September 3, 2024 - 1:10pm
A childminder is facing a prison sentence for threatening asylum seekers in a social media post. Lucy Connolly, 41, who pleaded guilty to stirring up racial hatred, has been remanded in custody and told to expect a “substantial custodial sentence” when she next appears in court.
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care […] if that makes me racist, so be it,” she wrote. Few people would defend Connolly’s post, which appears to have been sent shortly after the fatal attacks on three young girls in Southport at the end of July. But there is no evidence that Connolly intended to carry out her threat, which she quickly deleted and apologised for.
That certainly wasn’t the case when a man called Muhammad Hassan, who had previously abused three Asian women because he didn’t like how they were dressed, appeared in court last week. Hassan was charged with assaulting the women when they stopped for petrol at a service station in Bradford. He berated them as “prostitutes”, seizing the driver’s head and slamming it into the dashboard. Then he grabbed the second woman and punched her in the head, before hitting the third woman as well.
The attacks were described by the judge as “an extremely abusive, controlling and violent incident”. But Hassan didn’t end up in prison. He was sentenced to six months, suspended for two years. Misogyny is not a hate crime in this country but Hassan could have been charged with a religiously aggravated offence, which would have attracted a heavier punishment. Instead, he is merely required to do 180 hours of unpaid work and wear an electronic tag for four months, while his victims live in fear of running into him again.
There is a question here about how the criminal justice system assesses and responds to risk. From personal experience, I know that the police are not much interested in threats from Islamists, one of whom — he called himself Celtic Abdullah — threatened to blow up the offices of the newspaper I was writing for a few years ago. I took his email to my local police station, where the desk sergeant stared at it. “What have you done to upset him?” was his response.
A couple of days later, another officer called me to say he wasn’t going to take any further action. “It’s not racist,” he claimed when I reminded him about the content of the email. I suggested that threatening to kill me was a criminal offence, but he wasn’t interested.
Threats against asylum seekers are horrible, especially in a highly charged atmosphere when thuggish men have taken to the streets. Clearly our new government, headed by a Prime Minister who used to run the Crown Prosecution Service, wants to be seen to be tough on public disorder. But Connolly didn’t join a riot or act on her post.
She has a tragic history, losing a son at the age of 19 months after a series of medical errors. It’s hard to see what would be achieved by separating her from her surviving children, when non-custodial options are available. If she is sent to prison, while a man caught on CCTV physically attacking three women walks free, the “two-tier” justice system jibe will really deserve to stick.
Joan Smith is a novelist and columnist. She was previously Chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Board, and is on the advisory group for Sex Matters. Her book Unfortunately, She Was A Nymphomaniac: A New History of Rome’s Imperial Women was published in November 2024.
polblonde
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFour legs good, two legs bad. It’s going to get worse.
Interesting story. Quite obviously the government regards speech as a greater crime than physical assault. In fact they’re right to do so. Free speech is the natural enemy of authority. This is not so much a two-tier justice system as a crackdown on free speech. They cannot cut out our tongues but they can make us afraid to use them. If you feel slightly anxious about saying something then they’re on their way to winning. This case, assuming all the facts are accurate, needs pushback and it can only come from the public because they have the numbers. Shutting down speech as hate crime is just a cover for shutting down free speech..
Sentencing is a matter for the Court it is not a decision for the government unless there are specific guidelines that require speech to be punished more harshly than actions which I would find surprising.
This woman wrote a foolish and inflammatory post under the influence of news of the tragic slaughter of young girls but which could have influenced no one to act on her indifference to hotels being set on fire. A suspended sentence and some community service would be ample punishment for her folly given the general reluctance to impose imprisonment on far more severe malefactors such as those referred to in the article and reported daily.
It is for the barrister representing her at the sentencing hearing to highlight the relative trivial nature of the harm flowing from her post compared to the sentences imposed for specific threats and actual physical attacks committed by Muslims and others of a racially aggregated nature and invite them to impose a suspended sentence. If the Court is sufficiently ideologically captured as to impose an immediate custodial sentence she should certainly appeal. Her barrister should emphasise that it is important that the public should not be left with the impression that there is two tier justice depending on ethnic origin and that foolish posts be not more harshly treated than actual physical harm.
It’s difficult to look at what’s happening right now and not to conclude that impressing upon the British public that there is a two-tier system of justice being applied is precisely the point. The people running the UK right now want the majority English population to know they’re not in charge of the place anymore. Making examples of poor housewives while machete-wielding Muslim men openly stalk the streets sends a pretty clear message that I’m sure the Court is aware of. The stiff sentences send the message that you’d better shut up and fall in line, no matter how many little girls get butchered in their gymnastics classes, or else.
While I agree that two tier policing etc is very obvious and evil I think we need to be fair to Starmer and honest to ourselves – this problem started well before Starmer got into power, or even became an MP (2015).
We all know there is one law for one and one law for another. It’s always been like that.
You addressed that to me but it has very little to do with my comment.
I addressed it to you because your comment appeared to suggest that the way this woman would be sentenced was directed by the government. This is not the case. The courts are independent. They may be influenced by government rhetoric and MSM hysteria but there should be no direct instructions from the government beyond the general guidelines on sentencing.
If anyone wishes to assist her plight they should ensure she has proper representation armed with comparative sentences to argue against continued incarceration. Merely protesting will have no effect.
Then I don’t understand where the law and the crime she has committed came from,
How would you know who might be influenced to act? What if a person read her post, and was thereby motivated to set fire to a hotel, resulting in deaths?
As the post was to a small private group and quickly deleted, we can be pretty sure no one was motivated to act, and in fact nobody was.
Indeed, her post was in fact less a call to action than a statement that she wouldn’t care if hotels were burned. A sentiment that was probably the transitory emotion connected with the news of slaughter of the girls and which no doubt she fairly soon repented and deleted. Something entirely different to a physical attack.
How was her post drawn to the attention of the police?
The opening paragraph notes that Lucy Connolly has been remanded in custody so she’s in prison already and separated from her surviving children. This separation can only be harmful for them. Of course, she could appeal – from her cell. Childminders are paid poorly so she will undoubtedly struggle to afford a barrister – certainly a good one.
Talking of which, does anyone recall the social media post by a fox battering barrister?
Why is she still incarcerated? How is she such a threat that she must be imprisoned until her hearing?
Why and how, indeed, Brett?
Andy Cooke, former chief constable of Merseyside Police, and now HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary was quoted in the last edition of the Sunday Telegraph:
“The entire criminal justice system is dysfunctional, undoubtedly dysfunctional.”
The article’s frontpage headline was:
‘Entire Criminal Justice System is in Disarray, Admits Police Watchdog’.
But after the scale and duration of the wrongful prosecution of subpostmasters, the Andrew Malkinson miscarriage of justice and the Criminal Case Review Commision’s woeful response to it, really, who knew?
It is niaive to think the courts are not acting on instructions
Exactly. Special courts dispensing instant justice without juries?
I agree that free speech seems to be the greater crime, but I think the police/government are terrified of Muslims. They don’t respond with speech. They respond with violence. Teachers who have shared pictures of Mohammad with their students to illustrate free speech, have been forced into hiding or beheaded (France). I believe many British people are also afraid to cross a Muslim as well. British Muslims don’t seem to assimilate and are far more militant than Muslims in the United States.
I think you are missing what I think is a rather obvious distinction, namely that saying “I think migration to this country is too high, and we should reduce it” is rather different to saying “I think migration to this country is too high, and we should deal with it by burning down a building with migrants in it”.
The critical distinction is not between expression of good thoughts and bad thoughts, but between saying and doing.
Except no one did burn down a building. So arrested for saying something that might lead to a crime but in actual fact didn’t. That’s quite a convoluted business.
Except she didn’t actually say that. Why is it so difficult for you to keep to facts and why the rush to the sentence already decided?
But Hassan didn’t end up in prison
Your country has lost the plot. When words are seen as more dangerous than physical assault, there is no rule of law in play, just a rule of who can and who cannot be offended. Apparently, calling women whores and being violent with them is okay but a mean social media post is not. My god. What happened to you? More importantly, will you do anything about it?
The social media post the subject of this story called for burning down a building with people in it. I think that would be illegal in most countries.
It is done all the time by certain communities. I remember even in the US three teens posted their desire to kill a white person, went out and did so,and got off lightly because one was only part black and therefore racial hatred could not have been involved.
You speak the same language as this woman, you share common culture, it’s quite clear what she meant and you’re being obtuse in avoiding it. It was an expression of anger. She did not say go and burn down the building. She said she didn’t care if someone did. That’s an expression of feelings. Is that now a criminal act?
No, we will do nothing but complain about the weather.
The UK is really through the looking glass with this shit. What I’m getting from this is that it’s legal in the UK for a man to beat up women in the street if he doesn’t feel they’re dressed modestly enough or email a newspaper threatening to blow up its offices and the police don’t care unless the motivation is blatantly racist. You’ll get off with community service. But if you express the opinion that there’s too much immigration and the government should deport people living in England who are openly hostile to England and its majority inhabitants (i.e. The English), no matter how harmless or helpless you are, you’re going to prison. On top of that, many of the few public figures England has that are openly conservative are leaving the country. Douglas Murray already lives in New York City and Calvin Robinson, while he hasn’t said where he’s going, is probably coming to the States as well. The States which, as of now, is still a place where you can’t be arrested for expressing a political opinion. America needs to remain a safe haven for our cousins persecuted by “Two-Tier” Kier and, frankly, our next president, whoever that may be, needs to tell Keir that the special relationship can’t go on as before while he’s doing what he’s doing right now. Oh, and if I was the next president, I’d also demand the head of the Metropolitan Police be fired immediately for suggesting he’d extradite Americans who break British online speech laws. The suggestion is such an outlandish insult to the United States and all it stands for that he should be sacked.
Look who was NOT prosecuted vs. who was. If you want to know who rules you, look at who cannot be criticized or held accountable.
One of my best friends is an Englishman who I speak to about this regularly. He mentions this as well, the question of who can and can’t be put in prison. I told him, if this was happening in America, high-ranking Republicans would start coming out in the media and repeating the things the common people were being jailed for to expose this element. I wonder where the Tory lawmakers are right now. Have they not considered this? Let Starmer put an MP with a title in prison for three years. If he does it, he’s a tyrant willing to jail his political opponents like Putin. If he won’t, he’s a coward who’ll come down hard on the defenseless but not the wealthy and well-connected. Either way, Starmer loses.
Absolutely. Where are the Tory MPs? They should be shouting from the rooftops. Where’s JK Rowling? She openly challenged the Scottish govt to arrest her trans comments. It’s fine for a handful of pundits like Murray to raise objections, but the country is lost if sitting MPs sit back and do nothing.
I mean, the explanation might be that there are no actual conservatives left in the Tory party to oppose Starmer. I don’t believe they’d stay silent out of fear. I think it’s more likely they stay silent because they agree with what he’s doing.
There aren’t that many Tory MPs at present, and those that are there are busy with the leadership contest.
Oh, please. Can you give me one example of a “common “ person who was jailed for saying something. Remember, this is a country that allows Nazis to parade through a Jewish community, because it’s free speech. Unless one of the common people threatens to kill the president, they can say anything they want in the United States. Even the most disgusting speech is free speech.
In the States we’ve only gone so far down that sink-hole. If you say the wrong thing while committing an actual crime they’ll throw the book at you. Twice.
Time will tell how much further we may sink.
I’m not sure what your point is. Right, you can pretty much say whatever you want in the US and you can’t be thrown into prison for it unless it’s deemed direct incitement. The point being, why should your definition of “disgusting speech” be a limitation? What if I’m saying something I regard as true and necessary that you deem to be bigoted or hateful? Why should I not be able to say it? This is the crux of the problem in the UK. You have a lot of immigrants living there that clearly hate England, the English, as well as the culture of the place but nobody can say it was a mistake to allow these people to come or that they should be made to leave because that speech is considered politically inadmissible now. It is, however, apparently true. The freedom to say what one believes to be true regardless of the popularity of the view has been replaced by the freedom from offense. But, in the UK at least, it’s not applied evenly. The majority, native British population can be offended all day, every day. Their children can be murdered in gymnastics and dance classes or blown up at concerts, their daughters can be sexually assaulted and enslaved, their women can be beaten up in the streets by men from religiously conservative cultures that are alien to England’s, punters can be stabbed to death in pubs, symbols of the nation’s sacrifice to preserve global democracy, such as the Cenotaph, can be vandalized, but it’s the newcomers who enjoy the freedom from offense.
The point is, you can feel that it’s wrong for me to say whatever I said but, in the United States, you don’t have the power to use the state to put me in a cage for it. To me, this is obviously the basis for a free society. The fact that this isn’t obvious to a lot of people now is frankly frightening.
That’s a truly excellent idea.
Why were those men charged and convicted in 24 hours but that murdering bastards Axel Rutabaga is in custody I hope hes not out on bail,why is it going to take months in fact probably years before his case comes up in court. I know it’s because due process of law has to be followed,nothing can be rushed because of one procedure is done wrong he will.have to be aquitted and released,yeah the usual lies,the real reason is Kerching. The lawyers clocking up their £250 per hour. Kerching, Kerching, Kerching.
And ironically a lot of switched on Americans are moving to Europe,Portugal is top.choice but France and Italy too. And A LOT of Yanks,a lot MORE than the White House wants us to know about are moving to RUSSIA. Where it’s safe for their kids to play out and they dont get Drag Queen Storytime at school.
I think a lot of Americans are moving to Europe for just the reason you say but also they move to Europe if they can because, frankly, America can be a brutal place to live. The pace of life in Europe is slower and more humane.
You are aware that making threats is not political speech and is not protected in the US or anywhere else? You don’t seem to have grasped that yet.
Here’s what she said:
“set fire to all the f*****g hotels full of the bastards for all I care”
That is a threat and an incitement to others. The court will decide her sentence (not the government).
Her statement is ambiguous – it depends where you place the emphasis. Do you read it as direct incitement or as saying she doesn’t care if that’s what happens? If the second I’d say she’s entitled to have that opinion.
I live in the United States and you’re simply wrong about the laws here. You can make vague and indirect threats. What you can’t make are direct threats. You can say, “I don’t care if someone kills every last one of those bastards” or “I’d be happy if someone set fire to the hotels full of those bastards.” What you can’t say is, “Meet me in Pittsburgh at such-and-such an address on Friday at 2PM and we’ll blow up a hotel full of migrants.” That’s illegal in the United States. It has to be direct incitement to violence. Why do you think Americans are so disturbed and disgusted by the spectacle of housewives and grandmothers being handed stiff sentences for things they said online, even when the judge admits there was no direct incitement or any real threat? This is after little girls were slaughtered in a dance class. You’d think the courts would grant clemency based on the shocking barbarity of the crimes. Isn’t it understandable that the murder of little children would elicit extreme responses and calls for revenge? The question is, were they credible threats and they clearly weren’t. That 41 year old mother or that 60 year old woman who was caring for her disabled husband, you really think either one of them was going to burn down a hotel? I understand your speech laws are different than in the US. But they’re worse. Thank God I live in a country where our Supreme Court has repeatedly dismissed the idea that “hate speech” is a category of speech recognized in law. It’s legal here to say you hate somebody for any reason. There are people here who want us to become like the UK and the EU but, thankfully, so far they haven’t been able to do so and I pray they never will.
I can’t believe anyone thinks that posting “I hate all ***** and I wish they were all dead” is somehow punishable by law. That’s ridiculous.
People say all kind of crap that they don’t mean. The remedy is not a jail term, but social correction. If your friend Jim says something offensive at the pub, you say “OK, Jim, tell us what you really think!” and everyone laughs. Because hyperbole is part of human experience and humor. But if Jim persists time and again, no one hangs out with Jim any more. Jim becomes a pariah. But if Jim is arrested, Jim becomes a martyr.
The law should only ever be invoked over an intent to cause action on those feelings of hatred. Did Lucy expect that the call to murder via her blog post would be taken up? Of course not.
“Isn’t it understandable that the murder of little children would elicit extreme responses and calls for revenge?”
Apparently not in the United States where the Sandy Hook murder of 20 little children elicited only, at best, thoughts and prayers (again), and, at worst, insane claims from the MAGA right that the whole thing was staged.
I see there was another American school shooting today.
I appreciate the attempt to change the subject but let’s stay on the topic of the problem the UK has right now. The problem you have to confront is why your elites hate you, the native Briton, as much as they do that they’re willing to import millions of people, many of whom want to kill you, and allow them to do whatever they want to you and, if you complain, they toss you in jail. Whatever problems America has, they pale in comparison to this at the moment. Here, we can express the opinion that the government has allowed too many migrants to enter the country, legally or illegally, and that we need to deport them without the police arresting us at the airport. We can even make ill-considered, knee-jerk Facebook posts if someone does something terrible without a visit from the bobby.
In America, we send “thoughts and prayers” because we see tyrannical cunts like your PM and the guy in Canada and we realize that allowing our right to bear arms to be revoked is a terrible idea regardless of the regrettable actions of a few lunatics. After all, if Brits had guns, you’d have shootings rather than all those stabbings. But if you had guns, then regular Brits could protect themselves against the criminals your government coddles and even the government itself. It’s clear your government wants to do everything in its power to prevent you from doing either of those things; it likes you defenseless. My point is, the UK is not a fundamentally less violent nation than the US anymore, it’s simply more authoritarian. That’s not really something to brag about.
Yet the transactivists are endlessly putting out social media posts saying such things as ‘rape and kill all terfs’ and that doesn’t even result in a slap on the wrist let alone a custodial sentence. 2 tiers?
But do you think her post is worse than physical assault?
Two-tier policing followed by two-tier justice.
At sentencing, there should be a demo – a peaceful one – organised to protest on her behalf. The placards might include a request for support from passing motorists:
Toot Here
What would prevent Keir from having all the protestors arrested as well? Optics? He’s already presided over helpless women being given stiff jail sentences for Facebook posts while violent criminals walk free. This is why the second amendment to the US constitution enshrines the right of common people to own guns. It’s to have the ability to resist tyrants, both foreign and domestic. If you think that doesn’t tend to dampen the enthusiasm of American Starmers, you’d be wrong. The credible threat of political violence when you’ve got a population that’s armed to the teeth is a considerable barrier to strong-arm utopian progressives getting their way.
In the UK we have a very long and detailed history of how those who seek to impose authoritarian rule (both home and from abroad) can be overcome.
Don’t you worry about us; we were deposing tyrants whilst the native American Indians had free access to the buffalo herds.
The moral of my little homily? You can push us, but not too far.
Thanks for saying that – I find it reassuring. I have a great affection for England and I know many other Americans do as well. Many of us have friends there we worry about. It hurts to see this happening.
Downvoters, care to say what it is about Lancashire Lad’s comment that meets with your disapproval?
You like the idea that we should have authoritarian rule imposed on us?
Or what? Do Tell.
Or maybe its just because it is an extraordinarily stupid comment?
It’s not stupid at all. It’s true. English history is full of push backs against the state authority. Never ultimately successful but they tried.
I don’t know why you people don’t understand that this is not some heroic resistance to an overbearing state.
Its a self proclaimed racist being punished for encouraging rioters to burn down hotels housing migrants.
She’s not Robin Hood, sweetie!
If you read her – admittedly stupid and ill-advised – words, I think you’ll recognise that “for all I care” is actually expressing indifference and not encouragement. The tone is one of frustration, rather than any incitement or intent. Do apply some common sense !
That said, I can understand why this case might need to be used as an example. While she might – only just – be on the right side of the line here, it’s not good that people should be straying that close to the trip wire. And most of us [in Unherd’s comments at least] do seem to believe in individual responsibility.
I don’t think jail is proportionate here though. Or will achieve anything positive in this case.
Common sense? From a self-proclaimed Socialist?
You’re having a laugh.
I do have a vague recollection of the English executing a King at one point.
As a master in that field on these pages, you should know.
I didn’t down vote him but his description of British history reeks of “Whig History” and Protestant propaganda. Cromwell was a far worse tyrant than Charles I ever was, and the deposing of James II was simple religious bigotry. The abuse of Scots, Irish, and English Catholics by allegedly “democratic” Parliaments, and “good Queen Bess” was far worse than anything the worst English “tyrant” King ever did.
I really hope you’re right LL.
This is what you get from ‘progressive’ governments. What is more disturbing to me is that the courts seem prepared to go along with it. That tweet does not merit any custodial sentence – let alone a substantial one. It was a stupid knee jerk expression of frustration.
“set fire to all the f*****g hotels full of the bastards for all I care”
There is nowhere, including the US, where threats are considered as protected free speech.
What part of that don’t you people understand? You do know that hotels where migrants have been housed have been attacked, set on fire and people have been killed?
Sentencing is up to the courts
In Ireland.
You’re incorrect about this. What you described is absolutely protected speech in the United States. You can’t say, “Let’s all get together at 3PM on Tuesday and set fire to the Marriott hotel at such-and-such an address.” That’s illegal. You CAN say, “Someone should set fire to the hotels full of those bastards for all I care.”
Nope, sorry. Totally legal in the US.
Let’s see if he can admit his error?
What you have quoted is not a threat, CS.
I bet you thought there was a promise on the side of that bus, too.
Do offence’s committed during rioting which either contribute to the public disorder or potentially encourage it deserve harsher sentences than normal? Yes they do.
But have the sentences handed out so far been disproportionate to the severity of the riots and the offences committed during them? Absolutely and the sense of injustice caused by these make future disturbances more not less likely.
I don’t agree. There will be no more riots of this kind.
The police and judiciary are now there to protect the state, not the citizen. Those talk out of line will be punished severely or exiled.
“Threats against asylum seekers are horrible, especially in a highly charged atmosphere”
That’s BS. For all the supposed rioting, there was no wave of attacks on immigrants, no equivalent of the numerous stabbings or incidents like Manchester arena that we have actually witnessed from certain “minorities”.
Nobody was killed, as far as I know, after the “far right” riots – in contrast to say the Notting Hill carnival.
The islamic rioters attacking Hindu homes and temples in Leicester, or the anti Jewish Gaza mobs in London, were far more menacing and threatening, with little or no action against provocative statements.
As an immigrant, I would feel completely safe in any area that’s mostly “far right” British Whites.
If, on the other hand, I found myself in an area populated by certain “BAME” groups who are vocal about “racism” or “phobia” – I would have to move for the safety of my family , and my daughter/ wife would be under severe risk of violence or harassment if I did not.
I was called a racist twice by staff at a call centre dealing with fraud effecting customers of one of the big four banks. My father is terminally ill and very weak so I have to help him. Lasting power of attorney has come through and is about to be registered. I answered a call in which the caller claimed there was suspected fraud on my father’s account. He wanted to go through security with my father. My father is very hard of hearing and the caller’s accent so pronounced, I found it hard to understand him. Eventually, after sincere efforts to understand, I asked to speak to a native English speaker, an argument ensued and I was called a racist, not once but twice and transferred to another non-native English speaker who was almost as incomprehensible as the first and then a third who was clearly not a native English speaker but his English was comprehensible. Previously, my father had lost his chequebook and I was worried and wanted it cancelled and a new one ordered (my father is 89). That time, we made it through security though despite her best efforts (she really tried to be helpful), I was pretty sure the woman (non native English speaker) dealing with the request had no idea what I was talking about. She kept assuring me she did. The chequebook was never cancelled which was actually a good thing as my father found it. I tried helping my father three more times. We never make it through security. I speak pretty standard English but am not understood. Today, when asked for my father to give his name, I asked if they wanted his full name or his name as it appeared on the account. I was accused of helping my father answer the questions and invalidating the security procedure. The second time we went through security, all the responses were correct but we were told there was a mistake. He is now barred from telephone banking until he visits his local branch which closed many years ago. I live 100 miles away.
In my Mums last years if I had to ring the bank I just said I was her. It was easier that way. My Mum was right by me and I had her full permission. My Mum by then could not answer the security questions so it cut out all that fuss and bother for me to do it.
Good idea, it’s a joint account. Thank you
We in the West have been conquered. Get used to it.
If the government intends to put every stupid person in jail,wont be many of us left on the outside. Why can’t we be like Queen Elizabeth 1st who didn’t want to make windows into men’s souls.
She will be given a suspended sentence.
It is clear: the conquerors are being given very soft legal treatment. Those who have been conquered had best stfu.
It is outrageous that a nation that claims to be enlightened and freedom loving would even consider what shec posted as criminal, much less jailable.
So, you’d be perfectly happy with someone making a post that said “Hey everybody, let’s all go round to UnHerd Reader’s house at [insert address], and burn the place down with him (or her) and family in it”?
It depends. If they quickly deleted it, and apologised, obviously I want them jailed.
Those factors might be relevant to the penalty, but the post itself is a clear incitement to violence.
I seem to remember a post by yourself here on Unherd which could quite easily be interpreted as incitement to commit genocide of the whole Russian people.
As you say “Those factors might be relevant to the penalty, but the post itself is a clear incitement to violence.”
What would your defence be?
It is not a clear incitement to violence. It was an expression of anger and for feelings of the families involved.
But she didn’t say that. She said she didn’t care if someone burned the place down. An obnoxious comment, yes, but not on the same level as your hypothetical example.
Agreed. Martin M is making a specious argument. Let’s hope the judge doesn’t use the same “reasoning”.
That’s a specific threat and call to action. That’s illegal, even in the US.
Do you genuinely not understand the clear differences between what she actually wrote & your example?
This case is truly ridiculous. Mrs Connolly called for deportations and said she did not care if some people broke the law in a certain way or if her opinions were racist. None of those 3 beliefs are illegal, nor should they be.
According to the story itself, she called for setting fire to the hotels containing asylum seekers. I suspect that an incitement to violence like that would be illegal in most countries.
Did she call for fires to be started?
According to the piece (she may have written other things, but not reported here), she wrote: ‘Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*****g hotels full of the bastards for all I care…’
The part I have italicised reads to me not like an incitement of others to act, but a statement that she wouldn’t care if they did.
There are probably millions of US voters who say something along the lines of: ‘It wouldn’t bother me if someone managed to shoot Trump’ (or whatever).
Is that incitement? Are they all criminals? Should they all be imprisoned?
Exactly. I made the same comment before seeing yours. If saying ‘I don’t care’ is criminal and merits a custodial sentence, then we really are in trouble.
Deportations are probably the (and certainly one of the) correct legal response to illegal immigration. In fact, didn’t Yvette Cooper announce some new deportation flights only last week ?. The fact that we seem unable to actually do this doesn’t change the legailty of it. Just saying.
“Misogyny is not a hate crime in this country but Hassan could have been charged with a religiously aggravated offence”.
And so what ? GBH and assault are existing offences and I’m fairly sure they can result in custodial sentences. Sounds like this bloke had done more than enough to qualify already.
Why on earth do we have to dream ever ever more obscure new offences when we’ve got perfectly clear existing laws that do the job ?
We don’t need “hate crime” laws Joan. Or misogny laws. We just need the police and courts to do their job with the proven existing laws. And stop trying to make their jobs more interesting. Choose more complexity and of course you’ll get more messy and inconsistent results.
Misogyny is not a hate crime in this country but Hassan could have been charged with a religiously aggravated offence, which would have attracted a heavier punishment.
I would have thought physical assaults would be the most serious of the crimes.
Only if everybody identified as having chanted “from the river to the sea” is…that being a pretty clear incitement to commit Genocide, and clearly intended to threaten British Citizens who happen to be Jewish and resident in London…
I don’t see that because one sentence was over-lenient there is something wrong with the other. The author needs to decide whether he is against Connolly’s sentence as too severe on its own merits, or too severe because Hassan’s was too lenient. Over-leniency all-round is a peculiar argument.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2l1y1k087vo
….and Lucy Letby …..
There’s no if about it.
Barely any up- or down-votes on the comments BTL on this one … interesting.
What this says to me is that government is using repression, unjust means, to try and keep a lid on the unliddable, if that is a word. When the pressure cooker does blow, it will be spectacular.
This is an awful story,but it makes me optimistic. Our political and media leaders have been forced into tyrannous ways because they are justifiably scared of the majority British population.
It reminds me of the imposition of martial law in Poland because of the fear of Solidarity. It delayed the inevitable but in the end the people won.
We can do the same.