Due to a fear that Covid will spread through the Parliamentary estate, ‘Plan B’ style restrictions have been introduced to the House of Commons. Some of the measures include mandatory mask-wearing for MP’s staff (MPs themselves are exempt from the rule), working from home whenever possible, as well as social distancing at select committee meetings. The Express has the story.
A Parliamentary spokesperson said: “The House’s priority is to ensure that those on the estate are safe while business is facilitated.
“There have been recent increases in Covid across the country and these are also being reflected in Parliament.
“The U.K. Health Security Agency has determined that the risk of transmission on the Parliamentary estate is now greater.
“As a consequence, some further action is being taken to ensure that case numbers do not continue to rise”.
A number of the new measures being imposed in Parliament, including work from home rules and compulsory mask-wearing, mirror aspects of the Government’s Covid ‘Plan B’.
This is likely to increase speculation about further restrictions being introduced across the whole of England in the coming weeks.
Health Secretary Sajid Javid has been vague about what exactly would trigger the Government to introduce these measures.
Ministers were told by scientific advisors in SAGE late last month to begin preparing for the “rapid deployment” of winter Covid restrictions.
They were warned that “there remains potential for a rapid increase in hospital admissions if behaviours [among members of the public] change quickly”.
Under its ‘Plan B’, the Government would also introduce vaccine passports for all “large venues”, barring those who haven’t been jabbed from many hospitality venues, and the further communication of additional risk to the public.
Worth reading in full.
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.
So what if she’s a “racist” (whatever that means)? The definition of the word that seems most common – noticing general differences between races and perhaps having a general preference for your own “tribe” – probably applies to most people if they are honest, and has done since the beginning of recorded history. While a stricter definition of the word meaning something like “I hate all Chinese people” seems a bit of a weird thing to feel, it should not be illegal to express such feelings.
I would be interested to know Mr Wastell’s definition.
There is a third definition which is the one that dog-whistling lefties intend to invoke when they use the word, that means “you hate all Chinese people and want to enslave/exterminate them”.
There’s only one definition, namely, the universal political argument any so-called democrat: Everybody who disagrees with me on anything is an evil Nazi.
That’s pretty much where we have ended up.
I was about to post something similar – is it actually illegal just to “be” racist (again, whatever that means)? If not (and I’m assuming not) then how can they use these tweets as evidence that she is racist, and then use the fact that they have decided she is racist as evidence in court?
I’m sure there are a few exceptions, but unless someone commits an actual crime in the name of racism (by that I mean things that we used to think of as actual crimes, such as assault, arson, theft, murder etc and not silly things people post on Twitter) then just leave them to it.
Inciting racial hatred is a crime under various Acts. I can’t quote you the wordings or how they have been interpreted.
If so, those acts need to be abolished as ANATHEMA to all democracies.
100%
I think what the US has, the imminent lawless action test as described here: Brandenburg v. Ohio – Wikipedia is more than enough
Good point. Thanks for the reminder of that case.
Interestingly two of the justices wrote separately, concurring in the judgement but basically saying that even the “imminent lawless action” test was incompatible with the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”). I tend to agree with them.
All the nations of the West desperately need to enshrine such a First Amendment law into their own legal systems!
And into our culture and thinking.
Yes but surely not to actually just “be” racist. Certainly in the tweet posted in the article above, she is saying “racist” things but I can’t see anywhere that she is encouraging anyone to do anything about it.
Someone could argue that expressing racist views implicitly encourages others to share those views. I’m pretty close to being an absolutist on this so I think that should be allowed too.
My view really is that anything short of actually committing a violent racist act isn’t illegal, and since violent acts are already illegal whether racist or not, that side of it is already covered.
Perhaps someone could persuade me that there are some instances in which speech or tweets or whatever require legal action – threatening letters for example, we would usually have expected the police to investigate even in the past. But where to draw the line?
Indeed the word “racism” or any other supposed “aggravating factor” should play no part in the law.
She exists and has voting rights in the UK (when not in prison). Hence, she encourages the likes of Nigel Farage to propose alternatives to the immigration policy of the current government¹. Verbal aggression is violence. Opposing immigration is racist. Ergo: Farage is absuing parliamentary privilege to commit acts of violent racism because Connolly’s existence encouraged him to do so.
Should this anyhow come accross as parody, that’s unintentional clumsy wording be me. The logic itself is absolutely flawless insofar our ruling caste is concerned.
¹The UK government is still somewhat restrained in this area as illegal immigrants are expected to pay for their own travel costs. The German government is offering “Just hop on board!” charter flights from popular “escape locations” like Afghanistan or Syria.
NB: This is not a joke. The Greens are doing that and the German government covers the cost. There’s also taxpayer support for refugees living in Germany to go on holiday to the country they supposedly fled from.
Wow I didn’t know that there are countries covering travel costs. Insane.
That is different to BEING racist.
I do agree that the term has become such a wide umbrella for anything ranging from using a (usually negative) stereotype to planning on eradicating an entire race or ethnicity.
Reminds of the dialogue in Seinfeld:
– I love Chinese women
– Isn’t that a little racist?
– If I like the race… how can that be racist?
Oh there are people in the US who complain that expressing admiration for black people’s physical characteristics is racist because it fetishes them.
White people wearing dreadlocks is “cultural appropriation.”
Meanwhile not a peep out of Amnesty International and the human-rights industry over coercive abuse of remand in custody, and subsequent state-sponsored perversion of the course of reasonable justice by a regime overseen by the arch human-rights lawyer himself in person.
The lawyer is an ass.
Excellent points! We should all remember that vitally important one:
“The Coercive Use of Remand in Custody”— a reversion to mediaeval torture to force false confessions.
Fair comment barring the last sentence but I risk a telling off if I post my honest opinion of that Next Tuesday.
First Labour MP calls for mother jailed over Southport tweet to be freed
Mary Glindon has signed an early day motion against Lucy Connolly’s continued imprisonment drafted by Rupert Lowe, the former Reform UK MP
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/05/23/mary-glindon-first-labour-mp-lucy-connolly-freed-southport
Brilliant— thanks for that news!
I think we should all petition King Charles to issue
A ROYAL PARDON TO TOMMY ROBINSON & ALL THE SOUTHPORT PROTESTERS AGAINST THE MURDER OF CHILDREN.
RACISM IS NOT A CRIME in ANY NATION ON EARTH except WHITE COUNTRIES, where it has been illegally forced upon the population in order to destroy them.
Every human on the planet is racist, a natural TRIBALISM that has helped humanity survive for thousands of years. As once commenter said,
“People are always going to be tribal. It’s in everyone’s DNA.”
PS. Dear DS Editors, please don’t use the prison mug-shot of Lucy like all the mainstream media are deliberately using as bog-standard Photographic Propaganda, like they used the “Welsh Choir Boy” photos of the Southport Muslim Terrorist, whose links to the imam at Southport Mosque have still not been investigated, nor the imam even questioned.
It’s obvious to all that Lucy is a scapegoat and I’m still not clear why she’s the only one of many ( how many, even? ) who were wrongfully arrested and sent to jail getting a mention, however she is basically representative of them all. And I think, just at a guess, the reason they didn’t grant her appeal is because then it’s likely all the others who are jailed would also lodge appeals and it would be a bit strange to let Lucy go free and none of the others. They’d be under pressure to release them all. So maybe it’s because the ‘TPTB’ want to keep them all behind bars, despite the fact prisons are meant to be so overcrowded and literal violent scum are being let out early.
This is a good short clip of Charlie Kirk talking about this case when he was on GBN recently;
”Lucy Connolly was was not arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for inciting violence. The sole charge against her was “stirring up racial hatred” – but she didn’t call out anyone by their specific race. Indeed she didn’t mention race at all. Axel Rudakubana did not face an additional charge of stirring up racial hatred, Even though that is precisely what he did – witness Lucy Connolly’s response.
Simply put, Lucy Connolly was charged and imprisoned for displaying anger and hatred following the actions of a foreign man which would clearly, unarguably, and unambiguously stir up racial hatred… but for which he was not additionally charged.
This essentially means foreigners can murder and torture white English girls without facing accusations of “racism” at all, but English people who become angered by racially driven murder, and who then display their anger on social media sites, are liable to find themselves imprisoned for stirring up racial hatred…. in short then, no matter what racially driven horrors they inflict on us, we must not show any anger.
At least Trump’s America realises how pathologically perverse and racially/culturally suicidal poor old Britain has become.”
https://x.com/PWestoff/status/1925136030321066235
So dangerous prisoners get let out early but keyboard warriors and those that got a bit shouty at a protest must remain, despite the alleged overcrowding issue that’s said to be ”unsafe”. That’s some warped-looking priorities, there. Would you rather be stuck in a lift with a non-violent ‘meme terrorist’ or a rapist? A tough one, that…
However, I do like the look of chemical castration for sex offenders, which is basically the same medication as the puberty blockers doctors are happy to give kids, so I don’t see any ethical issues here whatsoever;
”Violent prisoners, including those convicted of sex offences and domestic abuse, could be released after serving just a third of their sentence in a bid to ease prison overcrowding, under new recommendations made in a landmark review.
The Independent Sentencing Review also recommends that more offenders are managed in the community instead of serving custodial sentences.
The government will expand a small pilot scheme offering voluntary chemical castration to some sex offenders to 20 more prisons after the report said that trial should continue.
Former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, who chaired the review, told Radio 4’s Today programme that reducing sentences was “the right thing to be doing”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cql22xwg62vo
If you are told over and over again that it is wrong to support your own culture people start to believe it. They call it racism and make it a crime.
Spot on!
That someone crossed a border illegaly is still not a mark of that someone belonging to any particular race. Hence, people taking about other people who did cross borders illegally cannot possibly be racist.
It’s not actually a crime to be a racist. Is it?
No it is not but if we draw too much publicity for our views we will be charged; something, anything will do to ensure we shut up.
Yes, Paul Sutton made a crucial point about this in yesterday’s News Round-Up:
If it’s found that these people were wrongfully convicted I suppose there could be compensation claims. Imagine that.
Why is no-one going after the #ScumJudges, starting with Melvile Whatshisname?
If Lucy Connolly had not erroneously pleaded guilty, and she was meaningfully defended, I do not think she would have been convicted. I do not see that her unpleasant tweet was illegal and I do not believe there was any evidence of that tweet causing harm.
The statement “set fire to all the hotels full of the bastards for all I care” may be interpreted not as an incitement to violence, but as a rhetorical expression of anger and emotional detachment, rather than a direct call to action. Similarly, “If that makes me racist, so be it” does not affirm a racist belief, but rather expresses a willingness to accept the label in light of her emotional response to a traumatic event. These distinctions matter — especially in cases where the language is emotive but not demonstrably inciting harm or unlawful action. The concern is whether a political interpretation of her speech played an undue role in the severity of the prosecution and sentencing.
Thank you for bringing the ability actually to understand English to this debate. What you call “a political interpretation of her speech” is really a basic misreading of what her words meant, and it certainly does appear to have played an undue role in the Lucy Connolly case.
A ‘wilful’ misreading of what her words meant I’ll assert.
It’s not actually against the law to hold racist opinions (not that she did)! Otherwise the government would be in trouble for the anti-British attitude it displays at every turn.
Lawford writ large
Lawfare
How did your judicial system get into such a MESS. In America we can identify which judges were selected by which president. Sadly I see no transparency here.
Her sentence was “not excessive”, but endless tales of migrants raping 13 year olds seems “excessive” to me yet in many cases no jail time. —WHY?