By FRANCINE WOLFISZ, NEWS REPORTER
A Twitter user who posted two anti-immigration tweets that were viewed just 33 times has been jailed for stirring up racial hatred.
Luke Yarwood, 36, received an 18-month sentence after tweeting in the wake of the Christmas market car attack in Magdeburg, Germany, in December 2024.
His posts were reported to the police by Yarwood’s own brother-in-law who he did not get on with.
The case has drawn comparisons with Lucy Connolly, the 42-year-old wife of a Tory councillor from Northampton, who was jailed after she called for people to ‘set fire’ to asylum hotels in the wake of the Southport attack in July 2024.
Siobhan Linsley, prosecuting, said Yarwood’s ‘extremely unpleasant posts’ had the potential to trigger disorder at one of three high-profile migrant hotels in Bournemouth, Dorset, near to where he lives.
His barrister argued the posts had 33 views between them and were the ‘impotent rantings of a socially isolated man’ that had no ‘real-world’ consequences.
But Judge Jonathan Fuller said Yarwood’s ‘odious’ tweets were designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence, and jailed him.
Loner Luke Yarwood, 33, from Dorset, has been jailed after posting two ‘odious’ anti-immigration tweets that were viewed just 33 times
Judge Jonathan Fuller said Yarwood’s ‘odious’ tweets were designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence, and jailed him. Pictured: Yarwood leaving Poole Magistrates’ Court at an earlier hearing
Bournemouth Crown Court heard Yarwood from Burton, near Christchurch, Dorset, made a series of anti-Muslim and anti-immigration posts from December 21, 2024 to January 29, 2025.
It started the day after the car attack in Germany in which six people were killed. At the time misinformation on social media suggested the person responsible was an Islamic extremist.
Yarwood responded to a post that stated thousands of Germans were taking to the streets and they wanted their country back.
Yarwood replied: ‘Head for the hotels housing them and burn them to the ground.’
While further posts by him displayed a ‘rabid dislike’ for foreigners, particularly Islam, these did not stir up racial hatred or incite violence.
For example, Yarwood wrote about the amount of foreign people in Bournemouth, stating: ‘Walking for ages and not hearing a word of English.’
He also wrote of his disgust at seeing ‘asylum seekers outside the hotel staring at young college girls’.
The second illegal tweet was made in response to a post by GB News.
Yarwood had a ‘preoccupation with immigrants and particular obsession with Islam and some extreme Right-wing views’, Bournemouth Crown Court heard
He wrote: ‘I think it’s time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter.
‘Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs’ houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE.’
Ms Linsley said that while the two posts in question had minimal views, other posts Yarwood made in the same period had been viewed over 800 times.
She said: ‘So there would have been some awareness that he was not merely shouting into the void.
‘He was also replying to bigger accounts that have more followers, such as GB News.’
She said one of GB News’s posts that he replied to had one million views.
She said: ‘In posts over this one-month period the defendant plainly demonstrates a rabid dislike of those he regards as ‘non-British’ – immigrants, Muslims, as well as other minority groups within society.
‘The two specific posts were aimed at immigrants or asylum seekers, housed in government hotels.
‘This wasn’t reckless behaviour, this was a pattern that happened over a month. It was rooted in his belief. He was angry about the presence of Muslims and foreigners in Britain.
‘These two posts bookended a series of extremely unpleasant posts between December and January.’
Ms Linsley made comparisons with the Lucy Connolly case.
She said that although there was not the same high risk of disorder in this case, the ‘atmosphere in this country around these hotels and asylum seekers remains an extremely contentious one’.
Ms Linsley said: ‘There are ongoing protests daily around asylum hotels up and down the country that are having to be policed.
‘We are not in immediate risk of widespread disorder, but the atmosphere is not one of calm in this country around this issue.
‘The whole country is aware of the disorder that took place after the Southport killings, including an arson attack on a hotel and he was encouraging others to overthrow Parliament by force and head to MPs homes.’
Nick Tucker, defending, said: ‘The current climate is such that this sort of activity has the potential to fuel serious disturbances. Thankfully this was viewed by an extremely limited audience.
‘There is no evidence that it had any real world consequences. They are the impotent rantings of a socially isolated man with fragile mental health.’
He said Yarwood was in a feud with his sister and brother-in-law, who reported his racist posts to police, and was stressed, at a low point and no longer held his ‘extremist views’.
He also said Yarwood’s ill health would make custody very difficult for him and prevent him seeing his son and sought to persuade the judge to suspend the jail term.
Mr Tucker added: ‘He acknowledges the views he expressed were uneducated, ignorant and odious.
‘The defendant is not at heart a racist, he simply found this to be a convenient channel for his discontent.
‘That’s not an excuse but to draw a distinction between a dyed in the wool idealogue that thinks those of other races are inferior and not welcome in this country and someone disaffected, ill-educated and misinformed who reaches for the most convenient subject for his rather inarticulate rantings.’
Judge Fuller said the matter was so serious only immediate custody was appropriate.
He said Yarwood had a ‘preoccupation with immigrants and particular obsession with Islam and some extreme Right-wing views’.
Judge Fuller said: ‘This is not a court of politics but law. You are entitled to express your views, but freedom of speech is not an absolute right, it’s a qualified one.
‘What the law prohibits is the stirring up of racial hatred.
‘The continuing safety and stability of our communities are undermined by actions such as yours.
‘The tweets speak for themselves, they are odious in the extreme. There could be few clearer examples of words specifically designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence.
‘They are serious offences that could have had serious consequences and can only be marked by a sentence of immediate imprisonment.’
Â