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..

You can't have a one law fits all justice system

Point of order. You most certain can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(legislator)

It is said that Drakon himself, when asked why he had fixed the punishment of death for most offences, answered that he considered these lesser crimes to deserve it, and he had no greater punishment for more important ones

No source of information is ever unbiased.

The Spectator is the oldest still published news magazine in the world. It was on the right side of the Corn Laws, The Opium Wars, The US Civil War, ending capital punishment in the UK, and the decriminalising homosexuality in the UK.

As for more recent positions, we’ll have to wait for history to decide. But I don’t think it can be painted as an unserious, far right mouth piece without journalists integrity.

We'll have to agree to differ on that - it's been a right wing mouthpiece for some time now and has absolutely been on the wrong side of history - especially over Brexit. It can't coast on what it said and wrote in the 1960s.

However, I would consider news publications in general to be unbiased, so for an accurate depiction of this particular chambers I'd want to look beyond newspapers to specialist professional journals and the like.

The Spectator is owned by Paul Marshall, a major investor in GB news.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8l35xl1l2o

Previous editors include Boris Johnson and other Tory politicians.

Surely the whole point of the difference between the two cases is that LC was refused bail. It was the refusal of bail which led to the very bad decision to plead guilty as she was so desperate to do whatever it took to minimise her time in prison. I’ve yet to read any convincing answer as to why bail was refused.

Her very bad decision was to tweet incendiary material during a time of riot. She is old enough to remember what happened to people who did similar in 2011.

I have zero sympathy for her and I would feel the same about Jones if he had been convicted.

Absolutely agree.
The words “for all I care” are key in my opinion. The phrase is not actively inciting violence, but implies that she won’t care if something violent happens. That’s a key distinction. It’s also the sort of thing people say in the heat of the moment … eg “he can drop dead for all I care”. Is that person truly hoping X will die? Probably not. Is he actively hoping someone will kill X. Absolutely not.

It’s also key in whether it invites violence in others. This is a question of fact and I wonder whether it was considered. She took the tweet down so clearly regretted her actions.

Obviously I don’t agree with her sentiments, but I don’t feel she got justice at all. In fact particularly bearing in mind she had a child, her 31 month custodial sentence is a travesty and purely to set an example

She entered a guilty plea and was sentenced in line with the guidelines. What do you think should have happened?

Of course it isn't ideal for parents to have to serve custodial sentences when they have young children. But surely that is a reason for parents to avoid committing crimes that are likely to carry custodial sentences in the first place, rather than an argument for the legal system to treat them differently?

Obviously I don’t agree with her sentiments, but I don’t feel she got justice at all. In fact particularly bearing in mind she had a child, her 31 month custodial sentence is a travesty and purely to set an example

She pleaded guilty and was sentenced in line with sentencing guidelines.

She took the tweet down so clearly regretted her actions

No. She took down the tweet because her family, who had more sense, persuaded her to. She said after wards to a friend "The raging tweet about burning down hotels has bit me in the arse. lol."

Edited to quote her exact words.

No idea why you're focusing on bail, she pleaded guilty because she did it. If she had gone to trial, she would have got 42 months but because she pleaded guilty, it was reduced to 31 months.

During her appeal, the judges said that she had willingly pleaded guilty and
was well aware of what she was admitting. In fact she had to say in court that she understood the charge.

You've got to be seriously lacking in brain cells if you don't know the difference between pleading guilty to a crime and being sentenced in line with current sentencing guidelines, and pleading not guilty therefore opting to go for a jury trial and taking your chances.

Considered more serious goes against the ‘anyone, but anyone’ rhetoric of Starmer’s statement.

It does exist but not they way people think.

There is anecdote and there is data and the data is quote clear where the imbalance occurs.

Do you have a source for the Spectator being on the “right side” for those issues of the day you mention?

No, it's considered more serious under the law. She was charged with a more serious crime.

The answer I can recall from schooldays is

You should have thought of that before you acted

I believe there is a very subtle push with the LC case to use her sex as a mitigation for her actions. Which pretty much conforms to the Reform position that a womans place is in the home and cooking and cleaning and bringing up lots of (white) children, whilst the menfolk do the serious business of politics.

Continually pushing the "mother of children" angle as a mitigation if not excuse pretty much confirms that.

Sure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spectator

(I am assuming you would agree repealing the Corn Laws, supporting the Union against the Conference, and ending capital punishment and laws against homosexuality are “the right sude.”)

Thanks. Although reading that the shift in the spectators political stances from liberal-radical, to non-partisan, to pro-conservative / Tory becomes clear.

It's current editor is Gove.

I think there is a difference between real journalism, where the bias is in the agenda and the interpretation of facts, and rags that just make up and knowingly misrepresent facts.

I find it tiresome when people roll their eyes about the Guardian or the Telegraph for example. Yes they have known points of view, but they are both respectable papers. Focus onnthe facts and take the conclusions with a grain of salt.

I get my tv news from the bbc and my radio news from radio 4 and they say very little.

The appearance of two tier justice is becoming an issue for this government, and I think they need to tackle it head on.

The appearance of two tier justice is becoming an issue for this government, and I think they need to tackle it head on.

What does two tier justice mean and can you give some proper examples?

The problem they have is threads like this. People clearly don’t understand the technicalities of the law but have examples that seem inconsistent and unfair.

Following this thread, it doesn’t appear that anyone’s mind has been changed. The BBC has not walked us through it and different mainstream news sources are insinuating. It might be annoying and unfair, but the government of the day needs to tackle it, or wear it.

If 'two tier justice' doesn't exist, how are the government meant to tackle it?

I used to think the Torygraph but have seen stories posted where they have deliberately distorted or misrepresented facts to encourage xenophobia / racism against ethnic minorites.

Two specific recent examples were:

1. The story about foreigners cause a disproportionate number of crimes where they deliberately used 2004 data instead of the more recent 2021 census. When using the latter the disproportion vanishes.

2. Similar the headlines about changes to sentencing guidelines taking ethnicity into account. That was one of many things mentioned but that is what the Spectator chose to
   highlight.

How do you tackle something when it’s a case of people placing their feelings above data?