Are challenges to The Narrative™ or violent actions that endanger the lives of 170 people equivalent?
Survey of British judges says "yes."
No doubt you remember the case of Lucy Connolly, who, after an attack on a Taylor Swift dance party in Southport that left three girls dead and ten seriously wounded, posted an outraged tweet that said she wouldn't care if all the asylum hotels were burned down. The tweet was up for three hours, and she took it down because it was an angry outburst.
The British government came down on her like a ton of bricks. You can, it seems, present a terrorist threat to a military base and get bail, but if you have a verbal outburst, the state treats you like a terrorist.
She pled guilty of inciting racial hatred and was sentenced to two years and seven months in prison, of which she served 40 percent. The original charge was even harsher and would have landed her in jail for 42 months, which is why she took the plea.
Mohammed Abdalla actually set fire to an asylum hotel, from which he was being evicted, smiled about it, and was just convicted of endangering the lives of everybody living there.
His sentence? Two years and seven months.
If you want to know how much the UK hates white people
— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) September 29, 2026
Mohammed Abdalla - Illegal migrant tried to burn down a hotel with 170 people in
Lucy Connolly - Tweeted "Burn down the hotels for all I care"
They both got the same amount of time in prison - 2 years and 7 months
INSANE pic.twitter.com/D9CcsCEb32
He showed no remorse, while Connolly quickly deleted the tweet. He smiled about injuring a hotel worker and endangering 170 people; Connolly told everybody that violence is not the answer.
This is the state of British justice, in which actually setting fire to an asylum hotel is judged no worse than an angry outburst online that was barely up long enough to notice.
Connolly, while jailed, was treated more harshly than many criminals in for what we think of as actual crimes; many of them, for instance, get passes to visit families during the holidays; Connolly was denied them, despite being eligible. The reason stated was that her case was getting a lot of media interest and it would send the wrong message to treat her normally.
The point was to send a chilling message to keep others from speaking up.
If Lucy had been standing in front of a crowd outside a hotel with a lit torch, calling for an attack, that would be incitement and an obvious criminal offense. She would have deserved a sentence.
What she did, using a personal account was say mean things that are not Approved™. And then delete it. And tell people not to do violent things.
For that, she was sentenced to jail. Rape gang perpetrators sometimes got lower sentences than she did.
And now Abdalla, who really did light a hotel on fire, is given the same sentence.
What made Connolly's crime so bad in the eyes of the UK justice system? First, she is a sympathetic mom who recently lost a child; second, she is married to a Tory councilor; third, she said what most people around her were thinking — that they were sick and tired of having dangerous people dumped into their communities.
Dangerous people like Abdalla.
UK: Danny Tommo watched as a boatload of Islamic migrants were illegally dropped off in England and decided to puncture the inflatable boat so it could not be used again. He was arrested, and today he was denied bail. Meanwhile, five military-age men headed to a US-operated… pic.twitter.com/UTeToWvqi3
— @amuse (@amuse) September 29, 2026
The British state is terrified of open discussions. They are deeply committed to obviously terrible and unpopular policies. Their solution is to stigmatize and punish all dissent as harshly as possible.
Police officers were lectured about Nigel Farage in a publicly funded talk about Islamophobia, The Telegraph can reveal.
— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) September 29, 2026
Officers at a hate crime conference attended training sessions that compared the Reform UK leader’s opinions, specifically his doubts about young Muslims’… pic.twitter.com/u2HutKLxs4
Police officers were lectured about Nigel Farage in a publicly funded talk about Islamophobia, The Telegraph can reveal.Officers at a hate crime conference attended training sessions that compared the Reform UK leader’s opinions, specifically his doubts about young Muslims’ ability to subscribe to British values, to a racially aggravated offence.
This attitude is literally baked into police training:
Officers at a hate crime conference attended training sessions that compared the Reform UK leader’s opinions, specifically his doubts about young Muslims’ ability to subscribe to British values, to a racially aggravated offence.
The North Yorkshire Police officers were asked to consider the “harm” done by Mr Farage, and then told that the politician would be “locked up” if he were similarly critical of Jewish people.
The lecture was part of a training programme titled Project Unity, which The Telegraph understands has also been presented to students, council staff and civil servants responsible for the counter-extremism Prevent programme.
It also took issue with criticism of pro-Palestine “hate marches” levelled by “people like Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick” – both Reform MPs – and concerns about Muslim integration raised by Matthew Goodwin, a former Reform parliamentary candidate.
The bottom line is that Wrongthink offenses are seen as a similar or even greater threat than actual crimes against persons. The protected party here is a government-approved ideology; what isn't protected, or protected as aggressively, is actual British people.
The status of the elite and their opinions is far more important than any pleb.
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at HotAir, we stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical Left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.
Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member