I cannot bring myself to be light-hearted about any aspect of the case of Lucy Connolly jailed for 31 months for a posting on X following the Southport killing of three innocent young girls by Axel Rudakubana. It is now impossible to be anything but enraged about the case, especially as she lost her appeal against the initial judgement at the Court of Appeal this week.
We have referred to the case before in these pages, providing the view that, while not caring if all the hotels with migrants in them burned down was, perhaps, a tad harsh it remains an opinion. I seem to recall a time in the UK when one was ‘entitled to one’s opinions’. But, clearly, no more.
The poor woman was enraged by the attacks, mistakenly thought it was another of the usual suspects representing the religion of peace and fired off. She was not advocating that we go and burn the hotels down.
Whenever her posting on X is referred to, the point is always made that she also called for mass deportations. For some reason, this eminently sensible course of action is always reported negatively.
Did I mention that she also concluded after a few hours out walking that her posting was not the wisest thing she had ever done, apologised for it and took it down. Possibly, that was her first mistake! She showed a vulnerable side and PC plod came in for the kill.
Naturally, one is not alone in one’s outrage at the loss of her appeal. The News Round-Up in the Daily Sceptic lists the articles expressing what, surely, any sane person would feel about the case. It is interesting to juxtapose the expressions of disbelief and anger against the headline on the BBC News webpage which said: ‘Woman jailed for race hate post on X loses appeal’.
The Guardian headline which referred to: ‘Jailed wife of ex-Tory councillor loses sentence appeal over Southport tweet’. They just cannot help themselves. Those are entirely loaded headlines assuming ‘race hate’ (not justified anger), the fact that she was already ‘jailed’ (must be a bad ‘un) and – Good Lord – she is the wife of an ex-Tory councillor (not even a serving one – as if it mattered).
Strangely, there were no headlines along the lines of ‘Bereaved mother with sick husband…’. The poor woman gets no sympathy from the left-stream media and she got no sympathy from the judges at the Court of Appeal. She must remain in jail, no parole – as would normally be the case with a non-violent offender – to see her daughter and care for her sick husband. It is nothing short of inhuman.
The full judgement is available to read: Lucy Connolly-v-The King (from whom, one imagines she would also elicit little sympathy). Warning: you will lose the will to live which, if her barrister is to be believed, is the point. He reckons that there is nothing worth reading until paragraph 55; even then, I am not sure I agree.
But, by happy coincidence, I had lunch yesterday with someone on her team fresh from the Court of Appeal who was able to summarise proceedings for those of us at the table. The judges took no account of her circumstances before and after the posting, no account of the fact that she was badly advised to plead guilty, and no account that the judge in the initial trial should have considered these points and that the offence was probably misclassified.
My lunch companion, who had just checked the figures, was able to inform us that members of the Pakistani rape gangs had received less harsh sentences and were also out early under the usual rules about serving sentences. No such leniency for this entirely harmless and highly distressed woman.
This is not justice and, in a fit of gross hypocrisy having laid the foundations for one, former PM Boris Johnson said that we were becoming a ‘police state’. It is crystal clear that the British police are out of control and engaged on their own oppressive agenda of social justice. At one time we had the courts to decide guilt and judges to adjudicate (‘make a formal judgement on a disputed matter’). Now the judges generally line up with the woke brigade and act accordingly.
There can be absolutely no doubts in the mind of any sane person who takes time to familiarise themself with the details of the Lucy Connolly case that the judgement and subsequent denial of appeal are political. God help us all, because the courts can’t and the judges won’t.
Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Well said. As a retired policeman I entirely agree.
We live in an increasingly totalitarian state. Our rulers are using every organ of the State to monitor, intimidate, and control us. The Police and the Judiciary do not act without fear or favour, but are entirely in thrall to their woke globalist masters. The Stasi fell eventually – so will they.
Never, ever say one word to the police if they come knocking and never plead guilty.
And yet the Judiciary take into account all manner of ludicrous (and fictitious) reasons why illegal immigrants can’t be deported. There is no impartial policing or justice in today’s UK.
Plus it’s no longer valid to say ‘our’ whatever it is, because clearly they no longer are (were they ever?)