Starmer’s chronicles

Would you have found her guilty?

It would depend on the evidence and arguments, and the explanations given by both barristers (and the Judge) of the laws she was alleged to have broken - unlike you,

I wouldn't have found her guilty

I wouldn’t have made my mind up before I had heard any of that; I would have tried to have made an informed judgement based on the information I had heard, and then discussed with the rest of the Jury…

[Itshim]

It depends on the snowflakes in the court.

Originally Posted by Itshim

It depends on the snowflakes in the court.

Do you mean the jury?

[jem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It would depend on the evidence and arguments, and the explanations given by both barristers (and the Judge) of the laws she was alleged to have broken - unlike you

I wouldn’t have made my mind up before I had heard any of that; I would have made tried to have made an informed judgement based on the information I had heard, and then discussed with the rest of the Jury…

And therein is the issue here, none of us on here were jurors because she pleaded guilty. Now, personally, if she had pleaded not guilty and it had gone to a full trial, from what I know (and admittedly if I had been a juror and heard the full case, I may well have learned something more, which may have changed my opinion), they I probably would have voted to acquit.

Why, because what she said was appalling, stupidly unwise, but do I think that based on it anyone would have started making petrol bombs? No! So at best she is guilty of being an idiot, which is not a criminal offence (yet).

But, should she be in prison, absolutely yes, for the simple fact that she pleaded guilty, she admitted that what she had done was exactly what she was accused of and hence the Court had little option but to follow the sentencing guidelines. We can all argue that she was badly advised and should have stuck it out, but she didn’t, it is what it is.

None of us are perfect, people say stupid things (see the Robin Hood airport bomb threat), the vast, vast, vast majority of us are rational people, we can read that and just think ‘idiot’ and move on.

As mentioned in a post above, I think there is a massive difference between some random post on Facebook, and standing at a street corner with a megaphone, telling everyone that ‘the illegal immigrants being housed at your expense at luxury accommodation at 123 Humpty Dumpty Road are all planning on raping your daughters so here’s a stock of petrol bombs, arm yourselves and we march now!!!’

Now that’s incitement!

Now, do I think that some asylum seekers have been guilty of sexual assault against young girls? Absolutely yes they have! But then again it was not too long ago when a former school caretaker was convicted for multiple attacks. Do we castigate all school caretakers?

Of course not! But, but for those asylum seekers who have been convicted of a crime, obviously they are not too appreciative of us granting them asylum so just return them to where they originally came from, which I know this isn’t always easy to ascertain.

So how about this as a plan, any asylum seeker who has been granted asylum here but then has abused this by committing and convicted of a (serious) crime is bundled onto an RAF plane, fitted with an automatically opened parachute and then chucked out of the plane over southern Afghanistan?

Which does sound horribly extreme but ideally the threat of it actually being done might well act as a deterrent!

I want to live in a society that welcomes genuine asylum seekers, people who are fleeing repressing regimes, I don’t care about your religion, sexual orientation, whatever, all I ask is that you are prepared to integrate, don’t expect us to change everything to simply accommodate you, but, maybe, over time, we do incorporate some part of your culture into ours and it becomes part of ours. Because that’s how we all evolve and improve and move on!

This post is far too long, isn’t it? And may have wondered off topic, so my apologies to the mods and I quite understand it you see fit to delete it on those grounds.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jem

But, should she be in prison, absolutely yes, for the simple fact that she pleaded guilty

I disagree, insofar that it was her first ever offence, she is non-violent, she is not a danger to the community, and there were mitigating mental health issues.

A community sentence and tag would have been more than sufficient.

She was made an example of under the tacit direction of the prime minister and political agitating judge.

the Court had little option but to follow the sentencing guidelines.

That is an excellent point. I would love to know what the sentencing guidelines are for this.

More importantly what the minimum sentencing guidelines are, which is what she should have got.

Which is what she got…

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...y-Connolly.pdf

Paragraphs 24, 25, and first two sentences of para 26.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Which is what she got…

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...y-Connolly.pdf

Paragraphs 24, 25, and first two sentences of para 26.

Thank you.

Which is worrying and baffling, that only a custodial sentence is available for this offence?

You’d agree that is a bit strange ?

Considering that there are examples of violent cases that don’t result in a custodial sentence.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

She was made an example of under the tacit direction of the prime minister and political agitating judge

Why do you say this kind of stuff when you know it's not true. You're a better man this.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Why do you say this kind of stuff when you know it's not true. You're a better man this.

The problem is, I think there is some truth to it.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The problem is, I think there is some truth to it.

it stinks of interference

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Which is what she got…

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...y-Connolly.pdf

Paragraphs 24, 25, and first two sentences of para 26.

IMO, a jury would have given greater weight to paragraphs 18, 19 & 20, notwithstanding the other paragraphs which was a judge's opinion and which might have been influenced by Starmer's infamous words.

18. In relation to the offence I have regard to the fact that although it was widely read, you did not repeat any such statement and in due course deleted it and you sent some messages to the effect that violence was not the answer.

19. You have had tragedy in your own life with the loss of your very young child some years ago. I have read the psychiatric report from some twelve years ago as to the psychiatric difficulties you then suffered.

20. I accept that you still very keenly feel that loss.

imo, for a jury, paragraphs 20 and 21 may have provided counter-balance to those paragraphs…

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Which is what she got…

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...y-Connolly.pdf

Paragraphs 24, 25, and first two sentences of para 26.

Actually no it wasn’t.

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/gui...l-orientation/

For culpability a lenient judge would gone for “Lesser Culpability”

Reckless as to whether hatred would be stirred up (applicable to racial hatred offences only

What she did was reckless, no doubt.

And for Harm

Statement/publication/performance or broadcast directly encourages activity which threatens or endangers life
Widespread dissemination of statement/publication/performance broadcast

What she said was not direct, it was an open statement “for all I care”, and she didn’t broadcast it widely others did that.

It was well within the Judges gift to sentence her to a community order. IMO the judge was swayed by Starmer’s rhetoric and gave an overly harsh sentence to make an example of her.

[Sephiroth]

Yep - what Pierre said.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Actually no it wasn’t.

https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/gui...l-orientation/

For culpability a lenient judge would gone for “Lesser Culpability”



What she did was reckless, no doubt.

And for Harm



What she said was not direct, it was an open statement “for all I care”, and she didn’t broadcast it widely others did that.

It was well within the Judges gift to sentence her to a community order. IMO the judge was swayed by Starmer’s rhetoric and gave an overly harsh sentence to make an example of her.

You are making assumptions regarding "offence category" and "harm" - this explains why the Judge acted the way he did…

https://barristerblogger.com/2025/05...inst-sentence/

The categorisation of an offence is determined by a combination of the offender’s culpability (graded from A – C with A being the most serious) and the harm caused by the offence (either 1 or 2, with 1 being the more serious).

At the sentencing hearing the Crown Mrs Connolly’s solicitor advocate accepted that she had “intended to incite serious violence.” That gave the judge no option but to place her offence in Category A for culpability.

https://i0.wp.com/barristerblogger.c...aled.png?ssl=1



https://i0.wp.com/barristerblogger.c...aled.png?ssl=1

Again the judge had no option but to place her case into category 1. The obvious (even if it was not the only possible) meaning of her tweet was to encourage the burning of hotels; but even if that was not so a tweet that was viewed 310,000 times was, unarguably, “widely disseminated.”

Those categorisations effectively forced Judge Inman towards a “starting point” of 3 years imprisonment.