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..

Indeed

He was found not guilty by a jury.
That nasty racist gobshite Connolly pled guilty if she hadn't or had better advice maybe she would have too.

And I would also agree that the comparison with LC is a stupid one to make. The comparison should be with what would happen should someone with perhaps right leaning views make similar comments and then plead not guilty.

What other explanation is there.

Shit prosecution ? A juror who was awake ?

The only time I can recall jury nullification being accepted as a thing was Clive Ponting. And there I think the jury were spot on.

I doubt any of the jurors was aware they have the power of jury nullification. It's not ever explained in court and 99% of people (if we take MN as a cross section) think "The law is the law" with a rather worrying lack of critical thinking going on.

Maybe we should report ourselves ?

Whatever you think, 12 people heard all the evidence available.

For some reason they felt that the case was not proven to their certainty.

I know, but I had read a long article a while back - sorry, I can't remember the source - which said that she was poorly advised and because she plead guilty (which she did because she was advised it was unlikely she would get a custodial sentence given she had a clean record) and there was very little time between arrest and arraignment which meant she was sentenced quickly and was therefore treated more harshly because of the febrile atmosphere....

I do think that what she said was awful and one could argue that it was inciting hatred - but how is what Ricky Jones said, not equally vile? Albeit I accept that a jury has decided otherwise.....!

"nasty racist gobshite Connolly" versus a man who was caught on camera imitating death actions aimed at opponents? He stood up in front of a crowd saying 'We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' whilst making a throat slitting motion.

Why are you spamming threads with images produced by an anonymous far right X account?

Not a good look.

That picture is so obviously ridiculous.

I’ll rewrite it with the opposite bias (which is also ridiculous).
”Connolly called for people to be burned alive in a post viewers hundreds of thousands of times and said she’d “play the mental health card” if arrested”.

”Jones, a concerned father, said some words and was acquitted in a fair trial.”

"nasty racist gobshite Connolly"

Who admitted the crime she was convicted of.

versus a man who was caught on camera imitating death actions aimed at opponents?

But who chose to ask 12 of his fellow citizens to decide his guilt. And they chose not to. Maybe if the people who would have found him guilt weren't out attending far right rallies, the verdict may have been different ?

Maybe if she had been able to afford better lawyers 🤔

Mark Heath (who calls himself right wing but not far right) was found not guilty of inciting racial hatred during the Southport riots. He’d posted on Twitter about Muslims, taking “our country” back, and civil war, pled not guilty, jury acquitted.

You don’t hear about him as he doesn’t fit this two tier narrative.

Another thing to consider is that our justice system - and the use of juries - is prone to inconsistencies. Leaving to one side that the details and facts of the two cases are probably different, there is no obligation on the jury to follow strict precedent. The alternative (and in my view better solution) is to appoint some kind of qualified judges, or a combination. Juries are to an extent luck of the draw and who you get on the day.

Very much so.

But he is part of that group of Tory politicians who really don’t seem to think before they speak - or else they seem to think authoritarianism is fine!

And ?

Then she would have got a similar level of legal advice that Ricky did.

If you want to abolish jury trials that’s another conversation as many countries in Europe don’t have them. There’s currently a recommendation to abolish them for complex fraud cases, for example.

But most people who suggest they should be abolished as a whole tend to think differently when they are the person facing a trial -
then the idea of a “jury of their peers” seems much more attractive.

The only inconsistent element here is that juries tend to vary in terms of the % of cases that result in acquittals according to geographical area. I’ve noticed that Mr Jones stood trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court, which is the most notoriously acquitting court in the country.

How on earth the jury could have watched the video and found him not guilty beggars belief.

His supporters are cheering and laughing whilst he makes the throat gesture which is sickening.

Someone smarter than some posters here (myself included) once said

“Each jury is a little parliament. The jury sense is the parliamentary sense. I cannot see the one dying and the other surviving. The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives. To, many of us the boundaries between Whitehall and Westminster are uncertain and confused. We are anxious that government should be strong and yet fearful lest the gathering momentum of executive power crush all else in our State. We look for some landmark that we may say that so long as it stands, we are safe; and if it is threatened, we must resist. It is there, this beacon that seven centuries have tended.”

I wonder who among us understands that ?

So ?

Yes, I am aware (and actually disagree that it's the right way to execute justice, but that's probably another thread). But people are complaining about inconsistency in the two verdicts and that is what you will (or might) get with juries.

The context is key here - the full clip of his speech showed that the bit everyone is up in arms about followed him mentioning that NF members had left stickers with razor blades on trains and so his comments were aimed at them, rather than more generally at right-wing numbskulls.

Which is how and why the jury presumably came to their decision.

How on earth the jury could have watched the video and found him not guilty beggars belief.

Maybe they have a conscience ?

If I were to serve on a jury, I wouldn't be the nodding dog some people here think they should be. I would assess the evidence and the case put forward by the prosecution and then - using the power of mind - see if I felt there was enough certainty to convict.

However there may be a case where no matter what "the law" says, I would acquit. For example if the accused were facing the death penalty. I'd be locked up myself before I had that on my conscience.

Daniel Jupp -

If you are the wife of a Conservative councillor in the UK and post online rhetorically that you don’t care if something bad happens to asylum hotels, you go to prison for 31 months for encouraging violence after a rushed trial where you have been processed as rapidly as possible.

If you are a serving Labour councillor who literally tells people in person to slit the throats of protestors you disagree with, you are not guilty and after your case has been delayed until everyone hopefully forgets about it, you are free to go.

Two tier policing, two tier sentencing, two tier sick, depraved injustice.

My country is a shithole. A tyrannical, failed, joke of a nation that pisses all over the freedom of its own, and would be considered a horrifying vision of Hell by any of the better generations that built it.

The contrast of the Lucy Connolly and Ricky Jones cases could not make it any clearer. Our judges and police enforce a leftist tyranny where those aligned with or championed by Labour can call for murder, while those who oppose leftwing policies online have no freedom of speech at all even if their language is clearly non literal.

Connolly said ‘I do not care if…’.

Jones said ‘slit their throats’.

But Connolly rots in prison and Jones walks free.

Jones was filmed telling people to murder other people. A flat out, unambiguous instruction to kill.

No sane person could look at the contrast of these statements and these judgements without realising there is no justice in the UK and without realising that the basic principle of equal justice before the law is completely dead here.

Really? I would much rather have a qualified person who understands the operation of the law than dailymail reading Gary deciding my fate. But maybe that's just me. I remember once observing a very complex fraud case, including the jury instruction. It did make me wonder how many lay people really understood it, not even sure all lawyers would. As you say though, another thread.