[roryirvine]

She called for hotels housing immigrants to be burned in the middle of a riot. Hotels suspected of housing immigrants were, in fact, burned during the course of that riot.

She clearly understood that her actions were wrong, and went on to try to cover her tracks and "play the mental health card".

The appeal judgment is very clear and is worth reading: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Con...

This is a really poor example to use of censorship - there are very few countries in the world where this wouldn't have been against the law. Even the USA, with it's famed first amendment rights, makes it unlawful to "organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot".

[RansomStark]

If you're rights are contingent on circumstance, they're not rights.

I don't see anything there encouraging a riot. There is no call to action.

We should know this isn't enough to convict, since a Labour councillor who called for far-right activists' throats to be cut at an anti-racism rally [0], actually inciting violence, was cleared of wrong doing.

From the article, you'll notice politicians calling out situation:

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said of the decision: "It is astonishing that this Labour councillor, who was caught on video calling for throats to be slit, is let off scot-free, whereas Lucy Connolly got 31 months prison for posting something no worse."

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjeykklwn7vo

[tharmas]

I agree, both should have been charged. Only one was. You could argue that the MP is making the greater offence as he/she is in a position of authority.

[roryirvine]

There's a lot of misinformation being spread about this, but it's worth sticking to the facts.

And, in fact, both were charged and both were prosecuted.

Connolly admitted guilt but appealed against her sentence. This appeal was denied for the reasons given in the judgment above.

Jones was unanimously found not guilty by a jury at trial.

[tharmas]

Thanks for the info. What disturbs me most is the polarization and increasing intolerance of different/opposing ideas and opinions. I'm referring to "slit their throats" kinds of reactions and "set [it] on fire". There's no "lets agree to disagree and meet half way". No compromise. That's seen as weak.

[direwolf20]

Agree to disagree with who, about what?