Still think Two Tier justice does not exist?

[rubicustellitall]

Ricky Jones found not guilty..my flabber has never been so ghasted!
Anyone have any views..

I think it's more a case of certain people being given really bad advice last year rather than two tier justice. Many of those still in prison today would probably have been acquitted by a jury if only they'd held their nerve. In my opinion, irrespective of the verdict in this case, this man doesn't deserve to go to prison - he's just an idiot by his own admission.

It doesn't. Ricky Jones pleaded not guilty so went before a jury. They found him not guilty.

Do you think Lucy Conolly is an idiot who doesn't deserve to be in prison too?

Absolutely.

He was investigated, charged and prosecuted.

Do you want kier to command the jury to make a particular decision?

I think that it does look bad. Lucy Connolly was rushed through the judicial system and convicted within a few weeks due to being given poor advice and has been treated FAR more harshly than other prisoners in for more serious crimes. Ricky Jones, for whatever reason, was granted a year to prepare a proper legal defence.

Lucy Connolly did break the law - her tweet was vile - but I was fairly horrified by what Ricky Jones said, and was more aware of it at the time than the tweet (which was deleted).

The fact she was remanded for months before entering her plea, and he wasn’t, shows they were not treated equitably from the beginning.

Blaming legal advice is tempting, but the two teir treatment was in place before it even got to that point, imo

Of course she doesn't.

I guess I saw the rally and heard his words, I was sure in my own mind he had to be guilty of some sort of incitement. It seemed so clear cut. However should I ever be in trouble I would love his legal team,they have played a blinder for their client!

In what way was she rushed through?

A quick Google seems to have the timeline as follows, so apologies if I have incorrect dates;

Lucy Connolly:
Offence date: 29th of July
Charged: 9th of August
Arraigned: 2nd of September

Ricky Jones:
Offence date: 7th of August
Charged: 9th of August
Arraignment date: 6th of September

Not a lot of discrepancy there to say one is rushed and one was afforded time.

If she'd pleaded not guilty too she would have gone in to trial list and probably taken the guts of a year to get there given the backlog.

If you make admissions and plead guilty your going to be dealt with a lot sooner.

Not a comment on these cases, but in general yes, there is absolutely two tier justice, but just not in Farage's way. Rather in terms of money. If you have money for good lawyers your chances are so vastly improved that it means those with money will always fare better in our justice system than those without. I am a lawyer and it's one of the reasons I totally moved away from anything litigious or involving individuals. ~It's too depressing to see.

He knew exactly what his action represented.

Exactly. I really don't think I can be bothered to engage with yet another inflammatory thread title.

She pleaded guilty and was sentenced according to the guidelines.

He was acquitted by a jury. Would you actually want the government to be able to step in and control the verdict of a jury?

I think Cleverly is going down a dangerous road if he thinks it's OK to describe jury verdicts as unacceptable.

She wasn’t convicted - she pleaded guilty. She could have changed her plea at any point.

To be fair it's not all of them - only the ones he doesn't like. Like the OP.

That looks suspiciously like a fact. Are you sure this is the thread for you ?

Jury nullification is incredibly dangerous. It is not the faintly amusing thing many think it is, especially when it suits their political leanings.

Do you want a jury to be able to convict someone very clearly innocent just because they don't especially like them? Because that is the reverse of what has happened.

Telling an angry crowd that a certain group of people should be killed in a brutal way is quite clearly illegal. There can be no justification for an innocent verdict. The only explanation is that sufficient people on the jury shared the accused's views.

If I were to stand in front of an angry crowd making the same suggestion about, for example, people holding socialist worker placards there is absolutely no way that even the best defence team in history would get me off.

Two tier. Not because our illustrious prime minister and government are involved on this occasion, but because the legal system allows perverse verdicts.

Has there been any suggestion this is jury nullification ?

What other explanation is there. How is suggesting to an angry crowd that certain types of people should be killed anything other than incitement to violence?

EDIT: Which the accused in effect admitted to, just tried to wriggle by saying that he only meant the people he personally regards as subhuman scum (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with him, but that doesn't mean he can say what he did)

It’s an awful verdict and playing the ‘nd’ angle is disgraceful. Apparently he doesn’t always know what he is saying. He was also told not to attend the rally (but did!)

I agree.

And the absolute idiot shadow Home Secretary saying “It is astonishing that this Labour councillor, who was caught on video calling for throats to be slit, is let off scot-free, whereas Lucy Connolly got 31 months prison for posting something no worse.”

It’s actually not astonishing in any way that someone who pled guilty is treated differently to someone who was found not guilty by a jury.

He can certainly make an argument that Connolly’s sentence is too long. Sentence length is something people often debate. But Jones hasn’t been “let off”, he’s been found not guilty by a jury.