The Banality of Evil: Who is Lucy Connolly's Anti-British, Woke Judge?
ANNOUNCEMENT:
I get emails and DMs every week from people asking to chat, so we’re going to trial private calls at The Jolly Heretic public house! From this weekend, you can book a call with me to discuss whatever you like. Book now!
On 17th October 2024, a judge at Birmingham Crown Court did something that at best might be described as “merciless” and at worst might be termed “evil.” He handed a 41-year-old mother of a young daughter and wife of a seriously ill husband a 31-month prison sentence. What had Lucy Connolly done to deserve a harsher sentence than is given to many Muslim groomers? The same judge, Melbourne Inman, KC, had sentenced an Indian-background man called Antonio Boparan to just 18 months in 2019 for causing the death by dangerous driving of Cerys Edwards, whose parents’ car Boparan slammed into head-on in 2006 when Cerys was 11 months old. Cerys was left paralysed and on a ventilator until she ultimately died of her injuries 12 years later. The killer served a mere 9 months. Connolly, however, had used inflammatory words on Twitter, and then, realising she had gone too far, deleted her tweet 3 hours later. She pleaded guilty on legal advice and the result was that this judge imposed on her nearly double the sentence he gave to a reckless taker of human life. Last week marked the beginning of her appeal against the severity of the sentence.
On 29th July, in response to the horrific Southport massacre of 3 little girls and the maiming of many others by a Rwandan-background teenager, the Northampton wife of a Tory councillor had called for “mass deportation now” and had urged her small number of followers, in what was manifestly emotion-driven hyperbole, to “set fire” to the hotels housing, at great expense, the assorted male bogus asylum-seekers who have made their way to the UK from the officially “safe country” of France. Connolly’s son had died, tragically, fourteen years earlier, so she viscerally understood how the parents of the three little girls, one of whom was practically decapitated, would be feeling. Overwhelmed, Connolly lost control and sent her tweet, deleting it once she’d calmed down. But this was not enough for this Woke Judge Jeffreys.
Shamefully corrupting the legal system, Sir Keir Starmer had pontificated that anyone who was furious about the New Labour Regime letting this Rwandan murderer’s family into the country was a “far right thug.” He further declared that those involved in the disorder which the massacre set off, or even those who sent emotive tweets about it, would be arrested, tried, found guilty, and jailed. Superficially emotionless, Starmer was evidently shaken by the spectre of a loss of control, and perhaps by possible connections to the murderer’s family when he was a Human Rights barrister, and, effectively, lost control himself.
Clearly, this corrupted the legal system and pressured the judges; judges who are only appointed, anyway, if they have shown “commitment to multiculturalism,” this being one of the appointment criteria. Hence, these are not the unbiased judges faithfully upholding the law in an impartial manner, of the kind we still had 30 years ago. They are ideological appointees who, unless they have cynically lied on their applications, are likely to be avid supporters of the Labour Party and of Two Tier Keir’s regime.
Judge Melbourne Inman, in sending Connolly down for 31 months, did little more than parrot the obviously frightened and livid Prime Minister. The judge told Lucy Connolly, who had repented and who pleaded guilty in order to avoid months on remand in jail and who is a woman with no criminal record and a difficult family life: “Sentences for those who incite racial hatred and disharmony in our society are intended to both punish and deter.” Of course, this didn’t seem to be so when Inman had a literal killer standing before him.
Keir Starmer, infamously, is secretive; marrying only in his forties and refusing to name his children in public. Notoriously, he effectively told The Guardian that (I suggest due to being parentified by a sickly mother) he has no inner life: no favourite novel, nor poem . . . he doesn’t go down the “dark alleys” of introspection, creativity, and self-exploration.
Who is this judge? A piece in The Spectator by Jonathan Miller, “Who Judges the Judges?,” recently observed:
“At least we might know more about him, and would do, if he were forced to account for himself before voters. He’s a man who seems to have risen without trace. The Judicial Appointments Commission which examines all candidatures in secret was introduced by Tony Blair’s government in 2005, replacing an equally obscure but perhaps more effective system of appointments by the Lord Chancellor, after ‘soundings.’ It was one of the great constitutional reforms, credited to the influence of Blair’s barrister wife, Cherie. We know a lot about the long march on such institutions as schools, universities, the police, civil service. Rather less about the transformation of the judiciary, or the machinations of legal process, where we are allowed to know virtually nothing at all. The reporters are kept out. Transcripts are unavailable. The qualifications of judges secret.”
As far as I can see, as with Starmer, Inman encapsulates what Hannah Arendt termed “the banality of evil.” Born in 1957, to Melbourne Alfred Inman (1925-2008) and Norah Thompson, Inman was raised in a suburb of dreary Birmingham. He attended grammar school there before reading Law at Regent’s Park College Hall, Oxford. Few people apply to this Baptist College. Students apply to the proper colleges and get “pooled” – considered good enough for Oxford, but passed over to somewhere less popular, which may or may not accept them. Melbourne Inman became a barrister in 1979, according to Who’s Who, became a QC in 1998, and a recorder in 1999. Born in Birmingham, like his father, Inman has never really left.
Inman married, in 1999, aged 42, to Catherine Mccahey and, in 2003, they had a son called Finn Andreas Inman. Tight-lipped about his life, like Starmer, none of this is in his Who’s Who entry. His hobbies, apart from sending mothers of young children to prison for their words published in the heat of the moment, are skiing and listening to the piano; not even playing it: No creativity, no inner life, no introspection . . . a robot-like functionary of the New Labour Regime and a wary one at that.
What a dull man, what a semi-robot . . . but, yet, this semi-robot is dangerous. He practically lets off a man who takes a child’s life via his dangerous driving, yet is content to throw the book at an emotionally unstable woman with a very challenging background who gets upset because the lives of 3 children are taken, during a period of hysteria. What does Inman get out of such behaviour? Is it a feeling of power and moral superiority which allows him to compensate for being such an uninteresting man? Or is he, sadly, unable to resist the demands of a totalitarian; unable not to be drawn into hysteria? Skiing and listening to piano music . . . the banality of evil.
For more based-science analysis of society and politics, become a subscriber at JollyHeretic.com!
Did you miss the last Dutton’s Digest? Click below:
Ed, she didn’t urge anyone to burn down a hotel. She said ‘for all I care’ they could.
I'm sure Lucy was given the harsh sentence due to being part of the rapidly organising right-wing. It's the modern equivalent of sticking her head on a spike outside Downing Street.