I agree. Also, I don't want to go OTT lawyer here but the criminal age of responsibility in this jurisdiction is 10 years old. If children of 10 can be held culpable for criminal behaviour then I'm really not clear on why Polly's mother or anyone else thinks saying 'oh well she was 14, she's changed' makes a blind bit of difference? Hate speech is a crime, blackmailing people is a crime, holding naked photos of other people without their consent and threatening them with the photos is a crime, I'm sure putting laxatives in someone's drink is some kind of assault...this goes so far beyond what we usually mean when we say 'things were different then' or 'something was more acceptable then' (although for the reasons I and others have pointed out I don't think that's true in this case anyway...)
I think there's also a problem that some people will blindly rage against 'cancel culture' before even looking at what it is that's happened. I can't remember which poster and it doesn't matter, but when the Elle Darby thing happened someone started yelling about how old tweets aren't important and it's pathetic to shut someone down for saying something like 'that's so gay'. Obviously, saying 'that's so gay' is not what Elle said, far from it. The point is people are so quick to defend people when something is old because of 'cancel culture' without even looking at what it is, and I don't understand that. Nobody can actually cancel Polly, and for that she should be grateful - she is self employed and won't lose her job. If people choose to no longer collaborate with her or buy her products because of her old posts that's her own fault, and they are perfectly within their rights to do that. That's not 'cancel culture'.