Ricky Jones Cleared

[DancingFerret]

Unbelievable (but not unexpected).

www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-15003437/Labour-councillor-cleared-cutting-throats-comment-rally.html

There is also a creeping belief that what people see on dross US TV shows is actually British law.

The number of posters who witter on about "pressing charges" stands testament to that.

I'm not " so defensive of Connolly". You cannot or won't see the similarities and unfairness in the cases and it's been done to death on here already. We all gave different POV on the matter. A photo in itself is proof of nothing at all. Someone saying it's come from the NF is proof of nothing. I've looked online but there's no definitive proof. Maybe you can find some. I'd be happy to concur if there was some actual proof.
I've also explained why I'm sceptical of this story. Jones said he wasn't threatening to cut the throats of the rioters...just a day or 2 after the riots of last summer because people were rightly furious rhat 3 little girls had been hacked to death....but the throats of the NF. I don't believe him as I've said already. I believe him to be duplicitous.As an aside it's interesting that while the country was still in shock from the aftermath of the most awful atrocity that Jones was just thinking of whose throats he'd like to cut. Did he mention the slaughtered children at any time? And as a poster has already stated...what the hell is a councillor thinking when he threatens to cut anyone's throat? That's the question that everyone should be asking .

He clearly says in the video that he's talking about NF stickers with razor blades and refers to the fascists who did it. He talks about them being found in a train station.

I linked to a report saying that the police found NF stickers with razor blades previously in the same town.

He was suspended from his position and was prosecuted for what he said. Evidently people questioned his behaviour.

I've also explained why I'm sceptical of this story. Jones said he wasn't threatening to cut the throats of the rioters...just a day or 2 after the riots of last summer because people were rightly furious rhat 3 little girls had been hacked to death....but the throats of the NF. I don't believe him as I've said already. I believe him to be duplicitous.As an aside it's interesting that while the country was still in shock from the aftermath of the most awful atrocity that Jones was just thinking of whose throats he'd like to cut. Did he mention the slaughtered children at any time? And as a poster has already stated...what the hell is a councillor thinking when he threatens to cut anyone's throat? That's the question that everyone should be asking .

Well 12 British citizens who aren't you and who heard all the evidence and don't agree. Why you insist on thinking you are somehow immune to supposed hoodwinking, and they aren't has yet to be rationally explained.

Rational explanations ! Look at me !! I'll be wanting facts next.

I was replying to a question from Blossomtoes. You've mentioned upthread a couple of times about me not being the jury and that I should blindly agree with them because, presumably you do. We all have differing POV and I find your attitude insulting and supercilious. That's a rational fact for you to digest. Get over yourself and accept that people won't always fall in line with what you want them to think.

I didn't say you should blindly agree with them. You are of course entitled to your own point of view.

There have been times in the past when I have found myself disagreeing with the verdict a jury delivers, based on the subset of facts that are presented in a hardly independent media and stripped of any legal nuance. However thems the breaks. And I would myself be wary of suggesting that the verdict was somehow unsafe for reasons that I hope no one has to discover, but are edging ever so slowly towards. There will be legal professionals reading these posts with a beady eye.

You've mentioned upthread a couple of times about me not being the jury and that I should blindly agree with them because, presumably you do.

The point here is that none of us, including you, know what evidence the jury heard during the trial and ultimately on which they based their decision. Yes, we all know what we've seen on the video and I think most people would agree that what Jones said and did was abhorrent.

When an accused person stands trial by jury the elements of the crime or offence with which they have been charged have to be proved to the jury. And that is where the holes in the argument of 'two-tier justice' appears, because no-one except those who attended the trial know exactly what happened within the courtroom during that trial.

I really do wish people would try and understand this basic fact. Your opinion on the outcome may differ, but at the end of the day it's the decision of the jury, not anyone else.

In that case what's the point of this thread with many of your.homilies in it?

You’d need to ask OP. Unfortunately she fucked off almost immediately and hasn’t been seen since.

Well in that case I can't can I?.What a stupid. suggestion. Maybe you can answer because you're sticking around prolonging things that you think nobody should be talking about.

I think it’s fine to talk about it or I wouldn’t be here, would I? Although I won’t be if you call me stupid. How rude.

But if things aren't working in a fair way, then we need to examine why and try to fix it.

It's a complete cop out to say that 'that's just how it is" and not examine it further.

Society is a constant re-negotiation of the social contract.

It's a complete cop out to say that 'that's just how it is" and not examine it further.

Unless I am mistaken, a lot of posters here would agree to that, regardless of their views.We should always be ensuring our justice system is as fair as it can be (which isn't much, admittedly).

You are missing the point. I'm trying to highlight the fact that you don't know what took place within the trial. So how can you say it wasn't fair? You clearly don't like the outcome but that doesn't mean the process wasn't fair.

I think maybe it is you that is not understanding. Yes in this case the legal process may have been followed to the last detail but we can still look at the bigger picture and form an opinion that the justice system is often grossly unfair.

Because we observe outcomes, and notice the trend where one group often end up with different outcomes - whether as victims or perpetrators - than the other. More often than can be explained by 'oh, that's just inconsistencies in our jury-based system'.

There's enough leeway in the process that systematic bias can result in different outcomes even when the process hasn't actually been violated - just consistently interpreted less favourably for one group than the other.

It happens at many different points in the process: how police treat a suspect or victim, whether they investigate, whether to arrest or not, whether to bail or not, the language used by the prime minister and in the media, advice given to the jury by the judge, and sentencing including whether to suspend it.

If it happened just a few times, we'd put it down to inconsistencies. But it happens time and time again. So we start to notice the different language used, and we start to look out for cases where people biased-against or not have done similar things, to compare the outcomes.

When the trend plays out yet again - with an outcome which seems blatantly and predictably inappropriate - it strengthens our perception of two-tier justice, and ratchets the anger and distrust up another notch.

Despite attempts on here and in the media to notch up distrust, the majority still have faith in the justice system.

Ironically, its black people who many feel will get a rough deal, not white middle class....

With those on the right, having the biggest chip on their shoulders.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50319-is-there-two-tier-policing-in-the-uk

Could you give some examples? Cases where exactly the same crime occurred, under the same circumstances and the outcomes were completely different. There must be loads if it happens time and time again.

Your aggressive language shows you're not asking in good faith. I can't be bothered giving you more reasons to berate me. I'm trying to help you to understand why people are reacting this way (And no. It's not stupidity or racism) but there's no point.

Where was the "aggressive language"? And nobody was "berating" you. The poster asked you, very normally, to evidence an often repeated claim you have made. As they said, since it happens all the time (you say) then there will be a great many such examples. Perhas if you provided the evidence for your claims rather than simply making sweeping statements without any evidence, people might understand your point better?

You're deflecting because you don't have any examples, strange since it happens so often.

So basically you came up with a claim/belief but cannot provide any examples....

Its how you feeeel.

Nah, I've just remembered that 'You don't have to attend every argument you're invited to', especially with people who are just being rude and unpleasant. So I'll say toodle-pip.

I'll just leave you with a question of how many of these Muslim rioters ended up with jail time? They tried to batter down a pub door, frightening the people inside, damaged cars, attacked journalists.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jll4rk7w5o

They were charged, but no link in the bbc article to a court appearance or jail time. No mug shot.

I honestly don't know, because they seem to have disappeared from the media, with no outcome mentioned. Remember how justice needs to be seen to be done? If they did get an equal penalty, then it needs to be shown.