Lucy Connolly’s Racial Hatred Charge Was Fast-Tracked in “Proof That She Was Stitched Up”
Lucy Connolly had her prosecution for stirring up racial hatred following the Southport attacks fast-tracked for approval by Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, in “proof that she was stitched up”. The Telegraph has more.
The childminder’s case was treated as an “emergency charging decision”, under which specialist counter-terrorism prosecutors secured consent for her prosecution from Lord Hermer’s office within 12 hours of asking for it on a Friday night.
The details have been revealed in Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) documents obtained by Connolly through a subject access request, under which individuals can obtain personal data and information held on them by organisations.
Connolly, from Northampton, was jailed for 31 months for inciting racial hatred in a post on X after the killings of three children at a dance workshop in Southport on July 29th 2024.
She spoke of mass deportations and setting fire to asylum hotels “for all I care”, adding: “I feel physically sick knowing what these [Southport] families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”
Connolly took down the post within four hours, but it had been viewed 310,000 times. She was interviewed by police on August 6th and charged four days later.
The documents reveal the behind-the-scenes actions of police, prosecutors and the Attorney General. Officials say her charge under the Public Order Act of 1986 required Lord Hermer’s consent by law, and the speed was stipulated under a national directive to deal with cases quickly to deter further disorder after rioting in the wake of the Southport killings of three girls.
However, the disclosure has sparked fresh claims that she was a “political prisoner” who was “scapegoated” by the Government.
Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “This clearly shows that the Government wanted to make an example of Lucy Connolly… she was scapegoated by the Government, and it appears to me that, had she pleaded not guilty, she would have had a good chance of being acquitted.
“Thirty one months in prison for an offensive social media post is grossly disproportionate… an immigrant who sexually assaulted a 12 year-old recently got off with no prison at all.”
Richard Tice, the Deputy Leader of Reform UK, said: “This was not a judicial decision. This was a political decision, confirming that she was made an example of as a political prisoner.
“The Attorney General, who has been exposed in so many different ways as being reprehensible and who conspired to act against British troops, has… acted against freedom of speech. The real question is: can he survive these ever increasing revelations or should he do the right thing and resign.”
Lord Young, Director of the Free Speech Union, said the fast-tracking of Connolly’s case was “disturbing”. He said the fact that, in contrast, the CPS “dragged its feet” over the prosecution of Mo Chara [the Kneecap rapper] made it “pretty clear where the state’s priorities lie”.
Worth reading in full.
Allison Pearson says that here at last is “proof that Lucy Connolly was stitched up”. “Newly disclosed documents reveal what millions of us knew all along – our authoritarian Government was determined to make an example of her.”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This is entirely predictable bearing in mind the socialist/communist mindset. If you compare the underhanded way this bunch of politicians are behaving compared to the Blair/Brown/Mandelson mindset it’s clear that they are a bunch of greedy zealots without any moral compass.
But who in reality would really trust those whose only policy is to take other people’s money and buy votes and at the same time allow mass immigration which has destroyed the earning power of many of their “previous” supporters.
In reality they are in power by sheer luck and now have enough rope to hang themselves, hopefully.
That’s how oppressive regimes operate. They identify key dissidents and make a terrifying example of them for everyone else to take note.
That is one more of the tells that our system is basically a sophisticated protection racket. Protection rackets keep people in line through intimidation, through the selective and exemplary use of violence.
A protection racket is a criminal operation because it operates without legal authority. Government operates with legal authority and hence, it’s not a criminal operation, no matter what you might believe about the similarity of both.
Technically you may be correct but I think the thrust of stewart’s argument stands
It may not be illegal but it’s immoral and it should be unconstitutional and therefore illegal
There is no such argument. He’s just drawing an analogy some people may find compelling despite it doesn’t make any factual sense.
A protection racket is when a local gangster approaches someone, usually, a small business, and asks them to pay money for protection from or insurance against crimes against its property or the people who operate it. If this is refused, some of his henchmen will show up to commit these very crimes.
People with a seriously distorted sense of reality may regards this as very similar to law enforcement taking action against people who broke tax laws. But tax laws are laws and people who think they should be changed must take the usual route to effect this. Until this has happened, they must be followed.
Sometimes breaking the law is the moral thing to do
Said the guy who knived his sister after she had had extramarital sex with some Christian. The honour of the family had to be restored.
In the absence of a universally accepted moral authority like the Christian God and his church, what precisely is or isn’t moral is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Well indeed and one must take the consequences
Perhaps you mean in cases like in Nazi Germany, where the discrimination and mass incarceration in ghettos and then concentration camps of Jews was legal.
Mind you a court in Nuremberg later found all that to be criminal.
I’m not sure if RW doesn’t quite understand the idea that legal doesn’t mean right or whether he’s just a stickler for terminology and is adamant that a racket is always illegal and therefore no government operating under its laws can be a racket.
If it’s the first, he’s got a problem. And if it’s the second, well then he’s just unnecessarily anal.
I’m sure he understands legal doesn’t mean right.
Like all guys with no arguments, you try becoming abusive for no particular reason and even manage to bring up the Nazis despite they’re totally irrelvant for the topic at hand. Congratulations. You couldn’t have demolished your cause more effectively.
The so-called court in Nuremberg was a judical travesty because it judged people based on pseudo-laws invented for this very purpose after the fact which were only applied to Germans. Eg, the last head of government of the Reich, Großadmiral Raeder, was tried for the ‘war crime’ of being responsible for unrestricted submarine warfare against the Allies despite the US Navy had itself employed unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan.
I do have an argument. Perhaps one that you don’t like or don’t have a good answer to, but it’s an argument nonetheless.
Disagreeing with you isn’t abuse. Neither is speculating on what your underlying assumptions are.
You weren’t disagreeing with me but speculating about character deficits of mine specifically with references to “Nazi laws about Jews”. And that’s abuse.
Make your mind up. Either Hitler was a tyrant and his laws were illegitimate because they were “arbitrary”. Or his laws were the laws of the land and so it is a “travesty” to condemn people for following them.
You can’t have it both ways.
Make up your mind. Either we’re discussing the situation in so-called western democracies in our time or German history of the first half of the last century or general political theory.
Since I spent some time thinking about this: The statement that
Sometimes breaking the law is the moral thing to do.
is more appropriate in a situation were laws are really decrees issued by an indvidual with absolute power, eg, an absolutist king or tyrant (that’s a technical term) ruling like one because there’s no process for changing such laws and even argueing for such a change could be rather unhealthy for the people who engaged in it.
But such a process exists in so-called democracies, namely convince enough people and/or enough parliamentarians that a specific change is called for so that it ends up being voted into law. Until this has happened, the existing law is binding.
Are you seriously suggesting that government members individually or collectively cannot violate the law?
I’m “seriously suggesting” that tax laws are … well … laws and that enforcing them thus isn’t a criminal operation. Breaking them is.
I’m “seriously suggesting” that 1930s German anti-Jew laws were … well … laws and that enforcing them thus wasn’t a criminal operation. Breaking them was.
How does that statement feel to you? Comfortable with that?
These laws were decreed by Hitler after the constitution of the republic had effectively been abolished by the Ermächtigungsgesetz. They were, in other words, an arbitrary exercise of power by a tyrant. While your statement is factually correct, it’s irrelevant to the situation which was being discussed.
Hitler was voted in and during the 1930s had enormous support among the general population.
He was in fact voted in with over 40% of the popular vote.
Keir Starmer, in contrast, won the last UK election with 33% of the popular vote.
If you think Hitler was a tyrant exercising arbitrary power, then you can’t think much better of Starmer.
Hitler was appointed by the president of the Reich as head of another emergency presidental cabinet without majority in parliament which he then proceeded to abolish with the help of a law which assigned all executive, legislative and judical power to him. This was formally legalized by a Reichstag vote to change the constitution accordingly. Afterwards, Germany had become a tyrannis.
But your clueless statements about German history have absolutely no place in the original discussion and not even in the ensueing discussion about “Nazis” you started instead.
Governments MUST operate within the law, if they use government systems to persecute and intimidate people to protect their organisation then they are criminals. An example of this is contained in this article if you bother to read it.
That’s YOUR definition of a protection racket. That it’s a crime. Not mine. To me there are legal protection rackets and illegal ones.
Since you are no law-making body, your opinion about this doesn’t matter.
You’re joking, aren’t you? That same body of people make the laws to suit their own ends.
“I wonder if it became a higher priority when they discovered she was married to a Tory councillor.” That’s what someone might say if they felt this was a miscarriage of justice.
Two tier Keir.
And very soon Gone From Here Kier.
Shame they can’t prosecute Mandelson’s with such speed.
Nor, indeed, Ukrainian arsonists… 😏
Excellent. You’ve just summed them up in very few words.
In fairness, he is. Perhaps not legally – yet – but his public lynching has been swift and merciless.
And it is more than comparable to Lucy Connolly’s situation because that is how you destroy the life of public figures like Mandelson or Prince Andrew. You take away all their public status.
Anyone who thinks Mandelson or Prince Andrew’s lives haven’t been completely destroyed doesn’t understand anything. And they may yet end up behind bars or at the very least facing a judge. It isn’t over for either of them yet.
One of the major ideological components of the Great Replacement is revealed by the Establishment’s endeavour to prevent the white victims of race replacement (i.e. us) defending ourselves in speech – because speech will produce action. Thus, it is vital for our enemies (the madleft, Starmer-the-Contemptible, etc, etc) to shut us up. This is why we’re not allowed to criticise the imported people when they go on one of their regular murder rampages, or when they appear to be here on rape safari.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think white replacement is the objective or policy of the establishment but rather a consequence, which they of course couldn’t care less about.
I’m not so sure. There’s an idea from early Marxism of the “trash peoples”. These are peoples who, according to the madleft, are “not on the right side of history”, and therefore are scheduled to be exterminated.
For example, in Engels’ article The Magyar Struggle, published in Marx’s newspaper Neue Rheinische Zeitung in January 1849, he writes: “The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.” In the same article Engels gives his reasons for extermination: “These relics of a nation … [are] … residual fragments of peoples [who] always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution.”
The contemporary madleft think of white people as trash people to be eliminated.
They certainly believe national character is something to be eliminated. OTOH, they don’t have to worry about this very much. We (as members of European peoples) are very much on course to eliminated ourselves by having turned sex from a reproductive into a usually side-effect free recreative activity. The resulting birth rate depression will eventually lead to our extinction.
There is already the admission that mass immigration under Tony The Liar was to ‘rub the Right’s face in it’ and because as in the US, the immigrants are expected to be grateful and vote for the Far Left. What they did not forsee was the creation of the ghettoes, particularly the muslim ones, the creeping takeover of local government by them and their spawn, the wearing of their fancy dress clothing so they stand out as opposed to fit in like previous immigrants did, and finally the creation of their own islamic party in competition to Labour.
I always liked “Bliar” but “Tony The Liar” is sublime! Perfect for his massive misplaced ego.
Instead of Tweeting, she should have rammed the doors of an immigrant hotel with a van, run amok with a sledgehammer, seriouskly injured a police officer, caused serious property damage – not guilty.
All whilst possessing oodles and oodles of child sex abuse images on her phone. I mean, you’re talking suspended sentence, max. Okay, her husband would likely divorce her and take custody of her kid, but aside from that…nil prison time.
Huw couldn’t make it up…
Just how dumb do they think we all are.
The evidence is that most of our fellow citizens have been very dubm for years, nay decades.
Interesting to see the “counter-terrorism” specialists at work. Usually after an obviously terrorist-related crime we just see them rushing to declare that it was definitely NOT terrorism. In this case, where there was obviously no terrorism, they leap into action.
As soon as Starmer arrived he made this mistake, the arrogance of a bully, and now it is catching up with him. The hand of god.
Remember Two-Tier issuing his instruction to the Judiciary …. telling “the rioters” that they were going to get severe punishment?
His dirty hands are all over it as well.
Connolly was their perfect “poster child” for draconian punishment “pour encourager les autres” to SFU: white, lower middle class, conservative and (oh Joy) married to a Conservative Councillor.
She was a Political Prisoner. We all knew it at the time.