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..

Not to derail the thread, but my late husband did in fact verbally threaten to kill me. I called 999. They took it VERY seriously and were there in 4 minutes. They took him away. Should they not have done that because it was just words?

I was mildly surprised to learn that the offence LC pleaded guilty was as old as it was.

However for fans of reading, and facts, here it is.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

"Inciting racial hatred" for not caring about a hotel burning which houses people of unknown nationality ..sure thing.

Do you think if it was "hatred" against natives it would be less serious so had she said she doesn't care if hotels burn containing a family of chavs from shameless it should be viewed as less serious? That feels almost..2 tier. All human life should be equal in the eyes of the law.

It's all they've got.

The fact you're likening an unknown random on twitter to your husband who presumably knows your address shows you are devoid of critical thinking skills.

'Natives'

Helpful to know, thanks.

Ooooh, and it's back to insults again.

I am shocked to my very core.

Devoid of critical thinking skills isn't an insult - it'd a fact. You are likening your husband to a random twitter user - just embarrassing

More insults.

Do you think all Muslims are violent homophobic sexist terrorists? If yes, that's Islamophobia - like all phobias, an irrational fear.

I swoon with embarrassment.

Not really.

There's no such thing as Islamophobia

There is you know. That's how words work.

I'm sure after you've gone someone else will take over the shift - sorry, I mean carry on the debate.

Arguing about proportionality in relation to what happened to Jones is pointless. Of course there is no proportionality because LC chose to plead guilty and RJ was acquitted by the jury.

I've already said that, on the basis of what I know, I think Jones should have been sent to jail, but his case went to trial and the jury found him not guilty. Obviously, in that scenario, he is not going to get a comparable punishment to LC. Surely this isn't that difficult to get your head round? We can't punish people for crimes that they haven't been convicted of.

And yes, maybe the jury did make a perverse decision in RJ's case, or maybe they had access to information which made them look at things differently, who knows? But the fact is, our system is based on trial by jury and RJ was acquitted under that system. Again, I don't see why that's so difficult to get your head around.

As for LC's sentence, we will have to agree to disagree. I don't accept your argument that she was expressing "apathy" and I would be very surprised if a court would accept that either. LC herself chose not to test that, so we will never know.

As for religious texts, context is everything. If someone was deliberately quoting religious texts with a clear intention to incite hatred and violence against specific groups, then absolutely, I would expect them to feel the force of the law. Simply having the Bible on a shelf, no.

There's a difference between:

'Burn the hotels for all I care'

and

'I don't care if someone burns the hotels'

Setting aside whether her tweet fitted the crime she was charged with (and I personally think it should have been a "lesser" culpability or harm using recklessness instead of intent, which I believe fits her words) , I do think LC was made a deliberate "example" of in terms of sentencing and that this was for political reasons at the time. There is no reason why her sentence could not have been suspended

The CPS states that the Factors indicating that it may be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence

Strong personal mitigation
Realistic prospect of rehabilitation
Immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact upon others

They go on to say that

• For offenders on the cusp of custody, imprisonment should not be imposed where there would be an impact on dependants which would make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing.

I think the fact she regretted her actions AND had a child AND no actual harm was proven to have been caused as a result of her tweet means that she should NOT have had a custodial sentence It should have been suspended I just feel for her daughter at a critical age with her mother in jail. It was disproportionate

Coming from someone with hundreds of posts on the thread - the irony

There may well be.

However since LC chose - of her own free will - to plead guilty, those nuances were not explored.

It's faintly hilarious seeing so many people desperately trying to transfer their total and utter fury that LC chose not to behave like the poster child for unacceptable and criminal behaviour they clearly would like themselves to get away with.

In that aspect, LCs case is a paradigm of justice. It really has put the willies up people who would absolutely love to be able to behave as she did with no comeback.

I would think it was serious if anyone was encouraging people to burn down buildings with people inside them. Wouldn't you?

And yes, all life should indeed be equal in the eyes of the law. Hence LC's conviction.

As for talking about "natives"? Seriously?

What can I say ? I love debate. Ironic isn't it ?

My bingo card is nearly full.

Either actions, not words matter or they don't. You're minimising Connolly's crime and making stuff up. She cared enough to plead guilty and said she intended to incite racial hatred - therefore she did care. Jones said he didn't intend for people to be hurt or for his words to be taken literally and the jury agreed. Connolly said she did intend to stir up racial hatred.

It's not a terrible indictment of the justice system just because a bunch of uninformed people on Twitter think so.