Lucy Connolly’s name is, of course, familiar to Daily Sceptic readers, as are the details of her treatment at the hands of the justice system. But I suspect that most people in this country were not aware of how she has been treated. Allison Pearson, writing in the Telegraph this weekend, has changed that. In an excellent, well-researched piece, Pearson describes Connolly’s family and young daughter, her background and the details of the tweet for which she was prosecuted (and entered a guilty plea). Lucy’s tweet was ugly. But defending speech rights often means defending the ugly.
The article also does an excellent job of describing the coercive use of remand which drove Lucy to plead guilty. From the moment of her arrest Lucy was held in custody. Ray Connolly, Lucy’s husband, who suffers with a serious blood disease, is described as having spoken to leading barristers who insisted that his wife should not plead guilty. Ray said: “If I could have got her round a table with those barristers, I’m sure she would have gone with ‘not guilty’.” Unfortunately Lucy had no chance of such a meeting. She was held on remand, surrounded by women waiting months for their trial. She said to her husband, “You just don’t know how long you’ll be here… I might not get to court until spring.”
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
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.
I wonder if this sort of thing has always happened but it is more visible now? Shocking either way.
Using remand in this way to force people who are no danger to the public to plead “Guilty” is just another form of MEDIAEVAL TORTURE TO EXTRACT CONFESSIONS, and must be made illegal.
It helps to remember that the police and the justice system isn’t there to protect people and pursue justice. It’s there to preserve the established order, keep the general population in check and where possible advance its own interests and ideology.
To the extent that the police and justice system helps ordinary people, it is merely doing the absolute minimum necessary to maintain the impression of order and justice for all and keep up the pretence.
If one bears this in mind, everything one reads about the police and justice system makes a lot more sense.
sadly this seems to be the case
I recall Kier at the time stating “we’ll use the full force of the law”. The sentencing was harsh, and now, home visitation denied, is also harsh.
It all appears out of proportion for the tweet, but I’m learning that the law isn’t about fairness and it can be unjust.
And yet there’s people on here who maintain women get an easy ride when it comes to the law, purely because of their sex. Lucy’s predicament effectively debunks this unfounded nonsense.
What sort of people get offended by inconvenient facts?
That’d be the same sort of people who have an unwillingness to bring any kind of counter-argument or supporting evidence to the table…
Only joshing, of course I know the answer! Here’s a clue: they begin with the letter ‘M’.
Hello Mogwai. I have been here right from the inception of Lockdown Skeptics and then The Daily Sceptic and I have commented now and again. I agree with a lot of what you write and I’m not one of the ‘misogynists’ you refer to ad infinitum in many of your posts, but some people certainly do get more lenient sentences or treatment because of the fact that they are female, irrespective of what they may have done. That doesn’t mean all women do. The Family Courts is such a place. Likewise simply being a father puts you at a disadvantage from the outset, again irrespective of what you may have done or tried to do.
Personally I have experienced this. My wife became unwell after our son’s traumatic birth and developed Post Natal Depression. She walked off, with our son. I did everything I could to support her and preserve and save our marriage – I meant my vows, but ultimately to no avail. She made me seeing our son very difficult and didn’t allow unattended contact, so I went to court and was treated as danger to our son for no reason at all other than her word and me being a man and wanting to be a full time father as much as possible. A two day, 6 hour psychology assessment was ordered of me by the court, together with full access to my entire medical history based on nothing at all. The tax payer paid for that assessment at a cost of £2000. It showed nothing, other than some anxiety issues and hearing loss. There were many court hearings over 15 years and the treatment was unrelenting, despite her relocating multiple times and me seeing our son regularly and frequently. The entire Family Court and associated agencies are impregnated and run by men hating women. I don’t think all women are like this, obviously. What is best for the child is what should drive the decisions, but that is simply not the case. The 15 years of Hell that I (and our son) was put through simply for being a man, makes reading some of your posts quite unpleasant. There are some awful men and equally there are some awful women, but some of your posts seem to imply that simply criticising women is misogynistic and some of your posts are also overtly misandrist.
The majority of men who read articles on this site are not misogynists, but that doesn’t mean they don’t get irked when they read generalised denunciation of men, simply because they are men, yet based solely on the fact that your comment was down voted, you presume and accuse those that have down voted it as being male and misogynistic towards you. It is also apparent from your many posts that you don’t like women who support male roles or who themselves choose to stay at home and look after their children. Your hatred of men really does need to be addressed.
”Your hatred of men really does need to be addressed.”
Can you provide some evidence to support any of your vitriolic accusations? Because it seems very apparent to me that what we have here is a classic case of ‘transference’ based on your traumatic experiences that you have described above. All women are not like your wife or the ”men hating women” who run the Family Courts, and it appears to me that you see any woman who is remotely assertive and takes no shit as a threat, and therefore label them as ”misandrist”, because it’s always convenient for embittered individuals such as yourself to tar us all with the same brush. The above article is not even about Family Courts, a completely different kettle of fish, but don’t let that stop you from venting your spleen and unfairly transferring your angst towards me.
Let me ask you this: do you think men who don’t believe women should have a right to vote misogynists? Or men who think women should be barred from entering certain professions? Or who ridicule us as overly emotional, inept in our jobs, or how we look? Because it’s the same names all of the time and given that this is *supposed* to be a site which is pro-freedom of speech, I have every right to challenge such posters, no matter how many people wish to whinge about it. Free speech works both ways.
You sound like an angry and bitter man lashing out at a stranger online that you’re never going to meet. And just to be clear, for yourself and everybody else’s benefit: I hate men that hate/disrespect women. See the difference there from your accusation? ”Treat others how you wish to be treated” and ”Give as good as you get” are two adages that I’ve always lived by. Good luck trying to find any evidence of alleged ”misandry” from me on this site. Unless, of course, your (mis)understanding of the word is ”a woman who isn’t afraid to challenge/disagree with a man and takes no bullshit”?
Well and bravely said, JASA. I hope you were able to defeat your wife’s vindictive, relentless efforts to cut you off from your own beloved son, and that now you and your son have a good father-son bond. May God bless you both!
Well, what do you know…14 hours and still no evidence to support your accusation that I’m supposed to be a ‘misandrist’. That does surprise me.
Surely one of your pals from the Misogynist Society could’ve gone and sourced something from my “many posts”? 
And given 
= ‘Coward’, then there does seem to be no shortage of those around, which only confirms what I already know.
Because an observation I’ve made on here long ago is that the people who are very comfortable making assertions, that they assume everybody will just take as read, and those throwing accusations at others, are the very same people who aren’t so forthcoming with providing evidence to back up their claims. Ask them to provide receipts and it’s ‘radio silence’. Well, apart from these things, of course>
May I remind you that “Offence is taken, never given”, but don’t worry, you’re far from alone on here at not being able to grasp this concept and instead are triggered by some words on a screen posted by somebody whose opinions don’t align with yours. How people react to my posts is out of my control and none of my concern, but if you’re going to go out of your way to accuse me of something then at least have the decency to provide an example of what you’re referring to.
Serving press and public perception without fear, favour or prejudice, then.
The coercion by remand was obvious from the start. It should be a criminal offence, and required by law to be taken into consideration in sentencing.
Absolutely right you are, WillP, and well done for giving it a name:
“COERCION BY REMAND” should be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
“Coercive use of remand…”
…So much for “innocent until proven guilty,” “equality in the eye of the law,” “separation of government and judiciary,” and any number of other quaint old-fashioned legal concepts trampled under foot by Sir Two-Tier.
The Knight of the Realm knows best. All apparently down to the victory of the legal realists – the image heading the linked article tells where that road leads.
And just for some perspective. Who is the greater danger to the public? Female ‘keyboard warrior’ = custodial sentence vs male nonces = never see the inside of a cell;
”At least 177 paed0phiIes have walked free since Lucy Connolly was sentenced on 17th October 2024.
Lucy was jailed for 2 years 7 months for a social media post.
These despicable & depraved men have not done day in jail.
UK justice is broken.
Here are just a few.”
https://x.com/Wommando/status/1908252582306603081
You have made your disgusting views well-known on here for a very long time, paedophile, leaping to their defence at every opportunity.
In my view, anyone who defends a paedophile deserves hanging right alongside them.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH does not include WATCHING VIDEOS OF REAL CHILDREN BEING RAPED AND TORTURED.
It’s exactly the same as WATCHING SNUFF VIDEOS of real people being tortured and murdered.
It’s the same as participating yourself, filth!
Your attempt to conceal your crimes under the blanket of FREE SPEECH is nauseating.
NOTE TO ALL: My comment was not in response to Mogwai, but in response to Ron Smith, whose comments have now disappeared, thanks to the Moderator.
I thought the comments were not in sync when I read them earlier – but it was early hours and I’d had a bad night. Makes more sense now.
Moderator here: Apologies, yes, when Comments are deleted, as Ron Smith’s were last night, it can play havoc with the Comments located around the deleted items, which in the worst case can make them look out of context or without sense. It’s either that, or delete many more Comments just to tidy up loose ends, which seems a shame
Thanks for the explanation.
Viewing/being in possession of images of children being raped and abused is illegal. They are not AI-generated or cartoon anime images, they are real kids and babies being abused around the world. This is not a mere facet of the porn industry for the particularly sick, twisted and depraved, because unlike adults, no children are consenting to what is being done to them. It’s the marketing and profiteering of child abuse, plain and simple. And the fact you continually come on here and defend this depravity just says to me that you definitely need your hard drive confiscated and inspected. Massive red flag, right there.
Well said!
Why, thank you.
I really don’t want to read Mr Smith’s arguments in defence of those obtaining sexual satisfaction from viewing defenceless minors being tormented, raped and tortured and would like the moderator to put a stop to it once and for all.
Yes, may I add my voice to ask the Moderator “to put a stop to it once and for all”, because it is not a Free Speech question.
It is an Incitement to Violent Criminal Acts Against Children,
in total VIOLATON OF THE CHILD’S HUMAN RIGHTS.
Moderator here. ‘Ron Smith’ is under review, Will and I will discuss it tonight and see where to go next. We made our position clear not so long ago, we are not interested in promoting Ron Smith’s views about paedophilia on this site, free speech or not. If Mr Smith feels that strongly about the subject, perhaps he could find a specialist site elsewhere who’ll debate it with him, as he is clearly obsessed with the subject
That’s not “post-feminist/ religious clap-trap” but happens to be the law of the land in the UK. This law can obviously be criticized as being arbitrary, especially with regards to laws in other countries where these age limits differ, but it’s nevertheless the law and unless it’s changed, people will have to act accordingly and not doing so is a crime.
This was also reply to a Ron Smith comment.
The first thing i would do upon release is – try to leave this country (if possible). Lock, stock and barrel. I could never accept being treated in such a despicable way.
Day by day, we are now experiencing ‘life in the Soviet Union’ – but without the Soviet Union’s civic pride, solidarity and high culture. Keep your mouth shut, and your head down is becoming the way to survive, sadly.
NO! How is that fair to the Indigenous People of the British Isles, already under attack by The Great Replacement?
Why should Lucy Connolly and her family be forced to leave the land their ancestors worked so hard to build into a great nation?
That’s exactly what the Globalists want.
These revolutionary regimes and their hectoring, moralistic servants, how alike they are.
Marie Antoinette was initially imprisoned with her daughters and her son. Then the newly formed Committee of Public Safety ordered that her son be taken away from her.
When the officers came to take her son, in a voice broken with emotion, she complained, ‘Messieurs, the Committee cannot think of parting me from my son; he is so young, so weak, he needs my care!’
‘The Committee has passed this decree and we must execute it immediately’, the officer replied.
There followed a terrible and heart-rending scene with the boy’s sisters weeping and imploring the soldiers to desist. This lasted an hour, but to no avail.
The boy was given over to the custody of a foul-mouthed cobbler and was dressed in the attire of the sans culottes, made to swear, blaspheme God, and drink liquor. His mother was denied even a last meeting with her son before she was taken to the scaffold.
And all that for the sake of ‘public safety’.
Two-Tier and the Establishment are using her as the Poster Child for their policy of suppressing free speech and coercive compliance with multi-culti dogma.
She’s perfect for them: female, white, right-wing, married to a Conservative Councillor.
Refusing her “home leave” is intended to highlight that anyone who is white, right-wing and working class who objects to the systematic destruction of their community will be severely punished and treated as harshly as possible.
To my mind her post only called for ‘mass deportations now’ and I do not see that is a call to violence.
Saying ‘set fire to all the f*king hotels full of the ba*ards for all I care’ is not a call for such action but rather just stating if such happened the writer purports to not care.
Her ‘crime’ was adding the line ‘while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them’ – that political statement is a call to action and so hence: she was prosecuted for a political crime. That is what narked Starmer, our political lord and master.
The Blob is Left-wing. Never underestimate the viciousness of the Left.
It’s a very ugly experience, living n a dictatorship
I will not forget that during the covid scam, Labour were blatantly the Tories BFF, enjoying – and engaging in – the ‘do as I say but not as I do’ diktats. However, Labour wanted more punishing measures, with harder and longer lockdowns to control the people. It did not bode well for the future and was a clear sign of their dictatorial tendencies if they got into power. Alas, it came to pass – they got in and have made the majority of people suffer every day since, with Starmer bleating he has a ‘mandate’. He is, in my opinion, a thoroughly nauseating, obnoxious individual…and the sound of his voice turns my stomach.
This “likely to cause…” principle is an expressway to totalitarianism. It has no place in a sane legal system.
She should never have been imprisoned for simply posting some hurty words. She did not do anything violent. A fine would have been appropriate.
A fine would NOT have been appropriate. That bastard Ricky Jones is still on the streets after calling on his supporters to “cut their throats,” the Manchester Airport thugs are still on the streets and will certainly not do time. Lucy Connolly is a political prisoner and a victim of a blatantly evil and dictatorial government in a similar way to Tommy Robinson. The great shame here is that The 7th Cavalry
, Reform have not even stepped in to the ring on matters such as this. No “politician” has, so credit to Alison Pearson for having a go.
Well said.
Appalling as this is, it’s not surprising. It’s a sign that as our democracy withers, and we enter a new dark age of madleft despotism, our justice system is made to serve the enemies of the British people.
Great article. This is simply an outrageous abuse of our justice system to persecute and intimidate critics of Starmer’s regime and his imported flat pack immigrant voter base.
The only person here who should be in prison is Starmer for misconduct in a public office and treason.
And the Pakistani Muslim he placed in charge of the UK Justice System.
Apparently, one of the reasons given for her extraordinary sentence and refusal for home leave is that her tweet was racist. I think a half-competent barrister could question what exactly was racist in her words – she doesn’t mention race once. And as others here have already said, there was no incitement in her words, either. If only she’d downloaded a bunch of child abuse images – she wouldn’t even have been on remand.
No one deserves a prison sentence ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD for “being racist”.
Every human on the planet is racist to some extent, which is perfectly natural “Tribalism”, helping humanity to survive for thousands of years by preferring to live and work among their own kith and kin.
As for remand, holding someone on remand who is not a danger to the public is just another form of MEDIAEVAL TORTURE TO EXTRACT CONFESSIONS.
It must be made ILLEGAL to use remand in this way.
Well said.
Correct. Vile though the tweet may have been, it merely takes a pop at “immigrants”, or “asylum seekers” who come from a whole variety of races, nationalities and religions. Obviously, as alluded to in article, the directive came from on-high because Labour are afraid to curb the trend of allowing the tsunami of immigration to continue, which will mean that increasing support for Labour will be self-fulfilling!
Labour’s support is hemorrhaging and no amount of illegal, or legal immigration will change that. I said after the ’24 election that it would be Labour’s last government and their wipe-out will be down to the muslim vote. Kneel should know this, probably does but he doesn’t care.
Well done to David Shipley and the DS for not allowing unjustly imprisoned patriots like Lucy Connolly to be forgotten. And well done to Elon Musk for chiming in with his support:
Musk hits out at treatment of mother jailed for Southport post
“Elon Musk has criticised prison chiefs for denying a mother jailed over last summer’s riots the right to spend temporary leave with her daughter and sick husband.
“The billionaire owner of X and adviser to Donald Trump, indicated that he was “100 per cent” behind demands that Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months for inciting racial hatred in a tweet, should be released on temporary licence (ROTL).”
“Mr Musk retweeted a post criticising the 31-month sentence and denial of temporary leave from prison. The post referenced criticism of free speech by the US Vice-President, saying: “JD Vance was right again.”
The billionaire also reposted another post that suggested memes in the US equated to two years in jail in Britain.”
Of course it did. Starmer. Same bloke who decided Adolescents was a documentary and must be shown to all school kid, especially WHITE ones.
Man’s a Sociopath.
No wonder, MONTHS after the election, I am still to meet a single soul who admits to voting Labour.
There are plenty of Labour Voters in my ex-church, as revealed when the minister rang me up a few weeks ago to say that no fewer than SIX PEOPLE COMPLAINED to him because, after the Sunday preacher told the congregation to pray aloud in turns for people who needed prayers, and others prayed for their friends and relatives, I PRAYED FOR TOMMY ROBINSON and the other patriots unjustly imprisoned.
The ordained minister told me that, after summoning a meeting of the church deacons to discuss these complaints, they had decided to BAN ME FROM PRAYING FOR TOMMY ROBINSON ALOUD IN CHURCH. He said that in future I could only pray for Tommy Robinson SILENTLY, without ever mentioning his name again, because it upsets people. That really is the last straw.
You can just imagine the prison chaplain, who reportedly visits Tommy and helps him with Tommy’s own Bible studies, telling him to be nicey-nice to Muslims, and not mention Muslim Gang Rapists of Children in his prayers to Almighty God.
If the Labour party allow uncontrolled immigration policies to continue, they know they will gain significant voter-base. It is self-fulfilling that those being controversially let in the country will vote for those who support their continued presence here (the Labour Party).
This is literally what the other parties are up against: Rather than acting in the will of the people (Democracy 101), Labour are doing the opposite – trying to engineer a demographic shift in the country to a population who is in favour of them!
So anyone who utters a word of criticism against this flow of migration (very good for Labour), will be branded a heretic and treated accordingly.
Gordon Brown tried to buy a voter base with Tax Credits. He lasted two years. The Labour rank and file might think importing a voter base will work but it won’t. They are finished.
I really hope you’re right.
Don’t forget:
1.) In the 20th century communism was responsible for the death of about 100 million people.
2.) Communism has not gone away, just, hmm, shall we say, “transitioned”.
Her experience is a life-changing injury to her and her family, inflicted by people with no compassion or moral imperative. A vicious punishment for the crime of typing hyperbole in order to discourage free expression. Shameful.
Absolutely spot on. We should also spare a thought for this news today from South America:
Brazil sentenced a woman to 14 years for lipstick graffiti
“Débora Albuquerque—infamous now as “Débora do Perdeu, Mané”—was convicted of armed criminal association, violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, attempted coup, and defacing protected property. Yet she was not armed, didn’t lead anyone, and never breached a government building. Her entire contribution to Brazil’s so-called coup attempt amounted to scrawling a message in RED LIPSTICK on the statue of The Justice outside the Supreme Federal Court.”
***************************************
Jair Bolsonaro’s Message to Donald Trump: Thank God You Were Reelected
“During the event this weekend, Bolsonaro’s wife, former Brazilian First Lady Michelle Bolsonaro, called for a “humanitarian amnesty” for those convicted for their participation in the January 2023 riots. The former First Lady and several participants reportedly HELD UP LIPSTICKS in support of Débora Rodrigues dos Santos, a BRAZILIAN HAIRDRESSER who spent over a year in prison for writing “You lost, sucker” with her LIPSTICK on an STF statue during the riots.”
“In late March, STF Minister Alexandre de Moraes ruled to grant house arrest provisions to Rodrigues dos Santos on the grounds that her trial is presently suspended and she has already served 25 percent of a potential sentence. ALTHOUGH HER TRIAL IS SUSPENDED at press time, both de Moraes and STF Minister Flavio Dino have ALREADY VOTED IN FAVOR OF HER CONVICTION. Bolsonaro referred to her case Sunday during his speech.”
“I have no adjective to describe someone who condemns a mother of two to such an absurd sentence for a crime she didn’t commit,” Bolsonaro said. “Only a psychopath would say that what happened on January 8th was an armed attempt at a military coup.”
Note: Of the 11 Brazilian Supreme Court Justices, 8 were appointed by Communists, either by Lula, Dilma Rousseff or Temer. One was appointed by a centrist, and only 2 were appointed by Bolsonaro.
So you can see that the court is top-heavy with Communists, some not due to step down until 2048 or 2050. A good example of how Communist Globalists intend to establish a Global Kritocracy = Rule By Judges, in cahoots with Communist politicians, in order to keep patriots out of power.
I typed “what is the role of a legal system in a free society” into a search engine.
It came up with a website that includes:
QUOTE
The Importance of the Rule of Law for Society
The rule of law is essential in maintaining a free, democratic and fair society.
At its core, the Rule of Law serves as both a warning and an aspiration.
As a warning, it ensures that those in power are held accountable and their use of power is limited. It guards against arbitrary rule and the excessive concentration of power in one person or group through the separation of powers and checks and balances.
As an aspiration, the Rule of Law represents an ideal that society must continually strive towards to protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals. It is not just about the government and citizens knowing and obeying the law; it requires individuals, institutions, and processes to work together to value and protect human rights.
Without the Rule of Law, two outcomes are possible: tyranny, where a ruler disregards human rights and operates outside the law, or anarchy, where chaos and the absence of law prevail. The Rule of Law exists to prevent both of these scenarios, ensuring a just and orderly society.
END OF QUOTE
How’s that working out for us?
Seems to have all gone rather pear-shaped on the “just and orderly society” front…
How do we get a legal system that actually works in the best interests of the people?
Ref: https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/what-is-the-rule-of-law/
Starmer pushed political interference into these cases from day 1, sooner or later he and the judges involved will be made to answer for their actions.
The lawyers who said guilty pleas are all equal are not real lawyers. They must know about coercion, torture, psychological torture, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement etc – tactics to force the accused to plead guilty as a way out of his misery!!!
Hear, hear!
Our judicial system is a disgraceful government controlled unjust disaster. It seems that one disproportionate, inaccurate speech by ar**hole Starmer and our supposedly independent judiciary jump through whatever hoops the government asks for only far more extremely than anything that can ever be called justice. Do we not have an honourable honest Lord Chief Justice whose job is is to prevent this injustice. No wonder our country which was once the epitome of freedom, justice and free speech is shown to be shown to be the opposite by our American friends and the rest of the world.
Orwellian and sadly another example of two tier justice. There can be no justification for such a sentence, the result of the inherent Marxism within this government.