Twitter user is jailed for 18 months for two anti-immigration tweets made after Christmas market car attack that were viewed just 33 times

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.

Luke Yarwood, 33, from Dorset, has been jailed after posting two ‘odious’ anti-immigration tweets that were viewed just 33 times

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.

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.

Is jail an appropriate response for online hate posts?YesNo

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.’