Latest news with #Sumption
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Only a very clever man like Lord Sumption could be so stupid when it comes to Lucy Connolly
Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals believe them. Substitute 'judges' for 'intellectuals' and George Orwell's marvellous aphorism applies perfectly to an article by Jonathan Sumption first published on The Telegraph website on Monday. I wasn't going to write about Lucy Connolly this week, but so incensed was I by Lord Sumption's awful opinions that I cannot stay silent. It was good to see that a huge number of readers – more than 9,000 comments at the time of writing (a record, I think) – had the same furious reaction to Sumption's unforgivably callous, 'I shall not waste any sympathy on Mrs Connolly'. Why does Lord Sumption think sympathy for Lucy is wasted? She is mother to a 12-year-old girl who has been without her mummy for 10 months and may yet sustain long-term psychological harm. A woman of previous good character who lost a child in horrifying circumstances and lashed out in rage and sorrow last summer when six parents suffered the anguish of their little girls being slaughtered in a massacre that bore the bloody hallmark of an imported crime. A 42-year-old childminder, tender carer to the infants of immigrants, who shares the majority British view that hordes of undocumented males from backward cultures, put up at vast expense in 'asylum' hotels, pose a threat to our society in general, and our children in particular. Lucy acted in haste, posted something she called 'disgusting' and repented quickly. A model prisoner, she could have been released on tag last November but instead has been kept inside while fellow inmates, who are openly planning the robberies they will commit to fund their drug addiction, are let out. Any decent judge or magistrate would be looking for a reason to avoid giving such a person a custodial term when community service would suffice. Sarah Pochin, Reform UK's first woman MP and a magistrate for 20 years, yesterday described Lucy's sentence as 'draconian', saying she should never have gone to prison in the first place and it would not happen under a Farage government. Yet Mrs Connolly, who was given a notably harsh jail term for a post on social media when thousands of violent men and paedophiles get off with a lower, even a suspended, sentence (more of this warped judicial behaviour anon) is apparently unworthy of compassion or mercy from his lordship. Really? I have been a fan of Lord Sumption. The former Justice of the Supreme Court is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant legal minds of his generation. During Covid, those of us who thought lockdown was an appalling mistake were grateful and reassured to have this pillar of the establishment on our side. He warned that British society was becoming 'totalitarian' and the government was deliberately stoking up fear and 'acting with a cavalier disregard for the limits of their legal powers'. 'The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country,' Sumption said, and his words carried huge weight. Why that same, deeply clever man cannot see how Lucy Connolly's case represents exactly the kind of authoritarian overreach we saw during lockdown (with fear as its instrument) is a puzzle. Or maybe not if the idea is to buttress Sumption's colleagues in the Court of Appeal, who have attracted considerable criticism since Lord Justice Holroyde declared last week that there was 'no arguable basis' that Lucy Connolly's (manifestly excessive) original sentence was 'manifestly excessive'. Lord Sumption concedes: 'English law has generally been on the side of freedom of expression… it has always drawn the line at threatening language which is likely to provoke a breach of the peace… If a rabble-rouser stood on a soap-box in front of a howling mob and urged them to head for the nearest immigration hostel and burn it down, this point would be obvious. Doing it on social media is worse because the reach of social media posts is much greater. Its algorithms thrust words like Mrs Connolly's under the noses of people who are already likely to agree. The internet can whip up a howling mob in minutes.' But there is zero evidence that Lucy's words, posted on the evening of the Southport murders, incited violence. Riots did not break out 'in minutes'. They started days later following Sir Keir Starmer's infamous and insulting 19-second laying of a wreath in Southport before a jeering crowd. And after the authorities had done their sly best to conceal from a distraught public key information about the killer, Axel Rudakubana – compare the alacrity (and sigh of relief) with which they announced that the alleged Liverpool car attacker was a white, middle-aged male. Funny what can be disclosed when an alleged offender doesn't belong to a protected minority, eh? No normal person agrees with Lord Sumption that fleeting tweets are worse than, to take just one example, what suspended Labour councillor Ricky Jones is alleged to have done in person at the time Lucy was arrested. Jones was filmed at an anti-fascism demonstration apparently urging a crowd to attack rioters: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists and we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' For reasons which I'd quite like the Ministry of Justice to explain, Jones was granted bail while Lucy Connolly had her bail application rejected twice. Jones has been a free man since January (no pressure to plead guilty for him, no kangaroo hearing within days) and his much-postponed trial will finally take place in August (unless the judge has a pressing lunch engagement or pigs are seen flying over the Old Bailey). By which time, Lucy will have served a whole year behind bars. It is this apparent two-tier justice which Lord Sumption did not address in a piece where he loftily dismissed the claim that Lucy is a free-speech martyr or 'even a political prisoner'. I am no student of jurisprudence (a lucky escape as I got into Cambridge to read law) but to me, and to millions of others, it is perfectly obvious that a political prisoner is exactly what Lucy Connolly is. Prison authorities at Drake Hall in Staffordshire have just punished their exemplary prisoner for 'press engagement' – that's communicating her predicament via her husband, Ray, to yours truly. 'Auntie Judith', AKA your columnist, has sadly been struck off the list of people Lucy is allowed to phone. She has also repeatedly been denied release on temporary licence (ROTL) with her child and sick husband. 'You've offended a lot of people, Lucy,' one official chided. Probation officers and prison guards alike have expressed astonishment that Lucy is still not free. After the Court of Appeal's heartbreaking decision last Tuesday, her cell was full of officers coming to commiserate: they all assumed she was going home, and other prisoners had already distributed Lucy's stuff among themselves. After months of unfair treatment, when Lucy dared to complain to someone outside the prison that she wasn't being allowed the leave on licence to which she was entitled, the prison authorities said she would, yet again, not be allowed that leave, because of, yes, complaining to someone outside the prison. What does that sound like to you? Joseph Heller called it Catch-22. I am told that prison authorities have been 'rattled' by The Telegraph's coverage of Lucy's case. Good. So they bloody well should be. The free press – are we still allowed one of those, Prime Minister? – will not stay silent when we perceive a carriage of misjustice. I could easily fill this column with examples of heinous cases where an offender was afforded more lenient treatment than Lucy Connolly. One that leaps out concerns the Court of Appeal, which just dashed Lucy's hopes. In March 2023, the court cut the jail term given to former Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham for sexually abusing two children in the 1970s. Ahmed was convicted of trying to rape an underage girl on two occasions and seriously sexually assaulting a boy under the age of 11. He was jailed for five years and six months at Sheffield Crown Court in February 2022. The judge told Lord Ahmed: 'Your actions have had profound and lifelong effects on the girl and the boy, who have lived with what you did to them for between 46 and 53 years. They express more eloquently than I ever could how your actions have affected and continue to affect their lives in so many different and damaging ways.' However, in their infinite wisdom, three Appeal Court judges, including Lord Justice Holroyde who decided that Lucy Connolly's 31-month sentence was 'not manifestly excessive', reduced the jail term of the sexual abuser and Labour Muslim peer to two years and six months because his age at the time of the offences was not given sufficient weight. Let us pause for a moment, lords, ladies and gentlemen, and marvel at the very clever stupid men who think that a mother who put something hateful for four hours on social media deserves a longer prison sentence than a man who tried to rape and molest children, and got away with that dreadful crime for half a century. 'I shall not waste any sympathy on Mrs Connolly,' quoth the finest legal mind of his generation. 'What she did was a serious offence.' She didn't try to rape a child though, did she, Lord Sumption? She didn't sexually assault a little boy and claim that two traumatised children told malicious falsehoods about her. She didn't use power and influence to put herself above the law. She didn't get her outrageous sentence reduced by privileged men who seem to have a problem relating to white women from ordinary families with sensible views about immigration. Honestly, the way the judiciary extends leniency to sex offenders is repellent to the point of warped. At least 177 paedophiles have walked free since Lucy Connolly was sentenced on October 17 2024. A devoted mum jailed for two years and seven months while depraved men in possession of the worst category of images of children being violated don't lose a single day of their liberty. (Huw Edwards being just one notorious example: a six-month suspended sentence for the BBC boy-groomer!) By now, it should be amply clear to the British people that our justice system is broken and politicised. Here is a retired judge who emailed the Planet Normal podcast: 'For 40 years, I felt proud and privileged to be a member of what I perceived as a noble and learned profession. Alas! No longer it seems. The way the judiciary has treated poor Lucy Connolly and her family is nothing short of an outrage and scandal that should offend all decent people, while those who bring terror and mayhem to the shores of this nation are admonished (if they are even caught) with little more than a slap on the wrist. I am actually surprised that a senior member of the judiciary has not resigned in the most public of ways to distance himself from the heartlessness of his brothers. Lucy Connolly's treatment has a political motive behind it. Of that there can be no doubt, despite the Separation of Powers being one of the cornerstones of our unwritten constitution. Keep up the good fight, Allison, for all our sakes.' And here is a Telegraph reader who styles himself DC Anonymous: 'I'm a serving police officer of 25 years. I've been a detective on specialist crime units, so I know my way around the justice system. The grossly disproportionate sentence and treatment of Lucy is an embarrassment to the justice system. Her tweet was vile and nasty. However, a community sentence would have been more appropriate. My colleagues and I often work long hours to get convictions over the line and often see paltry sentences dished out to some of the most dangerous offenders with all mitigations taken into consideration. Only for a lady who poses no threat to society to be given two years, seven months. It sickens me to my stomach. Most of us joined the job to arrest real criminals, not see innocent members of the public criminalised for hurty words. My colleagues and I are sick to death of woke management, judges and politicians making our difficult jobs even tougher. No wonder the public has lost respect for us.' I am close to tears when I read emails like those, and as I watch Lucy's crowdfunder appeal edge towards £150,000. Thank God there are still good people who are appalled that 'hurty words' – Orwellian thought crimes no less – receive swingeing sentences while villains go free. It's not hard to foresee that this institutional madness could end up in the serious civil unrest that making a scapegoat of Lucy was meant to forestall. On Tuesday, Tommy Robinson, the far-Right activist, was released from prison after his 18-month sentence was reduced by four months at the High Court last week. Looking like an Old Testament prophet, eyes blazing with religious fervour, a heavily-bearded Robinson (who endured weeks of solitary confinement) said that a war was being waged 'against free speech in Britain'. Citing Lucy Connolly, Robinson said she was 'not a violent criminal' and demanded to know why she had been jailed for so long. While Sir Keir claimed not to have heard of Lucy (does the dreadful man expect us to believe a word he says?), Boris Johnson said that 'Starmer's Britain is losing its reputation for free speech and turning into a police state'. Too right. On Tuesday, Nigel Farage became the latest heavyweight to champion Starmer's political prisoner, saying: 'I want to make it absolutely clear that Lucy Connolly should not be in prison… Although she should not have said what she said, there were millions of mothers at that moment in time after the Southport [massacre] feeling exactly the same way.' Beautifully put. Compare and contrast with Lord Sumption's cold, contemptible, 'Lucy Connolly is in prison where she belongs'. This is what happens when judges have minds so brilliant they cannot be polluted with common sense – or mercy. I just spoke to Ray Connolly, who is at home in Northampton. Ray said that he had read The Telegraph article and Sumption seemed to be a 'stupid git' (possibly the first time the law lord has been described in that way!) and that Sir Keir must be 'regretting the day he tried to make an example of Lucy Connolly'. So, where do we go from here? Drake Hall prison authorities told Lucy that a previous ROTL had been denied because she had expressed 'extreme views' in her phone conversations (possibly with 'Auntie Judith'). But that had now been downgraded to 'strong opinions'. 'Are they saying that Lucy's ROTL is now good to go?' asks Ray, who is desperate for his wife to be able to come home and hug and reassure their daughter even for one day and a night. What further ridiculous excuses and delaying tactics can the justice system come up with for denying Mrs Connolly the temporary leave to which she is entitled? 'The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country,' Lord Sumption said when free speech was brutally suppressed during Covid lockdown. Well, dear Lord Sumption, I think they're starting to understand it all too well, thanks to Lucy Connolly. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The Herald Scotland
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Harvie: Holyrood trans toilet ban may breach human rights
READ MORE: Has Holyrood misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling on sex? MSPs express 'deep concern' over trans toilet ruling Holyrood adds gender-neutral toilets after sex ruling Mr Harvie is one of 17 MSPs to have signed an open letter criticising the recent change in policy. The letter—also signed by 30 staff members, most of whom work for MSPs—was organised by the Good Law Project. It described the new rules as 'transphobic', warning their implementation would be 'deeply invasive' and risk 'humiliation, harassment or worse'. During an urgent question at Holyrood, Mr Harvie cited former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who has said that organisations are permitted—but not obliged—to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces. Mr Harvie told MSPs: 'In making the decision to take this exclusive, exclusionary approach, I am concerned that the SPCB is risking taking us back to the breach of human rights which existed prior to the creation of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004 and a position that just as little as 10 years ago was the obsession of the extremist fringe of the US Republican Party. "It is not enough to use words like inclusive experience and welcoming environment." He asked whether the corporate body recognised the impact the changes had already had on 'those who are being told that they are no longer permitted to use basic facilities like toilets on the same basis as everyone else, and who now feel unwelcome and demeaned in their own workplace'. Holyrood adopted the policy following the Supreme Court ruling (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) Responding on behalf of the SPCB, SNP MSP Christine Grahame said it was 'rather unfortunate' that Mr Harvie had used such language, and insisted the corporate body had acted 'in a tolerant and sensitive manner, in a very delicate and balanced manner'. 'The Scottish Parliament has always sought to reflect the founding principles and to be an open, accessible institution to promote participation and equal opportunities,' she said. 'We remain deeply committed to these principles and to provide—I know you do not like this word—an inclusive environment where all, including those in the trans and non-binary community, feel supported and welcome to work and visit.' The changes, which came into effect earlier this month, follow the Supreme Court ruling that 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. An interim update from the Equality and Human Rights Commission advised that in most workplaces and public-facing services, trans women should not be permitted to use female-only facilities, and vice versa. Under the new policy, all toilets and changing rooms marked 'male' or 'female' at Holyrood are now designated on the basis of biological sex. The Parliament has increased the number of gender-neutral facilities by redesignating three public toilets and two private facilities used by MSPs and staff. Ms Grahame said Parliament would not 'police' toilet use, but a complaints process was available. 'We are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities,' she said. 'This is not going to be policed by the corporate body.' Several MSPs, including the SNP's Emma Roddick, questioned whether the decision had been made prematurely and whether it risked creating a hostile working environment. Ms Roddick asked: 'Does [the SPCB] recognise that this unexpected and surprising policy change has put [trans and non-binary staff] in an impossible situation and potentially a hostile working environment?' Ms Grahame replied: 'I certainly hope and expect that this will not put anyone in this Parliament in a hostile environment. That is not the culture within this building.' READ MORE Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton asked that 'no parliamentary staff member will be put in the position of having to challenge a toilet user in the future'. Green MSP Lorna Slater asked how trans people would be expected to 'prove' their right to use a facility. 'Members in this chamber may be aware of the lively internet conspiracy that I myself am a trans woman,' she said. 'If a complaint is made about me using a woman's toilet, how does the SPCB expect me to demonstrate or prove my ability to use this toilet? Should I bring my birth certificate? Should I subject myself to a medical examination?' Ms Grahame replied: 'No one is asking anyone for any proof of anything, and I fully intend to use the gender neutral toilets myself.' Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said the discussion was a 'farcical waste of time'. 'The people of Scotland expect politicians to focus on what matters—rising household bills, their children's education, getting a GP appointment, fixing the roads, keeping communities safe—yet the priority for out-of-touch SNP, Labour, LibDem and Green MSPs is an urgent debate about the Holyrood toilets.' His colleague Craig Hoy questioned whether the decision had been unanimous, which would suggest Green MSP Maggie Chapman had 'both supported these measures and also wrote a letter in opposition to them'. Ms Grahame responded: 'Decisions by the corporate body do not ever go to a vote—they are made by consent.' A full consultation by the SPCB is expected later this year, once a revised statutory code from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been finalised and approved by ministers.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- General
- Telegraph
The Foreign Office is now a national embarrassment
Only a very clever man like Lord Sumption could be so stupid when it comes to Lucy Connolly
The Herald Scotland
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Parliament defends 'inclusive' trans toilet ban after MSPs and staff complain
READ MORE: Has Holyrood misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling on sex? MSPs express 'deep concern' over trans toilet ruling Holyrood adds gender-neutral toilets after sex ruling Mr Harvie is one of 17 MSPs to have signed an open letter criticising the recent change in policy. The letter—also signed by 30 staff members, most of whom work for MSPs—was organised by the Good Law Project. It described the new rules as 'transphobic', warning their implementation would be 'deeply invasive' and risk 'humiliation, harassment or worse'. During an urgent question at Holyrood, Mr Harvie cited former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption, who has said that organisations are permitted—but not obliged—to exclude trans people from single-sex spaces. Mr Harvie told MSPs: 'In making the decision to take this exclusive, exclusionary approach, I am concerned that the SPCB is risking taking us back to the breach of human rights which existed prior to the creation of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004 and a position that just as little as 10 years ago was the obsession of the extremist fringe of the US Republican Party. "It is not enough to use words like inclusive experience and welcoming environment." He asked whether the corporate body recognised the impact the changes had already had on 'those who are being told that they are no longer permitted to use basic facilities like toilets on the same basis as everyone else, and who now feel unwelcome and demeaned in their own workplace'. Holyrood adopted the policy following the Supreme Court ruling (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) Responding on behalf of the SPCB, SNP MSP Christine Grahame said it was 'rather unfortunate' that Mr Harvie had used such language, and insisted the corporate body had acted 'in a tolerant and sensitive manner, in a very delicate and balanced manner'. 'The Scottish Parliament has always sought to reflect the founding principles and to be an open, accessible institution to promote participation and equal opportunities,' she said. 'We remain deeply committed to these principles and to provide—I know you do not like this word—an inclusive environment where all, including those in the trans and non-binary community, feel supported and welcome to work and visit.' The changes, which came into effect earlier this month, follow the Supreme Court ruling that 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, not acquired gender. An interim update from the Equality and Human Rights Commission advised that in most workplaces and public-facing services, trans women should not be permitted to use female-only facilities, and vice versa. Under the new policy, all toilets and changing rooms marked 'male' or 'female' at Holyrood are now designated on the basis of biological sex. The Parliament has increased the number of gender-neutral facilities by redesignating three public toilets and two private facilities used by MSPs and staff. Ms Grahame said Parliament would not 'police' toilet use, but a complaints process was available. 'We are certainly not monitoring the use of public facilities,' she said. 'This is not going to be policed by the corporate body.' Several MSPs, including the SNP's Emma Roddick, questioned whether the decision had been made prematurely and whether it risked creating a hostile working environment. Ms Roddick asked: 'Does [the SPCB] recognise that this unexpected and surprising policy change has put [trans and non-binary staff] in an impossible situation and potentially a hostile working environment?' Ms Grahame replied: 'I certainly hope and expect that this will not put anyone in this Parliament in a hostile environment. That is not the culture within this building.' READ MORE Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton asked that 'no parliamentary staff member will be put in the position of having to challenge a toilet user in the future'. Green MSP Lorna Slater asked how trans people would be expected to 'prove' their right to use a facility. 'Members in this chamber may be aware of the lively internet conspiracy that I myself am a trans woman,' she said. 'If a complaint is made about me using a woman's toilet, how does the SPCB expect me to demonstrate or prove my ability to use this toilet? Should I bring my birth certificate? Should I subject myself to a medical examination?' Ms Grahame replied: 'No one is asking anyone for any proof of anything, and I fully intend to use the gender neutral toilets myself.' Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said the discussion was a 'farcical waste of time'. 'The people of Scotland expect politicians to focus on what matters—rising household bills, their children's education, getting a GP appointment, fixing the roads, keeping communities safe—yet the priority for out-of-touch SNP, Labour, LibDem and Green MSPs is an urgent debate about the Holyrood toilets.' His colleague Craig Hoy questioned whether the decision had been unanimous, which would suggest Green MSP Maggie Chapman had 'both supported these measures and also wrote a letter in opposition to them'. Ms Grahame responded: 'Decisions by the corporate body do not ever go to a vote—they are made by consent.' A full consultation by the SPCB is expected later this year, once a revised statutory code from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been finalised and approved by ministers.
Middle East Eye
3 days ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
UK must consider suspending Israel from UN, say former supreme court judges
The UK must sanction the Israeli government and consider suspending it from the United Nations to meet its "fundamental international legal obligations", more than 800 lawyers, academics and retired senior judges have said. A letter this week to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whose signatories include former Supreme Court justices Lord Sumption and Lord Wilson, says there is mounting evidence that genocide is being perpetrated or is at serious risk of occurring in Gaza. "Your government must act now, before it is too late," it read, referring to the ongoing abuses by Israel in the besieged territory. The legal experts, who also include former Court of Appeal judges Sir Stephen Sedley, Sir Anthony Hooper and Sir Alan Moses, urge Starmer to sanction Israeli ministers or senior military officials who they say have incited genocide or supported illegal settlements. They accuse Israel of "an unparalleled assault on the United Nations" through its banning of Unrwa, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, and its "attacks on UN premises, property and personnel". New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The signatories say Britain must consider initiating proceedings in the UN Security Council for the suspension of a member state. Last week, Britain announced it was summoning the Israeli ambassador in London and suspending its free trade agreement talks with Israel in response to its expanded military operations in Gaza. The government further introduced fresh sanctions on settler leaders and organisations. But this week the UK's trade envoy to Israel, Ian Austin, is in Israel to "promote trade". On Monday Austin was in Haifa, where he visited the customs scanning centre, Haifa Bayport and the Haifa-Nazareth Light Rail project.
