| Lucy Connolly - where are you? 11:38 - Aug 26 with 872 views | saint901 |
You may recall the case of the above "lady".
She is the wife of a Tory councillor who tweeted that hotels containing immigrants should be burned to the ground. A tweet that was apparently seen several hundred thousand times before it was taken down (I think by her rather than a Twitter moderator).
As a result she was arrested and jailed. This was at a time when the Gov't warned everybody that a fast track would be used to dispense justice following the riots over the Southport murders - wrongly attributed to an asylum seeker.
She was offered a full trial and the risk of a long sentence or a short trial in exchange for a guilty plea to lesser charges. She choose the latter on the advice of her solicitor. She has served the required time and is now out on licence.
Her case has been taken up by the right wing - the Daily Fail in particular - who are now making all sorts of accusations of a stitch up, collusion, conspiracy by Starmer and "cronies". She is apparently willing to risk an appeal which could - if it fails - see her back in prison. The above right wing sources are strangely silent about who is funding the appeal. There is however talk of a book and perhaps a documentary.
Whilst she was in prison, many comparisons were made about her sentence compared to say a sex offender. Especially is said offender had brown skin and arrived here on a boat or lorry without papers. I'm not sufficiently across sentencing guidelines to make any informed opinion about the value of such comparisons.
My view is that she was at least reckless in her initial post, in that she had not checked the facts and was willing to post what is by any stretch "advice" or "opinion" which fuelled and already febrile situation (especially as it would be picked up on by the weak minded).
Your view? |  | | |  |
| Lucy Connolly - where are you? on 12:34 - Aug 26 with 763 views | Jellybaby |
My view? Another week, another divisive thread from 901.
Staged theatre. Don't believe this tale for one moment, but good fodder for the soap opera that masquerades as reality and the papers need a story and clearly so do you. | |
| I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it. |
| |
| Lucy Connolly - where are you? on 13:19 - Aug 26 with 712 views | Sadoldgit |
She is now doing interviews around the country in which she shows no remorse for her comments. She is a nasty piece of work who clearly hasn’t let her time inside mellow her aggressive racist views. |  | | |
| Lucy Connolly - where are you? on 16:09 - Aug 26 with 536 views | Chesham_Saint |
Did she actually say they should be burnt to the ground and did anyone actually act on her comment? I thought she said she didn't care if they were burnt to the ground which seems a big difference as in:
Statement 1: "Fratton Park could burn to the ground for all I care"
Statement 2: " I hope Fratton Park burns to the ground and would someone reading this please arrange it*"
Both wildly different - or am I missing something? Does the principle of Tuberville v Savage (1669) no longer apply?
Facts
A man placed his hand on his sword and told another, “If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language.” The justices of assize were in town.
Issues
The question was as to whether laying a hand on a sword and stating “If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language,” constituted an unlawful assault by placing another in apprehension of immediate violence.
Decision/Outcome
The Court held that an assault requires both (1) the intention and (2) the act of assault. Even an act of, for example, striking a man, without an intention to assault, does not constitute an assault. Accordingly, the Court held that the facts did not give rise as the man merely stipulated that he would have the intention to assault if it were not assize-time. It was, indeed, assize-time and the man’s declaration expressly stipulated that he would not and did not intend to commit an assault. Thus, there could have been no assault as there were no intention nor act of assault, nor imminent threat thereof.
* I sincerely hope no-one does this as, aside from the appalling human tragedy, I have a few skate mates who actually make up the numbers of the Blue Few... |  |
| |
| Lucy Connolly - where are you? on 08:44 - Aug 27 with 184 views | jopreston |
| Lucy Connolly - where are you? on 13:19 - Aug 26 by Sadoldgit |
She is now doing interviews around the country in which she shows no remorse for her comments. She is a nasty piece of work who clearly hasn’t let her time inside mellow her aggressive racist views. |
I assume you agree that Labour MP Ricky Jones should be behind bars also then for his 'Cut their Throats' comment?
No, of course not. Totally different isn't it.
Edit: Also, can I ask why you need to call someone racist for having beliefs that are in line with many black people, Indians and other colours and Creeds? It is not racist at all to have concerns for what is happening on our streets right now, which has unquestionably become worse with the influx of these young men on the boats. That cannot be questioned.
I am well aware indigenous people also commit crimes, but we are just making it worse allowing these unchecked/unvetted people loose in the communities. How is it racist to be concerned about such a thing? Are the Indian gents and Sikhs who have been on these protests also racist?
It has become all to easy for people to use this word RACIST and aiming it at anyone and everyone who does not want mass immigration of unchecked men coming in. A very lazy and to be honest, ill thought out word to use. [Post edited 27 Aug 8:59]
| | | |
| Lucy Connolly - where are you? on 08:47 - Aug 27 with 180 views | saint901 |
| Lucy Connolly - where are you? on 12:34 - Aug 26 by Jellybaby |
My view? Another week, another divisive thread from 901.
Staged theatre. Don't believe this tale for one moment, but good fodder for the soap opera that masquerades as reality and the papers need a story and clearly so do you. |
Again happy to see you keeping tabs on my posts Mr Bean.
Which element of the post is "divisive"?
It's an issue upon which we can expect many different viewpoints and the stating and reading of these helps us all understand it a bit better.
Which parts do you not believe? That she made the post? That she deleted it? That she was found guilty of an offence and went to prison? That she is now being feted by the right as sone sort of anti woke hero? Please help us out here. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
