Mother jailed for social media post ‘blocked from seeing daughter’

[Cherie]

There is misunderstanding over why she pled guilty btw - it's not because she was promised a lenient sentence or was pressured, it's because she freely confessed immediately after being arrested without talking to a lawyer.

As a result she had literally no defence at trial.

She didn't go to trial, and plenty people change their pleas....I am more inclined to believe her thoughts on what she personally went through than your version of events I am afraid

[Cherie]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250824/c92dac94fe9f8bbbdbca01621f0dec2f.jpg

Are we seriously putting Lucy Connelly in the same league as Abu Hamza :joker: I am literally done with the foolishness of these comparisons

why was abu hamza imprisoned
Abu Hamza was imprisoned for his involvement in terrorism and kidnapping. He was sentenced to life in a US prison after being found guilty of 11 charges of terrorism and kidnapping. His role in inspiring jihadist sympathizers was highlighted by British security services, and he was mentored by Djamel Beghal, who had been based at Hamza’s Finsbury Park Mosque in London. His preaching at Finsbury Park Mosque, which supported Osama Bin Laden and called for jihad in the Middle East, inspired the 7/7 bombers. Despite his arrest in 2003, he continued to preach outside the Mosque until his arrest in 2004. His legal battles and life sentence have kept him in the public eye, raising questions about his current confinement as 2025 unfolds.

Abdullah El Faisal
Abdullah El Faisal, born Trevor William Forrest, is a Jamaican Muslim cleric who has been a controversial figure in the UK and the United States. He was convicted of stirring up racial hatred and urging his followers to murder Jews, Hindus, Christians, Americans, and other "unbelievers." El Faisal was sentenced to nine years in prison, of which he served four years before being deported to Jamaica in 2007. He later traveled to Africa, but was deported from Botswana in 2009 and from Kenya back to Jamaica in January 2010. In 2020, El Faisal was extradited to New York City after being arrested in Jamaica in 2017. He was subsequently convicted in January 2023 in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan on counts including soliciting or providing support for an act of terrorism. He was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

Could you at least do some research before regurgitating shite all over the forum please

[Kate!]

Extremely well said and researched Cherie

[Glenn.]

She didn't go to trial, and plenty people change their pleas....I am more inclined to believe her thoughts on what she personally went through than your version of events I am afraid


Yeah she didn’t go to trail because she plead guilty. There was no need for a trial

[Vanessa]

Going to jail for a tweet or if you say you like bacon is wrong. In what world that is an acceptable punishment?
This government is very keen on censoring people.

[Vanessa]

In the meantime real criminals get a lot less. The criminal system is broken.

[Mystic Mock]

In the meantime real criminals get a lot less. The criminal system is broken.

I agree with you that the hardcore criminals need to face longer sentences.

[Crimson Dynamo]

In the meantime real criminals get a lot less. The criminal system is broken.

not only that Ness

Its politicised

and that is something we should ALL be fearful of

[Maru]

Locking people up for simply just words is not something I can ever support, but when it is the law of the land, the law should be applied fairly.

My question: Is this something society agrees on or is it being imposed by a select portion of the establishment? Political censorship will always be a possibility if govt can punish any form of speech. Especially if it is done through unequal application of the law.

The only real problem I had with her post is her references to arson but it is not terroristic in nature if and only if it is not making a direct threat. Suggesting they "don't care" if someone burns is not that, but still not great.

It is on the border though given they're making a political statement that aligns with a violent sentiment. That I can see being the reason the judge made it no question that it was unacceptable as the law within sentencing guidelines could allow it, especially where insinuations of arson against specific groups can used as justifications for further enhancement. So I can see where the sentence was set as long as it was based on that pretext.

For comparison, matters involving speech where it is showing intent (required) to harm someone is considered aggravated assault (a felony) in the US under most guidelines so that's how it is handled here without ever invoking the First Amendment and doesn't require the actual act be carried out. There does have to be a direct victim though and no, buildings don't count. So it would likely fall under some terroristic charge with proven intent.

On the topic of arson, I'm sure she as a dedicated mother would be thrilled if her kids had to live in a world where they could just walk down a street and watch people get burned alive in a building (and the screams, just great) and that that is how social order is maintained. People don't think about what they say. I get this. Deletions don't really matter though. It's already out there. One can't retract a thought once it is made public.

Still locking people up or forcing people to censor themselves won't change their beliefs but it will have the very real effect on the rest of the population that they can't even air out any kind of controversial thought lest they fall on the wrong side of public opinion and potentially the law. (Public opinion absolutely empowers court decision/rulings) This by far has a worse effect than just the words spoken as the effect lasts much longer than the ruling, whereas words spoken are often forgotten not long after they are said.

A judge will make a faulty ruling if they think they can get away with it. The judicial system has a dark side that most people don't find out until they're subject to unfair charges or on the wrong side of the current political envrionment. You do not want judges or prosecutors to have that kind of power over speech when they can upend your entire livelihood, including your ability to get employment or housing, just because they feel like it or don't like something you said. We lose a lot of personal rights unofficially when we are charged with something (fairly or not) like a felony or other serious charges in the US because it effects things like background checks and being able to obtain credit. Months (if not years) of fighting for a proper court decision can easily and very often does ruin lives, regardless of whether they can bond out. That's why so many people just take a plea.

The UK does not have Freedom of Speech and the above is why hate speech laws will never be a thing I support. I may not like what you have to say but support your right to say it, etc. Obviously threats of harm of a terroristic or personal nature should be prosecuted to its fullest extent.

[BBXX]

There's no excusing her?? Of course there flipping well is. Others have done far worse and nothing has been done.

Other people committing crime and not being tried properly is not an excuse or defence for her. By that logic I could go out and commit a crime and it be okay because people who have done worse haven’t gone to prison for it. Thats not how it works and isn’t a defence.

Do you want people to be tried by the laws that exist or don’t you? You seem confused

I personally don’t agree with the actual law that exists, but it does exist and she broke it with her gross behaviour. Her being a mother, which seems to be one of the biggest defence on this thread, is not an excuse.

Extremely telling those who keep on talking about two tier policing would be happy for someone to receive lesser sentences just because they’ve reproduced.

[thesheriff443]

Other people committing crime and not being tried properly is not an excuse or defence for her. By that logic I could go out and commit a crime and it be okay because people who have done worse haven’t gone to prison for it. Thats not how it works and isn’t a defence.

Do you want people to be tried by the laws that exist or don’t you? You seem confused

I personally don’t agree with the actual law that exists, but it does exist and she broke it with her gross behaviour. Her being a mother, which seems to be one of the biggest defence on this thread, is not an excuse.

Extremely telling those who keep on talking about two tier policing would be happy for someone to receive lesser sentences just because they’ve reproduced.

You don’t really know what you are talking about
They are letting rapist’s off if they agree to say sorry to their victims
The amount of nfa ‘s are through the roof

[Cherie]

Other people committing crime and not being tried properly is not an excuse or defence for her. By that logic I could go out and commit a crime and it be okay because people who have done worse haven’t gone to prison for it. Thats not how it works and isn’t a defence.

Do you want people to be tried by the laws that exist or don’t you? You seem confused

I personally don’t agree with the actual law that exists, but it does exist and she broke it with her gross behaviour. Her being a mother, which seems to be one of the biggest defence on this thread, is not an excuse.

[B]Extremely telling those who keep on talking about two tier policing would be happy for someone to receive lesser sentences just because they’ve reproduced.

My goodness what a disgusting and dismissive remark, there are plenty mothers in prison who deserve to be there, the mitigating circumstance in this case is that she LOST a child and thereby could empatise with families losing children in needless circumstances, I dont think anyone has advocated for anyone who has had a child to be given a lessor or suspended sentence, but you know there are plenty MEN who have swerved jail time for GBH and ABH also I dont know what is telling about it, maybe you can expand on your thought process

[thesheriff443]

There was only one reason for those involved in the riots and social media posts getting jailed and the sentences being so harsh and it wasn’t for justice it was to stop anyone else thinking of doing the same thing

[Maru]

It is a bit backwards that a legal citizen can have their rights stripped while immigrants enjoy a different standard. They enjoy protections and free access to resources that others have to compete over and they may or may not have the same expectation put on them to follow and abide by the law. Yet expecting legal citizens to do so under very strict terms is very much forcing the citizenry to avoid speaking out on bad policy because even a complaint that is spoken out of measure (badly worded) can land someone in trouble.

It's also why people riot. If they think they're under that much pressure and are being suppressed/forced to stay silent, they will find a way to vent that anger regardless as there is more power in a mob. This is why free speech matters.

[BBXX]

You don’t really know what you are talking about
They are letting rapist’s off if they agree to say sorry to their victims
The amount of nfa ‘s are through the roof

And nowhere did I say that was good, fair and just, but that doesn’t mean she is innocent.

[BBXX]

My goodness what a disgusting and dismissive remark, there are plenty mothers in prison who deserve to be there, the mitigating circumstance in this case is that she LOST a child and thereby could empatise with families losing children in needless circumstances, I dont think anyone has advocated for anyone who has had a child to be given a lessor or suspended sentence, also I dont know what is telling about it, maybe you can expand on your thought process

Incredible that questioning why someone having child is being used a reason for them not to go to prison is a disgusting take but someone advocating for migrants to burned alive isn’t.

There were plenty of “but she has a 12 year old” used in this thread as a reason why she either shouldn’t have gone to prison or got a suspended sentence and that’s what I’m referring to. This entire thread was starting by you off the back of an article that was saying it was unfair she wasn't allowed home to see her daughter.

It’s telling because those same people are the ones who harm on about a two tier justice system yet are advocating for a racist white woman to be spared jail because she gave birth 12 years ago. Make it make sense.

Obviously it’s horrific she lost a child but plenty of people have lost a child and not turned racist. Migrants in hotels was completely unconnected to a a British born man killing three children. Even if it HAD been a migrant who killed them, saying you didn’t care about all migrants being burned alive is still RACIST because once again you’re using the actions of one migrant to advocate the death of all others. How are you able to justify that?

What if instead of it being a black man to kill the girls it was a Catholic priest and then, in the middle of antisemitic riots off the back of this incident, she went online and advocated for the burning of synagogues? Would you be willing to concede she was a hateful antisemite using her hatred for said group off the back of a horrific incident that was completely unrelated, further putting Jews in danger.

Just to hammer it home for those who have forgotten: not only was the murderer not a migrant, her child didn’t die at the hands of a migrant but yet it was hotels of migrants that were the subject of the tweet?

...but you know there are plenty MEN who have swerved jail time for GBH and ABH

That’s not what the thread is about. I’m not talking about men swerving jail for GBH, nowhere have I spoken about that or said it’s correct?

Nobody should swerve jail for committing a crime. Thats part of my entire point. Why are you acting like I have supported that?

[BBXX]

It is a bit backwards that a legal citizen can have their rights stripped while immigrants enjoy a different standard. They enjoy protections and free access to resources that others have to compete over and they may or may not have the same expectation put on them to follow and abide by the law.

I completely agree and thought your other post too was great.

[thesheriff443]

And nowhere did I say that was good, fair and just, but that doesn’t mean she is innocent.

She is guilty of saying something nasty but the punishment didn’t match the crime

The fact that they were basically told plead guilty or you will get an even bigger sentence was so very wrong

You seem like an intelligent guy, there must be a point in which you concede that these sentences were not lawful because they didn’t use the guidelines when it came to sentencing

The government didn’t use bullets but sentences to stop any further unlawful activity by going for maximum imprisonment

[Ammi]

…I do find this a very complex case with many factors to consider and one of those factors is the speed of it all…but that also seems to be her legal advisement that was at fault …

…this is the court transcript of Lucy’s appeal in May, I’m sure the original trial/sentencing one is available also but I’ll post the appeal one, which also refers back to the details that were considered in the original sentencing…

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf


….anyway, one of the things that stands out for me is that it was said in court that, with her own experience and loss and grief…anything Lucy said or did didn’t show empathy for the parents of the Southport victims but rather, what she displayed was anger/hatred and was very specifically aimed in terms of race …I get that completely and ‘online incitement and misinformation’ at that time was a huge problem…surely though, one of the PTSD displays can be extreme anger/not an empathy but a rage and that rage could be directed and guided by environmental factors of other rage/emotions at the time that were being displayed …what Lucy said was awful and it wasn’t just one tweet from what’s in the transcript…and now she’s been ‘punished’ and served her full time in losing the appeal for an earlier release…so what now…?…surely the PTSD trauma is still there and hasn’t been addressed and with that, so the anger/rage will or could be still there also…wouldn’t it have been better to address that ‘cause’ because maybe she has never had the help needed to do that…I mean obviously I don’t know any factors other than what we know with the publicity of the case but it does feel that she was and probably still is a lady in crisis and that anger and grief in losing a child, will still be there…it does concern me as well, the strain on her mental health in ‘becoming a poster girl’ …no ‘team’ or ‘side’ or whatever seem to be considering her well-being before anything else…and it feels as though she still has a long journey to go in her possible PTSD….

[Vanessa]

Illegal immigrants have more rights than brtish citizens now and this is exactly why people are protesting.
They have priority on housing, live in luxury hotels, free allowance and free access to anythin they need.
Not to mention various discounts.
We don't get any of that, also we pay for things like dental and medicines.

[BBXX]

You seem like an intelligent guy, there must be a point in which you concede that these sentences were not lawful because they didn’t use the guidelines when it came to sentencing


I don't believe all laws are equal and all laws are just and some punishments do not fit the crime. Do I think writing something racist on social media should be punishable by prison time... hmm, I don't think so. Do I think inciting violence against a particular group should be? Partially, yes.

I think we also need to consider the context and time. I'm not saying Lucy is to blame for what took place, but in the days following her tweet, there were anti-migrant protests, fuelled by the notion a despicable act was acted out by a migrant (because he was black). POC were being verbally and physically assaulted in the street because they were being racially profiled - people who had lived here all their lives. This was being fuelled by racist rhetoric - POC being racially profiled as migrants, attacked for it, for a crime a British-born person did. None of that is rational or rooted in truth, objectivity or anything other than racist hatred.

Her very public incitement of violence is a a prime example of the blind racial hatred that is prevalent in this country, and her rushing to the right wing media for them to make a martyr out of her shows me everything I need to know.

Do you honestly think if a Muslim man had said what she's said about white they'd be made to be a victim of injustice by the likes of Dan Wooton or The Telegraph? I think it would be incredibly naive to think they would.

[Beso]

ncredible that questioning why someone having child is being used a reason for them not to go to prison is a disgusting take but someone advocating for migrants to burned alive isn’t.





And just when did she say that?

[joeysteele]

I don't believe all laws are equal and all laws are just and some punishments do not fit the crime. Do I think writing something racist on social media should be punishable by prison time... hmm, I don't think so. Do I think inciting violence against a particular group should be? Partially, yes.

I think we also need to consider the context and time. I'm not saying Lucy is to blame for what took place, but in the days following her tweet, there were anti-migrant protests, fuelled by the notion a despicable act was acted out by a migrant (because he was black). POC were being verbally and physically assaulted in the street because they were being racially profiled - people who had lived here all their lives. This was being fuelled by racist rhetoric - POC being racially profiled as migrants, attacked for it, for a crime a British-born person did. None of that is rational or rooted in truth, objectivity or anything other than racist hatred.

Her very public incitement of violence is a a prime example of the blind racial hatred that is prevalent in this country, and her rushing to the right wing media for them to make a martyr out of her shows me everything I need to know.

Do you honestly think if a Muslim man had said what she's said about white they'd be made to be a victim of injustice by the likes of Dan Wooton or The Telegraph? I think it would be incredibly naive to think they would.


Very strong post and points there.
Well said in fact.
I agree with just about all you've outlined.

[BBXX]

And just when did she say that?

Have you read this thread? The furthest Cherie has gone to criticise her is call her "a bit silly".

*Woman puts out racist violence-inciting rhetoric*
Cherie: Silly, bright, articulate, gracious, confident, brave and honest.

*I say she shouldn't be excused from being punishing for committing a crime because she has a child*
Cherie: Disgusting and dismissive.

If someone could rationalise that, that would be great.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUyN2g2cHNhanF4aDdjdjlkMXRnMzV3N3Y yMTI5bW81bjhseG8xd3V4eCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjd D1n/rxy55jHaig16K2TV8x/200w.gif

[thesheriff443]

I don't believe all laws are equal and all laws are just and some punishments do not fit the crime. Do I think writing something racist on social media should be punishable by prison time... hmm, I don't think so. Do I think inciting violence against a particular group should be? Partially, yes.

I think we also need to consider the context and time. I'm not saying Lucy is to blame for what took place, but in the days following her tweet, there were anti-migrant protests, fuelled by the notion a despicable act was acted out by a migrant (because he was black). POC were being verbally and physically assaulted in the street because they were being racially profiled - people who had lived here all their lives. This was being fuelled by racist rhetoric - POC being racially profiled as migrants, attacked for it, for a crime a British-born person did. None of that is rational or rooted in truth, objectivity or anything other than racist hatred.

Her very public incitement of violence is a a prime example of the blind racial hatred that is prevalent in this country, and her rushing to the right wing media for them to make a martyr out of her shows me everything I need to know.

Do you honestly think if a Muslim man had said what she's said about white they'd be made to be a victim of injustice by the likes of Dan Wooton or The Telegraph? I think it would be incredibly naive to think they would.

Open your eyes this country isn’t racist you can see that clearly by how many mixed races couples there are walking round

In the uk we are very tolerant and willing to embrace others what we don’t like is people telling us we need to keep letting young fit men in this country and spoon feed them while every decent hard working person young and old is be failed again and again

[BBXX]

Open your eyes this country isn’t racist you can see that clearly by how many mixed races couples there are walking round


"Misogyny doesn't exist, look how many men have girlfriends and wives!"

[Beso]

Have you read this thread? The furthest Cherie has gone to criticise her is call her "a bit silly".

*Woman puts out racist violence-inciting rhetoric*
Cherie: Silly, bright, articulate, gracious, confident, brave and honest.

*I say she shouldn't be excused from being punishing for committing a crime because she has a child*
Cherie: Disgusting and dismissive.

If someone could rationalise that, that would be great.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUyN2g2cHNhanF4aDdjdjlkMXRnMzV3N3Y yMTI5bW81bjhseG8xd3V4eCZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjd D1n/rxy55jHaig16K2TV8x/200w.gif




I'm asking you when Lucy connnellly called for the burning alive of migrants, like you claimed she did.

[BBXX]

I'm asking you when Lucy connnellly called for the burning alive of migrants, like you claimed she did.

I think in this bit: "set fire to all the ****ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care"

Hope that helps.

[thesheriff443]

"Misogyny doesn't exist, look how many men have girlfriends and wives!"

Look how many’ men want to marry nine year olds who what background they are from
Look who are in and running rape gangs of young white girls

I can’t entertain people like you , honestly
And if there is a war you won’t be defending anyone but hiding in a dark room waiting until it’s safe for you to come out again and talk bollox

[Beso]

I think in this bit: "set fire to all the ****ing hotels full of the bastards for all I care"

Hope that helps.

That comes across to me like she's saying she doesn't care if hotels that house them are burned to the ground. It certainly doesn't sound like she wants the people burned alive, just the hotels that house them.

[BBXX]

Look how many’ men want to marry nine year olds who what background they are from
Look who are in and running rape gangs of young white girls


Using extremist examples to tarnish entires groups of people is racist behaviour which is ironic considering you just said this country wasn't racist.

The call is coming from inside the house, pal.

[BBXX]

That comes across to me like she's saying she doesn't care if hotels that house them are burned to the ground. It certainly doesn't sound like she wants the people burned alive, just the hotels that house them.

You insisted "Save are kids" was spelt that way because of Essex dialect. I have zero faith in your interpretation of things.

[thesheriff443]

Using extremist examples to tarnish entires groups of people is racist behaviour which is ironic considering you just said this country wasn't racist.

The call is coming from inside the house, pal.

I’m not your pal
Go and try and have a conversation with a group of Muslims

Clear uncut examples of who is doing what in this country is not racist it’s facts

Your full of sh1t

[Cherie]

Incredible that questioning why someone having child is being used a reason for them not to go to prison is a disgusting take but someone advocating for migrants to burned alive isn’t.

There were plenty of “but she has a 12 year old” used in this thread as a reason why she either shouldn’t have gone to prison or got a suspended sentence and that’s what I’m referring to. This entire thread was starting by you off the back of an article that was saying it was unfair she wasn't allowed home to see her daughter.

It’s telling because those same people are the ones who harm on about a two tier justice system yet are advocating for a racist white woman to be spared jail because she gave birth 12 years ago. Make it make sense.

Obviously it’s horrific she lost a child but plenty of people have lost a child and not turned racist. Migrants in hotels was completely unconnected to a a British born man killing three children. Even if it HAD been a migrant who killed them, saying you didn’t care about all migrants being burned alive is still RACIST because once again you’re using the actions of one migrant to advocate the death of all others. How are you able to justify that?

What if instead of it being a black man to kill the girls it was a Catholic priest and then, in the middle of antisemitic riots off the back of this incident, she went online and advocated for the burning of synagogues? Would you be willing to concede she was a hateful antisemite using her hatred for said group off the back of a horrific incident that was completely unrelated, further putting Jews in danger.

Just to hammer it home for those who have forgotten: not only was the murderer not a migrant, her child didn’t die at the hands of a migrant but yet it was hotels of migrants that were the subject of the tweet?



That’s not what the thread is about. I’m not talking about men swerving jail for GBH, nowhere have I spoken about that or said it’s correct?

Nobody should swerve jail for committing a crime. Thats part of my entire point. Why are you acting like I have supported that?

Again, I personally have never said she was correct in what she said, what I have said multiple times if you read the thread back is that her sentence was inappropriate to the crime. In addition the thread was started not with regard to her being incarcerated but because she was denied day leave to visit her child you just need to jump to the first page or indeed the title of the thread to see this. With regard to my pointing out that many MEN swerve jail that is in relation to the sentence she got compared to some men actually causing physical harm and getting suspended sentences, there is a very recent one of a Welsh guy who choked his partner and kicked her but because he had no previous he got a suspended sentence, its very hard not to see that this was political. The whole premise of the thread was her being denied day leave not about her original sentence.l

[Beso]

You insisted "Save are kids" was spelt that way because of Essex dialect. I have zero faith in your interpretation of things.

:shrug:

Stay ignorant then

[BBXX]

The whole premise of the thread was her being denied day leave not about her original sentence.l

I know, I said that in my post because it backs up my original position that people wanted special treatment for someone because she was a mother, a position you argued wasn't true.

[Cherie]

I know, I said that in my post because it backs up my original position that people wanted special treatment for someone because she was a mother, a position you argued wasn't true.

There were mitigating circumstances in that she LOST a child yes

[BBXX]

There were mitigating circumstances in that she LOST a child yes

I wasn’t referring to the child she lost I was referring to the continued “she has a daughter” and “she has a 12 year old” and the fact you wanted her to be able to go on day release because to see her child.

I’ve seen so many “but she’s a mother” excuses about this woman and it’s not about the lost child it’s about the fact she has a child she’s not able to see.

That’s what I was referring to.

Regardless nobody has been able to explain why she advocating for burning down hotels with migrants in because of a crime committed by a British born man.

[Glenn.]

I wasn’t referring to the child she lost I was referring to the continued “she has a daughter” and “she has a 12 year old” and the fact you wanted her to be able to go on day release because to see her child.

I’ve seen so many “but she’s a mother” excuses about this woman and it’s not about the lost child it’s about the fact she has a child she’s not able to see.

That’s what I was referring to.

Regardless nobody has been able to explain why she advocating for burning down hotels with migrants in because of a crime committed by a British born man.

They tried yesterday. And failed to explain. Only excuses.

[Beso]

I wasn’t referring to the child she lost I was referring to the continued “she has a daughter” and “she has a 12 year old” and the fact you wanted her to be able to go on day release because to see her child.

I’ve seen so many “but she’s a mother” excuses about this woman and it’s not about the lost child it’s about the fact she has a child she’s not able to see.

That’s what I was referring to.

Regardless nobody has been able to explain why she advocating for burning down hotels with migrants in because of a crime committed by a British born man.




It's cause she wasn't thinking straight after her trauma. Maybe PTSD related.

[Glenn.]

It's cause she wasn't thinking straight after her trauma. Maybe PTSD related.


She was thinking straight when she was telling her friends on WhatsApp a few days later that it had bitten her on the arse and that if she was questioned about it she’d play the mental health card.

Doesn’t sound like PTSD to me.

[Beso]

She was thinking straight when she was telling her friends on WhatsApp a few days later that it had bitten her on the arse and that if she was questioned about it she’d play the mental health card.

Doesn’t sound like PTSD to me.



Sounds exactly like It to me. You can't just play the mental health card willy nilly expecting the police to accept it. You would have to have an actual mental health condition. In her case it's probably PTSD, cause of her reaction to the slaying of the kids combined with the rumours about their assailant.



If you read what a PTSD flashback can do to a person it should make more sense to you in regards to her mental state at the time of writing the post.


PTSD flashbacks are a core symptom of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), characterized by vivid, often distressing, re-experiencing of a traumatic event as if it were happening in the present moment. These flashbacks can be triggered by reminders of the trauma, like sights, sounds, smells, or even thoughts associated with the event. They can be brief or last for an extended period, and can significantly impact a person's emotional and physical well-being.

[Glenn.]

Which she can switch on and off like a button when questioned?

I think you need to make up another excuse for her vile racial hatred. That one doesn’t stick especially as she said on her own admission that she “play the mental health card”.

Next

[Beso]

Which she can switch on and off like a button when questioned?

I think you need to make up another excuse for her vile racial hatred. That one doesn’t stick especially as she said on her own admission that she “play the mental health card”.

Next



No I don't need to do nothing you think.


You got your answer, your hatred just makes you blind to it.

[Glenn.]

No I don't need to do nothing you think.


You got your answer, your hatred just makes you blind to it.


It’s because you can’t excuse it.

That’s the bottom line.

[Cherie]

I wasn’t referring to the child she lost I was referring to the continued “she has a daughter” and “she has a 12 year old” and the fact you wanted her to be able to go on day release because to see her child.

I’ve seen so many “but she’s a mother” excuses about this woman and it’s not about the lost child it’s about the fact she has a child she’s not able to see.

That’s what I was referring to.

Regardless nobody has been able to explain why she advocating for burning down hotels with migrants in because of a crime committed by a British born man.

I didn't actually think that needed explaining as it has been well documented, she tweeted on 29th July the same day as the Southport attacks when rumours were circulating that the man responsible was an illegal immigrant, given the police gave no information about the assailant that is what led to the rumours gaining momentum, nobody knew for sure who had murdered the little girls on the day it happened

[Beso]

It’s because you can’t excuse it.

That’s the bottom line.

I just did.

[Glenn.]

I just did.


You didn’t but ok sure, I’m already bored.

No one can excuse it because it’s indefensible. It’s been eye opening and sickening to see fellow members desperately try to.

[Cherie]

You didn’t but ok sure, I’m already bored.

No one can excuse it because it’s indefensible. It’s been eye opening and sickening to see fellow members desperately try to.

Who knew you cared so much :laugh:

[Beso]

You didn’t but ok sure, I’m already bored.

No one can excuse it because it’s indefensible. It’s been eye opening and sickening to see fellow members desperately try to.

Imagine if I cared what you think.

[Cherie]

Admittedly “fellow” was a tad generous. Some of you are NOT my fellows.

Good to know, have a great evening now :thumbs:

[Glenn.]

Imagine if I cared what you think.


Oh you do that’s why you keep replying

[Maru]

The way I read it, she said she didn't care that the hotel burned with all the migrants and would've been just fine if the politicians went up with them. That seemed to infer that she was OK if the migrants were inside the building also as there is a "with them". I didn't think that interpretation was that controversial... (Thank you for people who kept re-posting it so I didn't have to go back through 13 16 pages...)

Her emotional state may be more open to interpretation, but I don't find exercises in mind reading in either direction to be particularly useful, especially when it comes to the law.

If she was being held accountable for the potential results or effects of what is said or implied, it doesn't really matter what her subconscious intent was.. because the words alone could lead to deleterious effects, again, according to the law. A law that I think is far too broad and easy to abuse for political gains, but that's besides the point...

Whether she was fragile, had PTSD, was hopped up on hormones, whatever.. consider if a person threatens someone with the intent for violence (not in this case), it still constitutes a threat regardless of how heated that person might've been for a short period.

The law in that instance is only looking at the expressed intent behind the initial threat. Potential "victims" or innocent bystanders have no way of interpreting how meaningful or meaningless their threat or rhetoric is... and they're not expected to know that. Serious threats have very negative consequences on the psyche and livelihood of another person even if they're not carried out... it would be enough for the law in that case, so I imagine on laws that regulate or penalize violent or volatile speech, it would be even easier to label it as such...

Using the same example, in the case of a received threat, all a victim might see is "Hey this person wants to harm me..."... in the case of rhetoric, my understanding is the intent to use rhetoric that might fuel heightened situations with the possibility (however minor) to incite further violence as supposedly some actors will perceive that as support, would be enough for a violation... that bit is arguable to me because I do think that people say stupid **** in the "heat of the moment" (pun not intended)... doesn't make it morally right, no, but it's getting into mind reading and I'm not one who is comfortable with the govt's free agency in interpreting or misinterpreting that... (spoiler: always in the govt's favor)... in this case, a stiff ruling is the govt saying "Here's my big strong arm and this is not acceptable".

I wouldn't suggest she is directly threatening to burn a building or is even capable of such, but she used volatile rhetoric and that was enough to meet the standard in the law. Don't blame the people "misinterpreting it". How do we know either way what her actual intent was? We're not mind readers and the law isn't really designed for that either, that's why speech-based rulings are so dubious ... blame the law that decided this was illegal conduct, not the people who heard it and thought they saw a flaming support (pun intended) in favor of increasing violence... it was open enough to interpretation that the law was able to be used to penalize her...

If you as a citizen can't trust other people to interpret words "correctly" then you almost certainly don't want to leave the govt with that power...

[bots]

Maru The problem at the time was that protestors were actually trying to burn immigration centres down. The whole prosecution was done very quickly and she was used as an example to stop others. Her legal representative should have delayed proceedings until everyone calmed down

[Crimson Dynamo]

Maru The problem at the time was that protestors were actually trying to burn immigration centres down. The whole prosecution was done very quickly and she was used as an example to stop others. Her legal representative should have delayed proceedings until everyone calmed down

Well some cretins set a tiny fire outside a brick and concrete structure that was quicky extinguished, as i recall it was 2 young 16 year old kids. Another lad who tried and failed to set a fire outside a center got 9 years so that is what was used to deter others

Not a mum who tweeted to a very small number of pals and lots of bots a that was was quickly deleted.

[Maru]

Maru The problem at the time was that protestors were actually trying to burn immigration centres down. The whole prosecution was done very quickly and she was used as an example to stop others. Her legal representative should have delayed proceedings until everyone calmed down

Deleting or penalizing a single post wouldn't have an effect as it doesn't create the opportunity for violence. The bigger impacts would be from arresting people known for destroying public property and attacking citizens and making that public. In many places, criminals get enhancements to charges when you touch a civil servant or property, so it would be harder to quickly release them at that level. That's more than a good enough deterrent without the effect of being controversial in a way that possibly creates more dissidents.

People who riot already have the mentality to create public disorder... they're looking for protests with lax security and victims that are sitting ducks or who are surrounded by people who won't intervene and maybe even will participate. That's why when we have even small protests here, we almost immediately schedule people right away who are trained in riots and have access to riot gear because any potential is high enough.

The rioters are not waiting and sitting around checking X to see if anyone even agrees with them... that would imply that if one had enough people disagreeing with them, that speech alone could disable what they're already capable of. Instead, they're just looking for the best opportunity and none of that has to do with people posting negative comments online...

My opinion is they likely punished her to compensate for the fact they let it get out of control in the first place. It has the effect of chilling speech, but it doesn't just chill speech around the support of the riots, it also shuts down the criticism of law enforcement because it appeases enough of the right people that they'll become vocal supporters for govt.

[Maru]

Well some cretins set a tiny fire outside a brick and concrete structure that was quicky extinguished, as i recall it was 2 young 16 year old kids. Another lad who tried and failed to set a fire outside a center got 9 years so that is what was used to deter others

Not a mum who tweeted to a very small number of pals and lots of bots a that was was quickly deleted.

How dumb does one have to be get locked up for 9 years for attempted arson. The building will be fixed and the most of it forgotten before they're even sentenced.