Ricky Jones Cleared

[DancingFerret]

Unbelievable (but not unexpected).

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

Zz

Oh for god's sake. Why would I be pleased? I have already said I am really surprised at the verdict.

I don't think anyone should go around saying people's throats should be cut and not face the full force of the law.

So do you think the jury was rigged?

@twistyizzy So please be clear about what you are saying. You are claiming that juries are being fixed by Labour? I don't support Labour, and even I think that is an insane thing to claim.

I think it's very strange that she got remand and he didn't. That she wrote a message and got a sentence when he was on camera imitating that people's throats should be cut but has been acquitted and that all that separates them is their political beliefs.
Maybe shows that the 2 tier is also about whether you can afford a good private lawyer Vs state funded lawyer.

Well yes. I don't think the jury was rigged so it must have had what it thought was a good reason to return the verdict.

I am not saying it made the right decision. But hopefully the details will be published so we can all see what was said at the trial.

Noone has said anything about the jury being rigged apart from you @PandoraSocks . That is the most unlikely explanation and it's weird that you've repeatedly asked.

Where have I said that? You are putting words into my mouth

It's funny how the verdict was delivered the very same day everyone's attention is on Trump/Putin....

The other thing that gets me is that his was active incitement to violence. Whereas hers was passive/indifference to ongoing violence.

So how was she a greater threat than him?

The whole thing makes no sense, and it’s no wonder people are angry.

Because the jury obviously found him not guilty unanimously very quickly. Which indicates that it had what it thought was good reason.

I keep being shouted down for saying that. So why else would the jury have found him not guilty?

pp says it is because Jones is left wing and not Tory/Reform.

So the implication is that the jurors must all be left wing. How would that happen?

all that separates them is their political beliefs

You seriously can't think of anything else that seperates them? And to be clear, since I wasn't on either jury I can only depend on the public facing information:

• she pleaded guilty and he didn't
• there is no evidence that she couldn't have got a private lawyer, there is no evidence that he is "loaded" and better able to afford one (perhaps he had insurance - I do)
• she suggested burning down a building full of innocent people who had done nothing wrong at all; he (admittedly wrongly) appears to have advocated violence against a group of people who had placed razor blades under nasty stickers in a deliberate attempt to hurt people
• He was tried by his peers and she was not (her choice)

People are hung up on the fact that she got a heavy sentence to something she pleaded guilty to. He did not plead guilty, but had he been found guilty he could have had an equally heavy sentence. Are you sugggesting that judges should overrule juries and hand out sentences based on what random MN posters think?

You can’t fix a jury (unless each member has been bribed/intimidated but that is a bit of a stretch - we’re not in Sicily) but a jury could potentially be of one mind - thinking of OJ here, where all the evidence in the world will not induce the jury to give a guilty verdict.

I was thinking about this re a very “activist”type colleague who was called for jury service. He said he was not on principle going to find anyone guilty of any crime.

There are going to be a whole lot of angry people regarding this verdict.
X is already showing it.

Again, just another nail in Labour's coffin because, whatever the reason, it just smacks of political bias. Optics are dreadful.

But she pled guilty after months of being on remand! He was never remanded.

Thats a massive thing that separates them, before sentencing/pleadings are even considered.

You need to start at the beginning, but half way through if comparing.
From the beginning they didn’t receive equitable treatment

I hope the jurors' identities are very well protected. This whipping up of hostility towards them is dangerous. It must be quite frightening for them.

Agreed. The optics before this latest travesty were awful; IMO, they're now frightening.

She also didnt threaten to burn down building, she said she didn’t care if it was burned down.

Passive vs active (should have their throats slit)

Reading your post, you have zero empathy for LC which is understandable, but your description of what Jones did reads differently. You're offering an explanation to slightly excuse his actions here. There is absolutely no excuse for what he did. None.

True

I think it's telling that a jury has cleared a man of telling a crowd to slit the throats of the far- right, while Connolly wasn't even granted an appeal by judges for the lesser crime of tweeting.

Who is whipping up hostility against jurors? You are the only one to mention them repeatedly. The rest of us are pointing out inconsistencies in the way he was treated Vs Lucy.

Final thing on this post, who put razor blades under stickers?
where is the proof? Where are the photographs/police reports?

It sounds like made up bullshit, and a common lie people throw around in other debates as well.

Yep, something has gone very wrong here.

🎯