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..

More than the 6 or 7 people having a meltdown on here thinking Jones' crimes are less serious than Connolly's tweet.

I think you’ll find the meltdown is all yours.

"experts" who the fck are the "experts" 😅. Would that be people in the legal profession looking to safeguard their own careers by protecting the current status quo of law structure by any chance?

The only meltdowns have been from the three-name newly joined posters, who have all flounced off. Or been escorted out.

Because a collection of trolls - regulars who report views they disagree with have had them banned no doubt. Imagine spending your days checking to see the join dates of randoms on a thread- how sad.

They’re the people you said there was a consensus of who agreed with you a minute ago. Do keep up.

Find where I said " The experts agree with me". I'll wait.

since there has been a lot of talk on intelligence and education. I’m just gonna point out the well established link between far right views, particularly on immigration and lack of education.

The "far right" and " far left" are equally stupid - believing men can be women is as moronic as the white supremacists.

Anyway at least we can confirm Blossom toes is lying - time to log out. I won't be returning as this place is toxic! A clique of regulars trying to bully new members mainly with strawman arguments, reports, lies and utter rubbish.

"Away from here, most written articles disagree with you and are far more indepth than some of the "experts" here."

If you're going to rely on the in-depth analysis in articles you've read elsewhere, I'd assume that analysis was performed by someone with relevant expertise, not "Dave down the pub" or some random tabloid journalist with an agenda to push.

But it seems that all you have are the results of the poll on this thread (which you previously dismissed as being "not exactly a mensa convention").

Incidentally, "look at the results of this poll of random anonymous people" runs pretty contrary to your argument about needing only people with a high IQ to sit on juries...

Let's be honest - you're not a doctor, you have no legal expertise, you are not a mensa member and, having tried and failed to put together anything resembling a coherent argument, you're now windmilling (and failing pretty badly at that, too).

If you are indeed new, just a heads up that there's actually a separate subforum for flouncing.

Thank you @TinyIsMyNewt. I await the apology for calling me a liar. I suspect I’ll probably die of old age during that wait.

What is your motivation for this argument if you do not hold any far right beliefs?
what does “believing men can be women” have to do with this? And why did you feel you had to pretend to be a Dr ?

I’m learning quite a bit of detailed information about the law on this thread. It’s interesting. My particular interest is speech laws bumping up against free political discourse.

Stirring up racial hatred seems to be a strict liability and broadly interpreted. In LC’s case, she was antagonistic against people’s immigration status, but never mentioned race. Presumably those awaiting asylum decisions come from many different races.

I would be concerned about a situation, where in the next election, people want to debate our approach to asylum and feel frustrated because they are afraid political discussion will be conflated with race and discourse will be shut down.

I do understand that we don’t want to hurt people’s feelings or get a ball rolling where it is acceptable to dehumanise others. I also think a democracy requires free political speech and we all have to put up with some distasteful opinions being expressed as unwanted collateral.

Basically it's all this lot have got. No argument of substance, and if you supply actual facts and reports (like those from the actual CPS) they flounce off in a flurry of name calling.

What you believe to be more serious is irrelevant, in terms of the law, its hens teeth any way, had he been found guilty the max sentence was 5 years.

I believe both are vile people, one cannot be against LC but pro DJ... however, our jury system found him innocent of the charge, not that he didn't say what he did.

She pleaded guilty, sentenced along the relevant guide lines, there is little leeway, given her plea, no remorse, her posts and attempts at avoiding justice.

I would be concerned about a situation, where in the next election, people want to debate our approach to asylum and feel frustrated because they are afraid political discussion will be conflated with race and discourse will be shut down.

I think your concern is understandable but unfounded. As long as the debate is exactly that and doesn’t involve referencing setting hotels full of asylum seekers on fire, cutting people’s throats or racist language it will be fine.

Connolly said "If that makes me racist so be it" and had a history of racist Tweets. She also followed far right accounts. She pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred ie admitted that racism was a motivation.

That's an entirely different scenario to someone who wants to discuss immigration. Surely people can talk freely without committing race hate.

Exactly.

She also made the Tweet of the evening of the 29th when Twitter was awash with racists raging that the perpetrator was Muslim and a fake name was being circulated.

Context is key.

So it’s what she said before, and how she tagged it?

Making her racist? It's primarily the fact that she pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred. Mitigating factors were the other racist Tweets.

It's a two month stretch of racist tweets from her, plus her stated intention to lie or 'play the mental health card' if found out, plus context and timing. All things that can legally be taken into account in sentencing. The CPS statement is on this thread.

Interesting that you think we're the bullies when you're the ones resorting to personal insults?