I'm not being rude here, or making unkind jibes about anybody's festive overindulgences: that's really the name of the venue where three of our favourite con artists - two fake "convicts" and one common or garden conman - recently met for a jolly old knees-up.

Beaming over their beers, we have three of the most celebrated shills of the conspiraverse - Lucy "jailed for a Tweet" Connolly, Andrew "suing Matt Hancock" Bridgen, and Alex "stalking Jeremy Vine" Belfield.

(I admit their stage names need some work.)

Regular readers will know that I covered the Lucy Connolly case in particular quite closely - and that Bridgen and I are old fiends - but for newer ones, please allow me to recap...

Back in July 2024, we had a major psyop here in the UK, in the shape of a comic book villain (seriously, check out his mugshot) called Axel Rudakubana - a former child actor, who had starred in productions for the BBC - supposedly murdering three small children "at a Taylor Swift themed dance class" (this detail was always bizarrely tacked on in all press coverage of the event).

This incident was immediately splashed all over the press, before anyone had been charged or convicted, just as these fake operations always are, with some intentionally even faker news released about the suspect.

It was widely circulated over social media that the suspect was an asylum seeker, of the type currently stationed up and down the country in the nation's hotels.

Leaping on this false information, a popular Twitter account, posting under the name of Lucy Connolly, furiously Tweeted:

“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*****g hotels full of the b******s for all I care, while you're at it, take the treacherous government & politicians with them. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist, so be it.”

(Swearing redacted by me to avoid article getting age-restricted.)

The story goes that this pronouncement was entirely out of character: that the ordinarily lovely Lucy flipped in a moment of madness, pushed over the edge by the news of the slaughter of three small children, as she herself was a bereaved mother (it is reported that Lucy's toddler son, Harry, died in 2011, due to NHS negligence at the hands of medics from immigrant backgrounds, with the incident garnering considerable press attention at the time).

Nevertheless, despite these mitigating circumstances - and despite this Tweet, which was soon deleted, being many times milder than the abuse and vitriol one routinely encounters on the internet multiple times daily (more on that later) - it was reported that Lucy was not only arrested for this Tweet, but actually jailed: slapped with a 31-month prison sentence for inciting racial hatred.

There was some scepticism in the conspiracy community about the plausibility of this story, but doubts were instantly quashed by the army of people online who insisted, "this is definitely real, because I know Lucy. I talked to her loads on Twitter".

Further investigation uncovered the fact that, in the months leading up to her "arrest", the Lucy character had Tweeted, on average, an extraordinary 100 times a day. That's the equivalent of more than six Tweets an hour, every waking hour, every single day, for eight months.

Bear in mind that during this extraordinary Twitter blitz, Lucy was supposedly running a busy childcare business from her home, caring for multiple demanding young children, as well as bringing up her own child, and maintaining a house and marriage - and we know she was solely responsible for all the household chores, since it later emerged that her husband, Raymond Connolly, didn't know how to wash up.

On the subject of Raymond Connolly, by extraordinary coincidence, he had enjoyed considerable press attention himself back in 2020, when he was reportedly "Northampton's first Covid patient", so seriously ill with the fictitious disease that he was hospitalised.

They're a pretty unlucky couple, aren't they?

The odds of the husband of a couple being Northampton's first Covid patient, and the wife being Northampton's first social media convict, seem pretty slim, yet when one expressed such sensible scepticism on Twitter, one would be absolutely savaged by all the people - or rather, all of the Twitter accounts - who claimed to "know Lucy".

I've covered that situation more extensively in this article, but essentially, it soon became clear that the Lucy Connolly account, and the many other shady and opaque accounts posing as "her friends", had been seeded into the conspiracy / dissident right online community, and tasked with interacting with as many people as possible, in order to make Lucy "look real".

Hence, when it was reported that Lucy had "gone to jail" the usually cynical conspiracist would be dissuaded from suspecting a psyop, because they would feel a personal connection to her - that they "knew her from Twitter".

This tactic worked extremely well on a large number of people - but not on everyone, and those of us who continued to point out the (many, many) holes in Lucy's story were relentlessly attacked, smeared, gang-stalked and gaslit in what appeared to be a highly coordinated and tactical manner that had "intelligence operation" stamped all over it.

Relatively "big name" Twitter accounts, that had been friendly to me for years, suddenly flipped and started joining in with a vicious campaign to discredit me, desperate to divert attention from my work on Lucy, and indeed to stop me doing it altogether ("stop talking about Lucy Connolly immediately and talk about the Fabian Society instead!" one furiously ordered me).

The commentator and comedian, Alistair Williams, did an excellent - both very astute and very funny - short video on this subject. Alistair noted: "the dangerous work that people like Miri AF are doing, I will guarantee you - I will guarantee you - the establishment will be activating their controlled assets and saying, ‘right, smear her, get rid of her, start people doubting what she says’.

And they certainly tried... They tried everything to stop me and the rest of us reaching the increasingly obvious conclusion...

That the Lucy Connolly soap opera had been staged by the intelligence agencies in order to manipulate the political right: in the first instance, to scare us off speaking our minds online ("or we might go to jail like Lucy Connolly"), and in the second, as a massive publicity stunt for (UK centre-right political party) Reform.

Key Reform figures took up Lucy's "fight", with the only MP supposedly visiting her in prison being Reform's Richard Tice (where he reported, rather ludicrously, that this meek mild-mannered mummy had been roughed up by the guards).

Then, when she was eventually "released" (a ludicrous farce in itself), Lucy was the guest of honour - emerging on a stage surrounded by smoke, aka Stars In Their Eyes - at the Reform party conference.

She has gone on to praise the party, and its leader Nigel Farage, many times.

In December of 2025, despite supposedly still being on licence for her Twitter activity and at risk of being recalled to prison at any time, Lucy returned to Twitter, starting a new account.

Despite the fact this account only became active on December 17th - just 19 days ago - it has already amassed over 25,000 followers, and has composed well over 1,000 Tweets, bringing her current average up to around 60 a day (for reference, the average active Twitter user posts about 5 times daily). This echoes the previous phenomenal activity of the "Lucy Connolly" Twitter account, where she posted more than 100 times daily, and seems designed to serve the same purpose - to ensure the account interacts with as many people as possible, to give them the impression they "know her".

This isn't your traditional, old-fashioned soap opera any more. Modern audiences demand something more. Now you don't just watch your favourite soap characters on telly, you can go online and talk to them yourself - just as with the hit Netflix show, Stranger Things, where you could listen to the fictional town's radio station, and call into it yourself.

Modern audiences aren't content with passive viewing any more. They demand to be part of the action themselves, and that is what the social scriptwriters are giving them with "Lucy": an interactive soap opera playing out in real time.

Of further interest is the fact that - despite Twitter's recent announcement it would be displaying the country of origin of all Twitter accounts on user profiles - there is no location listed for Lucy Connolly's account.

Unless the account is specifically exempt for security reasons (such as a government account), all Twitter accounts now confirm in the "about" section that they are "based in the United Kingdom" (or wherever) - yet curiously, this information is absent from the Lucy Connolly account.

There is no location listed.

Is that perhaps because, as I have speculated before, "Lucy's" account is operated by several different people, and therefore based in several different locations?

Perhaps Israel might be once such location, given Lucy Connolly's extensive ties to ardent Zionists and Israel supporters.

Two of the biggest cheerleaders of her case, the Telegraph journalist, Allison Pearson - read about my spat with her here - and the Free Speech Union's Toby Young sit on the board of the British Friends of Israel.

The Reform party, who have vigorously championed Lucy's cause, are also vehemently pro-Israel, and Lucy herself has made very clear where her sympathies lie, by repeatedly mocking Palestine supporters.

It seems, then, that "Lucy Connolly" is simply the latest in a long line of MI6/Mossad black ops.

It has long since been my belief that "Lucy Connolly" is a brand: a fictional character and political creation, played by an actress onscreen, and represented online by a PR team; that she is no more a real person than Deirdre Barlow from Coronation Street was - and spent about as much time in prison as Anne Kirkbride (the actress playing Deirdre) did.

Clever political strategists realised if they wanted to effectively manipulate the conspiracy fringe and dissident right (and they need our votes for the desired "Reform landslide" at the next General Election) that merely using "the news" wouldn't work. They knew if it was simply reported by the mainstream media that some woman had "gone to prison for a Tweet", many of us would dismiss it as a hoax and not believe it.

In order to be enticed to believe in it, we had to have a connection to it beyond "saw it on the news". We had to feel we personally knew this woman: hence, they put "her" (the team managing her account) on Twitter, and had her post prolifically on key right-wing/conspiracist subjects (immigration, Covid, etc), whilst directly interacting with as many of us as possible, over a several-month period.

This meant that when she was "arrested", we would all leap to her defence and silence any sceptics with: "no, this is real, that's Lucy from Twitter! I know her!".

The fact that we all "knew" Lucy was exploited to expert effect (not least with a very lucrative fundraiser on the deeply dodgy Democracy 3.0 platform), as her alleged "friends" on Twitter encouraged us to donate to her cause, campaign for her early release, and write to her in prison.

My friend and fellow Connolly sceptic, Francis O'Neill, decided to do exactly that, and wrote her a very polite letter, explaining that quite a few of us were sceptical of her story (and surely, a 'dissident' and 'rebel' such as herself understands and encourages healthy scepticism?), and so, if she wouldn't mind clearing up a few key concerns, it would be greatly appreciated.

Amongst other things, Francis asked her:

How were you able to tweet an average of at least 105 tweets per day during these 8 months? Were you the only person responsible for this output? Did any other parties produce any of the tweets from your account?

Why did you attend your trial and appeal by videolink and not in person?

Are your parents and siblings campaigning for you? Have they attended court proceedings? Have they spoken with the media? If not, why not?

Why did you use Democracy 3.0 as the platform for your crowdfunder given that it has such a small online presence and makes no great effort to publicise its campaigns?

Where and when did you marry Ray Connolly?

It was confirmed by the prison that the letter had been received, but - to nobody's great surprise - Ms Connolly declined to reply.

However, several months later, and shortly after her recent return to Twitter, she did acknowledge she had read it, stating:

"I got his letter in prison. It made my day. I laughed a lot and then put in the bin."

Does that seem like a cogent and reasonable response to you?

Why would it make her laugh? It was not a comedic correspondence, it was a straightforward professional communication asking her some entirely reasonable and pertinent questions.

"Laughing and putting it in the bin" is, as one Twitter user put it, "dismissal without denial".

As we in the truth movement are rather well aware, the truth, quite famously, does not fear investigation - and yet, Ms Connolly (and her devoted army of followers) have made it abundantly clear that this particular case is somehow to be regarded as entirely exempt from any scrutiny.

We, as truth seekers and sceptics are, in this case, expected to accept her utterly implausible story entirely at face value, whilst throwing money and adoration at her, and if we dare to get above ourselves and politely ask her some clarifying questions, we shall be summarily dismissed!

It is, in fact, all rather resonant of the way Lucy's new beer buddy, Andrew Bridgen, dismissed my 2023 letter to him.

Granted, he refrained from declaring it made him laugh (although I'm sure they have many jolly good guffaws at our expense back in the lodge), but he asserted that it was a waste of his time to deal with.

It is a shame for Mr Bridgen that he saw fit to so totally disregard my communication in this way, since many of the things I warned him about have since come true, not least that his efforts to "sue Matt Hancock for defamation" were a colossal waste of time - and, more to the point, other people's money.

As veteran conspiracists will recall, back in 2023, Andrew Bridgen asserted he was going to take (former UK health secretary) Matt Hancock to court, for writing mean words on Twitter (the very thing Lucy Connolly was "sent to prison" for, and that Bridgen is supposedly ardently against, but nobody ever said these people were principled or consistent).

Bridgen aggressively fundraised for this pointless performative trial, using the same extremely opaque and shady Democracy 3.0 platform that Lucy Connolly used herself, raising around £200,000 on this and other platforms (he subsequently set up a new fundraiser when he fell out with the Democracy 3.0 team, although his Democracy 3.0 fundraiser is still open and accepting donations).

I warned then and repeatedly that Bridgen was cashing in on public ignorance of the law, and weaponising people's understandable hatred of Hancock (responsible for many horrors enacted on the public during the Covid chapter) to extract money from them, by conflating a civil defamation case with criminal proceedings.

Most people who donated to Bridgen believed that Hancock was being taken to court for his Covid crimes, rather than for a personal defamation spat (Hancock inferring on Twitter that Bridgen was an antisemite), and had not grasped that even if Hancock lost - which was always extraordinarily unlikely - he would simply be ordered to pay a fine and be free to get on with his life, as there was never any risk of his going to prison.

I communicated all of this to Andrew Bridgen at the time: that it was a pointless case that he was highly unlikely to win, and even if he did, so what? Who cares if the immensely wealthy Hancock has to part with a tiny fraction of his personal fortune to settle a defamation case?

Nevertheless, Bridgen continued to gamble with other people's money and pursue this pointless vanity case, where, after several months, another one of my predictions came true - that he would lose key aspects of the trial and be ordered to pay Hancock's costs.

That happened, to the tune of some £40,000.

So, everybody who donated to Bridgen "to fight Matt Hancock" actually ended up giving money directly to Matt Hancock.

We haven't heard any news of this trial for months. It seems that Bridgen has now abandoned it, and that all the money donated has gone.

And what of all the money donated on the same fundraising platform to Lucy Connolly? What's happened to that (apart from it being used to buy poor old Ray a dishwasher)?

Well, it's not at all clear, and neither is why she needed it at all, since - as she recently declared on Twitter - she earns plenty of money herself.

Doing what?

She has not reopened her "childcare business".

She has alluded to working "in a gym", presumably as some sort of receptionist (so she has a viable cover for being able to Tweet several thousand times a day whilst "working", perhaps). I don't think that pays that much... I can imagine some alternative careers that do, though.

Lucy Connolly, Andrew Bridgen, and Alex Belfield (who also pretended to go to prison) are just glorified con artists: establishment assets and crisis actors, manipulating a gullible public for financial and political purposes.

We can conclude this in a very simple way: that, if they were legitimate, they would answer reasonable questions put to them by seasoned sceptics, rather than mocking and dismissing them, especially when many of the concerns previously expressed by said sceptics have turned out to be accurate, as was the case with my letter to Andrew Bridgen.

They would engage in good faith, rather than instantly blocking everyone who suspects their story (please note that, despite never once having engaged with her there, Lucy Connolly has preemptively blocked me on Twitter, along with several other sceptics of her story, including Francis O'Neill).

Lucy Connolly has also blocked me on Substack, which, again, is a platform where I have never interacted with her.

This is not how innocent people telling the truth behave.

It is how guilty, frightened people do.

It is of note that many people are very abusive to Lucy on her Twitter, calling her all sorts of names, and making fun of her weight, but she does not instantly block them, and even engages with them (obviously, this all fuels the 'persecuted hero' narrative).

Yet those of us who have never been rude to her are preemptively blocked, simply for suspecting the legitimacy of her story.

In short, you can call her an "evil racist" or even a "fat c***" (as I see plenty of people doing), as that fits the script and allows her to stay in character.

What you can't do is politely ask her if she's an actress and this is all made up, as that doesn't.

From the amount of time, money, and resources that have been poured into her, we can conclude that the Lucy Connolly character is obviously an enormously valuable asset to the establishment - to the extent that the primary purpose of the Southport psyop may very well have been to set the stage for Lucy's star turn in a number of subsequent operations.

The "jailed for a Tweet" episode was, it seems, just the beginning of her psyopping chicanery. That was Act I.

For Act II - the 'Pig in Muck' - they've brought in the supporting cast.

What will Act III bring?

Please note that I speculated a few months ago that the Lucy Connolly case would be weaponised to bring an end to internet anonymity. I said:

"There were outpourings of sympathy for Lucy Connolly when she "went to prison" because she was punished by an external force, and her Tweet - which was exceptionally mild by 'internet abuse' standards - isn't the kind of statement that would leave anyone recoiling in revulsion if they found a friend or family had said it. They might not agree with it or find it ill-advised, but it's a far cry from the kind of thing one finds lurking in the dark corners of anonymous internet. 

It's crucial to note that Lucy never obscured her identity - she was posting under her real name (albeit slightly misspelt) and her real face. It's a distinction that really matters, because I suspect this will be utilised when parties like Reform join the call for an end to anonymous internet usage.

"I am an ardent supporter of free speech, and our rights to speak our mind without state penalties, as I demonstrated with my unwavering support of Lucy Connolly," Nigel Farage might declare.

"But Lucy is a true free speech warrior, prepared to put her own name and face to her words. She's not an anonymous coward, cowering behind an avatar enabling her to abuse others with impunity. With freedom comes responsibility. If we are to have free speech, we must also be held accountable for our words."

Lo a behold, within weeks of returning to Twitter, Lucy has launched a campaign to challenge internet anonymity, backed up by several of her celebrity pals.

She's also long since gone global, being known to the Trump administration, who it is reported took a particular interest in her case, with Lucy scheduled to meet with "Trump officials".

The Lucy Connolly creation is no ordinary wine-loving mummy who, oops, wrote a silly Tweet and subsequently rose to worldwide infamy as a close personal friend of (probable next PM of Britain), Nigel Farage, whilst being of deep interest to the President of the United States.

She is, rather, a brand: a business, and a powerful political weapon, scrupulously designed by expert propagandists to manoeuvre the political climate, and to ensure the pro-Israel Reform is elected in this country, to mirror the pro-Israel administration in the USA, and all under the guise of "fighting immigration and protecting free speech".

Well, here I am, exercising my free speech, so surely Ms Connolly supports me in this endeavour?

I'm not anonymous (unlike many of Lucy's "friends" on Twitter), and neither is Francis O'Neill, Alistair Williams, James Delingpole, David Clews, or many of the other commentators who have expressed scepticism of her story.

So what other excuses have they got to dismiss us?

Expect a hastily scripted and entirely unconvincing "plot twist" to debut soon to divert attention from that question...

Thanks for reading! This website is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.