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..

Exactly so, drs, medical staff etc have qualifications of intelligence to pass yet jurors don't? Insane stuff - not everyone is equal in having the ability to weigh up facts and evidence, sorry to burst your bubble.

The weirdest thing is that she thinks a panel of more intelligent and educated jurors would be more likely to sympathise with Lucy Connolly. I think the opposite.

Most written articles disagree with me?

What are you reading exactly? The Daily Mail?

Really, well as a Dr most of my colleagues share my view and the education level is probably above randoms on a chatsite. It isn't a class issue, there should be certain intelligence standards needed to process information as a jury member and implying otherwise is absurd. Hopefully you will never be on a jury, you have no idea what I think on anything and don't even know what gender I am. I bid you good evening. I saw this thread on X and registered to comment on here, but quickly realised it's not exactly the mensa convention on here is it.

Blossom's comment still has me laughing now. I bid you good evening 🙄

Even the poll here does

But it’s a poll of randoms 🤷‍♀️

Did you not understand the point that I made above? I'm not sure why you would make that point if you did?

You made a comment about "most written articles". Citing a MN poll completed by loads of people who aren't even interested enough to type out a short post doesn't really back up your point.

Who said jurors don't? You're the one stereotyping them. What on earth do you know about whether or not people can weigh up facts and evidence? You haven't taken in any facts at all, you've completely dismissed them and have mindlessly repeated yourself over and over again.

It isn't " stereotyping" to say 12 random people will have some intelligent people and some intrinsically stupid people as we can see on the thread. The average IQ is 100 so some will be significantly below that on the jury and you want those people to process information ( often complex in some cases) to form a view on guilt. You say "mindless".. the irony

A doctor? You have to be kidding.😂

Ah well, I guess that's the joy of the Internet, eh? Anyone can claim to be anything.

Off you pop back to Twitter, now, pet. You'll fit in well over there.

That isn't what you said is it. You seem to be under the impression that anyone who isn't a Dr or lawyer doesn't have basic common sense or intelligence. You've proved that theory wrong if you're a Dr yourself.

Well yes anyone can claim to be anything, such as people as you masquerading as an intellectual. Your posts are evident of why meritocracy tests are needed to be on a jury. The thought of you ever being on a jury is terrifying - any slower you would have a shell on your back.

I never said that and the fact you typed that illustrates what I'm talking about -just a lack of intelligence.

If attempting to insult my intelligence is the best you can do, you're fighting a losing battle. Who is masquerading as an intellectual, exactly? You're the one eager to convince us of how intelligent you are.

I can see why. I mean, the brilliance isn't exactly shining through, so maybe it's important to announce it.

What exactly are you talking about?

I think it's the grown up equivalent of "you're stupid and you can't come to my birthday party".

I have no idea.

I really think you'd do well not to disparage other people's IQ, given your own limitations.

You're bouncing from ill-thought-out argument to ill-thought-out argument, without much sign of reason.

Even over the last few pages, we've gone from "the justice system handled these cases disgustingly" to, "well, maybe its the law that's wrong" and now, for some reason, its the jury system that's the issue.

Now, of course, the jury system is completely irrelevant to Connolly, but is relevant to Jones. That said, the odds of all 12 jurors having below-average IQ would be considerably less than 1%, as would the odds of them being Labour voters/supporters. The odds of them all being Labour voters and all having low IQ would be 1-in-several-million.

The far, far more likely explanation for him being speedily found "not guilty" is that, no matter your insistence to the contrary (despite not having been present to hear the evidence), he was clearly not guilty.

Funnily enough, I'm also not persuaded by you now saying that most, unnamed "experts" agree with you, particularly given that this expert consensus does not seem to exist outside of your mind.

It's like whack a mole with new posters here.

LC- incited violence and racial hatred. Admitted racism in the post. Directed at innocent people/ people fleeing hardships. Her post did influence people to cause harm to others.
she pleaded guilty.

RJ- suggested racist idiots should be killed. He is definitely an idiot for this but you’re stupid if you think it could have the same implications as LC. Decent people are anti racist / anti fascist. They don’t generally go around trying to set hotels on fire.
He still shouldn’t have done it.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The charges were different and so were the circumstances and the pleas.

Apart from a poll on the thread you are typing on.

What does a poll on MN have to do with a consensus amongst experts?

Who are the "experts"? You're trying to argue my view is a minority when even on a notoriously pro Labour forum 2/3 rds disagree with you. Hilarious stuff.

2/3 of the 243 Mumsnetters who voted.

To put that in context: MN has an average of around 700k user posts every month and around 8m users.

Oh dear. Is that poll a consensus of experts?