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..

Well, that clearly explains why she was denied bail then.

Nothing to do with her plea - she would have been held even if she pleaded not guilty.

I’m certainly not defending her, but his actions were just as bad, and he should have been remanded in the same way then imo.

The Secret Barrister's thoughts

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2025/08/16/why-did-the-jury-acquit-ricky-jones/

Wasn't specifically talking about you though was I? I said Labour supporters ie previous interactions as in "it's a technique they use to deflect"

Time and again defence solicitors applied for bail. He cares for his partner who has cancer, said one. He is effectively carer to his parents, said another. He has no previous convictions, said others. Each time the submissions were quickly rejected by a district judge.

As a carer myself, I don't really understand why @clavinova used this as some sort of gotcha.

As a carer, one of the things that is almost always uppermost in my mind is what would happen if I was taken ill etc.

Clearly this idiot didn't think beyond going out and rioting about Muslim people. I don't see why he should be treated any differently.

I wonder what happened to him in the end?

In which case why even mention “Labour supporters”? You quite clearly implied it.

All I said was that Labour supporters have form for whataboutery. Take it whatever way you want.

How was the advice given to her poor? She was bang to rights. Pleading not guilty would have ended up in her getting a more severe sentence.

Having money doesn't necessarily get you the best lawyers. There are some absolutely superb lawyers working in the legal aid system, because they feel a moral duty to do their best for vulnerable people.

Is there a copy of that article that isn't behind a paywall?

It should also be noted that the Spectator is not an unbiased source of information.

How would you suggest public sentiment should be made to count? Should we have told Ricky Jones that he wouldn't be allowed to plead not guilty? How are the courts supposed to weigh public sentiment? They can hardly take a referendum for every case.

A majority who want people burnt alive along with the government? Bless her.

What is the issue with Starmer saying "individuals will be held on remand"? It is pretty inevitable that, where a lot of people have been involved in violence, some of them will be remanded in custody. He was right to point out the consequences of involvement.

As for the bail applications, the standard response is always that you don't get bail purely because of caring obligations. The point is that you take that into account before choosing to go out and get involved in a potentially criminal activity.

I can't read the article either. I assume it has to do with this

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/chambers-distances-itself-from-barrister-over-aggressive-tweets

I hope he’s disbarred. That’s absolutely disgraceful.

Agree, but it is a seperate issue to this thread.

Ricky Jones should also have been held on remand.

Can’t see how advocating for peoples throats to be cut doesn’t contribute to the disorder.

I get people don’t care because the people he wanted killed were bad people but the law should still be applied equally.

Jones was remanded in custody. The law was applied equally. She pleaded guilty, he pleaded not guilty.

“Lucy Connolly encouraged rioters to set fire to a building with people in it!”
”So what? Starmer claimed some glasses on expenses!”
It’s not even GOOD whataboutery…

but the law should still be applied equally.

To different offences ? How does that work ?

Sorry about that, you can find the article here:

https://archive.ph/EcNcL

I do still believe that a 2 tier justice system does not exist.
One pled guilty, one went to trial and was found not guilty.
Plus what each one said was different, one was saying that people should GO and burn a mosque (or hotel?) down with people in it and the other said certain people DESERVED something.
Not the same thing

You can't have a one law fits all justice system. Connolly's crimes were considered more serious because of the racial element and culpability. This has been explained to you in detail with the sentencing guidelines yet you're still repeating the same thing.

I’ve not read the full thread because this whole debate has brought out some of the most hard of thinking illogical fuckwittery I’ve seen in a long while but the one point I would make having spent years working in the criminal justice system is that the jury will have been selected at random and will have done their best to reach a verdict based on the evidence before them according to their oath. To drag them into a left v right slanging match which suggests they are somehow morally reprehensible or pawns of the Labour government is offensive in the extreme.

Very few people actually enjoy the reality of jury service and often their decision weighs heavily. To see then the shadow Home Sec, the former Home Sec and any other number of armchair idiots spouting about ‘justice’ with almost no understanding of the actual legal process nor the difference between having a trial and a guilty plea is infuriating. It’s to further a bullshit political agenda and every single conservative politician who uses this to spout ‘two tier justice’ has no place in public life. It’s divisive and fires the sort of extremism they spend a lot of time complaining about.

Well said.