| Prime Minister questions should 11:39 - May 21 with 2154 views | onceablue |
Be interesting
I would hazard a guess that Starmer blames the previous government for the cost of living crisis
Free breakfast clubs is the answer according to Rachael from Accounts |  | | |  |
| Prime Minister questions should on 14:54 - May 21 with 478 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Prime Minister questions should on 13:52 - May 21 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I don't think being a young mother with a 12-year-old daughter should give you a free pass for racism and insightment to violence. If anything, you should know better! |
Agree, although custodial sentences for a single social media post (if that was indeed what happened ) seems over the top. A good slap over the wrists with a fine and/or community service should suffice, unless someone’s got history. I’ve no issue with short custodial sentences for those who actually partook in the riots and caused damage or attacked people. |  |
| |
| Prime Minister questions should on 15:02 - May 21 with 458 views | bluelagos |
| Prime Minister questions should on 14:54 - May 21 by Swansea_Blue |
Agree, although custodial sentences for a single social media post (if that was indeed what happened ) seems over the top. A good slap over the wrists with a fine and/or community service should suffice, unless someone’s got history. I’ve no issue with short custodial sentences for those who actually partook in the riots and caused damage or attacked people. |
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fcking hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.”
She was charged with inciting racial hatred - posted at a time when far right thugs were attacking asylum seekers. |  |
| |
| Prime Minister questions should on 15:09 - May 21 with 445 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Prime Minister questions should on 14:54 - May 21 by Swansea_Blue |
Agree, although custodial sentences for a single social media post (if that was indeed what happened ) seems over the top. A good slap over the wrists with a fine and/or community service should suffice, unless someone’s got history. I’ve no issue with short custodial sentences for those who actually partook in the riots and caused damage or attacked people. |
Calling it "a single social media post" doesn't make it sound so bad, but you're removing all the context. When you take into account what she said, what was going on at the time, and the fact that she's the wife of a then Tory councillor, then no, sorry, in this instance custodial sends a strong message that this isn't acceptable. If you just gave a fine/community service, all sorts would think that's a price worth paying and copy.
She claimed to be upset about the murders... but never posted any kind of sympathy with the parents.
I don't think her husband has helped matters, claiming she's not racist because some of the kids she was babysitter for are from African and Asian heritage (worryingly close to 'some of my friends are black') and today saying he believes the "system wanted to make an example" of his wife to ensure they were "scared to say things about immigration". "This is not the British way," he said." |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Prime Minister questions should on 15:20 - May 21 with 416 views | DJR |
| Prime Minister questions should on 14:54 - May 21 by Swansea_Blue |
Agree, although custodial sentences for a single social media post (if that was indeed what happened ) seems over the top. A good slap over the wrists with a fine and/or community service should suffice, unless someone’s got history. I’ve no issue with short custodial sentences for those who actually partook in the riots and caused damage or attacked people. |
This from the Independent: I understand she will be released anyway within the next few days.
Connolly admitted a “category 1A” offence, meaning that her culpability was deemed to be in “category A”, and the harm was in “category one” – both the highest categories.
Guidelines on how to sentence offenders for several crimes are published by the Sentencing Council, an independent body which is led by the judiciary.
The guidance for racial hatred offences states that those who commit such a crime are to be deemed to have high culpability if they demonstrate one or more of three factors.
These are using a “position of trust, authority or influence to stir up hatred”, showing an “intention to incite serious violence” and demonstrating “persistent activity”.
A publication is considered to cause “category one” harm if it “directly encourages activity which threatens or endangers life”, and there is “widespread dissemination”.
The maximum sentence for the offence is seven years behind bars.
Defendants who commit category 1A offences can be sentenced to between two and six years in prison, with the “starting point” for sentences – the point used before aggravating and mitigating factors are considered – being three years.
During sentencing, Judge Inman said that both prosecution and defence barristers agreed that the case involved a “category 1A” offence.
He said the timing of the post was a “further significant aggravating factor” to the offence, which came amid a “particularly sensitive social climate”.
He added that in the three-and-a-half hours between Connolly publishing and deleting the post, it was “widely read”, having been viewed “310,000 times with 940 reposts, 58 quotes and 113 bookmarks”.
In mitigation, Judge Inman said Connolly had no previous convictions, that it was her first time in prison, that she did not repeat her statement and deleted the post, and that she “sent some messages to the effect that violence was not the answer”.
He also said that he accepted she still “very keenly” felt the loss of her own child several years ago, and that she regretted her actions.
But he also found that Connolly had “little insight into, or acceptance of” her offending.
He said: “Whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport, you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred.”
He added that the sentence he would have imposed after a trial was one of three-and-a-half years – 42 months – but then reduced this by a quarter due to Connolly’s early guilty plea, resulting in the final sentence of 31 months. |  | | |
| Prime Minister questions should on 15:47 - May 21 with 385 views | Tonytown |
The boards village idiot of politics (the op) is back. [Post edited 21 May 15:48]
| | | |
| Prime Minister questions should on 16:00 - May 21 with 362 views | bluelagos |
| Prime Minister questions should on 15:47 - May 21 by Tonytown |
The boards village idiot of politics (the op) is back. [Post edited 21 May 15:48]
|
I just think he wants to be the Vardy of twtd. Playing the pantomime baddie but not with any real conviction, he is seemingly unable to back up his initial thoughts.
Mildly amusing, largely inoffensive and sometimes a bit irritating is my take. | |
| |
| Prime Minister questions should on 16:31 - May 21 with 341 views | Illinoisblue |
| Prime Minister questions should on 14:54 - May 21 by Swansea_Blue |
Agree, although custodial sentences for a single social media post (if that was indeed what happened ) seems over the top. A good slap over the wrists with a fine and/or community service should suffice, unless someone’s got history. I’ve no issue with short custodial sentences for those who actually partook in the riots and caused damage or attacked people. |
She was very foolish to make that post but not sure what use to society her custodial sentence does. Should have had her doing voluntary work with refugees. Something productive. |  |
| |
| Prime Minister questions should on 16:32 - May 21 with 336 views | DJR |
| Prime Minister questions should on 16:31 - May 21 by Illinoisblue |
She was very foolish to make that post but not sure what use to society her custodial sentence does. Should have had her doing voluntary work with refugees. Something productive. |
The judge did say the sentence was "to punish and deter".
I think the same is the case for some of the Just Stop Oil protesters. [Post edited 21 May 16:32]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Prime Minister questions should on 17:00 - May 21 with 317 views | giant_stow |
| Prime Minister questions should on 16:31 - May 21 by Illinoisblue |
She was very foolish to make that post but not sure what use to society her custodial sentence does. Should have had her doing voluntary work with refugees. Something productive. |
Not sure about the timing of this case, but they rushed those pricks through the court system largely to deter further rioting. Imho, that thinking was bang on - control had to be regained and such posts were genuinely stoking the fire. Put it like this, if something similar happens in the future, more people may stop and think. |  |
| |
| Prime Minister questions should on 17:16 - May 21 with 284 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Prime Minister questions should on 16:31 - May 21 by Illinoisblue |
She was very foolish to make that post but not sure what use to society her custodial sentence does. Should have had her doing voluntary work with refugees. Something productive. |
As I said above, deterrent. "If you just gave a fine/community service, all sorts would think that's a price worth paying and copy." | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Prime Minister questions should on 17:26 - May 21 with 270 views | BlueBadger |
| Prime Minister questions should on 13:24 - May 21 by Churchman |
I know the choice of leader for what’s left of the tories was thin pickings, but the idiots seem to have chosen the thinnest picking of all.
Maybe Badenoch will grow into the job and I can’t see the value of booting her out if they can’t find better from the sorry shower that remain in the HoC. They can’t even parachute in to a safe constituency somebody with a brain cell like Mordaunt because they don’t have any safe seats. They’re toast. Finished. |
Look at that, the DaveU seal of approval is back. |  |
| |
| Prime Minister questions should on 18:15 - May 21 with 231 views | Pendejo |
| Prime Minister questions should on 15:20 - May 21 by DJR |
This from the Independent: I understand she will be released anyway within the next few days.
Connolly admitted a “category 1A” offence, meaning that her culpability was deemed to be in “category A”, and the harm was in “category one” – both the highest categories.
Guidelines on how to sentence offenders for several crimes are published by the Sentencing Council, an independent body which is led by the judiciary.
The guidance for racial hatred offences states that those who commit such a crime are to be deemed to have high culpability if they demonstrate one or more of three factors.
These are using a “position of trust, authority or influence to stir up hatred”, showing an “intention to incite serious violence” and demonstrating “persistent activity”.
A publication is considered to cause “category one” harm if it “directly encourages activity which threatens or endangers life”, and there is “widespread dissemination”.
The maximum sentence for the offence is seven years behind bars.
Defendants who commit category 1A offences can be sentenced to between two and six years in prison, with the “starting point” for sentences – the point used before aggravating and mitigating factors are considered – being three years.
During sentencing, Judge Inman said that both prosecution and defence barristers agreed that the case involved a “category 1A” offence.
He said the timing of the post was a “further significant aggravating factor” to the offence, which came amid a “particularly sensitive social climate”.
He added that in the three-and-a-half hours between Connolly publishing and deleting the post, it was “widely read”, having been viewed “310,000 times with 940 reposts, 58 quotes and 113 bookmarks”.
In mitigation, Judge Inman said Connolly had no previous convictions, that it was her first time in prison, that she did not repeat her statement and deleted the post, and that she “sent some messages to the effect that violence was not the answer”.
He also said that he accepted she still “very keenly” felt the loss of her own child several years ago, and that she regretted her actions.
But he also found that Connolly had “little insight into, or acceptance of” her offending.
He said: “Whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport, you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred.”
He added that the sentence he would have imposed after a trial was one of three-and-a-half years – 42 months – but then reduced this by a quarter due to Connolly’s early guilty plea, resulting in the final sentence of 31 months. |
Godammit facts!
I want pitchforks and burning torches.. |  |
| |
| Prime Minister questions should on 18:59 - May 21 with 201 views | PhilTWTD |
| Prime Minister questions should on 17:00 - May 21 by giant_stow |
Not sure about the timing of this case, but they rushed those pricks through the court system largely to deter further rioting. Imho, that thinking was bang on - control had to be regained and such posts were genuinely stoking the fire. Put it like this, if something similar happens in the future, more people may stop and think. |
They largely pleaded guilty, as she did, so would always be a quick process. |  | | |
| Prime Minister questions should on 20:32 - May 21 with 142 views | DJR |
One of the top-rated comments on the Mail website.
"Political prisoner. She should not be in jail. An absolute disgrace." | | | |
| Prime Minister questions should on 22:58 - May 21 with 107 views | reusersfreekicks |
| Prime Minister questions should on 11:45 - May 21 by onceablue |
Sorry I don’t care for Farage at all. |
Hahahahhaha |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
