IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
Lucy Connolly is a political prisoner; if she married a Labour MP or councillor, she would not be in prison but would have a stern warning.
I shudder to think how many we pay officers to sit in cosy offices going through hundreds and thousands of Tweets and FB comments. People swear at each other in the streets without being arrested.
Connolly took down the Tweet after posting it. The UK is still angry about Southport and rightly so, the authorities knew about the loony and Starmer downplayed it, he laid flowers for a photo opp but didn't take a moment to talk to people. Starmer is brave when the press are with him.
Tommy Robinson has never been tried by a Jury either. Hate him or love him, he knew about Muslim grooming again years before the MSM. Mark Steyn mentioned the grooming gangs on his GB News slot, and he wanted TR on his show,but the GB News bosses would not allow it, guess they are scared of Ofcom, another part of the establishment. Silenced is still online!
I do like Charlie Kirk, I think the US and UK need to exchange prisoners and grant those from the UK with asylum to the US. I wonder if Starmer has broken any human rights laws. He is a human rights lawyer by trade, so he would know all the ins and outs.
The U.S. has the First Amendment, something that the UK needs.
What Connolly tweeted was abominable and stupid, but she shouldn't have gone to prison. And for 3 years? Ridiculous. She was someone who reacted emotionally upon hearing the news of children being stabbed to death, and of course reacting to the wrong information. However, I will say I took note the other day how some were more interested in the race of the driver in Liverpool than in the victims. I equally find that kind of reaction baffling, and that is just what leads to stupidity reactionary nonsense. Black, white, pink, Asian, Muslim, Christian...it doesn't fucking matter.
Lucy Connolly was angry and rightly so, remember she lost a child several years ago. When you are a parent, and you hear about young kids being pointlessly slaughtered, your emotions do take over, probably more so if you are not a parent. Parental instincts take over, you only have to see what apes do to each other in zoos when the new born is in a state of threat or there to much of a crowd.
Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty to a crime that carries a potential prison sentence of up to 7 years. She only got 31 months, so you could say that she got off lightly. You can argue that the sentence is harsh for hate speech, as I would, but the judge operates under the law. She shouldn't have pleaded guilty, she was badly advised.
I think prisons should only be places for violent and dangerous people. Physically or sexually. I believe that any other crime should be addressed through community service.
robbiex wrote: Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty to a crime that carries a potential prison sentence of up to 7 years. She only got 31 months, so you could say that she got off lightly. You can argue that the sentence is harsh for hate speech, as I would, but the judge operates under the law. She shouldn't have pleaded guilty, she was badly advised.
I think prisons should only be places for violent and dangerous people. Physically or sexually. I believe that any other crime should be addressed through community service.
I bet she got shit legal advice, not forgetting she took down the Tweet after 4 hours or so. Even with self-censoring she got jailed. No wonder JD Vance was pissing himself with laughter when Starmer said UK has free speech.
Green Man wrote: robbiex wrote: Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty to a crime that carries a potential prison sentence of up to 7 years. She only got 31 months, so you could say that she got off lightly. You can argue that the sentence is harsh for hate speech, as I would, but the judge operates under the law. She shouldn't have pleaded guilty, she was badly advised.
I think prisons should only be places for violent and dangerous people. Physically or sexually. I believe that any other crime should be addressed through community service.
I bet she got shit legal advice, not forgetting she took down the Tweet after 4 hours or so. Even with self-censoring she got jailed. No wonder JD Vance was pissing himself with laughter when Starmer said UK has free speech.
I don't think it's Anti free speech to be fair. Her comment was appalling and stupid. If the Pro free speech Brigade believe she had the right to put down that she wanted people burned alive in hotels--including children-- then would they feel the same way if a Muslim tweeted that they wanted Muslims to go out and murder people? If the answer to that last question is 'no'--then it's Free Speech that's selective and fits the narrative they really want. Should grooming gangs be able to post up meeting places? You see where it goes?
Downing Street Cat wrote: Green Man wrote: robbiex wrote: Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty to a crime that carries a potential prison sentence of up to 7 years. She only got 31 months, so you could say that she got off lightly. You can argue that the sentence is harsh for hate speech, as I would, but the judge operates under the law. She shouldn't have pleaded guilty, she was badly advised.
I think prisons should only be places for violent and dangerous people. Physically or sexually. I believe that any other crime should be addressed through community service.
I bet she got shit legal advice, not forgetting she took down the Tweet after 4 hours or so. Even with self-censoring she got jailed. No wonder JD Vance was pissing himself with laughter when Starmer said UK has free speech.
I don't think it's Anti free speech to be fair. Her comment was appalling and stupid. If the Pro free speech Brigade believe she had the right to put down that she wanted people burned alive in hotels--including children-- then would they feel the same way if a Muslim tweeted that they wanted Muslims to go out and murder people? If the answer to that last question is 'no'--then it's Free Speech that's selective and fits the narrative they really want. Should grooming gangs be able to post up meeting places? You see where it goes?
It was written in anger and frustration. She deleted it, not forgetting she lost her own child a few years back. Police won't solve a burglary but go for Tweeters. A firm bollocking would have been more than enough.
We need to stop believing that the government and police are there to protect us; they are there to grind us down.
I am sure rape grooming gangs do message each other on Whatapp and Telegram even the bloke next to you on the train could be doing it and typing in code.
Downing Street Cat wrote: I don't think it's Anti free speech to be fair. Her comment was appalling and stupid. If the Pro free speech Brigade believe she had the right to put down that she wanted people burned alive in hotels--including children-- then would they feel the same way if a Muslim tweeted that they wanted Muslims to go out and murder people? If the answer to that last question is 'no'--then it's Free Speech that's selective and fits the narrative they really want. Should grooming gangs be able to post up meeting places? You see where it goes?
Exactly.
Forums 
