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..

Why don't you ask Chat GPT regardless of what any law says, which offence is more serious, a tweet of apathy or a demand to slit throats in public. Tell us how you get on

I haven't actually implied that there are other tweets. I do understand that there were other tweets in the couple of months leading up to the riots, but I am not really interested in these and I have explicitly said that I don't think they are especially relevant. My point is not about multiple tweets at all. My point is that nobody gets sent to prison for "just a tweet". The tweet is just a vehicle, and it is what they have done through that tweet that gets them convicted.

You have made it clear that you don't think that what Lucy Connolly posted was inciting racial hatred or that it encouraged violence towards migrants. I fundamentally disagree. The police disagreed. And Lucy Connolly herself disagreed.

And yes, she did say "for all I care", but it was abundantly clear from the context of her wider post that LC was not feeling at all apathetic about migrants when she posted that tweet. "For all I care" is a figure of speech, and you have to look at the overall tone and intention of what she said to determine the meaning and likely impact of her tweet. Of course, had it gone to trial, the jury could have debated that point, but as we know, it didn't go to trial because Lucy Connolly herself confirmed that it had been her intention to incite racial hatred.

You think she was wrong to plead guilty. I don't share that view. Ultimately, she made her own decision.

You still haven't clarified who you think is "hysterical".

.

By ye words ye shall reveal thyself.

Have you read the appeal documents and the CPS statement yet? Arguing from a position of knowledge is quite a good idea.

Not when the facts don't support your preferred narrative.

Awkward bloody things, facts.

Aren't they just?!

I guess that's why so many people choose to disregard them.

It was a distasteful tweet and no one is suggesting otherwise, but it doesn't or at least shouldn't pass a threshold which results in 2 and a half years behind bars. Someone not caring if a migrant hotel burns down shouldn't be a crime - apathy isn't a crime. It may make her a dreadful person, but she isn't going out of her house to burn it.

What is your view on religious texts which contain verses inciting murder - what's the difference? It isn't just about the tweet is it, you can't say jail for a tweet is proportional to the sentence Jones received as it clearly isn't with your only argument being it is in a " different category". Maybe it is, which highlights how absurd the law is and why it is unfit for purpose.

It wasn't a tweet of apathy. It wasn't even that someone else brought up the threats to burn down hotels with asylum seekers in them, and she replied 'I don't care'; she spontaneously brought up and condoned the burning of hotels. And it wasn't the first time she'd been posting racism.

And nowadays tweets and similar social media posts are just as much 'in public' as shouting something in person: in fact, tweets often reach and influence more people.

In fact, I think that it might have been better for Lucy Connolly to be given some really tough community service, preferably doing something to help or raise money for asylum seekers, and to be banned from social media, rather than a prison sentence. But it has nothing to do with Ricky Jones' jury: they didn't convict Lucy Connolly- in fact, she was not tried by jury at all.

There is nothing in what you have quoted which passes any threshold of prison so what's your point?

Yep, the facts are people on this thread are saying a woman deserves years in prison for a tweet and a man inciting murder in public is less serious. The poster saying a tweet about playing the mental health card is further proof she should be in prison is just embarrassing.

A tweet IS in public; that's the point!

For all I care is apathy. Tweets are not the same as being in public, this is just more nonsense where people are suggesting a random person on twitter with a death threat is the same as someone doing it at your front door. Time the police stepped away from cyberland and focused on actual real life crimes which don't get solved because Inspector Robinson is on his way to an old granny's houses for anti migrant memes on fb. Real life crime should always be prioritised over nonsense on a computer unless you think logging off a site is comparable to having to move house with someone arriving with threats?

so if someone on here said " I'm going to kill you", you think that should be treated the same as real life where someone knocks on your door at 1 am in a cloak and says " I'm going to kill you"? Is that what you're saying where twitter should be treated as real life? I'm not condoning Connolly's tweet, but no it isn't the same as Jones who was telling a crowd to slit throats IN PERSON.

Person pleading guilty-punished
Person pleading not guilty and acquitted- not punished

It's rather simple

If that's your contribution to the thread ignoring everything that's been said, then the word simple certainly applies..

Resorting to insults? Lol

If LC had gone to trial, I doubt that her barristers would have used 'apathy' as her defence.

Because it would take away your fun and ability to learn for yourself.

I'm pretty sure they would - not that there should have to be any defence. What kind of clown world arrests people for not caring about things - indifference to anything isn't a crime.

Except that's not what people are saying, is it?

People are pointing out that LC was sentenced in line with the guidelines for inciting racial hatred - a crime which she herself admitted.

People are pointing out that a guilty plea automatically leads to a guilty verdict, whereas a not guilty plea - as in the case of Jones - is less certain. This, in itself, is not "two tier justice".

People are pointing out the significant differences in these two cases between the charges and between the pleas that were entered. And they are highlighting the fact that these differences are highly relevant when considering whether or not there has been "two-tier justice".

People are stating that what Jones did said was reprehensible while simultaneously acknowledging that he was entitled to a trial under our existing legal system and that the jury in that trial - which examined all of the relevant evidence in more detail than we can on this thread - found him not guilty of the specific offence with which he was charged.

People are pointing out that a jury may or may not have reached a guilty verdict had Connolly chosen to take the risk of going to trial.

People are pointing out that, for all of the claims that Connolly was poorly advised, the evidence presented in her appeal did not support that.

Some people are stating their view that inciting racial hatred is indeed a serious crime which they believe warrants a prison sentence, and they are voicing their objection to the people who seem eager to minimise Lucy Connolly's crime.

The "tweet of apathy" is a phrase coined by a far right, Islamophobic Substack account. Merry is just parroting it.

Nobody is saying LC 'deserves ' anything. We are saying the law was applied according to how it is written. That's the fact here. The rest is opinion. Mine is that LC is a racist scumbag. I wish it had been possible to sentence her to community service working with asylum seekers, that would have been justice. But the law didn't allow for that to happen.

If they don't know me or where I live, then no, it's not the same, But Connolly was referring to violence against hotels that were known and were already being targeted by rioters.

I am surprised Ricky Jones was acquitted, but I wasn't on the jury. And maybe the same jury would have also acquitted Connolly- we don't know, as she didn't have a jury trial at all. If you think there should be a standard procedure about who gets jury trials for which offences, then campaign for that. Until then, neither case is relevant to the other.