The case of Lucy Connolly shocked people the world over – but her treatment at the hands of the state has just got so much worse. I take a look at the recent developments, before comparing Lucy’s case with the case of a non-white former Labour councillor who called for anti-migrant protestors to have their “throats cut”. This is two-tier “justice” at its worst.
Last year I made a video about a lady called Lucy Connolly. Lucy was jailed for 31 months for a post she made on Twitter in relation to the stabbings that took place earlier that year in Southport which resulted in three little girls being killed and another eight people being injured.
Lucy was immediately remanded in custody, and the length of her sentence was, in my humble opinion, extremely harsh – especially as she was someone with a clean criminal record and had gone through serious personal trauma due to the death of her son thanks to medical negligence at the hands of a doctor of migrant background.
It’s also worth noting, that Lucy immediately entered a guilty plea, she showed remorse and even deleted the social media post within hours of originally publishing it. But none of this made any difference, she was sentenced to a 31-month custodial sentence that was not suspended.
Now, onto the latest news regarding Lucy Connolly – news which will no doubt anger many who are already aware of the shocking two-tier justice system we live under.
Lucy’s husband Ray has been diagnosed with a terminal illness – and despite this, Lucy has been denied temporary leave to visit him and their 12-year-old daughter. But if you can believe it, the injustice Lucy is suffering, actually gets worse.
Following Lucy’s guilty plea and her sentencing, she was imprisoned at HMP Peterborough before being moved to HMP Drake Hall in Staffordshire. Since November, she has met the necessary criteria to qualify for Release on Temporary Licence, which allows low-risk prisoners to spend up to two nights at home twice a month to maintain family connections. However, Lucy’s applications to visit her terminally ill husband and young daughter, who is reportedly struggling emotionally and academically, have been repeatedly blocked.
But what could the reasoning be for this – especially as there are additional compassionate grounds for granting such a release?
Well, according to The Telegraph Lucy’s requests have been denied not due to any risk posed by her, but by concerns over public and media scrutiny. Notes from her application released by HMP Peterborough explicitly mention that media attention around her case could negatively impact any early release decisions. In other words, she’s still in prison, being denied the chance to visit her terminally ill husband because those making the judgement are more concerned about the media’s reaction to her temporary release than they are about any notion of fairness, justice or compassion.
And this isn’t just my opinion, there are direct comparisons that can be made between Lucy’s case and the cases of other female prisoners being housed in the very same prison as Lucy.
Two other prisoners being held in Drake Hall applied for release on temporary license at the same time as Lucy and were both granted home detention curfews. However, both of the women who were granted release were deemed unsuitable under the guidelines of the temporary release scheme as both of the women in question had killed people and were in prison due to charges of death by dangerous driving. Both of these women had taken a life, both had direct victims and both had caused real and identifiable injury – yet both were released against the advice laid out in official guidance.
In comparison, Lucy had posted her opinion on social media, had thought the better of it, removed it within a few hours, admitted her guilt, showed remorse and had a range of mitigating circumstances in her personal life, both before and after her sentencing, yet she has been shown no mercy what-so-ever by the so-called criminal justice system.
At this point, I am going to state the obvious: in the eyes of the state, there is no greater crime than opposing the state sanctioned multicultural narrative which has basically become the official state religion – and if you commit what is now effectively blasphemy, you will face the full wrath of the establishment and be treated more harshly than those who have taken a life.
And that seems like a good place to wrap this up. But there is one other case I want to talk about in relation to Lucy, a case that really does help illustrate the nature of the two-tier justice system. That is the case of former Labour Councillor Ricky Jones.
You might remember Ricky, because just after the Southport massacre, he attended an anti-racism demonstration in London at which he was handed a microphone and then spoke to a large crowd, in his address to the people he described anti-immigration campaigners as disgusting Nazi fascists before telling the crowd: “We need to cut their throats and get rid of them.”
Ricky was then arrested and remanded in custody. But since then, he has been released on bail and is back out on the streets living his life, whilst his trial has been repeatedly pushed back until August of this year.
Remember all those special 24-hour courts convened by Keir Starmer himself? The courts that were necessary to swiftly deal with thought criminals like Lucy Connolly? Well, Ricky Jones wasn’t dragged before one of those courts, nor was he permanently remanded in custody until his trial like many of those involved in protests in the wake of the Southport killings. Ricky was treated totally differently – and inarguably, he was treated far better – despite the nature of his crime being far more serious.
You see, when dealing with a case of incitement there are several things that should be taken into account. Firstly, how serious was the incitement – well in Ricky’s case, he literally called for people to have their throats slit, that’s incitement to murder so that would likely fall into the highest band when assessing the seriousness of the incitement.
Secondly, how many people saw the incitement is another important factor to consider. And in this case, there were thousands present, maybe around 10,000 people in total. This would be seen as a sizeable number, and that number may well have been drastically boosted by his speech going viral on social media. In total, millions could well have seen his bloodthirsty call. Again, this would cause his case to fall into the higher bands when being assessed for its seriousness.
Thirdly, the mood of the crowd who were present when the incitement took place is another important factor to consider. The angrier and more fired up the crowd is, the more serious the incitement is. For example, if you post an incendiary statement to a small group on Facebook who at the time the post was made are all sat in bed with a cup of tea, that’s less serious than making an incendiary call to large and angry crowd who are already fired up, and on the streets looking for confrontation. And the protest at which Ricky made his speech was a counter demonstration, those present had come to confront a small group protesting against the effects of mass immigration. As such, the incitement in this case would present not only a much more serious risk, but also an immediate risk.
Finally, there’s the issue of the status of the person making the incendiary comment. The words of someone in a position of authority and power carry greater weight – and in the case of Ricky Jones, an elected Labour Councillor, his words would have carried more weight than those of a normal passer-by. Again, this causes the offence to fall into the higher bands when it comes to seriousness.
All in all, any reasonable and impartial person can clearly see that the offence committed by Ricky Jones was far more serious than the offence committed by Lucy Connolly, yet the system is treating her like a mass murderer and keeping her from her family in their time of need, all whilst Ricky walks the streets and enjoys his freedom as his case is pushed further and further back by a court system that clearly regards his offence as less problematic and of lower importance. Strangely, despite the media’s interest in the Ricky Jones case, the criminal justice system isn’t using that factor as a reason to deal with the case more swiftly or using it as a reason to hold him on remand.
But despite the clear gulf in the seriousness of their respective actions, there is one other big difference between the cases of Lucy Connolly and Ricky Jones; Lucy is White and her comments were aimed at migrants and Ricky Jones is not White, and his comments were aimed at White anti-migrant protestors. And I would wager this is a large part of the reasoning as to why they have been treated so differently.
The system isn’t just unfair, it isn’t just a two-tier system – it’s an antiwhite system. An antiwhite system that is profoundly both crooked and cruel; and this system reserves its most cruel punishments for normal White people who dare to oppose the state religion of multiculturalism.
This article originally appeared on Patriotic Alternative and is republished by The Noticer with permission.
Header image: Lucy Connolly with her husband and daughter.
