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 don't know why people feel so confident she wouldn't have been found guilty if she'd gone to trial.

Jones and Connolly were charged with different offenses. "That wasn't my intent" was a defence to the one Jones was charged with, but not the one Connolly was.

And which left wing nut job was in office when unintentional "stirring up of racial hatred" became an offense?

Two-Tier Thatcher.

Farage is not dumb enough to do that. He encourages mugs to do that sort of thing on his behalf and pay the price for doing so.

For my part, I just don't think a custodial sentence was appropriate.

This does NOT equate to empathising with the criminal or what they did.

It's more a philosophical question as to whether justice has been served.
I personally don't think the judge adhered to the custodial sentencing guidelines; if anything, given that she had a dependent, it should have been suspended

I disagree - the sentencing was entirely appropriate.

I do think that there is a better argument that the offense itself (and the range of available sentences) should be re-examined in the age of social media, but I'm not sold on that either.

The idea that anyone over 18 with no criminal record can decide if an individual spends years behind bars is absurd

It probably would be, if that is what actually happens. Dr Wolf should be happy to learn that the jury has no say on sentencing decisions.

To be precise, what she said was "Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care" in a tweet that was viewed over 300,000 ties, and sentencing information included the undoubted fact that this was simply the continuation of a succession of highly racist messages which had not been deleted, including one suggesting that refugees were inevitably thugs and rapists. She was undoubtedly bang to rights and was sentenced in accordance with established sentencing guidelines.

Jones wasn't charged with incitement.

Its harsh but so is trying to murder people, which is what she wanted...

There is also the deterrent factor here, in future riots, people will be less likely to tweet racist and hate filled posts, possibly limiting the riots....

The max sentence was 7 years, she received 2.5years, to serve 40%, she was not a single parent, the father can take care of his child.

She should have thought about that before writing these tweets, which were made over many months.

Where is the deterrent in the case of RJ? Surely the message here is that going out in public and shouting about slitting people’s throats is not that bad - after all a jury of 12 found the man innocent in half an hour.

He was found Not Guilty..... there isn't anything more to say, its the system we have, Beyond Reasonable Doubt..... obviously there was some doubt...

This discussion feels spent. One group is arguing that all processes were followed correctly. Another group is arguing that the whole system and all is processes are flawed because of the incongruous outcomes in the two cases. Ypu are talking padt one another.

What is really interesting here, from my point of view, is the very real need to stop violent, spreading civil disorder which could overwhelm the police vs. the importance of free speech, especially political speech. There is clearly a situation in this country where a certain group of people feel they are not allowed to have or discuss their political opinions. I can also understand a government being afraid of those discussions getting out of hand.

Oh come on. People have been found not guilty of murder before now. That doesn't mean people think that sends the message it is OK to go out and commit murder. Unless they are really stupid.

Yes I agree. They are on a back foot though as they simply do not have the resources of a huge team, and a powerful firm behind them. Plus they work extremely hard and are not paid very well. That's not sustainable for everyone.

And legal aid isn't available to everyone either. I'm a commercial lawyer, so a bit aside from the topic of our discussion, but I can't tell you how many times I've seen the wronged party simply doesn't have the funds to risk litigation to enforce their rights. Especially if the other party has a huge litigation fund.

What is really interesting here, from my point of view, is the very real need to stop violent, spreading civil disorder which could overwhelm the police vs. the importance of free speech, especially political speech.

All human rights are qualified. Including (and especially) the right to expression. This is because it is recognised that words can be powerful (I mean why do we waste time teaching children to read and write otherwise).

All of this discussion would be redundant it everyone agreed at the start that we all have the freedom to say what we like. And with that freedom comes a responsibility - whether we like or or not - to use them wisely. And with those two precepts out of the way, then the final leg of the stool is the power of the law to address individuals (or organisations) that cross a line.

You can argue over where the line should be, and how it should be applied. But it exists.

It's interesting that people who feel LC has been harshly treated don't seem to want to accept that. Whereas people who understand why RJ was found not guilty do accept that (as far as I can see).

That't some underlying principles. It seems there are some unique factors in both these cases that are highlighted in comparison.

People are missing the point. No one is saying that Lucy Connolly was right to say she didn't care if hotels burnt down as she was walking her dog on twitter and then delete it. What the point is, is highlighting the two tier justice between that and " SLIT THEIR THROATS WHERE YOU FIND THEM, GET RID OF THEM ALL" screamed out by a Labour councillor whilst using a finger to slice his throat to a large baying crowd.

Arguing semantics on who pleaded what is daft, the evidence was clear on both cases with video footage for Jones and words on a screen for Connolly. If the so called justice system jails the former for over 2 years on twitter and the latter let off to go down the pub - yes it's flawed. Your fate in a 21st century court shouldn't depend on what you plead when the facts are clearly out in the open or semantics of other nonsensical guff with old men in grey wigs. We know the facts and we know the outcomes and it's wrong to any sane minded individual.

On what ground was Lucy Connolly jailed - how can apathy be incitement? By that logic then if in 5 years someone watches Jones on youtube and uses those words to "incite" them to commit murder he will be re arrested will he? Lucy was jailed due to be married to a tory councillor and Jones was let off due to being a Labour councillor like the thug Labour MP who battered someone last year. If it was a Reform spokesman they'd be behind bars.

Lucy was jailed due to be married to a tory councillor and Jones was let off due to being a Labour councillor like the thug Labour MP who battered someone last year. If it was a Reform spokesman they'd be behind bars

Jesus. Do people really believe this sort of hogwash? God help us all.

Labour must be very efficient at rigging juries. 🙄

You have evidence of jury rigging... by whom? lets have your proof!

Who knew being married to a tory councillor was now a criminal offence...... lol!

How can Ricky Jones be found not guilty when he literally screams " Slit their throats" compared to a tweet of someone not caring. Do you accept his mitigation that he was a troubled soul and it was all down to him being forced to run around in his underpants 40 years earlier which is what his defence claims. How does that outweigh losing a child due to NHS neglect in mitigation.

Police are more concerned with social media than real life crimes as it's low hanging fruit to tackle middle aged housewives than go out and tackles rapes, muggings and murders with an actual presence on the street. The idea that words on any social media site equal leaving your house and actually committing a crime in real life are only accepted as the norm because of lazy policing. Various religious texts have words in them inciting murder but strangely they're ignored despite crimes carried out in their name - funny that. If i argue with someone saying " drop dead for all I care" and that person tops themselves, am I likely to be charged with murder because someone mentally unstable has acted upon it?

Those piously trumpeting about the legal process… do you never disagree with a ruling? Can The Law never be questioned? Why are sentences appealed if it’s a case of “well, that’s that then” ?

I believe Garden Court Chambers (representing Mr Jones) do a very lucrative business in appeals for various pillars of society

No one has mentioned "rigging juries". Stop your strawman nonsense

No one has mentioned rigging juries - what's wrong with you people. "lol" indeed

There's no point making stuff up as the Jones video is available for all to see. He didn't 'scream' anything and there was no 'baying crowd.'

Connolly didn't write the message when she was walking her dog and she pleaded guilty to intent to incite racial hatred - seems like she did care.

We know the facts and we know the outcomes and it's wrong to any sane minded individual.

You very evidently don't know the facts. They weren't charged with the same crimes, the consequences were very different and Connolly's had a racial element. She pleaded guilty to intent, Jones pleaded not guilty to intent and the jury agreed.

Connolly was jailed because those were the sentencing guidelines to the crime she pleaded guilty to. It's got nothing to do with her husband unless you're suggesting Labour control the courts.

I stopped reading after your first paragraph. He literally screamed " Cut their throats , get rid of them all". What's wrong with you - millions have seen it. I'd put the link up but it will be probably be deleted.

Courts should jail or not jail people based on facts rather than pleas or "guidelines". A woman was jailed for a deleted tweet - a man was let off for shouting " Slit their throats " to a cheering crowd. Facts matter, not your nonsense hyberbole

Facts matter, not your nonsense hyberbole

Classic projection. He didn't 'scream' anything and there was no 'baying' crowd. You can post the video.

Courts should jail or not jail people based on facts rather than pleas or "guidelines".

The fact is: Connolly pleaded guilty to a crime and received a sentence in line with that crime.