, the year of the Rudakubana Riots and the attentions of the new Trump regime on free speech in our land, up to VP Vance and Musk himself. Unfortunately, data is not forthcoming: my brief search listed only two police forces to have been received FOI requests: West Yorkshire, who declined to provide information on grounds of cost, and Cumbria, whose response is here. This sole example 34 arrests (down from a peak of 49 in 2019) and 4 charged (compared to 13 in 2017).

We can’t tell anything from this, of course, save that there wasn’t a tsunami of jailings in Carlisle. What is more telling is neither the author of the article, nor any journalistic colleagues, nor the free speech advocates, appears to have asked the question.

All this is in sharp contrast to how the narrative is presented. On the same day as the Times article, the Telegraph featured this long piece by Allison Pearson on one of the high profile convicts, Lucy Connolly, sentenced to 31 months’ bird for a tweet. Pearson herself has received much publicity (largely from her employer) for her own arrest for tweeting about the police: “How dare they. Invited to pose for a photo with lovely peaceful British Friends of Israel on Saturday police refused. Look at this lot smiling with the Jew haters.” (Charges were not brought.) Poor Lucy herself, and her family, have been horrendously treated: her tweet was live for four hours in the aftermath of the Southport attack before she deleted it. Pearson quotes:

It was without doubt a horrible, hateful and deeply offensive tweet. “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f—ing hotels full of the b—–ds for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it.”

Let’s leave aside the question of whether the expression of a statement ‘x can happen, for all I care’ is indeed ‘horrible, hateful and deeply offensive’: note that Pearson is actively backing the rationale for the prosecution here. We then elide into the background: the death of Lucy’s son at the hands of the NHS (‘catastrophic failures’ but not ‘gross negligence’), her vulnerability to suffering children and PTSD, and refence to ‘the fifty-one words’ of the tweet that would ‘turn her into the ideal poster girl for Starmer’s pledge to impose heavy sentences on “far-Right thugs”.’1

Thereafter, Pearson goes on to laud Lucy’s non-racist credentials:

Mrs Connolly’s precious charges have included Nigerian, Somalian, Jamaican, Bangladeshi, Lithuanian and Polish, as well as white British, kids. “It’s like the blimmin’ United Nations in here,” the childminder used to joke.

and talks her ‘old-fashioned socialist mother’ who taught her to ‘abhor racism’.

She was refused bail. A ‘senior lawyer’ refers to ‘ informal pressure’ to ‘crack down hard’ in the wake of the riots. The most telling passage is here:

Ray Connolly was convinced by a couple of leading barristers who insisted that his wife should plead not guilty – a jury, they said, was unlikely to convict a patently decent woman like Lucy for one horrible tweet. “If I could have got her round a table with those barristers, I’m sure she would have gone with ‘not guilty’,” Ray says. But Lucy herself was in jail where she was surrounded by women who had waited months for a trial date… A guilty plea looked like the fastest way to put this nightmare behind her. “I don’t give a damn about having a criminal record,” she said to herself. “I want to be at home with Ray and Holly.”

The article, under the cover of highlighting a unjust case, actually serves to illustrate the tactics that the regime appears to employ, which are characterised by:

• An increasing arrest rate, including high-profile cases (such as Allison Pearson and Bernie Spofforth) combined with a reduced rate of prosecution
• ‘Example’ sentences being made of a small number of those that are prosecuted
• A targeting of vulnerable people of those charged who may be persuaded to plead guilty rather than facing a jury
• A worrying absence (at best) of decent legal advice

I would stress that we do not have data for the 2024 across the country; it could be that the particular atmosphere after the Southport massacres will lead to a reversal of these trends. In addition, we do not know what the effect of the Online Safety Act (implemented last month) will have in future.

With these caveats, consider how many cases of being jailed for posting have actually come across your feeds? Lucy Connolly, almost certainly, and Peter Lynch, the Rotherham grandfather also jailed for almost three years who seems to have committed suicide in prison. (Pearson also raises his case – and links it to Lucy Connolly – here.) Our lone example of Cumbria will include these two cases, both receiving sentences of twelve weeks. Another instance2 received a sentence of 46 weeks – although he had accumulated 32 previous convictions in his 41 years, including a sex offence and assaulting a police officer.

The media has also sought to conflate prosecutions for malicious communications with charges brought as part of the riots themselves (which have been treated harshly, not surprisingly.) Sticking to Cumbria, this BBC report from last August relates to one of the cases I linked above, and another woman being granted bail; but note how the report ends:

The woman was granted bail on condition she does not post anything on any social media platform.

Unrest spread across the country after three young girls were stabbed to death in Southport on 29 July.

So far, 927 people have been arrested and 466 charged in relation to the disorder, a spokesman for the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) said.

There is a pattern: scattergun arrests, limited prosecutions and a handful of egregious sentences to be amplified by mainstream media, and thoughtlessly reposted across social media for maximal coverage, until it gets amplified by Musk himself. The randomness of the prosecutions, and the consequent uncertainty, is in many ways more oppressive than outright censorship: self-censorship is more damaging to the individual than simplistic rule-following. And it is being achieved at a low ‘cost’ to the state in terms of jail time. I am fond of saying that the Britain is the most controlled nation in the world, not excluding North Korea, and I’m not entirely joking.

I’m sure my readers are sensible enough to know: if the you get a knock on the door, don’t plead guilty.

---

This article (Lucy Connolly: an exercise in making an example) was created and published by Dogmatic Slumbers and is republished here under “Fair Use”

Lawyers “Sickened” by Judiciary’s Treatment of Lucy Connolly—Non-Violent Southport Protestor Update

Key revelations from Allison Pearson’s recent exposè in The Telegraph with some added context.

JJ STARKEY

In the wake of the Southport protests/riots, the state arguably needed a fall guy. Someone to set an example of. And they it looks like they found one in Lucy Connolly.

This week, The Telegraph’s Allison Pearson sat down with Lucy’s husband, Ray, revealing thus far undisclosed details about her case and how she was, and still is, being mistreated today.

Her story evokes uncomfortable parallels with other cases—like that of former Royal Marine Jamie Michael—where his online criticism of illegal immigration led to state persecution and alleged intimidation.

Lucy was one of more than 1,500 people arrested following the unrest after the July 29 murders of three little girls—Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King, and Alice da Silva Aguiar—by Axel Rudakubana.

She took no part in the riots. She wasn’t even near them. Her crime involved a tweet—posted at 8:30pm on the night of the murders. It read:

“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f—ing hotels full of the b—–ds for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it.”

It was a savage, emotionally charged post. But “Set fire to [x] for all I care” is very different to calling for outright arson.

She walked the dog, came home, and deleted the tweet. It was visible for less than four hours.

The next morning, as parents arrived to drop their children off at Lucy’s home-based childcare business, police showed up and arrested her. Ray, her husband, had no idea what was going on.

The children Lucy had cared for included those from Nigerian, Somali, Jamaican, Bangladeshi, Lithuanian and Polish families—hardly the CV of a vehement racist.

But at the police station, Lucy’s apologies and explanations fell on deaf ears. “Whatever I’d done, police made it quite clear I was going down for this,” she recounted. “Their intention was always to hammer me.”

.
A young duty solicitor commissioned a psychiatric report—but the assessment lasted just an hour, conducted over a video call.

Nothing like the thorough evaluation she received years earlier after the horrific death of her infant son, Harry, due to NHS negligence. That diagnosis had confirmed she suffered from PTSD.

Then, things turned cynical.

The police and CPS released a public statement claiming Lucy had told officers she “did not like immigrants” and that “children weren’t safe around them.”

Except, she didn’t say that. The full accurate police transcript read:

“I’m well aware that we need immigrants… I’m well aware that if I go to the hospital there are immigrants working there and the hospital wouldn’t function without them. I’m [also] well aware of the difference between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants and they are not checked and [nor is] what they might have done (any crimes) in their country of origin – it’s a national security issue and they’re a danger to children.”

Lucy’s mother challenged the CPS directly. They eventually corrected the statement on their website. One would think she had a solid case for defamation.

Police also accused her of additional “racism”, which boiled down to Lucy once calling a friend “Pikey” after he’d jokingly called her a “Brummie c–t.”

All considered, she was formally charged under Section 19 of the Public Order Act on 10th August—“publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred.”

She applied for bail but was swiftly denied.

And this is where the double standard comes in.

Compare her treatment to that of Labour MP and mayor Dan Norris—arrested just days ago on suspicion of rape, child sex offences, child abduction, and misconduct in public office. Within hours, he was released on conditional bail.

Lucy, by contrast, was held on remand—on suspicion of breaking a non-violent crime. Some reports conflict on the timeline, but all agree: she was held on remand before she entered a plea.

Lawyers told Pearson they were “astonished” by the denial of bail.

There were no substantial grounds. She’d already deleted her social media. She was very unlikely to reoffend or flee—not with a husband and 12-year-old daughter at home.

One Southport defendant’s lawyer told Pearson it likely wasn’t formal political pressure but “informal”—a “herd mentality” triggered by fear of further unrest.

Stuck in jail, Lucy faced a grim choice: fight and risk months inside awaiting trial, or plead guilty and get out quicker. “I might not get to court until spring,” she told Ray. “I want to be home with Ray and Holly.”

So that was that, she was to plead guilty—despite insisting that it was not her intent “to be racist”.

Ray gathered character references for her upcoming sentencing hearing. One came from a Nigerian-born doctor whose children Lucy cared for as a childminder.

The doctor said, “I have never had any cause to doubt Lucy’s kindness…” Lucy even acted as a formal referee when her family members when they applied for British citizenship.

“She personally drove to my home to drop these letters herself”, the doctor wrote.

Another came from an immigrant whose children Lucy cared for, saying “she is compassionate and empathetic… We came to this country as immigrants working in the NHS.”

The “Activist-Judge”

.
But none—none—of this appeared to matter to His Honour Judge Melbourne Inman KC, Recorder of Birmingham, when he handed down Lucy’s sentence on 17 October—two months after she was denied bail.

Inman made sweeping assumptions:

“When you published those words, you were well aware of how volatile the situation was. As everyone is aware, that volatility led to serious disorder in a number of areas of the country where mindless violence was used to cause injury and damage to wholly innocent members of the public and to their properties… ”

But there was a glaring problem.

While Lucy’s tweet may have been provocative, savage, whatever you want to call it, the court had no material evidence that her words led a single person to commit violence.

No indication that someone saw her post and then went out and committed a crime. There was also no objective evidence of her intent to stir racial hatred despite her plea.

Inman then referenced “other tweets” that supposedly included “further racist remarks”—but failed to explain how. The example cited came from a WhatsApp message Lucy sent on 5 August, the day before her arrest:

“…raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me on the arse lol”

Clearly, she had no idea what was in store. No race was mentioned. Nor did it suggest malice—more like regret, albeit glibly expressed.

Inman continued:

“You also messaged that if enquiries of you were made, you would deny you were responsible for the message and if you were arrested you would ‘play the mental health card.’”

That remark from Lucy, made in jest or not—we simply don’t know—may have referenced her 2011 PTSD diagnosis following the death of her 19-month-old son. Inman seemed to interpret it in the worst possible way.

He also claimed Lucy showed no sympathy to the Southport victims. But her infamous original tweet included the line:

“I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure.”

She voiced sympathy from the start—explicitly.

The judge’s language became more political than judicial:

“It is the strength of our society that it is both diverse and inclusive. There is always a very small minority of people who will seek an excuse to use violence and disorder… Sentences for those who incite racial hatred and disharmony in our society are intended to both punish and deter.”

There it was, “punish and deter”.

Before sentencing Lucy he acknowledged:

“You have a good family and a young daughter who is undoubtedly missing you terribly. I also take into account that this will be the first time you have been in prison.”

That didn’t stop him from issuing a whopping 31 months in prison—two and a half years. She was ordered to serve 40% of the sentence.

Compare that to another case Inman presided over: Mohammed Abbkr—the man who set two Muslim worshippers on fire in 2023.

He was found guilty of attempted murder. And yet, Inman deemed a prison sentence “inappropriate” due to Abbkr’s mental health condition evidenced by some psychologists. He issued an indefinite hospital order instead.

Then there’s the case of Haris Ghaffar, 19, who pled guilty to violent disorder after joining a masked mob that stormed a Birmingham pub in August.

.
The pub, The Clumsy Swan, was targeted reportedly after false rumours spread that the disbanded English Defence League was “planning to target the Muslim community.”

Ghaffar kicked at the door while terrified staff and patrons barricaded themselves inside. Inman sentenced him to just 20 months.

Inman’s politically charged statements, along with his pattern of choosing the more lenient end of the sentencing range for violent crimes and the harsher end for non-violent offences, suggest more than a lapse in judgment—they point to potential ideological bias.

His apparent disregard for Lucy’s mitigating factors only adds weight to the accusation—a first-time offender, mother of a 12-year-old girl, wife to a man with serious blood illness, and someone with documented trauma.

Lawyers who spoke to Pearson were baffled. “Sickening,” said one. “Outrageous,” said another. “A normally reliable judge was wildly out.”

Imprisonment

••••

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.