Ricky Jones Cleared

I can only comment on the juries I was on (4 separate cases on 2 occasions) but it was clear people just didn’t want to find someone guilty. One of the women on a jury admitted she knew the bloke was guilty but didn’t want to be responsible for sending someone to prison.

The Stanley Baldwin argument (for those that get the reference 😉)

Many people in the public. I thought you’d not need that part.

Your views don’t either, everyone would know that usually. Public sentiment still will hold a view on justice.

Entirely different circumstances as you know.

That doesn't really all make much sense. But you are talking about the public like they all think in one way - and I quote "The public find the outcome not in line with what they think should be justice".

"The public" don't exist. Not in the way you describe them. Some might that these two outcomes (despite being entirely different scenarios) are not justice, Some might think the two outcomes are justice. And some really don't give a damn.

You claim to speak for "the public" and you do not. This "air quotes". Your views represent some of them, and all the evidence is that it isn't even a majority of them.

I don't think there should be a difference dependant in how worthy we think the group being spoken about is. Everyone in the UK is entitled to the same protection by the law: asylum seekers, opinionated middle aged women, paedophiles, Nazis and criminals.

Should someone go to jail for saying online that they hate one of those groups? I don't think so: otherwise the jails would be overflowing. There's a line though, where someone is actually inciting violence - when that line is crossed, it's a crime.

Why are some groups treated as more worthy of protection than others, based on political opinion of how 'worthy' they are.

That's what two tier justice is.

I'm comparing Victoria Bown's sentence with that of Peter Lynch. Both were protesting, one individual physically assaulted someone but walked free. The other shouted abuse but went to prison.

I was surprised to see him found not guilty but can't see how it shows two tier justice/ policing.

He was arrested by the police. Charged and taken to court by the cps.

Most likely he was granted bail because he did not argue with the police that what he said was reasonable and did not have a litany of similar incidents behind him. Presumably there are guidelines for granting bail which he met ( but Lucy Connolly didn't.)

Having heard all the evidence the jury found him not guilty, and did not take long to do it either.

As many posters have said the jury trial is a cornerstone of British justice.

Do you use “air quotes” that many times because you think there’s no such thing as the public? Of course the public have intelligence, some higher than others. Some average, some not, that’s how it is.

They also can form a view on people who do various things such as tweeting or other.

And in the end get to vote too, what they think is important to politicians.

And in what way does that demonstrate that "the public" have even basic intelligence? "The public" don't understand that if you plead guilty you cannot be found not guilty? You are suggesting that they are that bloody stupid? Although, to be fair, this thread is definitely suggesting that is the case.

Of course, the fact is that in the two hours I was out and about in my local area this morning, nobody even mentioned this case, nobody was frothing about it, nobody gave a damn, and in all honesty most of them probably don't even know about it. Huge numbers of "the public" can't even be arsed to go out and vote. Over half the UK population say they get their news from social media, which I doubt anyone except the terminally stupid would consider to be a reliable source of "news".

Honestly, most of "the public" don't give a shit about any of it.

I think it's more people really want to be sure. And a good defence barrister will have examined the evidence in enough detail and with enough clarity that they have their doubts.

Also remember juries have made horrendous mistakes. Just ask Andrew Malkinson who lost decades of his life in prison (and luckily not his life like Timothy Evans) about juries getting it wrong.

Were sentences outside guidelines ?

Care to cite any more cases where people admitted their crime and received the sentence as laid down by parliament ? I'm sure you could find one or two.

People can see what people actually did and will form a view on how similar or the level of severity etc.

Whatever the machinations of the legal system, they’ll compare outcomes with that view.

Are you comparing someone throwing milkshake to someone inciting racial hatred and endangering life? After Connelly posted her rant, people set light to occupied hotels. How are they comparable?

Having served on a jury it was clear that most people there don’t want to make a guilty decision. I came away thinking if I’m ever charged with anything then I’m opting for a jury trial (if a triable either way offence).

Victoria Bowen was charged and sentenced for throwing a milkshake into Nigel Farage. She received a 13 week jail sentence suspended for one year plus ordered to pay compensation and some sort of community service. She admitted assault by beating and criminal damage at a previous court hearing. She also admitted to police that she did not regret her actions. She shouted at Farage saying he was a cunt.

So basically a slap on the wrist.

Peter Lynch a 61 year old grandfather, went to a protest, shouted provocative remarks at police, held a placard with a strange conspiracy theories and pleaded guilty to a charge of violent disorder and was jailed for two years and eight months. He sadly took his own life while in prison.

Anyone who says there is no such thing as two tier justice you are not fooling anyone.

*edited to remove Thursday

And all that proves is that most people appear to be fucking idiots with an inability to understand basic facts

Like if you can't reach a verdict - guilty or not guilty - it's a fucking mistrial not an acquittal.

Well one pleaded guilty and one pleaded not guilty, they couldn't be treated the same could they.

We don't need to overly wonder. There are guidelines.

Both Jones and Connelly denied bail BUT she pleaded guilty, he did not.....innocent until proven...

Justice has been and seen to have been done, its just that many people are thick and/or blinded by their political leanings.

But there is still hope when people like JRM can still be objective.

Really? How can anyone know what a jury will decide with certainty

Well she must have known she couldn't be found not guilty if she pleased guilty. Surely that has to be obvious to everyone.

I don’t think so. As that quote goes justice not only needs to be done, it needs to be seen to be done, along those lines.

The public find the outcome not in line with what they think should be justice. That is reasonable and an issue for some politicians.

@Lucyintheskywithdiamonnds Either way, I suspect few who hear about these two cases will care very much about distinctions like guilty and not guilty pleas. Most will simply compare the two ‘offences’ with the respective punishments doled out, and judge for themselves.

And all that proves is that most people appear to be fucking idiots with an inability to understand basic facts.Which in all honesty comes as no surprise. I do sometimes wonder if universal suffrage is actually such a good idea. Perhaps since people have to pass a test on Britishness to become a citizen (a test which most people born in Britain cannot pass), perhaps there should be a test for voting? We could apply the same test for sitting on a jury perhaps? That way only people who are able to apply logic to basic facts would be able to vote or sit on juries.

Of course the flaw with that would be that since half of MN cannot understand the difference between "guilty" and "not guilty", pretty much nobody on this site would be allowed to vote. On the other hand, maybe not so much of a flaw after all.

Sigh. Okay, you're going to avoid any tricky questions that expose the weakness of your position. I'll keep going though just for the sake of others who may be reading.

He was referring to slitting the throats of a specific group of people who allegedly attempted to slash and main innocent people with razor blades. In other words, violent criminals. (Not innocent people and politicians, as Lucy Connolly did.)

It's not something I'd say, and it seems to me a horrible and distasteful thing to say. But the question is should it be illegal?

So, @strawberrybubblegum , if someone says "peadophiles - hang them all! In fact I'd pull the lever myself!" - do you think that should be illegal and worthy of a jail sentence?