Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Ricky Jones Cleared

438 replies

DancingFerret · 15/08/2025 12:33

Unbelievable (but not unexpected).

www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-15003437/Labour-councillor-cleared-cutting-throats-comment-rally.html

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
TheNuthatch · 15/08/2025 15:21

PhilippaGeorgiou · 15/08/2025 15:13

I think I have made it very clear that I have zero sympathy for either of them. I am only commenting on the fact that the jury in one case decided that he was not guilty, and that is the end of the matter. Suggesting the jury was somehow rigged to come to this conclusion is insanity. But this is MN so insanity on these matters is hardly unusual.

As for empathy I have no empathy for people who advicate violence against others. Something that an awful lot of people on this site do not share, based on many posts advocating or empathising with the deliberate murder of asylum seekers. But I won't be answering further and will be hiding this thread - the MN baying mobs may have at their echo chamber.

Show quote history

No, I meant empathy.
I have no sympathy for what LC did, she was wrong. But I do have empathy for her when I see what's happened to her since.

It's not an airport...

derxa · 15/08/2025 15:21

The optics of this are very poor. The law appears to be an ass.

EasternStandard · 15/08/2025 15:21

mrshoho · 15/08/2025 15:18

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

We all saw and heard what Jones did. We all read what Lucy Connolly tweeted. We've all seen what justice was served on both. Whatever the reason we can all see this is not equal justice.

Pretty much this.

MiloMinderbinder925 · 15/08/2025 15:20

GoldThumb · 15/08/2025 14:49

The other thing that gets me is that his was active incitement to violence. Whereas hers was passive/indifference to ongoing violence.

So how was she a greater threat than him?

The whole thing makes no sense, and it’s no wonder people are angry.

Telling people to burn hotels whilst occupied is passive?

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 15:19

mrshoho · 15/08/2025 15:18

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

We all saw and heard what Jones did. We all read what Lucy Connolly tweeted. We've all seen what justice was served on both. Whatever the reason we can all see this is not equal justice.

Yep

mrshoho · 15/08/2025 15:18

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

We all saw and heard what Jones did. We all read what Lucy Connolly tweeted. We've all seen what justice was served on both. Whatever the reason we can all see this is not equal justice.

Ohmygodnotnow · 15/08/2025 15:16

I'm a Tory councillor in a large city (not specifying for obvious reasons) This really worries me. You bet if he'd been reform or Tory, he'd have been convicted. I've received abuse and rape threats online and it's now spreading to the doorstep. This will put off decent people wanting to make a difference in their area from standing for election, especially women.

The jury wasn't rigged of course, but different courts tend to have juries that lean one way or another. Oxford is famously liberal for example.

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 15:16

PhilippaGeorgiou · 15/08/2025 15:13

I think I have made it very clear that I have zero sympathy for either of them. I am only commenting on the fact that the jury in one case decided that he was not guilty, and that is the end of the matter. Suggesting the jury was somehow rigged to come to this conclusion is insanity. But this is MN so insanity on these matters is hardly unusual.

As for empathy I have no empathy for people who advicate violence against others. Something that an awful lot of people on this site do not share, based on many posts advocating or empathising with the deliberate murder of asylum seekers. But I won't be answering further and will be hiding this thread - the MN baying mobs may have at their echo chamber.

Show quote history

You were the only one suggesting that the jury was rigged! You put words into other people's mouths.

ThePhantomoftheEcobubbleOpera · 15/08/2025 15:15

How can one not meet the threshold of the charge and the other be so egregious that a sentence of three years be beyond the threshold of an appeal? When the former is whipping up a crowd of protesters to commit murder and the other is a tweet that expressed apathy if other people committed murder?

I mean, I understand how that can happen, but how can you sell this to a population who has less and less faith in a judicial system they believe to be ideologically rigged?

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 15:15

PandoraSocks · 15/08/2025 15:13

I mention the jury a lot, because it delivered the verdict!

Show quote history

But why the need to say that they need protecting? When no-one else has mentioned them?

PandoraSocks · 15/08/2025 15:13

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 15:05

Who is whipping up hostility against jurors? You are the only one to mention them repeatedly. The rest of us are pointing out inconsistencies in the way he was treated Vs Lucy.

Show quote history

I mention the jury a lot, because it delivered the verdict!

PhilippaGeorgiou · 15/08/2025 15:13

TheNuthatch · 15/08/2025 15:01

Reading your post, you have zero empathy for LC which is understandable, but your description of what Jones did reads differently. You're offering an explanation to slightly excuse his actions here. There is absolutely no excuse for what he did. None.

Show quote history

I think I have made it very clear that I have zero sympathy for either of them. I am only commenting on the fact that the jury in one case decided that he was not guilty, and that is the end of the matter. Suggesting the jury was somehow rigged to come to this conclusion is insanity. But this is MN so insanity on these matters is hardly unusual.

As for empathy I have no empathy for people who advicate violence against others. Something that an awful lot of people on this site do not share, based on many posts advocating or empathising with the deliberate murder of asylum seekers. But I won't be answering further and will be hiding this thread - the MN baying mobs may have at their echo chamber.

1dayatatime · 15/08/2025 15:12

@PandoraSocks

"So do you think the jury was rigged?"

of course the jury wasn't rigged but bearing in mind you only need more than 3 jurors out of 12 to find him not guilty for the case to be dismissed then I do believe that more than 3 jurors were influenced in their decision by their own personal political sympathies rather than the (video) legal evidence presented to them.

Having a jury decision based upon the jurors political views means that any crimes involving a political opinion, sympathies or side creates a scenario where offenders can be let off regardless of the legal evidence put to them.

This in turn creates a two tier judicial system based on political sympathies. It also brings into question whether the jury system is still fit for purpose.

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 15:06

ThePhantomoftheEcobubbleOpera · 15/08/2025 15:04

I think it's telling that a jury has cleared a man of telling a crowd to slit the throats of the far- right, while Connolly wasn't even granted an appeal by judges for the lesser crime of tweeting.

Edited

🎯

TheNuthatch · 15/08/2025 15:06

ThePhantomoftheEcobubbleOpera · 15/08/2025 15:04

I think it's telling that a jury has cleared a man of telling a crowd to slit the throats of the far- right, while Connolly wasn't even granted an appeal by judges for the lesser crime of tweeting.

Edited

Yep, something has gone very wrong here.

GoldThumb · 15/08/2025 15:06

PhilippaGeorgiou · 15/08/2025 14:53

all that separates them is their political beliefs

You seriously can't think of anything else that seperates them? And to be clear, since I wasn't on either jury I can only depend on the public facing information:

  • she pleaded guilty and he didn't
  • there is no evidence that she couldn't have got a private lawyer, there is no evidence that he is "loaded" and better able to afford one (perhaps he had insurance - I do)
  • she suggested burning down a building full of innocent people who had done nothing wrong at all; he (admittedly wrongly) appears to have advocated violence against a group of people who had placed razor blades under nasty stickers in a deliberate attempt to hurt people
  • He was tried by his peers and she was not (her choice)
People are hung up on the fact that she got a heavy sentence to something she pleaded guilty to. He did not plead guilty, but had he been found guilty he could have had an equally heavy sentence. Are you sugggesting that judges should overrule juries and hand out sentences based on what random MN posters think?
Show quote history

Final thing on this post, who put razor blades under stickers?
where is the proof? Where are the photographs/police reports?

It sounds like made up bullshit, and a common lie people throw around in other debates as well.

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 15:05

PandoraSocks · 15/08/2025 14:58

I hope the jurors' identities are very well protected. This whipping up of hostility towards them is dangerous. It must be quite frightening for them.

Edited

Who is whipping up hostility against jurors? You are the only one to mention them repeatedly. The rest of us are pointing out inconsistencies in the way he was treated Vs Lucy.

ThePhantomoftheEcobubbleOpera · 15/08/2025 15:04

I think it's telling that a jury has cleared a man of telling a crowd to slit the throats of the far- right, while Connolly wasn't even granted an appeal by judges for the lesser crime of tweeting.

EasternStandard · 15/08/2025 15:02

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 14:54

There are going to be a whole lot of angry people regarding this verdict.
X is already showing it.

Again, just another nail in Labour's coffin because, whatever the reason, it just smacks of political bias. Optics are dreadful.

Show quote history

True

TheNuthatch · 15/08/2025 15:01

PhilippaGeorgiou · 15/08/2025 14:53

all that separates them is their political beliefs

You seriously can't think of anything else that seperates them? And to be clear, since I wasn't on either jury I can only depend on the public facing information:

  • she pleaded guilty and he didn't
  • there is no evidence that she couldn't have got a private lawyer, there is no evidence that he is "loaded" and better able to afford one (perhaps he had insurance - I do)
  • she suggested burning down a building full of innocent people who had done nothing wrong at all; he (admittedly wrongly) appears to have advocated violence against a group of people who had placed razor blades under nasty stickers in a deliberate attempt to hurt people
  • He was tried by his peers and she was not (her choice)
People are hung up on the fact that she got a heavy sentence to something she pleaded guilty to. He did not plead guilty, but had he been found guilty he could have had an equally heavy sentence. Are you sugggesting that judges should overrule juries and hand out sentences based on what random MN posters think?
Show quote history

Reading your post, you have zero empathy for LC which is understandable, but your description of what Jones did reads differently. You're offering an explanation to slightly excuse his actions here. There is absolutely no excuse for what he did. None.

GoldThumb · 15/08/2025 14:59

PhilippaGeorgiou · 15/08/2025 14:53

all that separates them is their political beliefs

You seriously can't think of anything else that seperates them? And to be clear, since I wasn't on either jury I can only depend on the public facing information:

  • she pleaded guilty and he didn't
  • there is no evidence that she couldn't have got a private lawyer, there is no evidence that he is "loaded" and better able to afford one (perhaps he had insurance - I do)
  • she suggested burning down a building full of innocent people who had done nothing wrong at all; he (admittedly wrongly) appears to have advocated violence against a group of people who had placed razor blades under nasty stickers in a deliberate attempt to hurt people
  • He was tried by his peers and she was not (her choice)
People are hung up on the fact that she got a heavy sentence to something she pleaded guilty to. He did not plead guilty, but had he been found guilty he could have had an equally heavy sentence. Are you sugggesting that judges should overrule juries and hand out sentences based on what random MN posters think?
Show quote history

She also didnt threaten to burn down building, she said she didn’t care if it was burned down.

Passive vs active (should have their throats slit)

Original poster
DancingFerret · 15/08/2025 14:58

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 14:54

There are going to be a whole lot of angry people regarding this verdict.
X is already showing it.

Again, just another nail in Labour's coffin because, whatever the reason, it just smacks of political bias. Optics are dreadful.

Show quote history

Agreed. The optics before this latest travesty were awful; IMO, they're now frightening.

OP posts:
PandoraSocks · 15/08/2025 14:58

I hope the jurors' identities are very well protected. This whipping up of hostility towards them is dangerous. It must be quite frightening for them.

GoldThumb · 15/08/2025 14:57

PhilippaGeorgiou · 15/08/2025 14:53

all that separates them is their political beliefs

You seriously can't think of anything else that seperates them? And to be clear, since I wasn't on either jury I can only depend on the public facing information:

  • she pleaded guilty and he didn't
  • there is no evidence that she couldn't have got a private lawyer, there is no evidence that he is "loaded" and better able to afford one (perhaps he had insurance - I do)
  • she suggested burning down a building full of innocent people who had done nothing wrong at all; he (admittedly wrongly) appears to have advocated violence against a group of people who had placed razor blades under nasty stickers in a deliberate attempt to hurt people
  • He was tried by his peers and she was not (her choice)
People are hung up on the fact that she got a heavy sentence to something she pleaded guilty to. He did not plead guilty, but had he been found guilty he could have had an equally heavy sentence. Are you sugggesting that judges should overrule juries and hand out sentences based on what random MN posters think?
Show quote history

But she pled guilty after months of being on remand! He was never remanded.

Thats a massive thing that separates them, before sentencing/pleadings are even considered.

You need to start at the beginning, but half way through if comparing.
From the beginning they didn’t receive equitable treatment

twistyizzy · 15/08/2025 14:54

GoldThumb · 15/08/2025 14:49

The other thing that gets me is that his was active incitement to violence. Whereas hers was passive/indifference to ongoing violence.

So how was she a greater threat than him?

The whole thing makes no sense, and it’s no wonder people are angry.

There are going to be a whole lot of angry people regarding this verdict.
X is already showing it.

Again, just another nail in Labour's coffin because, whatever the reason, it just smacks of political bias. Optics are dreadful.

Swipe left for the next trending thread