Lucy Connolly has been warned that she could be recalled to prison over her use of social media after reposting what she described as a “tongue-in-cheek” comment involving world leaders.
The 42-year-old former childminder was released from prison in August after serving 380 days of a 31-month sentence imposed in 2024 for a single social media post made in the aftermath of the Southport killings. The sentence is believed to be the longest custodial term handed down in the UK for an individual online post.
Ms Connolly remains on licence and is subject to strict conditions, similar to those applied to serious offenders, which include requirements around good behaviour and restrictions on online activity. Under the terms of her release, any breach of licence conditions could result in her being returned to custody.
According to Ms Connolly, she has now received a formal warning letter after reposting a message on X that appeared to jokingly suggest US President Donald Trump should remove Prime Minister Keir Starmer from office in the same way Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro was recently detained by US authorities.
📝 Warning letter and licence conditions
Speaking on Dan Wootton’s YouTube channel, Ms Connolly said she was struggling to understand what was permissible under the terms of her release.
“I genuinely don’t know what is okay by their standards to say and what is not,” she said. “I’ve been pulled up for several things last week with a warning letter which is telling me that [the posts] are not of good behaviour, and none of which I’m in agreement with.”
Describing the repost that triggered the warning, she added: “I re-shared a tweet of someone else’s where they jokingly, tongue-in-cheek, said, ‘Could Trump come and take Starmer like they did in Venezuela.’ Apparently somebody contacted probation and said they were very offended by this post and that it was inciting violence.”
Ms Connolly said she had asked for clearer guidance on what she was allowed to say online, claiming that each warning carried an implicit threat of recall to prison.
“I feel like I need a list of things I’m allowed to say,” she said. “Every time I say something they don’t agree with, I’m threatened with recall.”
🧾 Other posts flagged by probation
Ms Connolly said probation officials also raised concerns about separate posts relating to her daughter being rejected from a local school, as well as comments she made about British-Egyptian activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah.
Abd el-Fattah is currently at the centre of a deportation dispute following the emergence of historic social media posts in which he appeared to call for violence against Zionists and police officers. He has since apologised for the remarks, saying he took allegations of antisemitism “very seriously” and arguing that some posts had been “completely twisted out of their meaning”.
Ms Connolly said she did not believe any of her recent posts amounted to incitement or offensive speech. “I don’t think you’ll find anything on my Twitter since I returned that you would deem offensive or incitement,” she said.
📂 Background to the original conviction
Ms Connolly was jailed after posting on X in the hours following the Southport killings on 29 July 2024, during a period of heightened public tension fuelled by misinformation and anger over the attack.
In the post, she called for mass deportations and wrote that she did not care if hotels housing asylum seekers were set on fire, adding that government politicians should be included. Although the post was deleted less than four hours later, it had already been viewed more than 310,000 times.
The severity of the sentence prompted widespread criticism, with senior political figures including Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Kemi Badenoch and Suella Braverman calling for her release. Support also came from Elon Musk, who accused the UK of operating a “two-tier” justice system.
📌 Legal consequences remain unresolved
The Telegraph understands that probation officials warned Ms Connolly that the repost and other comments breached her licence conditions and that any similar conduct could result in her recall to prison. The Ministry of Justice declined to comment.
The case continues to raise broader questions about the boundaries of free expression, the proportionality of online speech offences, and the clarity of licence conditions imposed on individuals released from custody for digital crimes.
Leave a Reply