The point missing here is that Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty; and once she has pleaded guilty the appropriate sentence for incitement was applied. Bob Vylan and Kneecap are unlikely to plead guilty and, given the lack of proximity between their statements and the actual acts which they may be accused of inciting, I suspect they are unlikely to be found guilty. This is not two tier justice; it is a single tier consistently applied; don’t fall for the tendentious reporting of right wing commentators.
I think that you should read the Appeal Court's verdict on the Connolly case. It was clear that the sentencing guidelines were followed and that Connolly was advised of the consequences. The law was applied correctly. What is rather sad is that we have some journalists who are either woefully ill-informed or alternatively are actively trying to undermine the rule of law for political reasons.
A lot of folk on what you might loosely call "the left" have this naive idea that Hamas are somehow this merry band of Islamic Robin Hoods, whereas they are a bunch of fascistic theocrats who have murdered their domestic (ie Palestinian Gazan) opposition after having taken power in Gaza, have not allowed free and fair elections since and would have very little truck with the kind of festival freedom wear-what-you-like lifestyle which we have just seen at Glasto. So I think that Kneecap are rather naive if they think that they and Hamas are somehow on the same side.
But I also disagree with NT - as far as I can tell from what I have read, Connolly was inciting actual specific attacks whilst the rioting was going on, which I do think is different from someone forcefully expressing their feelings about what has turned into a hideous daily massacre.
The whole thing is so bloody complicated. Right wing Israelis seem to have taken the lesson from the Jewish people's tragic history that you get your retaliation in first, and that, as few people cared about the fate of the Jews during the Holocaust, now it's other people's turn to not matter. And so the cycle of hatred and violence, which goes back into history, but really was kickstarted in modern times by Hitler, just rolls on remorselessly. I can kind of understand the anger of people who see our, and other governments complicit and supportive of the appalling Netanyahu government, whilst turning on some rapper who may have siad some unwise things during a festival, but it's the hypocrisy which is galling.
In the end, there's got to be a two state solution, with outside agents keeping the two sides from each others' throat for a generation or so. Sounds horeendous, but what else could work?
Btw Nick, enjoyed the online talk and Q and A the other day. Not sure that I agree with some of what you said, but you have a right to say it...
...and had someone killed an MP after reading Kneecaps plea.
And had someone thrown battery acid at Farage at the behest of Jo Brand.
...you'd also want them thrown in jail for incitement?
Btw, using Connoly's other social media posts to build a case she's some big bad racist, to enhance the case for the maximum sentence, when you'll hear this level of criticism of illegals every day of the week up and down the UK.
Now you're proving Nick's thesis that free speech is absolutely threatened.
If Jo Brand or the members of Kneecap either pleaded guilty to incitement to GBH/murder or were found guilty by a jury, of course I would think the normal sentencing guidelines should apply.
What do you think should happen under those circumstances?
They shouldn't even be in court. Surely the point of Nick's blog here. Of course it wasn't enough to prosecute her, her other history on social media was dredged up as if having strong opinions that you want your borders enforced strongly and don't want single young men from countries socially anathema to you as a British woman counted against her in court as well.
Someone kills an MP or battery acids Farage, it's ridiculous you'd take Kneecap or Jo Brand to court.
Whether or not they should be in court would, surely, depend on the evidence and, if they entered guilty pleas to incitement charges, as did Lucy Connolly, then surely they ought to be in court, since they would have agreed they had deliberately incited GBH/murder.
By her guilty plea, Connolly accepted that, in the words of section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, she had published "written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting" and that she "intend[ed] thereby to stir up racial hatred."
After she had made those admissions in court, the judge had no option but to apply the relevant sentencing guidelines, just as he would do if a defendant entered a guilty plea to burglary or dangerous driving.
Are you saying that Incitement to Racial Hatred shouldn't be a criminal offence, or that it should be treated less seriously that it is, or that it should be treated less seriously if it's committed on social media?
Yes, she was I'll advised to plead guilty. I guess having a highly stressed family life might make you do that. The fact that bail was denied her would have factored into her plea. And interestingly, even now she is denied a visit to see her family, so persona.non grata, and so lethal is she as a criminal.
I suggest you read the Court of Appeal judgment to which I linked above, which provides a full summary of the case. At no point is it submitted that she was badly advised to plead guilty. The dispute is about whether or not she was advised to submit a basis of plea that, while it accepted the tweet was likely to stir up racial hatred, denied this was her intent. If the Prosecution did not accept this basis, the court would have heard evidence and decided whether to accept it or not.
If the court accepted the basis, this would probably have moved the sentencing guideline to a lower category, which in turn might have made it possible for the judge to suspend the sentence. If, however, the court did not accept the basis, she risked losing any credit for a timely guilty plea, and thus extending her sentence.
The Court of Appeal hearing was primarily about the advice she received about the pros and cons of submitting a basis of plea, and if you read para 37 and following of the judgment --https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2025/657#para_37 -- you will see the Court of Appeal's summary of why accepted her solicitor's account of the advice he gave her.
Nowhere is it suggested she was, as you put it, "ill advised to plead guilty." She may well have been mistaken in not submitting a basis of plea, but that was her decision after what the Court of Appeal found to be clear and accurate advice from her solicitor about the pros and cons of so doing, which she had ample time to consider.
Inciting racial hatred is not free speech: it is illegal and should remain so. People may make whatever political points they wish, but they shouldn't encourage people to commit acts of violence. I am surprised that people disagree with this and feel that inciting racial hatred should be legal.
Interesting article and video. Despite some quibbles, I think basically you're right.
Although one of my quibbles is that I think those in the US complaining about free speech in Britain probably all fall under the category of 'only concerned when it's happening to people I agree with'. i.e. If they were making the argument in good faith, they ought to be deeply concerned about what Trump is doing e.g. with the universities and law firms, and I don't think most of them are.
But back to Britain... I think it is relevant that Connelly's comments were made during a period of real violence that had the potential to escalate further. Throughout history pogroms have often had state support / indulgence... but they've also often been driven by ordinary people inciting each other to violence. The example you give "go to this address and kill the person there" would obviously cross the line. But her vaguer tweet wouldn't have required much interpretation by people willing to set fire to mosques and migrant hotels in their towns. Probably the chief mitigating factor in her defence is that she was a 'nobody' and so probably had no expectation that anyone would notice or certainly not act upon her tweet. I doubt she genuinely wanted anyone killed.
A few other thoughts on this subject...
I think you're right that the bar for what should involve the law should be very high. And you're right that those advocating racism and other awful things should be dealt with by being shamed, cancelled, etc. But I get the sense that this is happening less and less... And that while it may be someone on the right who's gone to prison, those on the left are more likely to face other consequences. i.e. Those on the left saying shameful things are more likely to have publishing contracts, concerts, etc. cancelled while those on the right are more likely to be invited to host a talk show on GB News.
I think there's also a specific problem with the Israel-Palestine debate. There are bad faith people on both sides. There are some on the 'anti-imperialist left' (and the more traditional far right) who use terms like Zionism to talk about Jews because they know they can get away with doing so more easily. And there are some supporters of Israel who deliberately use accusations of antisemitism to intimidate and shut down criticism of the state of Israel.
But there are also people on both sides who genuinely see things differently and are not out to antagonise the other. i.e. There are critics of Israel who use terms like Zionist or IDF specifically to distinguish criticism of the actions of the state of Israel from Jewish people in general. And there are clearly Jews who sense a rise in antisemitism and who perceive at least some (what I consider to be genuine / reasonable) criticism of Israel as being motived by antisemitism.
Finally, I do have a concern about where this debate sits in the broader context of the flood of disinformation on social media. I think much of the UK's traditional media has big problems too, and I'm sure many other countries have this even worse. If you have a 'news culture' that attempts to be responsible and self-correcting, I think it's easier to take a more purist view on free speech. If it's harder and harder to find news that can be broadly agreed upon by all people, regardless of politics, to be true, then I think society is probably more vulnerable to incitement by those operating in the grey area between 'normal' and 'clear and direct incitement'. I'm less inclined these days to think that attempting to deal with this problem by restricting speech can work, whether or not it's right, but I don't think this issue is totally irrelevant to any debate about how much speech should be free.
I completely agree with your second and third to last paras. I have seen stickers (up in toilets etc) which are opposing "Zionism" whilst accompanied by a grotesque big-nosed cartoon of a stereotypical caricature Jew which would not have been out of place in der Stuermer. And as for that notorious mural, if you couldn't see what was in that then you really don't understand history.
It is perfectly legit (and in my view emphatically correct) to criticise the Israeli govt. Its actions after the horror of Oct 7th have been increasingly disproportionate and cruel. But again, I have come across people who basically think that Israel has no right to exist. Leaving aside the question of what they think should happen to the millions of third and fourth generation Israeli Jews who live there, they seem to be more exercised by the idea of the Israeli state being destroyed than they are by the idea that maybe the millions of Europeans who settled in the Americas or Australia and who largely annihilated the indigenous inhabitants should be "sent home". Neither are many on the "anti-Zionist left" seemingly much exercised by Beijing's ongoing slow genocide against the (largely Muslim) Uighurs.
I think that often anti-Zionist are more affected by old ideas than they are willing to own.
I agree with that. The only additional comment I'd make is that for good or ill, the Middle East conflict / Israel-Palestine IS high profile. It's hard to escape coming across it. So I don't think it's unreasonable that a lot of people care about it. I'm sure there are a mixture of good and bad reasons for it being so prominent, but it's simply a fact that it is prominent. And if you're someone who is politically aware and vaguely interested, it's not unreasonable to come to clear views on what is happening.
(Personally, I find it more frustrating when politically aware people say 'it's six of one, half a dozen of the other'. In some ways that's more frustrating than people having the opposing view to mine!)
I'd add that although I have an interest in and care about the issue, I do find it frustrating just how prominent it is. I also care about Syria - having lived there in the past and having worked with Syrians. I try to be understanding of most people who don't know or care much about the country - because why would they? But it is immensely frustrating when people who claim to be interested in the Middle East, especially Israel-Palestine, either have no interest at all in Syria, or hold views that are diametrically opposed to their views on Palestine (typically, that it's fine for Palestinians to oppose tyranical government, but that Syrians should shut up and be grateful to be a part of the 'Axis of Resistance').
Nick, you say that few people think that Connolly, Vylan and Kneecap should be in jail for what they've said publically.
You're really keeping the wrong company, I don't know anyone who thinks any of them should be getting bed and board at His Majesty's pleasure.
There's only one reason to put Vylan in jail, that's his brazen vandalism of the English language re the worst cringe pun of all time re his name.
Connolly? There would have been no furore had she got a more rational sentence, out now on licence.
But coerced into a guilty plea as she was decided bail, given the maximum term, not being allowed out on licence, not being able to see her children, her whole social media record being used in court to tar her in the worst light, it's not that she was jailed that people conclude she's a political prisoner, but how she was treated and how harsh her punishment has been that fixes this conclusion.
All the while child sex abusers including those guilty of multiple offences, get lesser sentences than her.
No, you have misunderstood. What I said was that few people think that all three of Kneecap, Connolly and Vylan SHOULD NOT face criminal censure of any kind. People tend to either think Connolly is being unfairly and that Vylan and Kneecap should be prosecuted in some way, or vice versa. My point is that I'm against any of them being criminal prosecuted.
I am surprised that you think it should be legal to incite racial hatred. In my opinion, anybody who does invite racial hatred should face sanctions from the law. Obviously this is determined by firstly, whether or not they are guilty and secondly by the sentencing guidelines.
If you want to end the laws against inciting racial hatred, you should state so explicitly. Otherwise your position remains at best ambiguous. "What people think" is often not a good guide to legal practice, as unfortunately they are often poorly informed.
I don’t think the Lucy Connolly case is a particularly good example. The Daniel Finkelstein article in the Times a few weeks back had it about right I thought. “She wasn’t just falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre, she was encouraging people to set fire to the theatre. Right now.” And of course, people actually did set fire to the hostels as she wanted. He also points out she pleaded guilty, signed a document intending incitement and accepted the offence was in the worst category.
The accurate comparison to her case isn’t bands and celebrities using pretty awful language to make their point (on the assumption they aren’t supposed to be taken literally), but a hypothetical Islamist who encouraged people to burn church congregations hours before it actually happened, and then admitted they intended to incite it - and surely nobody would be making a free speech argument about that?
Oh, and if any MPs were to be targeted, injured or killed after Kneecap's shout out to do this, do you then change your mind their plea for violence was too general or performative not to take further action?
Well yes, maybe you do dependent on the context. But I think here the fact it actually happened perhaps affected the sentence (which, I think rightly, was a factor with the riots) rather than the judgment about whether an offence has been committed in the first place. But to me the main point here is less about the cause and effect, and more to do with the fact she admitted - if I understand it correctly - that she did intend what she said literally, even if only in the moment. Which to me is a different thing to political sloganeering (or indeed jokes in the case of e.g. Jo Brand / Farage).
Kneecap have shouted out Kill Your MP, and somehow this is spun differently from Connoly?
Kill The IDF from Vile-an, and ge gets a bye?
You can also argue Connoly apologized, or at least repented by deleting the post, quite quickly after she posted it.
One can also argue like so many people in custody, being told her case could be months away, thus isolated from her children (she has a sad family life re illness) that a guilty plea was easier to obtain.
Whereas the Labour councillor calling for absolute violence against Jews was canny enough to not plead guilty.
So it doesn't matter if a Tory MP hasn't been killed yet, Kneecap called for it.
But if she did plead guilty in the circumstances you mention, there’s no great point of principle at stake is there? Especially as it was a pretty bang to rights example of the offence.
On Vylan, is calling for death of the army of another country quite the same thing as explicitly ‘stirring up racial hatred’? You need to join some dots in that case that you don’t with Connnolly.
On Kneecap, wasn’t it literally just a time limit thing?
I’m not particularly arguing either should be treated in another way, just that the circumstances aren’t really that similar.
She was told she wouldn't be offered bail (despite her regretting sending the post, and needing to see her ill family). It's a lot easier for men to survive in such a scenario.
And look what's happened to her since she entered jail, she's had the harshest conditions imposed including a request to see her family refused.
Maybe if there was a genuine risk that she'd go on X or FB at the first opportunity and repeat herself, but there's zero chance of that, she's now a broken woman.
Of course Kneecap get the cream of lawyers lining up to represent them most recently, and ditto if Vile-an ever got that far as well.
I might be misunderstanding. The kill your MP thing was in 2023 and the Met hasn’t taken action partly because of the time elapsed I think? It didn’t happen again at Glastonbury did it?
Why do the war criminals of Washington & Westminster whitewash Israel murdering Palestinian Children but refuse to accept the Ukrainian Gangster is murdering his own people in his pursuit of WW3?
The point missing here is that Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty; and once she has pleaded guilty the appropriate sentence for incitement was applied. Bob Vylan and Kneecap are unlikely to plead guilty and, given the lack of proximity between their statements and the actual acts which they may be accused of inciting, I suspect they are unlikely to be found guilty. This is not two tier justice; it is a single tier consistently applied; don’t fall for the tendentious reporting of right wing commentators.
I think that you should read the Appeal Court's verdict on the Connolly case. It was clear that the sentencing guidelines were followed and that Connolly was advised of the consequences. The law was applied correctly. What is rather sad is that we have some journalists who are either woefully ill-informed or alternatively are actively trying to undermine the rule of law for political reasons.
A lot of folk on what you might loosely call "the left" have this naive idea that Hamas are somehow this merry band of Islamic Robin Hoods, whereas they are a bunch of fascistic theocrats who have murdered their domestic (ie Palestinian Gazan) opposition after having taken power in Gaza, have not allowed free and fair elections since and would have very little truck with the kind of festival freedom wear-what-you-like lifestyle which we have just seen at Glasto. So I think that Kneecap are rather naive if they think that they and Hamas are somehow on the same side.
But I also disagree with NT - as far as I can tell from what I have read, Connolly was inciting actual specific attacks whilst the rioting was going on, which I do think is different from someone forcefully expressing their feelings about what has turned into a hideous daily massacre.
The whole thing is so bloody complicated. Right wing Israelis seem to have taken the lesson from the Jewish people's tragic history that you get your retaliation in first, and that, as few people cared about the fate of the Jews during the Holocaust, now it's other people's turn to not matter. And so the cycle of hatred and violence, which goes back into history, but really was kickstarted in modern times by Hitler, just rolls on remorselessly. I can kind of understand the anger of people who see our, and other governments complicit and supportive of the appalling Netanyahu government, whilst turning on some rapper who may have siad some unwise things during a festival, but it's the hypocrisy which is galling.
In the end, there's got to be a two state solution, with outside agents keeping the two sides from each others' throat for a generation or so. Sounds horeendous, but what else could work?
Btw Nick, enjoyed the online talk and Q and A the other day. Not sure that I agree with some of what you said, but you have a right to say it...
In addition to reading the Court of Appeal's judgment at https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2025/657?query=Lucy+Connolly&court=ewca%2Fcrim
you might also find it helpful to read David Allen Green's explanation
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2025/657?query=Lucy+Connolly&court=ewca%2Fcrim
It seems to me indisputable that, on the facts of the case, the sentence was wholly appropriate under the current sentencing guidelines.
Are you suggesting the Court got the law wrong, or that the sentencing guidelines for Incitement to Racial Hatred are too harsh, or what?
...and had someone killed an MP after reading Kneecaps plea.
And had someone thrown battery acid at Farage at the behest of Jo Brand.
...you'd also want them thrown in jail for incitement?
Btw, using Connoly's other social media posts to build a case she's some big bad racist, to enhance the case for the maximum sentence, when you'll hear this level of criticism of illegals every day of the week up and down the UK.
Now you're proving Nick's thesis that free speech is absolutely threatened.
If Jo Brand or the members of Kneecap either pleaded guilty to incitement to GBH/murder or were found guilty by a jury, of course I would think the normal sentencing guidelines should apply.
What do you think should happen under those circumstances?
They shouldn't even be in court. Surely the point of Nick's blog here. Of course it wasn't enough to prosecute her, her other history on social media was dredged up as if having strong opinions that you want your borders enforced strongly and don't want single young men from countries socially anathema to you as a British woman counted against her in court as well.
Someone kills an MP or battery acids Farage, it's ridiculous you'd take Kneecap or Jo Brand to court.
Whether or not they should be in court would, surely, depend on the evidence and, if they entered guilty pleas to incitement charges, as did Lucy Connolly, then surely they ought to be in court, since they would have agreed they had deliberately incited GBH/murder.
By her guilty plea, Connolly accepted that, in the words of section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, she had published "written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting" and that she "intend[ed] thereby to stir up racial hatred."
After she had made those admissions in court, the judge had no option but to apply the relevant sentencing guidelines, just as he would do if a defendant entered a guilty plea to burglary or dangerous driving.
Are you saying that Incitement to Racial Hatred shouldn't be a criminal offence, or that it should be treated less seriously that it is, or that it should be treated less seriously if it's committed on social media?
I see I posted the wrong URL above for David Allen Green's very helpful analysis. It's https://davidallengreen.com/2025/05/explaining-a-31-month-sentence-for-a-tweet/
Yes, she was I'll advised to plead guilty. I guess having a highly stressed family life might make you do that. The fact that bail was denied her would have factored into her plea. And interestingly, even now she is denied a visit to see her family, so persona.non grata, and so lethal is she as a criminal.
I suggest you read the Court of Appeal judgment to which I linked above, which provides a full summary of the case. At no point is it submitted that she was badly advised to plead guilty. The dispute is about whether or not she was advised to submit a basis of plea that, while it accepted the tweet was likely to stir up racial hatred, denied this was her intent. If the Prosecution did not accept this basis, the court would have heard evidence and decided whether to accept it or not.
If the court accepted the basis, this would probably have moved the sentencing guideline to a lower category, which in turn might have made it possible for the judge to suspend the sentence. If, however, the court did not accept the basis, she risked losing any credit for a timely guilty plea, and thus extending her sentence.
The Court of Appeal hearing was primarily about the advice she received about the pros and cons of submitting a basis of plea, and if you read para 37 and following of the judgment --https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/crim/2025/657#para_37 -- you will see the Court of Appeal's summary of why accepted her solicitor's account of the advice he gave her.
Nowhere is it suggested she was, as you put it, "ill advised to plead guilty." She may well have been mistaken in not submitting a basis of plea, but that was her decision after what the Court of Appeal found to be clear and accurate advice from her solicitor about the pros and cons of so doing, which she had ample time to consider.
Inciting racial hatred is not free speech: it is illegal and should remain so. People may make whatever political points they wish, but they shouldn't encourage people to commit acts of violence. I am surprised that people disagree with this and feel that inciting racial hatred should be legal.
Interesting article and video. Despite some quibbles, I think basically you're right.
Although one of my quibbles is that I think those in the US complaining about free speech in Britain probably all fall under the category of 'only concerned when it's happening to people I agree with'. i.e. If they were making the argument in good faith, they ought to be deeply concerned about what Trump is doing e.g. with the universities and law firms, and I don't think most of them are.
But back to Britain... I think it is relevant that Connelly's comments were made during a period of real violence that had the potential to escalate further. Throughout history pogroms have often had state support / indulgence... but they've also often been driven by ordinary people inciting each other to violence. The example you give "go to this address and kill the person there" would obviously cross the line. But her vaguer tweet wouldn't have required much interpretation by people willing to set fire to mosques and migrant hotels in their towns. Probably the chief mitigating factor in her defence is that she was a 'nobody' and so probably had no expectation that anyone would notice or certainly not act upon her tweet. I doubt she genuinely wanted anyone killed.
A few other thoughts on this subject...
I think you're right that the bar for what should involve the law should be very high. And you're right that those advocating racism and other awful things should be dealt with by being shamed, cancelled, etc. But I get the sense that this is happening less and less... And that while it may be someone on the right who's gone to prison, those on the left are more likely to face other consequences. i.e. Those on the left saying shameful things are more likely to have publishing contracts, concerts, etc. cancelled while those on the right are more likely to be invited to host a talk show on GB News.
I think there's also a specific problem with the Israel-Palestine debate. There are bad faith people on both sides. There are some on the 'anti-imperialist left' (and the more traditional far right) who use terms like Zionism to talk about Jews because they know they can get away with doing so more easily. And there are some supporters of Israel who deliberately use accusations of antisemitism to intimidate and shut down criticism of the state of Israel.
But there are also people on both sides who genuinely see things differently and are not out to antagonise the other. i.e. There are critics of Israel who use terms like Zionist or IDF specifically to distinguish criticism of the actions of the state of Israel from Jewish people in general. And there are clearly Jews who sense a rise in antisemitism and who perceive at least some (what I consider to be genuine / reasonable) criticism of Israel as being motived by antisemitism.
Finally, I do have a concern about where this debate sits in the broader context of the flood of disinformation on social media. I think much of the UK's traditional media has big problems too, and I'm sure many other countries have this even worse. If you have a 'news culture' that attempts to be responsible and self-correcting, I think it's easier to take a more purist view on free speech. If it's harder and harder to find news that can be broadly agreed upon by all people, regardless of politics, to be true, then I think society is probably more vulnerable to incitement by those operating in the grey area between 'normal' and 'clear and direct incitement'. I'm less inclined these days to think that attempting to deal with this problem by restricting speech can work, whether or not it's right, but I don't think this issue is totally irrelevant to any debate about how much speech should be free.
I completely agree with your second and third to last paras. I have seen stickers (up in toilets etc) which are opposing "Zionism" whilst accompanied by a grotesque big-nosed cartoon of a stereotypical caricature Jew which would not have been out of place in der Stuermer. And as for that notorious mural, if you couldn't see what was in that then you really don't understand history.
It is perfectly legit (and in my view emphatically correct) to criticise the Israeli govt. Its actions after the horror of Oct 7th have been increasingly disproportionate and cruel. But again, I have come across people who basically think that Israel has no right to exist. Leaving aside the question of what they think should happen to the millions of third and fourth generation Israeli Jews who live there, they seem to be more exercised by the idea of the Israeli state being destroyed than they are by the idea that maybe the millions of Europeans who settled in the Americas or Australia and who largely annihilated the indigenous inhabitants should be "sent home". Neither are many on the "anti-Zionist left" seemingly much exercised by Beijing's ongoing slow genocide against the (largely Muslim) Uighurs.
I think that often anti-Zionist are more affected by old ideas than they are willing to own.
I agree with that. The only additional comment I'd make is that for good or ill, the Middle East conflict / Israel-Palestine IS high profile. It's hard to escape coming across it. So I don't think it's unreasonable that a lot of people care about it. I'm sure there are a mixture of good and bad reasons for it being so prominent, but it's simply a fact that it is prominent. And if you're someone who is politically aware and vaguely interested, it's not unreasonable to come to clear views on what is happening.
(Personally, I find it more frustrating when politically aware people say 'it's six of one, half a dozen of the other'. In some ways that's more frustrating than people having the opposing view to mine!)
I'd add that although I have an interest in and care about the issue, I do find it frustrating just how prominent it is. I also care about Syria - having lived there in the past and having worked with Syrians. I try to be understanding of most people who don't know or care much about the country - because why would they? But it is immensely frustrating when people who claim to be interested in the Middle East, especially Israel-Palestine, either have no interest at all in Syria, or hold views that are diametrically opposed to their views on Palestine (typically, that it's fine for Palestinians to oppose tyranical government, but that Syrians should shut up and be grateful to be a part of the 'Axis of Resistance').
Nick, you say that few people think that Connolly, Vylan and Kneecap should be in jail for what they've said publically.
You're really keeping the wrong company, I don't know anyone who thinks any of them should be getting bed and board at His Majesty's pleasure.
There's only one reason to put Vylan in jail, that's his brazen vandalism of the English language re the worst cringe pun of all time re his name.
Connolly? There would have been no furore had she got a more rational sentence, out now on licence.
But coerced into a guilty plea as she was decided bail, given the maximum term, not being allowed out on licence, not being able to see her children, her whole social media record being used in court to tar her in the worst light, it's not that she was jailed that people conclude she's a political prisoner, but how she was treated and how harsh her punishment has been that fixes this conclusion.
All the while child sex abusers including those guilty of multiple offences, get lesser sentences than her.
No, you have misunderstood. What I said was that few people think that all three of Kneecap, Connolly and Vylan SHOULD NOT face criminal censure of any kind. People tend to either think Connolly is being unfairly and that Vylan and Kneecap should be prosecuted in some way, or vice versa. My point is that I'm against any of them being criminal prosecuted.
I am surprised that you think it should be legal to incite racial hatred. In my opinion, anybody who does invite racial hatred should face sanctions from the law. Obviously this is determined by firstly, whether or not they are guilty and secondly by the sentencing guidelines.
If you want to end the laws against inciting racial hatred, you should state so explicitly. Otherwise your position remains at best ambiguous. "What people think" is often not a good guide to legal practice, as unfortunately they are often poorly informed.
Now it's your time to misunderstand.
I'm agreeing with you, and everyone I've spoken to agrees.
None of them should be in jail or prosecuted.
Although Bob Vile-an should be banished for crimes against punning with his choice of stage name.
I don’t think the Lucy Connolly case is a particularly good example. The Daniel Finkelstein article in the Times a few weeks back had it about right I thought. “She wasn’t just falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre, she was encouraging people to set fire to the theatre. Right now.” And of course, people actually did set fire to the hostels as she wanted. He also points out she pleaded guilty, signed a document intending incitement and accepted the offence was in the worst category.
The accurate comparison to her case isn’t bands and celebrities using pretty awful language to make their point (on the assumption they aren’t supposed to be taken literally), but a hypothetical Islamist who encouraged people to burn church congregations hours before it actually happened, and then admitted they intended to incite it - and surely nobody would be making a free speech argument about that?
Oh, and if any MPs were to be targeted, injured or killed after Kneecap's shout out to do this, do you then change your mind their plea for violence was too general or performative not to take further action?
Well yes, maybe you do dependent on the context. But I think here the fact it actually happened perhaps affected the sentence (which, I think rightly, was a factor with the riots) rather than the judgment about whether an offence has been committed in the first place. But to me the main point here is less about the cause and effect, and more to do with the fact she admitted - if I understand it correctly - that she did intend what she said literally, even if only in the moment. Which to me is a different thing to political sloganeering (or indeed jokes in the case of e.g. Jo Brand / Farage).
Kneecap have shouted out Kill Your MP, and somehow this is spun differently from Connoly?
Kill The IDF from Vile-an, and ge gets a bye?
You can also argue Connoly apologized, or at least repented by deleting the post, quite quickly after she posted it.
One can also argue like so many people in custody, being told her case could be months away, thus isolated from her children (she has a sad family life re illness) that a guilty plea was easier to obtain.
Whereas the Labour councillor calling for absolute violence against Jews was canny enough to not plead guilty.
So it doesn't matter if a Tory MP hasn't been killed yet, Kneecap called for it.
But if she did plead guilty in the circumstances you mention, there’s no great point of principle at stake is there? Especially as it was a pretty bang to rights example of the offence.
On Vylan, is calling for death of the army of another country quite the same thing as explicitly ‘stirring up racial hatred’? You need to join some dots in that case that you don’t with Connnolly.
On Kneecap, wasn’t it literally just a time limit thing?
I’m not particularly arguing either should be treated in another way, just that the circumstances aren’t really that similar.
She was told she wouldn't be offered bail (despite her regretting sending the post, and needing to see her ill family). It's a lot easier for men to survive in such a scenario.
And look what's happened to her since she entered jail, she's had the harshest conditions imposed including a request to see her family refused.
Maybe if there was a genuine risk that she'd go on X or FB at the first opportunity and repeat herself, but there's zero chance of that, she's now a broken woman.
Of course Kneecap get the cream of lawyers lining up to represent them most recently, and ditto if Vile-an ever got that far as well.
Time limit re Kill Your MP?
What, limited while the addled activists of Glasto remember their chant? While the weather's fine?
I might be misunderstanding. The kill your MP thing was in 2023 and the Met hasn’t taken action partly because of the time elapsed I think? It didn’t happen again at Glastonbury did it?
https://youtu.be/vK-7CBiKteA?si=KFM_JGrvFFOPgVAN
https://youtu.be/9x_ye1K3HP4?si=iaakhvYjOty8SQU3
https://youtu.be/sRh2-GPoKN0?si=EONT2EhN29ZOg0Vr
https://youtu.be/tHx7MKz0gWE?si=r3GI20lfpULyQk2g
https://youtu.be/WM86T1jQNo4?si=JQLWWHK5Hsz_nOzq
https://youtu.be/iaKA1ACb7V8?si=UwOKSWs7JJznrSns
https://youtu.be/oa6i68I8XQU?si=JsHlXbnpG8Ry465z
The war in Ukraine will not stop until Starmer and his warmongering maniacs stop providing the Ukrainian Gangster with financial support
https://youtu.be/WCkl63N84s4?si=eE8b0RmdpgvEbk7y
https://consortiumnews.com/2025/05/09/who-defeated-the-nazis-a-colloquy/
https://youtu.be/mome5SVu_Ng?si=mziVbyD-86-tkleF
https://youtu.be/yzNV7EfAKAU?si=QN4npAOyciTa0VmT
Why is Starmer giving UK Pensioners money to a Ukrainian Gangster
https://youtu.be/bnE4FqTCtfw?si=6yfydcW3u0I0xQIl
https://youtu.be/ogd8h-k6jRI?si=QQ4xmIRkorvSEZgw
https://youtu.be/BWny4ijtbzs?si=prJ5MZPMFgKxGk_6
https://youtu.be/sZuq4YK1OHI?si=RqOglDjZOYN4mvGf
https://youtu.be/v_omuSHfyQ4?si=g7pryHu10jBegkRf
Why do the war criminals of Washington & Westminster whitewash Israel murdering Palestinian Children but refuse to accept the Ukrainian Gangster is murdering his own people in his pursuit of WW3?
https://youtu.be/FaioYWDYiIw?si=z8dv1x8_9WhmHAzU
Why don't you punt up an argument rather than a load of links?