Thought Crime - The Lucy Connolly Appeal
Update 599. Hate Crime Special. #BeMorePorcupine
The thought police would get him just the same. He had committed – would have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper – the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you.
George Orwell, 1984.
Lord Justice Sedley in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733:
'Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers' Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear.
From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas.'
Some pieces below may be behind a paywall.
I hadn’t intended to do an update today but I was very disappointed indeed to hear that Lucy Connolly’s appeal had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Free speech is a vital topic for us Terfs and, despite not being about gender ideology, I would suggest that Lucy’s case is an extremely important example of the very alarming encroachment on free speech under this Labour Government. So here I am back again!
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf
One of the central problems here is that Lucy was held in custody after her arrest ( why was she held in custody??) and was desperate to get out as soon as possible to see her daughter and husband. So she pleaded guilty and this appeal could, therefore, only be about whether the sentence was excessive and not about whether she was really guilty of any offence at all.
To remind readers of the facts ( as taken from the judgment):
On 29 July 2024, three children were murdered and others were injured in a shocking attack on a dance class in Southport. News of these dreadful crimes quickly spread, and a false rumour that the murderer was an illegal immigrant was widely disseminated via social media messages. The applicant, then aged 41 and employed as a childminder, had an account on the X platform with some 9,000 followers. At 8.30 that evening she published the following message: “Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. While you’re at it, take the treacherous government and politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.” Just over three and a half hours later, the applicant removed that message. By then, however, it had been viewed many times and reposted for others to read.
Importantly, this occurred before any rioting occurred.
She was convicted under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 section 19 which provides: “1. Publishing or distributing written material (1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if – (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”
So this is a hate crime.
Just to pause there, there is sentencing guidance which appears to me to be rather strange when the offence is a hate crime. To quote directly from the judgment:
“By section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020, every court must, in sentencing an offender, follow any sentencing guideline which is relevant to the offender’s case unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. The prosecution submitted that the applicant’s culpability fell into category A (“high culpability”) of that guideline, because the case involved “intention to incite serious violence”; and fell into category 1 harm, because the applicant had published a message which “directly encourages activity which threatens or endangers life” ( Paras 19 and 20).
When I say it is strange that is because we are talking about a hate crime but the most serious category under the guidance refers to incitement to violence!?
Lucy’s lawyer at Crown Court level ( she had a different lawyer in the Court of Appeal) accepted that the case came within category A. Lucy’s evidence was that this had never been explained to her. The Court of Appeal accepted the evidence of the lawyer. I can’t go behind that finding.
Nevertheless, it is still shocking that the Court of Appeal feel that this is a just sentence! I will leave others to do comparisons with other far, far more serious offences where much shorter sentences have been handed down.
The Court of Appeal concluded by completely dismissing Lucy’s appeal.
I have said on many occasions that it seems to me that allegations of ‘hate crime’ are simply used by, for example, trans rights activists to harass and intimidate us Terfs and that ‘hate crime’ is solely designed to quell free speech. See, for example, my report here:
Nobody is suggesting that Lucy’s (short lived) tweet was not offensive. But so what?
Insofar as Lucy’s case has a strange link in to incitement to violence as explained above, is it really suggested that Lucy’s tweet was intended to incite violence and that it did incite violence!?
There is a much higher standard of proving incitement to violence in the States known as the Brandenburg Test ( I am indebted to Andrew Doyle who was the first person I saw suggesting this test should be applied in the UK).
The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969) , to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. In that case, a Klu Klux Klan leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he said that “it's possible that there might have to be some vengeance [sic] taken.” The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of a two-part test:
The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
The defendant in the Brandenburg case was found not guilty.
It seems clear to me that Lucy’s tweet would not satisfy either of these criteria.
All thoughts gratefully received.
Kellie-Jay Keen has done an excellent substack on this matter and I hope she will forgive me for quoting the whole of that here:
The Judiciary Incites A Riot
Lucy Connelly appeal denied.
May 20, 2025
Lucy Connolly is in prison for a tweet.
Not for assault. Not for child abuse. Not for possessing 75,000 indecent images. A tweet. A crude, emotional, and angry outburst after three girls were brutally murdered in Southport. She posted on X calling for mass deportation and said people should “set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b*******.” Was it smart? No. Was it criminal? The Crown Prosecution Service said yes.
They charged her under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986, specifically Section 18, [ Dusty - I think it was actually section 19 but both sections are very similar] which makes it an offence to:
“Use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour... if intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.”
Let’s be clear: this law is meant to punish speech that targets groups based on race, colour, nationality, or ethnic origin. But Lucy’s post did not mention any race. It referenced asylum hotels—a political issue, not a racial classification. Yet the state decided that “asylum seeker” equals race, and intent was imputed to her anger.
Strictly speaking, her post should not have met the threshold for incitement. There was no targeted group, no direction, no encouragement to a known audience. But the law has now been stretched to fit the feeling of offence, not the fact of harm.
And here’s the bigger issue: these so-called “hate speech” laws are not about protecting society—they are about controlling it. They are an infringement on free speech and have no place in a democratic society. No citizen should fear prison for expressing political anger. No woman should be imprisoned for her words while men who commit actual harm walk free.
Lucy pled guilty—probably told, as so many are, that it would help her. That it would shorten her sentence. Show remorse and be done with it. But what happened? She got 31 months. And in her appeal, the court admitted her legal advice was inadequate. She didn’t understand the full implications of her plea. And yet they upheld the sentence anyway. That’s not justice. That’s persecution.
And let’s ask the key question: who did she “encourage”? There was no group, no network, no instigated action. Just an angry woman tweeting to no one in particular. But “someone” might act, someday, somehow—so that’s enough to send her to prison.
This is the new standard. Thought crime. Emotion crime. Punishment not for what happened—but for what could have.
I’ve seen this coming for years.
I’ve had police turn up at my house because I was, and I quote, “untoward about paedophiles”. I’ve been questioned saying it’s wrong to castrate boys. I’ve been told I’m being investigated for calling a woman a woman. I’ve been arrested for speaking about women’s rights in public.
Other women have had it worse. Kate Scottow, a mother of two, was arrested at home in front of her children, held in custody for seven hours, and dragged through the courts for calling a male transgender activist a man. The charge? “Persistent misuse of a public communications network.” She had to go through the entire criminal process just for using accurate language. Her conviction was eventually overturned—but the damage was done. Women have been arrested over stickers. STICKERS. Women have been cautioned over chalking “Woman = Adult Human Female.” We’ve seen people dragged into police stations for “misgendering.” No violence. No threat. Just truth—and the truth is now offensive enough to warrant the full weight of the law.
Meanwhile, men with thousands of child abuse images are handed suspended sentences. Groomers are let off because of “community sensitivities.” Violent male offenders are placed in women’s prisons. The system bends over backwards to accommodate male predators—but it will bend the law to break a woman who speaks out of turn.
And Lucy Connolly? She gets 31 months in prison for a tweet. An ugly, angry one—but a tweet nonetheless.
Her case is not about protecting the vulnerable. It’s not about stopping hatred. It’s about punishing inconvenient women. It’s about silencing fury. It’s about sending a message: we own your words, your thoughts, your feelings—and we will destroy you if you step out of line.
Lucy Connolly is a warning.
To the woman who vents online after a terror attack.
To the woman who holds a placard at a protest.
To the woman who puts up a sticker demanding female-only spaces.
To the woman who says “no” when she’s told to comply.
Because if the law can be stretched this far to imprison Lucy, it can be used against any woman who dares to be angry, unscripted, or defiant.
And we should all be afraid.
Kellie-Jay has also done a video on the subject:
I am just slotting in a couple of other pieces while I’m at it!
The Equality and Human Rights Commission have published their draft guidance following the For Women Scotland judgment and this is out to consultation. Get your thinking caps on - we have until 30 June to put in our submissions. I haven’t read it yet. If and when you read it, let us have your thoughts.
Picking up on Deborah Frances-White aka The Guilty Feminist being interviewed on Triggernometry and using an analogy of clowns driving buses, Malcolm Clark on his substack, The Secret Gender Files looks in great detail at the history of clowns and how the analogy may be very fitting but not in the way Ms Frances-White intended:
Trans Identified Men and Other Clowns.
When a Triggernometry guest compared trans identified men to clowns she unwittingly revealed an uncomfortable truth. Like clowns the trans identified are viewed with suspicion. And for good reason.
May 19, 2025
In the wake of the multiple shocks of the Cass Review, Trump’s election and the UK Supreme Court’s ruling the trans lobby is in freefall. Or deep doodoo. Take your pick.
As panic has mounted trans activists have been forced to try out new tactics. Until recently their modus operandi was to lobby insidiously behind the scenes. Now they’ve declared open season against the law.
The problem for them is large chunks of the public aren’t in the buying mood any more. Polls suggest voters have pivoted dramatically.
That’s why some within the trans movement have begun to consider what until recently seemed an unimaginable response. One fraught with all the existential danger of Supergirl wrestling with kryptonite.
A handful of these bold souls decided it was time to face their worst fears. And engage in something called…. debate!
Step forward then Supergirl avatar Deborah Frances-White, Australian born founder of The Guilty Feminist podcast and all-dancing, all-singing trans ally.
With a book to publicise (and there lies a story…) our Deborah has been keen to get discursive. So much so she even asked the boys at Triggernometry if she could come on their show.
Her appearance two weeks ago has become something of a comedy classic. And not just because clowns played a starring role.
The full piece is here:
https://malcolmrichardclark.substack.com/p/trans-identified-men-and-other-clowns
The next update, dear readers, is Update 600 🎉🎈🥳
With this update, we will be starting Terf Month ( to counteract Queer…sorry Pride Month) a bit early. So the Film Series is now paused until July. By the way, thanks for recent excellent suggestions about films and please keep those suggestions coming in. Please refer to the latest list I have produced: https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/empire-of-light-dustys-film-series
Get those suggestions for great speeches coming in. Happy to go back to the Suffragettes. 😃
We definitely need endpieces after the disappointment of the Lucy Connolly appeal.
Endpieces
From Tenaciously
From Liz
#BeMorePorcupine
#LeaveKidsAlone
#AdultHumanFemale
#LetWomenSpeak
#MenStayInYourLane
#KeepOnKeepingOn
#HoldTheLine
#KeepOnTerfing
#NeverSurrender
#NeverForget
#TruthWillTriumph
The Lucy Connolly case really upsets me. It is barbaric to treat her this way when paedophiles, rapists and other criminals have received lesser sentences. She is in no way a danger to society and should never have been imprisoned, let alone for so long. I agree with every word by KJK and that we need something like the Brandenburg test. That this country, the home of the oldest modern democracy, should have sunk so low, makes me ashamed.
Thanks Dusty #KeepSpeechFree
Lucy Connolly is the Birmingham Six of the current time. It's absolutely obvious to everyone with eyes that something is wrong with her conviction, with a strong smell of high-level interference with the decision. I think it is the "... take the treacherous government and politicians with them" that is behind it. The government apparatus, to which Starmer has been plugged in for years, is absolutely terrified (and has been for several years now) that there is going to be civil unrest. They can feel it, but whatever they do - because of the divided population they have created - makes the likelihood greater. It does make me wonder how idiots like Maugham, White and Willoughby get away with it, since they are talking to a far more volatile audience, but maybe it's because they are "only" talking about overthrowing the rule of the Supreme Court.