Lucy Connolly, who is married to West Northamptonshire councillor Raymond Connolly, posted a message on the evening of July 29 which read: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* 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.”

Connolly, 41, remained calm as she appeared before Birmingham Crown Court on Thursday via a video-link to HMP Peterborough while her husband watched the proceedings from the public gallery which was packed with members of the media.

The Recorder of Birmingham Judge Melbourne Inman KC said Connolly was “well aware how volatile the situation was” when she posted the tweet, which was viewed 310,000 times in the three-and-a-half hours it was live before she deleted it.

He said: “As everyone is aware, that volatility led to serious disorder in a number of areas of the country where mindless violence was used to cause injury and damage to wholly innocent members of the public and to their properties.”

The judge added that Connolly had encouraged activity which threatened or endangered life.

The sentencing hearing was told the former childminder sent a WhatsApp message on August 5 joking that the tweet to her 10,000 followers had “bit me on the arse, lol”.

She was arrested on August 6, by which point she had deleted her social media account, but other messages which included further racist remarks were uncovered by officers who seized her phone.

Opening the case, prosecutor Naeem Valli said Connolly, who has no previous convictions, also sent another tweet commenting on a sword attack which read: “I bet my house it was one of these boat invaders.”

Another post sent by Connolly – commenting on a video posted by Tommy Robinson – read “Somalian I guess” and was accompanied by a vomiting emoji.

In response to a tweet which said Islamophobia had “no place in society”, Connolly responded: “F*** you, it’s not even a word.”

Connolly also sent a message saying she intended to work her notice period as a childminder “on the sly” despite being de-registered.

Mr Valli added: “She then goes on to say that if she were to get arrested she would play the mental health card.”

Liam Muir, defending, said Connolly had lost a child in horrific circumstances and was distinguished from other offenders using social media in that she had sent the tweet at the heart of the case before any violence against asylum seekers had started.

Mr Muir said: “The horrendous way in which she lost her son, being turned away from the health service, can only have a drastic detrimental effect on someone.

“Whatever her intention was in posting the offending tweet, it was short-lived, and she didn’t expect the violence that followed, and she quickly tried to quell it.”

Passing sentence Judge Inman said: “Sadly this is one of a number of cases that this court has had to deal with arising from civil unrest following the very tragic events in Southport on July 29.

Whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport, you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred

Judge Melbourne Inman KC

“As everyone is aware some people used that tragedy as an opportunity to sow division and hatred, often using social media, leading to a number of towns and cities being disfigured by mindless and racist violence, intimidation and damage.

“It is a strength of our society that it is both diverse and inclusive. There is always a very small minority of people who will seek an excuse to use violence and disorder causing injury, damage, loss and fear to wholly innocent members of the public and sentences for those who incite racial hatred and disharmony in our society are intended to both punish and deter.”

The Judge said character references from those that know Connolly “speak of a caring person including those for whom you acted as a child minder for their children”.

He added: “You have a good family and a young daughter who is undoubtedly missing you terribly.

“In relation to the offence I have regard to the fact that although it was widely read, you did not repeat any such statement and in due course deleted it and you sent some messages to the effect that violence was not the answer.”

Judge Inman said while he accepted that Connolly still “very keenly” feels the loss of her son some years ago, there was no evidence of any mental disorder having any effect on her committing the offence.

He said: “Whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport, you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred.

“Whilst I accept you regret your actions and I have been referred to messages in which you say that you disagree with racism and violence, it is clear from the evidence of your own words in the days following your actions, what you said to the police and what you said to the probation officer, that you have little insight into, or acceptance of, your actions.”

Connolly was ordered to serve 40% of her 31-month sentence in prison before being released on license.

Her husband declined to comment on the sentencing as he left Birmingham Crown Court.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613373&forum_id=2#48209596)

https://archive.ph/2isJ0

A bereft mother says she is outraged that a bungling doctor who sent her sick toddler home from hospital three days before he died of dehydration and kidney failure is allowed to carry on working.

Harry Connolly, 19 months, was admitted to hospital in April 2011 with sickness, diarrhoea and lethargy.

But, despite his mother Lucy's concerns about her son's condition, paediatrician Dr Tasnim Arif told Mrs Connolly, 32, she should take her son home.

Three days later, his devastated father Ray, 47, found the youngster lifeless in his cot.

He died of dehydration and kidney failure, caused by an inflamed colon

Yesterday, a tribunal brought by the General Medical Council found Dr Arif guilty of a series of failings, including failing to carry out vital checks before discharging Harry.

But, despite objections from the GMC, the tribunal ruled that Dr Arif was still fit to practise, after clearing her of other charges. They also refused a plea from the GMC to put a warning on Dr Arif's file.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613373&forum_id=2#48209610)

Yours in Christ

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613373&forum_id=2#48209629)

'24->24%

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613373&forum_id=2#48209709)

"Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care, while you’re at it take the treacherous government and politicians with them."

Seems like it turns on how you take the "for all I care" portion. If you take that as making the tweet say "I wouldn't mind if this happens" instead of "someone should go do this," then it's protected. But I'm not an mfe.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613373&forum_id=2#48209707)

i don't think you go any deeper than the foundation of brandenburg

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation. The majority opinion was per curiam, issued from the Court as an institution, rather than as authored and signed by an individual justice.

The three distinct elements of this test (intent to speak, imminence of lawlessness, and likelihood of lawlessness) have distinct precedential lineages.

Judge Learned Hand was possibly the first judge to advocate the intent standard, in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (1917),[15] reasoning that "[i]f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation". However, the Brandenburg intent standard is more speech-protective than Hand's formulation, which contained no temporal element of imminence.[13]

The imminence element was a departure from earlier rulings. Brandenburg did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test, but it appears that after Brandenburg, the test is de facto overruled. The Brandenburg test effectively made the time element of the clear and present danger test more defined and more rigorous.[13] Applying the Brandenburg test in Hess v. Indiana (1973) the Supreme Court held that the prerequisite for speech which is not protected by the First Amendment is that the speech in question must lead to “imminent disorder”.[16]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613373&forum_id=2#48209747)

"Whatever her intention was in posting the offending tweet, it was short-lived and she didn’t expect the violence that followed, and she quickly tried to quell it."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5613373&forum_id=2#48209770)