This is unfking believable.
So
Lucy Connolly, the wife of a
Conservative councillor Raymond Connolly, was sentenced to 31 months in prison for inciting racial hatred. Following a tragic stabbing incident in Southport, Connolly posted on social media, calling for "mass deportation" and suggesting that hotels housing asylum seekers should be set on fire.
In contrast to the
Labour MP During the initial sentencing, the magistrate made it clear how serious Amesbury’s actions were. Specifically, they stated:
"I have to say that I have seen a single punch to the head cause fatal injuries, but note the limited injuries in this case."
This highlights the potential severity of Amesbury’s attack, even though the victim in this case was fortunate not to suffer life-threatening injuries.
The magistrate also emphasized Amesbury’s
continued aggression, noting:
"I note that you, Mr Amesbury, continued to punch Mr Fellows when he was on the ground and continued to shout at Mr Fellows. I consider this more culpable."
"You continued to attack when he was on the ground and it may have continued further had a bystander not intervened."
This suggests the assault was not a single lapse in judgment but a
sustained act of violence, only stopping because a third party stepped in.
The contrast between this level of violence and the eventual
suspended sentence has undoubtedly fuelled public frustration. The judge acknowledged how dangerous such attacks can be, yet ultimately allowed Amesbury to avoid jail time. The concern here is clear: If an ordinary member of the public had done the same thing, would they have received the same leniency?
It’s this
double standard—a harsh custodial sentence for online speech versus
a suspended sentence for an MP who repeatedly assaulted someone and could have easily killed him—that raises serious questions about fairness in sentencing.
This is a
textbook case of judicial inconsistency, and it’s no wonder people are calling it out.
