Lucy Connolly has claimed that Sir Keir Starmer treated her as a political detainee in her first discussion since being imprisoned for posting a ‘racist tweet’.

Ms. Connolly, aged 42, asserts that the Prime Minister’s remarks – denouncing last summer’s disturbances as ‘far-right thuggery’ – had a significant impact on her treatment.

The Northampton-based childminder also disclosed her intention to pursue legal proceedings against the police and plans to meet with Trump administration officials tomorrow.

In a conversation with The Telegraph, Ms. Connolly stated: ‘I believe the police were not truthful about what they publicized and their statements about me, and I will ensure they are held accountable.’

She claimed her comments were ‘severely misrepresented’ in a statement from the Crown Prosecution Service, which alleged she told officers she was not fond of immigrants during her police interview.

And when asked if she sees herself as ‘Sir Keir Starmer’s political prisoner’, Ms Connolly replied: ‘Absolutely. Me and several other people.’

She added: ‘I think with Starmer he needs to practice what he preaches.’

‘As a human rights lawyer, he should perhaps reassess what constitutes human rights; what freedom of expression entails; and what the country’s laws stipulate.’

Ms Connolly also revealed in a separate interview with Dan Wotton she would be meeting with representatives of the Trump administration tomorrow to discuss a ‘crackdown on free speech’ in the UK.

Asked on his YouTube show what she knew about the meeting, she said: ‘Not much, just that they’re very interested in the way things are going in the UK, and they are obviously big advocates for free speech, and their lawyers are keen to speak with me.’

Asked if she thinks the UK has free speech, she said: ‘I don’t think so, no.’

‘And that’s, you know, become increasingly apparent, isn’t it? How many people are still in prison…we need to remember that there was still other people in prison for a similar thing…other political prisoners.

‘So I would like Keir Starmer and CPS and any of these people that had a hand in it to tell me exactly what are they achieving by putting the likes of me in prison.’

Ms Connolly spent more than a year behind bars for making an inflammatory post on X in the wake of the Southport attacks in July last year.

She pleaded guilty to a charge of inciting racial hatred and was handed a 31-month sentence in October, having been held on remand following her arrest last August.

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.’

She had been serving time at HMP Peterborough and had an application to have her sentence reduced rejected in May.

However, she was freed from prison yesterday after serving 40 per cent of her 31-month sentence. 

Ms Connolly will remain on licence until her full jail term is up.  

Mr Connolly told the Daily Mail yesterday morning: ‘It will be good to have her home!’

The local Tory councillor, who was busy watering hanging baskets in the couple’s front garden to ensure that her homecoming was picture perfect, said their family’s focus from now would be ‘to get our lives back on track.’

He said that both he and Lucy had coped with her imprisonment ‘relatively well’.

But he added: ‘The only person who hasn’t is our 12-year-old daughter. She has found it very difficult not having her mum at home.

‘So well done Keir Starmer for making it so difficult for a 12–year-old girl. Let’s give him a pat on the back.’

Yesterday Kemi Badenoch, Leader of the Opposition, questioned the public interest in punishing her so harshly.

In a post on X, she wrote: ‘Lucy Connolly finally returns home to her family today. At last. Her punishment was harsher than the sentences handed down for bricks thrown at police or actual rioting.

‘At that time, after Southport, Keir Starmer branded all protesters ‘far-right’ and called for ‘fast-track prosecutions’.

‘Days later, Lucy was charged with stirring up racial hatred – an offence that doesn’t even require intent to incite violence. Why exactly did the Attorney General think that was in the public interest?

‘Meanwhile, former Labour councillor Ricky Jones called for protestors to have their throats slit. Charged with encouraging violent disorder, he pleaded not guilty and was acquitted by a jury who saw his words as a disgusting remark made in the heat of the moment, not a call to action.

‘Juries are a cornerstone of justice, but we shouldn’t have to rely on them to protect basic freedoms. Protecting people from words should not be given greater weight in law than public safety.

‘If the law does this, then the law itself is broken – and it’s time Parliament looked again at the Public Order Act.’

Connolly’s X post was 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, 2024, sparking nationwide unrest.

It came amid speculation, which was later proved to be false, that the murders had been committed by an illegal immigrant.

She was arrested on August 6, by which point she had deleted her social media account.

But other messages which included other damning remarks were uncovered by officers who seized her phone.

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.

In May, she had an appeal against her sentence refused by three Court of Appeal judges at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Connolly 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.

She also said that news of the Southport murders had triggered her anxiety from when her baby son, Harry, died as the result of a hospital blunder 13 years earlier.

At her appeal case, Adam 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.

At the time Mr Connolly told of the pain of his wife’s long imprisonment, saying: ‘The 284 days of separation have been very hard, particularly on our 12-year-old girl.’

Connolly’s case later became international news, with US officials saying earlier this year they are keeping tabs on developments over their ‘concerns’ about free speech.