[Politics] Protests/rioting in lots of places

[dsr-burnley]

But you're putting forward the arguments of those who are defending her. And i'm going to go out on a limb and guess these are exactly the same people who go on about two tier justice and have strong sympathies to the rioters


Nobody has ever questioned whether she is guilty or not. She's been found guilty in court and nobody on here is remotely surprised by this given her offence was there for all to see. She can have no complaints with the length of the sentence given what she's done.

I know that, but NorthStandRaccoon didn't. He thought that people were objecting because they thought she hadn't committed an offence and what she said was just "freedom of speech". Perhaps I should have put my post to NorthStandRaccon as a pm (if you have such a thing) to avoid stirring up the misconceptions.

 

[Napper]

Hows Hugh Edwards jail appeal going


Oh I see

 

[Eric the meek]

My general view on sentencing is whether the cost to the tax payer is worth it and whether it acts as a suitable preventative measure to deter others from acting in the same way.

I think most people in society would agree that they don't want those that have committed acts of violence or physical harm to others walking our streets until they are safe to do so. Circumstances of the crime get taken into account but if you've murdered someone or committed unspeakable acts against people you shouldn't be allowed out until those best able to judge believe you won't do it again. Given the limited spaces in our prisons I'd rather they focused on keeping those people behind closed doors than someone who said something stupid and ignorant on social media.

At the time the sentence made sense. She and a handful of others were used as an example and that ticks the deter box for others. Should that sentence now be reduced? Yes, I'd say so because it's served it's purpose. People are more aware of what they say on social media as a result, and she has undoubtedly learnt her lesson. She could be released under the condition she cannot use social media again, attend any rallies or whatever, but it doesn't feel like a good use of taxpayers money to keep her in prison to me.

How do you know she has 'undoubtedly learnt her lesson'?

Given her campaign for a lighter sentence, and her appeal, it would seem she doesn't accept the gravity of her offence.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Those on her side are saying that 31 months is excessive for an offence that lasted 3 hours and was out of character, when she has a 12 year old daughter and has the mitigating effect that the death of small children upsets her unduly because it reminds her of the death of her own small child.

They're also saying that the judge was incorrect to say this offence was worse than the average "incitement to riot" offence and deserved extra punishment for being a particularly aggravated offence with few mitigating circumstances.

They're also saying that she should be entitled to home leave like other women with families on (relatively) short sentences, and wonder why she hasn't had any.

By all means disagree with those people, but don't bother inventing a new category of people to disagree with just for the sake of disagreeing.

I am going to make a bold assumption here based on nothing, but my own prejudices.

Those on her side may also have been saying the equivalent of "Yes I agree they deserve this"

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If you'd taken the trouble to read what I put, you would have seen that I was very careful not to defend her. The question is not whether she was guilty, but whether the sentence was excessive.

Five years for walking down a road slowly, which is a very peaceful protest.

 

[nevergoagain]

Five years for walking down a road slowly, which is a very peaceful protest.

We can all come up with examples one way or another. One would be the same judge that refused this appeal is the same one that allowed an appeal for Labour Peer Nazir Ahmed for attempted rape of a minor to a lower sentence than Connolly received.

That said I agree that the JSO sentences are too severe.

 

[dolphins]

She was encouraging thickoes to set fire to the places so despite her involvement being brief, it had a potential wider effect. So the three hour thing feels like nonsense to me, and straw clutching.

 

[Withdean South Stand]

Hows Hugh Edwards jail appeal going


Oh I see

He didn't commit a criminal offence.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

She was encouraging thickoes to set fire to the places so despite her involvement being brief, it had a potential wider effect. So the three hour thing feels like nonsense to me, and straw clutching.

Yes, this. Particularly as she only removed the tweet when it was clear she could be getting in trouble for it. I don’t believe for a minute that she changed her mind.

 

[Weststander]

He didn't commit a criminal offence.

He did.

 

[nevergoagain]

He didn't commit a criminal offence.

Eh? - Am i missing something ?, he plead guilty to charges of possessing indecent images of children and given a 6 month suspended. That's not a criminal offence ?

 

[pb21]

If you'd taken the trouble to read what I put, you would have seen that I was very careful not to defend her. The question is not whether she was guilty, but whether the sentence was excessive.

As I understand it, her sentence was actually lenient, in the sense the guidelines allow for a longer period for the crime she committed, she should be thinking herself lucky.

Regardless, if you cant do the time (which would have been know about in advance) don't the crime (which she did).

 

[Jim in the West]

Her actual words were:

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

Pretty awful by anyone's standards. She's probably unlikely to commit a similar crime again, but it is absolutely vital (not just regarding the safety of asylum-seekers, but for all of us) that people who use social media to incite violence and hatred are dealt with harshly. She "only" wrote a tweet, but the consequences could have been horrendous. If the sentence was reduced it would have sent out a dangerous message, I think, to others of her ilk.

Plus - for anyone to write such stuff - they must have a serious level of hatred....a very unpleasant person.

 

[Springal]

her kids will be better off for some time away from her judging by historic tweets and racist messages police said were on her phone. If you’re talking like that on social media, imagine what you’re saying day to day behind closed doors.

Frank Ferguson, Head of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Using threatening, abusive or insulting language to rile up racism online is unacceptable and is breaking the law.

“During police interview Lucy Connolly stated she had strong views on immigration, told officers she did not like illegal immigrants and claimed that children were not safe from them. It is not an offence to have strong or differing political views, but it is an offence to incite racial hatred – and that is what Connolly has admitted doing.

“The prosecution case included evidence which showed that racist tweets were sent out from Mrs Connolly’s X account both in the weeks and months before the Southport attacks – as well as in the days after.

 

[aolstudios]

her kids will be better off for some time away from her judging by historic tweets and racist messages police said were on her phone. If you’re talking like that on social media, imagine what you’re saying day to day behind closed doors.

Frank Ferguson, Head of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “Using threatening, abusive or insulting language to rile up racism online is unacceptable and is breaking the law.

“During police interview Lucy Connolly stated she had strong views on immigration, told officers she did not like illegal immigrants and claimed that children were not safe from them. It is not an offence to have strong or differing political views, but it is an offence to incite racial hatred – and that is what Connolly has admitted doing.

“The prosecution case included evidence which showed that racist tweets were sent out from Mrs Connolly’s X account both in the weeks and months before the Southport attacks – as well as in the days after.

Well, exactly.
She incited racial hatred & lethal arson that would've led to multiple murders.
Its not just 'some words'

 

[Albion my Albion]

Protests/rioting in lots of places​

Was that after Liverpool lost to Brighton?

 

[A1X]

I think most people in society would agree that they don't want those that have committed acts of violence or physical harm to others walking our streets until they are safe to do so. Circumstances of the crime get taken into account but if you've murdered someone or committed unspeakable acts against people you shouldn't be allowed out until those best able to judge believe you won't do it again. Given the limited spaces in our prisons I'd rather they focused on keeping those people behind closed doors than someone who said something stupid and ignorant on social media.

So violence should lead to you being locked up, but inciting others to commit violence is…actually not that bad?

 

[Randy McNob]

So violence should lead to you being locked up, but inciting others to commit violence is…actually not that bad?

I think the reason for the tough sentence is the riots happened because of hate and false information being peddled on social media, so those responsible for spreading and inciting others are the most culpable for the disorder. I'm glad they made an example of her

 

[NorthstandRacoon]

Those on her side are saying that 31 months is excessive for an offence that lasted 3 hours and was out of character, when she has a 12 year old daughter and has the mitigating effect that the death of small children upsets her unduly because it reminds her of the death of her own small child.

They're also saying that the judge was incorrect to say this offence was worse than the average "incitement to riot" offence and deserved extra punishment for being a particularly aggravated offence with few mitigating circumstances.

They're also saying that she should be entitled to home leave like other women with families on (relatively) short sentences, and wonder why she hasn't had any.

By all means disagree with those people, but don't bother inventing a new category of people to disagree with just for the sake of disagreeing.

There is literally nothing you can say which makes this 'OK' or that 'it should be lenient because she has kids' . It's hate speech, plain and simple.

What is it with people bringing families and children into any argument, usually by those on the right, (I'm centre before you say anything). It's like when it kicks off at football and the other side being attacked claim the attackers were going for family stands and families with kids, when it CLEARLY wasn't, or that brown people molest kids, or that the 'protestors were doing it around children' yet they're quite happy to shout insults and be aggressive when it's under their agenda. Weird weird behaviour.

 

[Giraffe]

Put forward by Rupert Lowe, supported by Jeremy Corbyn.