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..

Come and visit our 'own special thread'. You can, you know.

Pointing out facts isn't bullying.

It’s interesting that the police interpreted that single tweet as racist. It’s ugly and unkind, but it’s not strictly racist. Immigration status isn’t race.

It wasn't about the single tweet though. As has been explained.

But she wasn’t arrested for the comments the two months before. Saying she will “play the mental health card” is silly and irrelevant, if she never committed a crime in the first place.

If someone is accused of rape, we are not allowed to mention all their priors that they were never convicted for. Surely smart mouths deserve as much grace as rapists?

She pleaded guilty. If even she isn’t protesting her innocence, why are you?

Not so long ago some people were aquited in Bristol of damaging a statue despite there being a lot of evidence.

It's not unknown for people to acquit if the disagree with the prosecution.

Also in my own experience we had a very forceful chairwoman who convinced many thst the police didn't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt only that he may gave done it. Several took the view that the police wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty and some that he looked the type. At that point we hadn't heard any evidence but had a sizeable majority guilty verdict.

I want to understand how this dynamic works and how it is likely to work at the next election.

Bullying people into crimes they didn’t commit, through application of a punitive, broken process is pretty serious.

I think the UK has too many different speech laws that are illiberal and skating too close to compelled speech and lack of freedom of thought. It’s corrosive stuff and it eats away at a free society. I don’t think anyone has the right not to be offended.

All this stuff cuts two ways. Right now we are talking about immigration and the right wing, tomorrow it could be the left wanting to show solidarity with Palestine, etc.

But the priors will be taken into account when sentencing.

It is absolutely normal to use previous behaviour and/or crimes committed in deciding sentence. Priors are not mentioned in a jury trial where there is a decision of guilty or not to be made, but in sentencing it can legitimately be taken into account, and is.

Because LC pleaded guilty, there was only a sentencing decision to be made, not one on guilt or not. That's the difference.

She didn't mention immigration status. She talked of setting fire to hotels with asylum seekers inside, then said "if that makes me racist so be it" just before racist riots kicked off around the country. She pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred.

It's interesting, though, to see that some people perceive it as bullying when people very politely point out the facts and highlight the flaws in their arguments.

It's a bit like when another poster was accused of being aggressive further up the thread because she very politely asked for evidence that she had said something that someone was (falsely!) claiming that she had said.

I'm not totally sure whether the allegations of bullying and aggression are just half-hearted attempts to shut people down when all other arguments have failed or whether people are genuinely not capable of differentiating between bullying and legitimate discussion. Perhaps being unable to think of a good response triggers some sort of deep-seated insecurity in people that takes them right back to the playground?

It's a shame, because it means that people don't actually engage properly with the issues. Then again, maybe that's what they're aiming for?

She had no previous criminal record. Tweeting about "playing the mental health card" to followers on twitter with laughing emojis isn't a crime. Please stop this utter nonsense and hysteria.

There were no priors, what are you talking about?

Nobody is saying it was a crime for her to tweet or text about playing the mental health card, though? She was charged with inciting racial hatred, she pleaded guilty to that and she was sentenced in accordance with the sentencing guidelines for that offence.

Who is being hysterical about what, exactly?

There are posters ( the same ones continually appearing) talking about past behaviour and "priors". Tweets you don't agree with aren't " priors" in a criminal court. She was sentenced for 1 tweet.

Actually, she was sentenced for inciting racial hatred. A crime that she herself said that she had committed.

It's pretty pointless imo to argue over whether it was one tweet or multiple tweets, or whether it was her first offence, because she chose to plead guilty to inciting racial hatred and that is why she was sentenced.

yes good point, I remember message boards during covid on numerous sites where 99% of people were determined to follow the ridiculous rules we had where threads were asking if they could go into their back garden if they had covid and is it safe to throw a ball back from next door if it was "infected". The small minority who stood firm against this rubbish ( and lord forbid didn't get the covid jab) were roundly attacked for being tin foil hat wearing daily mail far right uneducated fools. Then the herd moved - reality set in and people saw it for what it was. This is the issues with juries where huge swathes of the population just follow a small minority of clowns against their better judgement and the minority suddenly becomes the majority. Very few have the courage to stand alone as we have seen over the centuries with religion etc - a literal case of "the emperor's new clothes.

You're missing the point, she shouldn't have been charged with it in the first place.

You don't think people should be charged for crimes?

She shouldn't have written the tweet in the first place

Sentencing guidelines aren't just about having previous convictions or not. They're much broader than that. This is written into law. I am sorry that you see pointing out the facts of our legal system as 'hysterical '. However, facts matter.

For tweeting "Set fire to hotels for all I care" - absolutely not. A sensible course of action would have been a warning from police and at a push malicious communications. Actions matter, not words. Religious books have verses which incite murder so what about them? It doesn't mean people act on words does it.

Why not?

She tweeted at a time of significantly heightened tensions with the clear intention of stirring up those tensions and encouraging people to set fire to buildings full of innocent people. And in fact, people did attempt to set fire to some of those buildings.

You can attempt to minimise what she did by pretending that it was "just one tweet", but the evidence points very clearly to the fact that she was inciting racial hatred. And LC admitted that she was guilty of that offence.

If she had chosen to plead not guilty, then perhaps she could have persuaded a jury that she wasn't guilty of that offence after all. We will never know. However, I suspect that she chose to enter the guilty plea because she realised that the evidence wasn't on her side.

I am not talking about LC having prior convictions. Read the post I was responding to.

Deliberately stirring up hate and encouraging violence is an action.