Ricky Jones Cleared

Oh sorry I’ve missed it. What was your answer?

I did. Jones was found not guilty by the way.

The pp seems confident that she should be the one to set the questions: and mark the answers. What could possibly go wrong 🙄

No one I asked earlier, answered my question. Not one of them. I asked what they saw when they saw Ricky Jones inciting slitting other people’s throats. Shocker. Silence. Fcking hypocritical champagne socialists, always.

Well what a lot of supercilious bilge 🤢

I've no idea. I'd be interested if anyone has actual proof. TBF it's not been mentioned in the few bits I've read about the verdict and seeing as that was given as RJs main reason for his outburst I'd have thought there would be more explanation of how and when these photos came into Jones' possession.

Are you certain there's no evidence they exist? Do you think the jury took his word for it?

Well something caused the jury to decide that the bar for conviction had not been met.

Personally I am not a massive fan of defences around provocation. No matter how grievous and offensive a person chooses to find expressed ideas, they don't get to go around lamping people.

I am sure a lot of people reading this thread will have heard of the whine "Look what you made me do" if they haven't actually heard it themselves.

I wasn't in the court but I would think the prosecution would have challenged that if there was no evidence. If there was no evidence and it wasn't challenged that is on the CPS now the jury/the police/the judge.

The reality is some lawyers are better than others, some are possibly at the top of their game and some might be having an off day. You can't really legislate for that.

I could show a photo of a leaflet with a razor blade stuck onto it if I wanted to and do could you. It strikes me as odd that was the reason he gave for his outburst and , yet, there's no actual proof that these leaflets existed or were sent by the NF.

People who attended the court hearing will know

Imagine not know. People won’t know but repeat the below.

It was said in court that Jones had been sent images of National Front stickers on trains which had razor blades concealed inside them. I imagine the images were shown in court.

I saw the woman to his left clapping like a demented sealion and laughing. She had the grace to look a bit shocked when he came out with his diatribe but later on, both her and the woman behind both denied they heard him say what he said. Have these 'fascists ' who supposedly put razor blades in leaflets been found? Has Jones got proof it happened? This piece of information , which supposedly made him say what he said has never been verified. Is there only his word for it?

The irony !

She then appealed but was refused as 3 law lords said she had no grounds too, she had been treated fairly.. under the law, now you can argue that law is wrong but not that she was treated unfairly.

Some people think that because everyone appeals everything in US dramas (and I've read US attorneys grumbling about how that misinforms most of the US public) then everyone can shout "appeal !" even as the (never used) gavel is reverberating away.

The boring reality is that an appeal is only heard if there is point of law in question, or evidence can be presented to show that the sentence of the court may have been incorrect (either too harsh, or in some cases since they changed the law, too lenient).

You don't get to appeal the verdict. As the aforementioned Andrew Malkinson knows, courts are loath to overturn a jury verdict.

Just for the hard of thinking, the only person who convicted LC was LC herself. Once she entered a guilty plea (that we know she was fully informed about the implications and consequences thereof) then it was a relatively simple matter of the judge getting all the relevant facts in order to determine sentencing.

Appeals are not automatic. Not can they overturn the sentence.

No, I'm not. Read a bit more carefully.

Your reading comprehension really isn't very good.

Nope, yet again..... i ve defended her right to be a racist but she pleaded guilty to incitement and was sentenced in accordance to guidelines set out under a Tory Government.

She then appealed but was refused as 3 law lords said she had no grounds too, she had been treated fairly.. under the law, now you can argue that law is wrong but not that she was treated unfairly.

Unless you think there is some high level conspiracy going on here, i really do fail to see your argument.

@strawberrybubblegumsays clearly it’s not illegal to hold it in this post.

There is a world (if not a universe) between holding a political view, and expressing it in a manner contrary to law.

And clearly

the UK should deport any asylum seeker not yet granted asylum

is not "illegal" as you have just spouted it without a knock at your door. Or even fear of a knock at your door. Or even the possibility of the fear of a knock at your door.

So what else do you want to be wrong about now ?

I haven't said that holding an opinion is illegal.

It's your opinion

They are also defending US deportations without trial to El Salvador

Do you consider the political opinion that the UK should deport any asylum seeker not yet granted adylum an illegal opinion to hold?

What other political beliefs do you think should be illegal?

Gosh, you're making unfounded assumptions, I'm shocked.

You're defending someone who pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred. Ergo, you're defending a racist.

There are plenty of people who can claim they're being treated unfairly by the judicial system but you choose a convicted racist who pleaded guilty. And burning people alive is not a political opinion.