Latest news with #incitement
Telegraph
27-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Only a very clever man like Lord Sumption could be so stupid when it comes to Lucy Connolly
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.
Telegraph
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
White House pressures Starmer over Lucy Connolly case
Connolly expressed her outrage on social media platform X hours after Axel Rudakubana murdered three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed holiday club in Southport. She posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f---ing hotels full of the b------s for all I care, while you're at it, take the treacherous government politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these [Southport] families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.' Connolly deleted the post less than four hours later, but by then it had been viewed 310,000 times. She was arrested on Aug 6 following widespread riots across the country over the stabbing attack, and later jailed for 31 months. Connolly, who has no previous convictions, also sent another tweet commenting on a sword attack, which read: 'I bet my house it was one of these boat invaders.' Last week, the Court of Appeal judges said they did not accept that the original sentence for inciting racial hatred was 'manifestly excessive'. The judges also said they did not accept that Connolly had entered her guilty plea without fully understanding what it entailed. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: 'In recent months, shoplifters with hundreds of prior convictions have avoided prison. A domestic abuser with 52 prior offences got off with just a suspended sentence, as did a paedophile with 110,000 indecent images of children. 'And yet Lucy Connolly has received a 31-month prison sentence for an appalling – albeit hastily deleted – message on social media. How on earth can you spend longer in prison for a tweet than violent crime? This crazy disparity will only fuel perception that we have a two-tier justice system where the law is enforced selectively.' Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader and an ally of Mr Trump, said: 'Our American Republican friends seem to care more about free speech in the United Kingdom than our own Government.' 'The North Korea of the North Sea' Lord Young, the general secretary of the Free Speech Union, which helped fund Connolly's appeal, said: 'This is the third national humiliation in a week under Sir Keir Starmer's premiership. Has it really come to this? That the US government now has to monitor human rights abuses in the United Kingdom? 'Britain is rapidly becoming the North Korea of the North Sea.' Sir Keir has been forced to defend Britain's record of free speech in recent months, which has become a point of tension with Trump administration officials. During his meeting in the Oval Office in February, the Prime Minister claimed there had been free speech 'for a very, very long time in the UK, and it will last for a very, very long time… Certainly we wouldn't want to reach across US citizens, and we don't, and that's absolutely right. But in relation to free speech in the UK, I'm very proud of our history there,' he said. In a speech at the Munich security conference in February, JD Vance, the US vice-president, cited British pro-life campaigner Adam Smith-Connor, who was convicted for breaching a buffer zone outside an abortion clinic, suggesting 'free speech in Britain and across Europe was in retreat'. No case has raised concerns in Washington more than the prosecution of Livia Tossici-Bolt, an anti-abortion campaigner whose case threatened to jeopardise Sir Keir's trade deal with the United States. The 64-year-old praised the Trump administration for its support after she was handed a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay £20,026 in costs for breaching a buffer zone around an abortion clinic in Bournemouth. Her case alarmed leaders within the US state department, which made the highly unusual step of warning Sir Keir that it was 'monitoring' developments closely. At the time, a source familiar with trade negotiations insisted Ms Tossici-Bolt's arrest was being considered amid Britain's attempt to win an exemption from US tariffs, saying 'no free trade without free speech'.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How one woman's racist tweet sparked a free speech row
Lucy Connolly's 51-word online post in the wake of the Southport killings led her to jail and into the centre of a row over free speech. For some, the 31-month jail term imposed for inciting race hate was "tyrannical", while one commentator said Connolly was a "hostage of the British state", and another that she was "clearly a political prisoner". Court of Appeal judges, however, this week refused to reduce her sentence. Asked about her case in Parliament, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said sentencing was "a matter for the courts" and that while he was "strongly in favour of free speech", he was "equally against incitement to violence". Rupert Lowe, the independent MP for Great Yarmouth, said the situation was "morally repugnant" and added: "This is not the Britain I want to live in." Others said her supporters wanted a "right to be racist". Warning: This report contains racist and discriminatory language In July last year, prompted by a false rumour that an illegal immigrant was responsible for the murder of three girls at a dance workshop in Southport, Connolly posted online calling for "mass deportation now", adding "set fire to all the... hotels [housing asylum seekers]... for all I care". Connolly, then a 41-year-old Northampton childminder, added: "If that makes me racist, so be it." At the time she had about 9,000 followers on X. Her message was reposted 940 times and viewed 310,000 times, before she deleted it three and a half hours later. In October she was jailed after admitting inciting racial hatred. Three appeal court judges this week ruled the 31-month sentence was not "manifestly excessive". Stephen O'Grady, a legal officer with the Free Speech Union (FSU), said the sentence seemed "rather steep in proportion to the offence". His organisation has worked with Connolly's family since November and funded her appeal. Mr O'Grady said Connolly "wasn't some lager-fuelled hooligan on the streets" and pointed to her being a mother of a 12-year-old daughter, who had also lost a son when he was just 19 months old. He said there was a "difference between howling racist abuse at somebody in the street and throwing bricks at the police" and "sending tweets, which were perhaps regrettable but wouldn't have the same immediate effect". Connolly's case was also "emblematic of wider concerns" about "increasing police interest in people's online activity", Mr O'Grady said. The FSU had received "a slew of queries" from people who were "very unsure" about "the limits of what they can they can say online", he said, and who feared "the police are going to come knocking on the door". "There's an immense amount of police overreach," he added. He cited the example of a retired special constable detained after challenging a pro-Palestine supporter online, a case the FSU took on. Responding to Mr O'Grady's claim, a National Police Chiefs' Council spokesperson said that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act "protects a person's right to hold opinions and to express them freely" and that officers received training about the act. They added: "It remains imperative that officers and staff continue to receive training commensurate with the demands placed upon them." After the appeal was dismissed, Connolly's husband, Conservative town councillor Raymond Connolly, said she was "a good person and not a racist" and had "paid a very high price for making a mistake". Her local Labour MP, Northampton South's Mike Reader, said he had "big sympathy" for Connolly and her daughter, but there was no justification for accusing the police of "overreach". He said: "I want the police to protect us online and I want the police to protect us on the streets and they should be doing it equally." It was a "fallacy" and "misunderstanding of the world" if people did not "believe that the online space is as dangerous for people as the streets," he added. "We're all attached to our phones; we're all influenced by what we see, and I think it's right that the police took action here." In his sentencing remarks, Judge Melbourne Inman said Connolly's offence was "category A" - meaning "high culpability" - and that both the prosecution and her own barrister agreed she "intended to incite serious violence". For Reader, this showed "they weren't arguing this was a silly tweet and she should be let off - her own counsel agreed this was a serious issue". At her appeal, Connolly claimed that while she accepted she intended to stir up racial hatred, she always denied trying to incite violence. But Lord Justice Holroyde said in a judgement this week the evidence "clearly shows that she was well aware of what she was admitting". Sentencing guidelines for the offence indicate a starting point of three years' custody. While the prosecution argued the offence was aggravated by its timing, "particularly sensitive social climate", the defence argued the tweet had been posted before any violence had started, and that Connolly had "subsequently attempted to stop the violence after it had erupted". The judgement also highlighted other online posts from Connolly that the judges said indicated her "view about illegal immigrants". Four days before the Southport murders, she responded to a video shared by far-right activist Tommy Robinson showing a black man being tackled to the ground for allegedly performing a sex act in public. Connolly posted: "Somalian, I guess. Loads of them," followed by a vomiting emoji. On 3 August, responding to an anti-racism protest in Manchester, she wrote: "I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. "Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals." The FSU said she was likely to be eligible for release from August, after serving 40% of her sentence. Some, including Mr O'Grady, argued her jail term was longer than punishments handed to criminals perceived to have committed "far worse" crimes. Reform UK's Mark Arnull, the leader of West Northamptonshire Council, said it was not for him "to pass comment on sentences or indeed discuss individual cases". But he added: "It's relatively easy to understand why constituents in West Northamptonshire question the proportionality of Lucy's sentence when they see offenders in other high-profile and serious cases walk free and avoid jail." The issue for writer and activist Shola Mos-Shogbamimu was that "those who have committed worse crimes" should "spend more time in jail, not less time for Lucy Connolly". Dr Mos-Shogbamimu added: "It's not 'freedom of speech without accountability'. She didn't tweet something that hurt someone's feelings; she tweeted saying someone should die." In her view, those making Connolly a "flag-bearer or champion" for free speech were asking for "the right to be racist". Free speech advocate Mr O'Grady said "no-one is arguing for an unfettered 'right' to incite racial hatred". Connolly's case was about "proportionality", he added, and "the sense that online speech is increasingly being punished very harshly compared to other offending... such as in-person violent disorder". Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X. PM defends courts over Lucy Connolly racist post Woman jailed for race hate post on X loses appeal Tory politician's wife jailed for race hate post
BBC News
25-05-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
How Lucy Connolly's racist tweet sparked a free speech row
Lucy Connolly's 51-word online post in the wake of the Southport killings led her to jail and into the centre of a row over free some, the 31-month jail term imposed for inciting race hate was "tyrannical", while one commentator said Connolly was a "hostage of the British state", and another that she was "clearly a political prisoner".Court of Appeal judges, however, this week refused to reduce her about her case in Parliament, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said sentencing was "a matter for the courts" and that while he was "strongly in favour of free speech", he was "equally against incitement to violence".Rupert Lowe, the independent MP for Great Yarmouth, said the situation was "morally repugnant" and added: "This is not the Britain I want to live in."Others said her supporters wanted a "right to be racist". Warning: This report contains racist and discriminatory language In July last year, prompted by a false rumour that an illegal immigrant was responsible for the murder of three girls at a dance workshop in Southport, Connolly posted online calling for "mass deportation now", adding "set fire to all the... hotels [housing asylum seekers]... for all I care".Connolly, then a 41-year-old Northampton childminder, added: "If that makes me racist, so be it."At the time she had about 9,000 followers on X. Her message was reposted 940 times and viewed 310,000 times, before she deleted it three and a half hours later. In October she was jailed after admitting inciting racial appeal court judges this week ruled the 31-month sentence was not "manifestly excessive". Stephen O'Grady, a legal officer with the Free Speech Union (FSU), said the sentence seemed "rather steep in proportion to the offence".His organisation has worked with Connolly's family since November and funded her O'Grady said Connolly "wasn't some lager-fuelled hooligan on the streets" and pointed to her being a mother of a 12-year-old daughter, who had also lost a son when he was just 19 months said there was a "difference between howling racist abuse at somebody in the street and throwing bricks at the police" and "sending tweets, which were perhaps regrettable but wouldn't have the same immediate effect". Connolly's case was also "emblematic of wider concerns" about "increasing police interest in people's online activity", Mr O'Grady FSU had received "a slew of queries" from people who were "very unsure" about "the limits of what they can they can say online", he said, and who feared "the police are going to come knocking on the door"."There's an immense amount of police overreach," he cited the example of a retired special constable detained after challenging a pro-Palestine supporter online, a case the FSU took to Mr O'Grady's claim, a National Police Chiefs' Council spokesperson said that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act "protects a person's right to hold opinions and to express them freely" and that officers received training about the added: "It remains imperative that officers and staff continue to receive training commensurate with the demands placed upon them." After the appeal was dismissed, Connolly's husband, Conservative town councillor Raymond Connolly, said she was "a good person and not a racist" and had "paid a very high price for making a mistake".Her local Labour MP, Northampton South's Mike Reader, said he had "big sympathy" for Connolly and her daughter, but there was no justification for accusing the police of "overreach".He said: "I want the police to protect us online and I want the police to protect us on the streets and they should be doing it equally."It was a "fallacy" and "misunderstanding of the world" if people did not "believe that the online space is as dangerous for people as the streets," he added."We're all attached to our phones; we're all influenced by what we see, and I think it's right that the police took action here." In his sentencing remarks, Judge Melbourne Inman said Connolly's offence was "category A" - meaning "high culpability" - and that both the prosecution and her own barrister agreed she "intended to incite serious violence".For Reader, this showed "they weren't arguing this was a silly tweet and she should be let off - her own counsel agreed this was a serious issue".At her appeal, Connolly claimed that while she accepted she intended to stir up racial hatred, she always denied trying to incite violence. But Lord Justice Holroyde said in a judgement this week the evidence "clearly shows that she was well aware of what she was admitting".Sentencing guidelines for the offence indicate a starting point of three years' the prosecution argued the offence was aggravated by its timing, "particularly sensitive social climate", the defence argued the tweet had been posted before any violence had started, and that Connolly had "subsequently attempted to stop the violence after it had erupted". The judgement also highlighted other online posts from Connolly that the judges said indicated her "view about illegal immigrants".Four days before the Southport murders, she responded to a video shared by far-right activist Tommy Robinson showing a black man being tackled to the ground for allegedly performing a sex act in posted: "Somalian, I guess. Loads of them," followed by a vomiting 3 August, responding to an anti-racism protest in Manchester, she wrote: "I take it they will all be in line to sign up to house an illegal boat invader then. Oh sorry, refugee. "Maybe sign a waiver to say they don't mind if it's one of their family that gets attacked, butchered, raped etc, by unvetted criminals."The FSU said she was likely to be eligible for release from August, after serving 40% of her including Mr O'Grady, argued her jail term was longer than punishments handed to criminals perceived to have committed "far worse" UK's Mark Arnull, the leader of West Northamptonshire Council, said it was not for him "to pass comment on sentences or indeed discuss individual cases".But he added: "It's relatively easy to understand why constituents in West Northamptonshire question the proportionality of Lucy's sentence when they see offenders in other high-profile and serious cases walk free and avoid jail." The issue for writer and activist Shola Mos-Shogbamimu was that "those who have committed worse crimes" should "spend more time in jail, not less time for Lucy Connolly". Dr Mos-Shogbamimu added: "It's not 'freedom of speech without accountability'. She didn't tweet something that hurt someone's feelings; she tweeted saying someone should die."In her view, those making Connolly a "flag-bearer or champion" for free speech were asking for "the right to be racist".Free speech advocate Mr O'Grady said "no-one is arguing for an unfettered 'right' to incite racial hatred".Connolly's case was about "proportionality", he added, and "the sense that online speech is increasingly being punished very harshly compared to other offending... such as in-person violent disorder". Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
LBCI
22-05-2025
- Politics
- LBCI
Israel FM accuses European countries of 'incitement' after US shootings
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar accused European governments of incitement against his country on Thursday after the fatal shooting of two embassy staffers in Washington. "There is a direct line connecting anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli incitement to this murder," Saar told a press conference. "This incitement is also done by leaders and officials of many countries and international organizations, especially from Europe." AFP
