Free speech & policing

• On 29 July 2024, the day of the Southport attack, Connolly — a Northampton childminder — posted on X urging that hotels housing asylum seekers be set on fire. She deleted it the same evening; by then it had around 310,000 views.
• She was charged under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986 (publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred), pleaded guilty on 2 September 2024, and was sentenced to 31 months on 17 October 2024.
• The Court of Appeal dismissed her sentence appeal on 20 May 2025, holding the words "are on their face an incitement to serious violence" and the sentence not manifestly excessive.
• She was released on 21 August 2025 at the standard 40% automatic release point, having served around twelve and a half months.

The offence carries a maximum of seven years. The judge placed the post in the guideline's highest category, with a three-year starting point, added six months for aggravating factors — it was posted amid national disorder — and then reduced the total to 31 months for the guilty plea.

Critics argue that framework is disproportionate for speech; the courts, the CPS and the government maintain the sentence was lawfully and properly reached. Connolly attended the Commons as a guest on the day MPs debated Mr Lowe's petition, and has said she is considering legal action over her treatment.

"We call on the Government to urgently review the possible penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, including the use of prison."

"We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to revisit the sentencing framework."

The petition closed on 20 December 2025 with 191,591 signatures and was debated in Westminster Hall on 17 November 2025.

"The British state is now more willing to imprison somebody for a social media post than for a rape. … Parliament needs to draw a deep line in the sand: in Britain, nobody should ever be sent to prison for an offensive social media post — full stop."

"Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, but so too is the right of every citizen to live free from abuse, intimidation and harm. … The Government do not feel that there is any case for a change in legislation at this stage."

• On 14 March 2025, four armed officers attended Mr Lowe's home at around 9:30pm and seized his legally held firearms, after Reform UK reported alleged threats towards its then chairman — allegations he denied.
• On 14 May 2025 the CPS announced no charges, finding insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.
• His guns were returned on 21 August 2025. He said he was "pleased they're back, but furious they were ever taken".

• The Home Affairs Committee's report on the 2024 summer disorder (14 April 2025) found no evidence of two-tier policing, called the response "entirely appropriate", and described the claims as "baseless".
• The National Police Chiefs' Council welcomed the report as robustly disagreeing "with the notion of 'two tier policing'".
• HM Inspectorate reviews called the disorder a "wake-up call" for policing — particularly its weakness on online content — without endorsing the two-tier characterisation.

• "Repeal the Online Safety Act", which the paper says "threatens the integrity of investigative journalism, whistleblowing, and political debate".
• Put "free speech traditions on a strong statutory footing, guaranteeing that lawful expression cannot be criminalised or censored by the state or private platforms".
• Mount "a thoroughgoing attack on existing anti-free speech laws", which the paper dates back to the 1960s "with the birth of 'hate speech' and 'incitement to hatred' laws".
• Require "transparency in content moderation and prohibit state-directed takedowns of legal speech".

• Read the Court of Appeal judgment in full — the strongest primary source on what the Connolly case did and did not decide.
• Compare the arrest and sentencing trends: rising arrests with falling convictions can support either an over-policing or an under-prosecution reading.
• Check what repealing the Online Safety Act would remove besides speech offences — it also carries child-safety and platform duties.
• Weigh the Home Affairs Committee's evidence base against the individual cases campaigners cite.