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..

Only if it is a top secret self help group.

Have not RTFT but this explains well why there is not two tier justice and the available ins and outs of the case
thesecretbarrister.com/2025/08/16/why-did-the-jury-acquit-ricky-jones/

Anyway, I don't think there's much mileage in comparing Connolly with Jones, for what it's worth. Jones' actions are out there in the public domain. Found not guilty, he might have been but I still think he's a bad egg. Not the brightest, either to have carried out that gesture when proceedings are being recorded.

For once, I agree with you. He is a nasty piece of work. As is Connolly.

I just don't think that the fact of him clearly being a deeply unpleasant individual is evidence in itself of so-called two-tier justice.

You have internet access and can scroll back presumably. I will summarise very briefly - one woman gets 2 and a half years in prison for a deleted tweet of apathy to migrant hotels burning. One man ( a labour councillor) gets nothing for threatening in person to "slit their throats" to a crowd accompanied by gestures. Regardless of who pleads what and "a jury" etc, no sane society would jail the former and not the latter which is a clearly more serious crime. The job of a court is to administer justice proportional to the crime above and beyond everything else.

You are wasting your time. All was explained in a soothing northern accent by the barrister (whose channel occasionally pops up in my feed). All the nitty gritty on the different paths through the justice system. and how they are applied given the individual circumstances of the case.

It's telling that despite all the low energy outrage, there hasn't been any suggestion from any professional legal quarter that these cases are in anyway remarkable in terms of (a) offence charged, and (b) sentence applied (in the case of LC).

RJ was acquitted. That means at least 10 people (and in this case all 12) found him not quilty. There was very little (if any) debate or argument in the jury room. A seasoned court official might comment that it couldn't have been any quicker as they had to finish their tea and biccies before returning to court.

Good faith? thats been sadly lacking on the "Free Lucy" side.

Not only has it been pointed out many times that LC's sentencing was within guidelines, actually on the lenient side.....max sentence 7 years... she also was denied appeal... by 3 independent Judges, who did articulate their reasons for refusal.
Clearly nothing wrong with her sentence.

RJ was found Not Guilty.... in a fair and free trial..... why are you still arguing these points???

No one has articulated why any of this is "representative of a two tier justice"

Many seem to think its because he was a Labour councillor and she is married to a Tory.....

There is nothing articulate about that, its Conspiracy 101.

We very clearly have two tier justice. Locking connelly up for a year.....shocking and we should heed it well.

If the guidelines are years in prison for a deleted tweet and letting off a labour councillor for death threats in person, they need to change

Agree, should have been 7 years, the max sentence.

Who knew there were "Guidelines" for a jury to find someone innocent?

For Connolly, who pleaded guilty, guidelines followed to the letter

Write to your MP?

He's off my Christmas card list, for sure.

I know it's bad form to being in serious points into a thread like this, but the RJ case does highlight the relatively recent dangers of social media "remembering" everything (whether correct or not) untill the batteries run out.

Someone acquitted - like RJ - will never escape this furore. And despite being protected by the RoOA, it only takes someone to google and decide the jury was wrong and there would be little comeback.

Ah, OK. You're going down the "regardless of who pleads what and what happens at the trial line".

I haven't yet seen anyone manage to present that as a coherent argument but I'm happy to explore it.

It sounds like, in your ideal world, there would be no pleas and no trials etc. So if someone is accused of a crime, we would automatically assume that they are guilty without the bother of a trial, and the court's role would simply be to administer justice through the sentencing process?

So how would things work under that system exactly? Would it only be the police who could decide that someone was guilty of a crime? Could a private citizen inform the court that someone was guilty of something? How about people deciding on social media? How would you stop malicious reports?

Would you not be concerned that dispensing with pleas and trials etc could lead to a massive increase in miscarriages of justice. Would people be able to appeal against their convictions, and if so, how would that work...x-factor style telephone votes? Social media likes? Do tell.

Who knew there were "Guidelines" for a jury to find someone innocent?

Someone with lots of words and no knowledge ?

No one said there would be no trials but the evidence was as clear as day, a video of Jones and screenshots of Connolly.

There's no point discussing anything, much of the last few pages have been deleted by "MNHQ" - just an echo chamber of utter nonsense with horrific moderation and general gibberish. You and others report posts because you can't win any debate so like a small child covering your eyes , scream to moderators to help even when no rules have been broken other than arguing against utter rubbish. Enjoy the echo chamber in this silly place - makes no odds to me. It reminds me during covid where people were closed down for being " anti vaxxers" going against the grain and now when the herd moves " It was all hysteria". T'ra I won't bother posting when it gets .." reported"

You think it is shocking that someone should go to jail for inciting racial hatred?

I think her case is shocking, yes.

OK, so we're having trials but the outcomes will be determined before they start?

I get that you don't like pleas or juries. Presumably you're aware that a judge might also deem someone to be not guilty as well, so I presume that's out.

So what happens at the trials in your model, exactly? Are we operating on the presumption that everyone is guilty of whatever they have been accused of? Or will there be some mechanism for deciding who is guilty and who isn't? If the latter, how should that work in your view?

I'd be really grateful if you could answer the question and not just derail with complaints about echo chambers and posts getting reported. Thanks.

So are you saying that she didn't incite racial hatred? (Even though she pleaded guilty to doing so?)

Or that you think inciting racial hatred is not that serious and shouldn't result in a custodial sentence?

Welcome, thank you, and I'm sorry but the very vocal Two Tier Brigade don't want to know.

Absolutely agree. It's comparing apples and bicycles. FWIW it's worth, I was surprised, and not in a good way, that Jones was found not guilty.

At the risk of annoying you, I must point out that you are blatantly misrepresenting what happened to Jennifer Connolly. This thread contains the sentencing communiques from the Crown Prosecution Service, which make this very clear.

1. The fact that her tweet was deleted is irrelevant. It was viewed over 300,000 times and retweeted over 500 times.

2. That tweet was only one of a two month history of posting racist material. This is the sort of thing that absolutely is allowed to be taken into account when deciding sentence - it's called 'having form'. In a jury trial, the decision of whether someone is guilty or not does not take past form into account - but once a guilty verdict is reached, past form is absolutely taken into account. This is written into sentencing guidelines. When there is a guilty plea and therefore no trial, sentencing guidelines are applied in the same way, and form is taken into account.

Please stop misrepresenting the case (this is me being really, really, really charitable towards you).

I dunno. He had a chance to explain himself. Also, regardless of how I might find what he said offensive or outrageous or even inflammatory, I am not a massive fan of using the law to police what people say.

LC did not choose to explain herself. That's on her. Maybe - had I sat in a jury assessing her case - I too may have concluded that distressing and offensive and clearly inflammatory her words, they were not enough to warrant a guilty verdict.

As I have mentioned I would much rather be guided by my conscience before the law. And indeed I would hope if I were before a jury they took the same view.

At the risk of annoying you, I must point out that you are blatantly misrepresenting what happened to Jennifer Connolly.

Point of order. It's Lucy Connolly. Some people on this thread may be easily confused.

Surely the point is that Ricky Jones was granted bail and Lucy Connolly was not (before she had entered a plea). If she had been bail she would have been very unlikely to have pleaded guilty.