Two Outrages, One Law — But Only One Prosecution

UK law is unambiguous on this: you may not incite violence.

Not “unless it’s metaphor”, not “unless it’s political art”, and certainly not “unless it targets the right people.” The law draws a firm line: calls to violence are not protected speech.

So why, in two of the most high-profile cases of recent years, has only one person been jailed — and it wasn’t the one explicitly calling for murder?

Kneecap

The Irish rap trio Kneecap caused a storm in November 2023 after shouting from the stage at a London concert:

“The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.”

This wasn’t obscure performance art. It was a clear, recorded chant. It came just two years after the brutal murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess during a constituency surgery — an act that shocked the country and reignited national concerns about the safety of public servants.

Fast forward to 2025: the Met’s Counter-Terrorism Command concluded that no charges would be brought against the group, citing the time elapsed and a lack of prosecutable evidence.

Read the story in The Independent

Lucy Connolly

Now contrast that with Lucy Connolly, a childminder from Southport and wife of a local Conservative councillor. In response to government asylum policy, she posted on X:

“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.”

It is ugly. It is hateful. It is entirely indefensible in moral terms. But it is not a literal incitement. She does not direct anyone to act. She posted it once, deleted it shortly after, and had no platform or public influence.

Nonetheless, she was arrested, charged under hate speech legislation, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to 31 months in prison. Her appeal was rejected in 2025. Read the story in The Guardian

What Does This Tell Us?

The issue isn’t whether Connolly’s post was wrong — it clearly was. The question is: why is only one of these examples being treated as a criminal offence?

Let’s state it plainly:

• “Kill your local MP” is a direct call to violence.
• “Set fire to the hotels … for all I care” is an expression of rage, but not a call to act.

One is illegal under the clearest reading of the law on incitement. The other is disgusting, but protected by the very same principles that underpin free speech in a liberal democracy — or should be.

Yet in the eyes of our institutions, the roles are reversed. Kneecap walk free. Connolly goes to prison.

Why?

Because Kneecap’s politics align with the dominant cultural narrative: anti-establishment, pro-Palestine, anti-Tory. They are performers. They are artists. Their hate is coded as protest.

Connolly’s words, by contrast, emerge from cultural conservatism: she’s seen as part of the reactionary fringe, expressing fear or resentment at immigration policy. She is not culturally protected — quite the opposite. Her hate is coded as criminal.

The Free Speech Double Standard

This is the moral sleight of hand:

• Progressive-aligned hatred is art.
• Conservative-aligned outrage is crime.

It’s not that Connolly’s comments should be defended — they shouldn’t. But if we are jailing her for that, then Kneecap’s violent incitement should be treated far more seriously.

This isn’t even about politics anymore. It’s about whether the law means the same thing for all people — or whether it’s being used to reinforce a particular ideological orthodoxy.

And if it’s the latter, then the law is no longer law. It’s culture war policing, wielded by those who happen to be winning.

Conclusion

Both statements are, frankly, reprehensible. They have no place in a decent society.

But only one of them — Kneecap’s — clearly crosses the legal line into criminal incitement to violence.
And only one of them — Connolly’s — resulted in a prison sentence.

That tells you everything about the selective application of our laws — and the increasingly politicised nature of what we call “justice”.

If freedom of expression is to mean anything, it must mean the freedom to say offensive things — even things we despise. Otherwise, it’s not freedom at all. It’s permission.

And it’s only ever granted to those saying the right kind of wrong.