By Bones McCoy
#109868
Waiting for the pub in question to get a "No Fat Chicks" * banner.

* Yes, it's old, 1970's american origin I believe and grossly offensive.
But I'll make an exception for old gasbag Connolly.
User avatar
By Boiler
#110556
I suspect she's avoided a recall because she's not saying anything worse than many others do in the cesspit that is Twatter.

Also, without disappearing into conspiracy theories, I always have this nagging feeling that a lot of people like her and her fellow travellers are being protected somehow.
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#110560
davidjay wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 8:56 am And again - how has she avoided a recall?
You probably know the way it works- there are a list of conditions, and they're fairly usually fairly straightforward. Not to miss meetings with the Probation officer, that sort of thing- lots of prisoners with drug habits immediately do that, and go back in. Then there's "don't visit this place where the person you attacked lives". And obviously criminal offences.

I'd have thought she should have had a condition not to post at all on social media, but seems like she doesn't. I don't know what condition this would break. It's obviously libelous, but that's a different point.
By mattomac
#110563
Killer Whale wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 9:47 am How the fuck does she get a blue tick? Did she pay for it? Who is financing her?
I assume for a grifter like her £11 a month isn't that much.

Of course Starmer wasn't but I doubt she has the attention span for five minutes to read something.
By davidjay
#110673
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 10:09 am
davidjay wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 8:56 am And again - how has she avoided a recall?
You probably know the way it works- there are a list of conditions, and they're fairly usually fairly straightforward. Not to miss meetings with the Probation officer, that sort of thing- lots of prisoners with drug habits immediately do that, and go back in. Then there's "don't visit this place where the person you attacked lives". And obviously criminal offences.

I'd have thought she should have had a condition not to post at all on social media, but seems like she doesn't. I don't know what condition this would break. It's obviously libelous, but that's a different point.
I haven't got much knowledge of the conditions but I would have thought they include something along the lines of admitting you were guilty and promising not to do it, or anything like it, again. Abusing all and sundry would surely be doing just that.
By Oboogie
#110686
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 7:14 pm She's not committing another criminal offence though. Unless there's some sort of social media ban, which there should have been, I don't see what they recall her on.
Her libellous claim that Starmer is a paedophile could be incitement.
User avatar
By kreuzberger
#110687
General cuntishness. The Communications Act criminalises the use of public networks to send "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing" messages.

Perhaps, she'll get a knock on Saturday, just ahead of wee Tommy's hate-fest.
mattomac liked this
User avatar
By Tubby Isaacs
#110689
Oboogie wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 9:49 pm
Her libellous claim that Starmer is a paedophile could be incitement.
She doesn't say that.

That's not much different to stuff routinely said about Starmer, re the CPS early in his time not prosecuting grooming gangs or Jimmy Savile.
By Oboogie
#110691
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 10:11 pm
Oboogie wrote: Thu May 14, 2026 9:49 pm
Her libellous claim that Starmer is a paedophile could be incitement.
She doesn't say that.

That's not much different to stuff routinely said about Starmer, re the CPS early in his time not prosecuting grooming gangs or Jimmy Savile.
A child rapist is the very definition of a paedophile, a very different statement to the bogus claims about failing to prosecute Savile or grooming gangs.
Attachments
Lucy C Starmer pedo.jpg
Lucy C Starmer pedo.jpg (72.64 KiB) Viewed 75 times
  • 1
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90

Her libellous claim that Starmer is a paedoph[…]

Wes Streeting

Doesn't want to carry on because he's lo[…]

Keir Starmer

Starmer’s not opposing Burnham’s retur[…]

Labour, generally.

Would be fine if it wasn’t going take severa[…]