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..

Because his intention wasn't to encourage violence and no violence was carried out on the back of what he said. The jury agreed that he did not intend to encourage violence and found him not guilty.

I have answered the question?

I said during a period of heightened tensions, they both incited violence.

Both in ways which could be (and were) widely circulated.
(Her through tweeting, him through being on camera)

Both caused wide public discourse.

A councillor/a councillors wife.

I said on the face of it, they were similar cases, and I maintain that

Again, if people want to insist they see no similarities then that’s them.

I’ll speak to people who don’t agree with my points, but not those who can’t/wont understand the point I’m making.
It's tedious

What people on this thread are complaining about is essentially that they don't like the current justice system.

And in a very Reform/UKIP way of refusing to suggest how they would improve it. Which is their "tell" as a poker player would say.

There are plenty of criticisms to be made of our justice system, starting with chronic underfunding. However none of the shoutiest posters here seems to be able to come up with their measured and reasoned suggestions for improvements.

A cynical reader might conclude that far from being interesting in a working justice system, they are in fact just agitating over a few cases that someone told them about in the pub. And if that isn't the case, then the floor is open for them to challenge that conclusion.

The output of feeding this thread into ChatGPT is not

"gosh,. I can see some people are clearly upset and angry about differing outcomes in criminal cases in the UK in the past year. Would you like me to find cites for ways to express your outrage too ?"

it is rather:

"I can see you have pasted a debate about the UK criminal justice system that contains several factual errors. Would you like me to highlight them for you ?"

I said during a period of heightened tensions, they both incited violence.
Except that Lucy Connolly had been posting racist crap for months before the Southport riots - and that will definitely have been brought up in court and will (rightly) have counted against her. It shows she had form.

Both in ways which could be (and were) widely circulated.
(Her through tweeting, him through being on camera)
A fair point on the face of it - however, you are ignoring the fact that the clip everyone is discussing here was part of a longer speech, which provided context. Being outraged about racists putting razorblades in stickers (which might have been peeled away and hurt children) will have counted in mitigation.

Both caused wide public discourse.
True

A councillor/a councillors wife.
I actually think the fact that Ricky Jones was a councillor should have weighed against him. She was a childminder - nothing special. Whose wife she is matters less. So I see that one as largely irrelevant.

However, the similarities you point out are dwarfed by the differences in the paths through the legal system that they chose to take. Jones took a punt on jury trial and won. Connolly could have had that option and declined it - and signed a statement to the effect that she knew what she was doing. Which makes her fate a clear cut case of FAFO.

And while I think a guilty verdict would have been appropriate in Jones' case, I have absolutely zero sympathy for Connolly, on account of her posting racist shite online, which makes her a racist POS.

.

Are you a shoutier poster too?

I think @SerendipityJane is actually very measured.

Also for the Two Tier brigade: That notorious leftie Jacob Rees Mogg disagrees with you. https://x.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1956379270445752482

And I do for those likely included in that description.

Yes but it’s not a “jury of your peers” if it’s not a representative cross section of society.

I didn't say that you didn't understand the differences. On the contrary, I think you do understand them and you know exactly what you're doing. What I said was that you were choosing not to engage with them, because it doesn't suit your narrative to do so.

It's like your glass ball analogy. You know that one ball shattered because it was glass, and that the other one bounced because it was rubber, but you're eager to divert the focus away from that simple difference because it doesn't fit with the argument that you're trying to put forward.

And yes, of course I understand why people are angry. Some people are very angry the realisation that they could be sent to prison for inciting racist violence online - they feel that they should be free to spout whatever racist shit they like, regardless of the consequences. And some people are angry about their perceptions of "two tier justice" because they're either too stupid or too lazy to engage with the detail of these two cases.

People do type loads of violent stuff online, they still are. People type stuff in the heat of the moment and regret it later.

As the pp said of Ricky Jones he let himself down. Get an outcome that reflects that.

I have never been so insulted in my life !

(leaves in a minute and a huff)

I cannot see how those words and that gesture don't count as incitement.

the law truly is an ass if this isn't counted as incitement.

Intention, as explained above. Alongside context and outcome.

Maybe start using capital letters and exclamation marks? And put in a few emojis for good measure.

Fun fact interval.

Originally juries were chosen specifically because they knew the accused. Their job was to vouch for them against the monarchs charge.

A trawl through historical court records shows that juries in the middle ages also disliked guilty verdicts - especially in capital cases. Mysteriously it was always the deceased that started the fight, or the value of the goods (which was also decided by the jury back then) was just under the limit for hanging.

OK, that the boring bit of the thread. On with the fact free debate !

At some point, we have to take the words people say seriously

Addressing a crowd seems like the right time. I appreciate people chat a lot of shit but not in front of a crowd of people. And there was no mistaking that throat gesture.

I cannot for the life of me see how he got away with this. Clearly, we need to look very carefully at the laws on incitement.

And trepass while we're at it. I'm absolutely disgusted with the whole country at the moment.

You have to allow for common sense and not take everything literally.

Just some things?

Pointythings, this is excellent.

Sadly the two-tier justice crowd will keep shouting two-tier justice how ever well you explain that it absolutely isn't.

And there was no mistaking that throat gesture.

Maybe some people saw a Roman salute ?

Throwing out his love?💕

Which leaves us with two options: either they are unable to understand and need a heavy duty intense civics class, or they are unwilling to understand because they have an agenda.

Wilful ignorance is a thing.