Around 20 of Connolly's supporters outside the Court of Appeal
Connolly told the Court of Appeal in London she 'never' intended to incite violence and did not realise pleading guilty would mean she accepted that she had. But the Appeal Court rejected her argument.
Her husband has condemned the decision to dismiss her appeal today as 'shocking and unfair' - saying his wife is 'not a right-wing thug'.
Ray Connolly said: 'My wife Lucy is a good person and not a racist', adding: 'Lucy got more time in jail for one tweet than some paedophiles and domestic abusers get.'
Connolly, who is locked up at HMP Drake Hall, Staffordshire, had claimed to the Appeal Court last week that she had no idea what she was admitting to when she pleaded guilty to a charge of inciting racial hatred.
But today three judges rejected her argument, meaning she faces serving another eight months behind bars.
Conservative councillor Mr Connolly said he was 'heartbroken' his wife's appeal bid was dismissed, adding: 'My wife has paid a very high price for making a mistake and today the court has shown her no mercy.'
She was given the 31-month sentence in October after admitting making the post on X, formerly known as Twitter.
The post, which she later deleted, said: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care... if that makes me racist so be it.'
The sickening comments were made just hours after killer Axel Rudakubana murdered three young girls and attempted to murder ten others at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class on July 29, sparking nationwide unrest.
Last week Connolly told the Court of Appeal in London she 'never' intended to incite violence and did not realise pleading guilty would mean she accepted that she had.
But today Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Sheldon refused her application to appeal.
Afterwards her devastated husband said the decision was 'shocking and unfair', and told of the toll on her family of her months behind bars.
Mr Connolly said: 'The 284 days of separation have been very hard, particularly on our 12-year-old girl. Lucy posted one nasty tweet when she was upset and angry about three little girls who were brutally murdered in Southport.
'She realised the tweet was wrong and deleted it within four hours. That did not mean Lucy was a "far right thug" as Prime Minister Keir Starmer claimed.
'My wife Lucy is a good person and not a racist. As a childminder she took care of small children of African and Asian heritage; they loved Lucy as she loved them. My wife has paid a very high price for making a mistake and today the court has shown her no mercy.
'Lucy got more time in jail for one tweet than some paedophiles and domestic abusers get. I think the system wanted to make an example of Lucy so other people would be scared to say things about immigration. This is not the British way.'
A statement on X by the Free Speech Union (FSU), which had funded Connolly's appeal bid, said: 'This is a deeply disappointing judgment.
'No one disputes the tweet was offensive but the sentence of more than two-and-a-half years was plainly disproportionate.'
It continued: 'Two-and-a-half years for a single tweet is grossly disproportionate and it should trouble anyone who believes the law must be applied evenly, without fear or favour.'
Toby Young, the general secretary of the FSU, added: 'This is terribly disappointing. How can it be right for Lucy to have been condemned to spend more than two-and-a-half years in jail for a single tweet when members of grooming gangs who plead guilty to the sexual exploitation of children get lower sentences?
'Lucy should be at home with her 12 year-old daughter and husband, not rotting in jail.'
In a written judgment, Lord Justice Holroyde, said: 'There is no arguable basis on which it could be said that the sentence imposed by the judge was manifestly excessive.
'The application for leave to appeal against sentence therefore fails and is refused.'
He added that the principal ground of appeal 'was substantially based on a version of events put forward by the applicant which we have rejected'.
Connolly had argued she had been 'really angry' after the Southport attacks, but hours after posting the rant on X realised it was not an acceptable thing to say, so deleted it.
In his statement, Mr Connolly claimed his wife Lucy was the victim of 'two-tier justice'.
He said: 'Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood says she will release 40,000 prisoners, some of them dangerous men on tag. Lucy has not been allowed out on tag and she has been denied leave to see our child who is struggling. Today, the court had the opportunity to reduce her cruelly long and disproportionate sentence, but they refused. That feels like two-tier justice.
'The British people know all this is not right. They have given an amazing £81,000 so far to Lucy's crowd-funder. Despite today's upsetting setback, Lucy gets courage from everyone's kind support.
'Lucy and me are so grateful to our fantastic legal team, led by Adam King.'
He added: 'We will continue to pursue every possible avenue to seek justice and to bring Lucy home to us.'
At her appeal case, Mr King, representing Connolly, asked if she had intended for anyone to set fire to asylum hotels or 'murder any politicians'. She replied: 'Absolutely not.'
Naeem Valli, for the prosecution, told the court the post was a reflection of her attitude towards immigrants.
He added: 'At the time of creating the post, the applicant clearly intended the racial hatred would be stirred up and also intended to incite serious violence.'
Earlier, he had asked Connolly if she believed the country was being 'invaded' by immigrants.
She replied: 'I believe that we have a massive number of people in the country that are unchecked, coming into the country and I believe that is a national security risk.'
She added that it would be 'absolutely incorrect' to say she did not want immigrants in the country.
Connolly, of Northampton, was arrested on August 6, by which point she had deleted her social media account, but other messages which included further racist remarks were uncovered by officers who seized her phone.
The former childminder was sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court in October after pleading guilty to a charge of inciting racial hatred.
Mr Connolly had been a Tory West Northamptonshire district councillor but lost his seat in May. He remains on the town council.
The Southport atrocity sparked nationwide unrest, with several people - including Connolly - jailed as a result.
Her tweet was viewed 310,000 times in three-and-a-half hours before she deleted it.
She later pleaded guilty to distributing material with the intention of stirring up racial hatred at Birmingham Crown Court and was sentenced to 31 months in prison in October.
But she told the Court of Appeal that she had no idea the full extent of what she was admitting, and that her solicitor Liam Muir had not properly explained what 'inciting violence' meant in the context of her tweet.
Indeed it was only when the judge was speaking at her sentencing hearing that it fully dawned on her, she said today when applying to have her prison term reduced.
Lord Justice Holroyde and his fellow judges said in their ruling it was important not to lose sight of the fact Connolly 'had willingly pleaded guilty'. She had claimed her lawyer had not explained it properly, but the Appeal Court found he was 'a conscientious defence lawyer with a clear grasp of the relevant law, practice and procedure and a realistic appraisal of the issues in the case'.
And the three judges were scathing about Connolly's claims. They said she was 'intelligent and articulate, with strong views ' but they found her evidence to be 'incredible'. They said any reference to a prison sentence, by her lawyer, 'must have caused her great anxiety', and therefore 'in those circumstances, we are quite unable to accept that she signed [the endorsement form] without any understanding'.
They said the evidence showed she 'was well aware of what she was admitting'.
The judges expressed sympathy for Connolly's personal circumstances - including over the death of her son - adding: 'We can therefore accept that the shocking events in Southport had an impact on her which went beyond that felt by many others.
'But as the [trial] judge rightly said, she did not post a message of support and sympathy to the victims of the Southport attack and the bereaved.
'Nor, we would add, did she post a message of hostility confined to the perpetrator of the Southport attack. She chose instead to incite serious violence against large numbers of persons. The applicant's personal history cannot significantly reduce her culpability for that serious offence.
'The sentence of 31 months' imprisonment imposed by the judge therefore remains as before.'
"she pleaded guilty to a charge of inciting racial hatred"
"The post, which she later deleted, said: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the b******* for all I care..."
-
if as she said , "At her appeal case" when asked, "if she had intended for anyone to set fire to asylum hotels or 'murder any politicians'. She replied: 'Absolutely not."....but if true that her comment was made in a fit of anger, she should have pleaded Not Guilty,, and the fact that she admitted her guilt but later in her appeal blamed her solicitor for not explaining the difference between right and wrong, meant that the court had no option but to deny her appeal on the grounds of moral idiocy, meaning her best option was to remain firm and serve her time, or seek therapy.
.